With all other things equal I have not see a great difference (good or
bad) among GSM, TDMA (including iDEN), and CDMA voice quality.

Now, a specific handset, carrier, market, or physical loc. can make a
huge difference. And, if you overload CDMA it will suck but that is a
QOS issue that the carrier decides on (poor voice quality vs. blocking
calls) not an issue with the CDMA air interface.

-D

taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in message news:<bhd2bb$c9q$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> In article <c114a1db.0308122126.35e882f@posting.google.com> ,
> NYCCellExpert <nyccellexpert@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >New York City Cellular Comparison Web Site launched.
> >
> > "http://nyccell.com"
>
> Look, I am getting really sick of you representing yourself as an
> expert on cell issues. Your sites are heavily weighted toward Verizon and
> you fail to mention that Verizon has sub-par voice quality when riding on
> their CDMA towers. It sounds warbly and has gotten worse since they
> implemented the variable bit rate vocoder. Despite the fact CDMA is more
> spectrally efficient than GSM or "TDMA" (both using TDMA as an air
> interface), GSM sounds identical to a landline. In your sites, you don't
> make enough mention of the differences in voice quality between GSM and
> CDMA. It isn't a little -- it's a lot.

I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't hear any voice
quality differencies between my VZW CDMA phones (A530, VX1), my wife's
ATTWS GSM/TDMA Siemens S46 and my son's T-Mobile Nokia 3650. That's when
compared from the same place where all phones have full bars. Usually in
practice VZW wins hands down simply because better signal strength leads
to a much better voice quality epsecially within buildings.


taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in article
<bhd2bb$c9q$1@panix2.panix.com>:
> In article <c114a1db.0308122126.35e882f@posting.google.com> ,
> NYCCellExpert <nyccellexpert@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >New York City Cellular Comparison Web Site launched.
> >
> > "http://nyccell.com"
>
> Look, I am getting really sick of you representing yourself as an
> expert on cell issues. Your sites are heavily weighted toward Verizon and
> you fail to mention that Verizon has sub-par voice quality when riding on
> their CDMA towers. It sounds warbly and has gotten worse since they
> implemented the variable bit rate vocoder. Despite the fact CDMA is more
> spectrally efficient than GSM or "TDMA" (both using TDMA as an air
> interface), GSM sounds identical to a landline. In your sites, you don't
> make enough mention of the differences in voice quality between GSM and
> CDMA. It isn't a little -- it's a lot.
>
> I would much rather see Qualcomm, a US based company with a fantastic
> technology, win the standards wars, but not by lying about their weakest
> point which is the shitty vocoder they use. We aren't doing ourselves a
> favor by defending CDMA when it has such an obvious deficiency: its voice
> quality. Why are you acting as a shill for Verizon and not being more
> objective? Voice quality is not a minor thing when you spend several
> hours a day on the phone. Even if GSM was forced by governments on the
> nations of Europe which runs counter to my own market beliefs, I think it
> is only fair and right that CDMA supporters admit that the vocoder needs
> massive improvement.
>
> For those who don't think CDMA sounds that bad, then I highly suggest
> you take your CDMA phone to a T-Mobile store and make a call on your
> Verizon or Sprint CDMA phone to "time and temperature" and then make the
> same call on a T-Mobile (or ATT or Cingular) GSM phone. I think you will
> agree that the voice quality is much clearer. It's like the difference
> between the first digital cameras and 6 megapixel. The clarity is
> distinctive and worth changing services if you spend a lot of time on the
> phone.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't hear any voice
quality differencies between my VZW CDMA phones (A530, VX1), my wife's
ATTWS GSM/TDMA Siemens S46 and my son's T-Mobile Nokia 3650. That's when
compared from the same place where all phones have full bars. Usually in
practice VZW wins hands down simply because better signal strength leads
to a much better voice quality epsecially within buildings.


taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in article
<bhd2bb$c9q$1@panix2.panix.com>:
> In article <c114a1db.0308122126.35e882f@posting.google.com> ,
> NYCCellExpert <nyccellexpert@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >New York City Cellular Comparison Web Site launched.
> >
> > "http://nyccell.com"
>
> Look, I am getting really sick of you representing yourself as an
> expert on cell issues. Your sites are heavily weighted toward Verizon and
> you fail to mention that Verizon has sub-par voice quality when riding on
> their CDMA towers. It sounds warbly and has gotten worse since they
> implemented the variable bit rate vocoder. Despite the fact CDMA is more
> spectrally efficient than GSM or "TDMA" (both using TDMA as an air
> interface), GSM sounds identical to a landline. In your sites, you don't
> make enough mention of the differences in voice quality between GSM and
> CDMA. It isn't a little -- it's a lot.
>
> I would much rather see Qualcomm, a US based company with a fantastic
> technology, win the standards wars, but not by lying about their weakest
> point which is the shitty vocoder they use. We aren't doing ourselves a
> favor by defending CDMA when it has such an obvious deficiency: its voice
> quality. Why are you acting as a shill for Verizon and not being more
> objective? Voice quality is not a minor thing when you spend several
> hours a day on the phone. Even if GSM was forced by governments on the
> nations of Europe which runs counter to my own market beliefs, I think it
> is only fair and right that CDMA supporters admit that the vocoder needs
> massive improvement.
>
> For those who don't think CDMA sounds that bad, then I highly suggest
> you take your CDMA phone to a T-Mobile store and make a call on your
> Verizon or Sprint CDMA phone to "time and temperature" and then make the
> same call on a T-Mobile (or ATT or Cingular) GSM phone. I think you will
> agree that the voice quality is much clearer. It's like the difference
> between the first digital cameras and 6 megapixel. The clarity is
> distinctive and worth changing services if you spend a lot of time on the
> phone.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

In article <bhd2bb$c9q$1@panix2.panix.com>, taite@panix.com says...
> I think you will
> agree that the voice quality is much clearer. It's like the difference
> between the first digital cameras and 6 megapixel. The clarity is
> distinctive and worth changing services if you spend a lot of time on the
> phone.
>
>

THIS is a highly subjective conclusion! Not all would agree with you. I
am one who cares not a TWIT for voice "quality", as long as it is
understandable....but I do want my phone to work everywhere I go.
--
Another opinion,
Barrie B.

In article <bhd2bb$c9q$1@panix2.panix.com>, taite@panix.com says...
> I think you will
> agree that the voice quality is much clearer. It's like the difference
> between the first digital cameras and 6 megapixel. The clarity is
> distinctive and worth changing services if you spend a lot of time on the
> phone.
>
>

THIS is a highly subjective conclusion! Not all would agree with you. I
am one who cares not a TWIT for voice "quality", as long as it is
understandable....but I do want my phone to work everywhere I go.
--
Another opinion,
Barrie B.

RDT,

The vealots are gonna go nuts over this, but they consider TRUTH an
attack over vzn. Sad but posting TRUTH around vealots gets em crazy.
They cant understand or open their loser minds that other cellular
providers are as good as if not better than vzn and will continue to
fight it with BS, rumors, dreams, hopes, and trashing the often better
other wireless providers. Its a sickness in the head like a mental
problem, but after all that what you get with the VEALOTS.

taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in article
<bhd2bb$c9q$1@panix2.panix.com>:
> In article <c114a1db.0308122126.35e882f@posting.google.com> ,
> NYCCellExpert <nyccellexpert@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >New York City Cellular Comparison Web Site launched.
> >
> > "http://nyccell.com"
>
> Look, I am getting really sick of you representing yourself as an
> expert on cell issues. Your sites are heavily weighted toward Verizon and
> you fail to mention that Verizon has sub-par voice quality when riding on
> their CDMA towers. It sounds warbly and has gotten worse since they
> implemented the variable bit rate vocoder. Despite the fact CDMA is more
> spectrally efficient than GSM or "TDMA" (both using TDMA as an air
> interface), GSM sounds identical to a landline. In your sites, you don't
> make enough mention of the differences in voice quality between GSM and
> CDMA. It isn't a little -- it's a lot.
>
> I would much rather see Qualcomm, a US based company with a fantastic
> technology, win the standards wars, but not by lying about their weakest
> point which is the shitty vocoder they use. We aren't doing ourselves a
> favor by defending CDMA when it has such an obvious deficiency: its voice
> quality. Why are you acting as a shill for Verizon and not being more
> objective? Voice quality is not a minor thing when you spend several
> hours a day on the phone. Even if GSM was forced by governments on the
> nations of Europe which runs counter to my own market beliefs, I think it
> is only fair and right that CDMA supporters admit that the vocoder needs
> massive improvement.
>
> For those who don't think CDMA sounds that bad, then I highly suggest
> you take your CDMA phone to a T-Mobile store and make a call on your
> Verizon or Sprint CDMA phone to "time and temperature" and then make the
> same call on a T-Mobile (or ATT or Cingular) GSM phone. I think you will
> agree that the voice quality is much clearer. It's like the difference
> between the first digital cameras and 6 megapixel. The clarity is
> distinctive and worth changing services if you spend a lot of time on the
> phone.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

RDT,

The vealots are gonna go nuts over this, but they consider TRUTH an
attack over vzn. Sad but posting TRUTH around vealots gets em crazy.
They cant understand or open their loser minds that other cellular
providers are as good as if not better than vzn and will continue to
fight it with BS, rumors, dreams, hopes, and trashing the often better
other wireless providers. Its a sickness in the head like a mental
problem, but after all that what you get with the VEALOTS.

taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in article
<bhd2bb$c9q$1@panix2.panix.com>:
> In article <c114a1db.0308122126.35e882f@posting.google.com> ,
> NYCCellExpert <nyccellexpert@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >New York City Cellular Comparison Web Site launched.
> >
> > "http://nyccell.com"
>
> Look, I am getting really sick of you representing yourself as an
> expert on cell issues. Your sites are heavily weighted toward Verizon and
> you fail to mention that Verizon has sub-par voice quality when riding on
> their CDMA towers. It sounds warbly and has gotten worse since they
> implemented the variable bit rate vocoder. Despite the fact CDMA is more
> spectrally efficient than GSM or "TDMA" (both using TDMA as an air
> interface), GSM sounds identical to a landline. In your sites, you don't
> make enough mention of the differences in voice quality between GSM and
> CDMA. It isn't a little -- it's a lot.
>
> I would much rather see Qualcomm, a US based company with a fantastic
> technology, win the standards wars, but not by lying about their weakest
> point which is the shitty vocoder they use. We aren't doing ourselves a
> favor by defending CDMA when it has such an obvious deficiency: its voice
> quality. Why are you acting as a shill for Verizon and not being more
> objective? Voice quality is not a minor thing when you spend several
> hours a day on the phone. Even if GSM was forced by governments on the
> nations of Europe which runs counter to my own market beliefs, I think it
> is only fair and right that CDMA supporters admit that the vocoder needs
> massive improvement.
>
> For those who don't think CDMA sounds that bad, then I highly suggest
> you take your CDMA phone to a T-Mobile store and make a call on your
> Verizon or Sprint CDMA phone to "time and temperature" and then make the
> same call on a T-Mobile (or ATT or Cingular) GSM phone. I think you will
> agree that the voice quality is much clearer. It's like the difference
> between the first digital cameras and 6 megapixel. The clarity is
> distinctive and worth changing services if you spend a lot of time on the
> phone.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

T-mobile get more plus - 1000 anytime, unlimited n/w for $59.99
Verizon america's choice 1000 - 1000 anytime, unlimited n/w for $79.95

Verizon'$ $20 more than tmobile's 59.95 is a whopping 33% more expensive.
Multiply times 12= an extra $240 a year. For most people living in major
population centers, this is not a comparable price for comparable service.

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2s8kjvclqm7q0gvv6mor58s9tjpfi9faii@4ax.com...

>
The calling plans are on the average about $10 more
> than their competitors for comparable services, but you get what you
> pay for.
>
> A_C
>
>
>
> >Best Carrier for New York City?
> >Cutting to the chase, for those who have no time or interest to peruse
this site, here is the best carrier
> >for New York City:
> >
> >Verizon Wireless has the best nationwide coverage, the best nationwide
roaming plans,
> >AMPS analog service for rural areas that have no digital service on any
carrier. Verizon
> >is also a little more expensive than the other carriers. There is very
little international
> >roaming available on Verizon since most of Europe and Asia are not CDMA,
but the
> >GSM carriers provide international roaming at the expense of local and
national
> >coverage. Verizon does not have the best selection of handsets, but their
are sufficient
> >choices. Verizon and Nextel are the only carrier that have local landline
phone numbers
> >to access your voicemail (though Verizon does not publicize them,
> >see http://www.bridog.net/cellular/voicemail.txt).

T-mobile get more plus - 1000 anytime, unlimited n/w for $59.99
Verizon america's choice 1000 - 1000 anytime, unlimited n/w for $79.95

Verizon'$ $20 more than tmobile's 59.95 is a whopping 33% more expensive.
Multiply times 12= an extra $240 a year. For most people living in major
population centers, this is not a comparable price for comparable service.

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2s8kjvclqm7q0gvv6mor58s9tjpfi9faii@4ax.com...

>
The calling plans are on the average about $10 more
> than their competitors for comparable services, but you get what you
> pay for.
>
> A_C
>
>
>
> >Best Carrier for New York City?
> >Cutting to the chase, for those who have no time or interest to peruse
this site, here is the best carrier
> >for New York City:
> >
> >Verizon Wireless has the best nationwide coverage, the best nationwide
roaming plans,
> >AMPS analog service for rural areas that have no digital service on any
carrier. Verizon
> >is also a little more expensive than the other carriers. There is very
little international
> >roaming available on Verizon since most of Europe and Asia are not CDMA,
but the
> >GSM carriers provide international roaming at the expense of local and
national
> >coverage. Verizon does not have the best selection of handsets, but their
are sufficient
> >choices. Verizon and Nextel are the only carrier that have local landline
phone numbers
> >to access your voicemail (though Verizon does not publicize them,
> >see http://www.bridog.net/cellular/voicemail.txt).

Barrie Brozenske <buzz.bee@bigfoot.com> writes:

> THIS is a highly subjective conclusion! Not all would agree with you. I

Subjective? How do you think vocoders are judged? They get a bunch of
people, ask them to rate the quality on a scale of 1 to 5, and average
it. MOS. Mean Opinion Score. :-) Pretty darn subjective.

Of course, "a bunch" usually means more than 1. :-)

Bob