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

> 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.

I mention the issue of reduced voice quality on congested
CDMA systems a number of times. I have never disputed
that a GSM phone will sound better (than a CDMA phone on
a congested CDMA network).

As to the bias issue, I am tend to look at coverage over
voice quality. I invite you to look at page 17 of the February
2003 issue of Consumer Reports. It's not my opinion about
the relative quality of the various carriers, it's the experience
of tens of thousands of people, and that's just the CR data,
which is not at the only source I use by any means.

> It sounds warbly and has gotten worse since they
> implemented the variable bit rate vocoder.

I guess I'll have to keep my older phone then!

> 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.

If you can point me to a definitive study on this issue
(not one by either a CDMA or a GSM lobbying organization)
I will certainly make bigger mention of the difference.
Don't pull a Navas and make this sort of claim without
any citation.

> 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.

I would point out that in order to improve spectral efficiency,
the GSM providers also plan to worsen the quality of the
vocoders. Without these changes, GSM is actually not even
as efficient as TDMA (see the Deutches Bank study).

> Why are you acting as a shill for Verizon and not being
> more objective?

I repeatedly point out the negative aspects of Verizon on
the sites. I believe I am being objective, and that while the
three sites all have Verizon as the optimal choice in terms of
coverage, my site is not unique in that conclusion. I have
no connection to Verizon. I actually have closer contacts
at Cingular!

> Voice quality is not a minor thing when you spend several
> hours a day on the phone.

I agree. Again, please point me to an objective study on this
issue and I will be happy to increase its importance on the
sites. But not just the fact that in Europe and Asia GSM
sounds better than CDMA sounds in the U.S. (which I'll
readily concede), that GSM in the U.S. sounds better than
CDMA in the U.S.. I believe that this day will come (if the
GSM vocoder changes don't worsen things) when 850 Mhz
GSM is widely deployed.

> 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.

Not a valid test since the stores typically have microcells.
I have to laugh when I see a Cingular kiosks in a mall near
my house, because I know from experience that 1/16 of a mile from this
mall in my wife's office, there is no coverage
at all.


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

> 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.

I mention the issue of reduced voice quality on congested
CDMA systems a number of times. I have never disputed
that a GSM phone will sound better (than a CDMA phone on
a congested CDMA network).

As to the bias issue, I am tend to look at coverage over
voice quality. I invite you to look at page 17 of the February
2003 issue of Consumer Reports. It's not my opinion about
the relative quality of the various carriers, it's the experience
of tens of thousands of people, and that's just the CR data,
which is not at the only source I use by any means.

> It sounds warbly and has gotten worse since they
> implemented the variable bit rate vocoder.

I guess I'll have to keep my older phone then!

> 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.

If you can point me to a definitive study on this issue
(not one by either a CDMA or a GSM lobbying organization)
I will certainly make bigger mention of the difference.
Don't pull a Navas and make this sort of claim without
any citation.

> 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.

I would point out that in order to improve spectral efficiency,
the GSM providers also plan to worsen the quality of the
vocoders. Without these changes, GSM is actually not even
as efficient as TDMA (see the Deutches Bank study).

> Why are you acting as a shill for Verizon and not being
> more objective?

I repeatedly point out the negative aspects of Verizon on
the sites. I believe I am being objective, and that while the
three sites all have Verizon as the optimal choice in terms of
coverage, my site is not unique in that conclusion. I have
no connection to Verizon. I actually have closer contacts
at Cingular!

> Voice quality is not a minor thing when you spend several
> hours a day on the phone.

I agree. Again, please point me to an objective study on this
issue and I will be happy to increase its importance on the
sites. But not just the fact that in Europe and Asia GSM
sounds better than CDMA sounds in the U.S. (which I'll
readily concede), that GSM in the U.S. sounds better than
CDMA in the U.S.. I believe that this day will come (if the
GSM vocoder changes don't worsen things) when 850 Mhz
GSM is widely deployed.

> 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.

Not a valid test since the stores typically have microcells.
I have to laugh when I see a Cingular kiosks in a mall near
my house, because I know from experience that 1/16 of a mile from this
mall in my wife's office, there is no coverage
at all.


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

I have verizon. I have tmobile. The service on verizon is not "far better"
across the board.

Pros: Wider coverage. Better in building penetration. Fewer connection
problems. Cons: lower voice quality, including frequent echoing. Worse
phone selection. Worse data services. Worse customer service. No
international roaming with your US handset. No sms without establishing a
data connection.

My experience in DC Metro and travelling from Maine to California
frequently; yours will vary.

"NYC CellExpert" <nyccellexpert@NOMailSPAMHot.moc> wrote in message
news:vjkvuq45e7atdb@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> <e@x.com> wrote in article <vjkrbds2vaj0a0@corp.supernews.com>:
> > 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.
>
> I agree that Verizon is often the most expensive carrier.
> But the service on Verizon is far better than the service
> on T-Mobile. Far better in New York City.
>
> It seems like many people fall for the low price, once,
> Just as they order from the sham NYC camera stores
> once, before switching to B&H or Adorama.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

I have verizon. I have tmobile. The service on verizon is not "far better"
across the board.

Pros: Wider coverage. Better in building penetration. Fewer connection
problems. Cons: lower voice quality, including frequent echoing. Worse
phone selection. Worse data services. Worse customer service. No
international roaming with your US handset. No sms without establishing a
data connection.

My experience in DC Metro and travelling from Maine to California
frequently; yours will vary.

"NYC CellExpert" <nyccellexpert@NOMailSPAMHot.moc> wrote in message
news:vjkvuq45e7atdb@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> <e@x.com> wrote in article <vjkrbds2vaj0a0@corp.supernews.com>:
> > 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.
>
> I agree that Verizon is often the most expensive carrier.
> But the service on Verizon is far better than the service
> on T-Mobile. Far better in New York City.
>
> It seems like many people fall for the low price, once,
> Just as they order from the sham NYC camera stores
> once, before switching to B&H or Adorama.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

In article <aa297123.0308130629.6a34ead2@posting.google.com >,
dep_blueman <dep_blueman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.

I don't mean to imply that the CDMA air interface is the problem. I
am a very big supporter of CDMA when it is used primarily for data
services (esp CDMA 2000 1x EV-DO and EV-DV). The problem is that voice
quality has never been a primary concern in CDMA implementations. It has
been a concern since even Qualcomm upgraded their original extremely
shitty 8k QCELP vocoder to a 13k QCELP which is passable but still not
landline quality. I have used 1x RTT phones from both Verizon (which I
cancelled because it was so unbelievably shitty) and Sprint PCS. I think
they use something called EVRC (effective variable rate coder) for voice
in 1x RTT. Whatever it is called, it is terrible. Voices sound robotic
-- "Danger Will Robinson!" robotic.

Steven, our humble cell phone "expert", even mentioned that it was a
good thing he kept his older pre-EVRC phone because it uses a 13k QCELP
coder. The 13k bps QCELP vocoder is certainly better than the EVRC 8k as
I have an older Sprint PCS cell phone which uses it, but it still isn't
quite up to the quality of the 13k EFR coder used by GSM.

I see two things which would make CDMA the hands down winner in the
standards wars

1) Licensing the GSM effective full rate codec for CDMA use. Nokia
has designed a new adaptive multi-rate codec (8k bps) for W-CDMA which
according to testers is the best 8k out there and comparable to the EFR.
The AMR codec may be the solution to the problem of voice quality vs.
capacity for CDMA 2000. Nokia has apparently built the codec to work
seamlessly with CDMA 2000 as well as W-CDMA.
2) Requiring much higher quality of service standards than are
currently in place -- such that every caller gets extremely high quality
audio even if it means the network drops additional users.

There is a very pragmatic reason why I think these things are
important: understanding. Every time you have to ask someone to repeat a
word or become bored because you cannot clearly make out what they've
said, there is less understanding. This wastes people's time. And your
wasted time is money. Clarity and voice quality can increase the
enjoyment of a phone call and reduce the tendency toward shorter attention
span. Verizon 1x RTT phone calls are not enjoyable to me. I get bored
trying to figure out what the other person has said and why it sounds so
shitty. Tonal quality and balance makes human voices sound lifelike and I
think most people prefer talking to a human being.

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

In article <aa297123.0308130629.6a34ead2@posting.google.com >,
dep_blueman <dep_blueman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.

I don't mean to imply that the CDMA air interface is the problem. I
am a very big supporter of CDMA when it is used primarily for data
services (esp CDMA 2000 1x EV-DO and EV-DV). The problem is that voice
quality has never been a primary concern in CDMA implementations. It has
been a concern since even Qualcomm upgraded their original extremely
shitty 8k QCELP vocoder to a 13k QCELP which is passable but still not
landline quality. I have used 1x RTT phones from both Verizon (which I
cancelled because it was so unbelievably shitty) and Sprint PCS. I think
they use something called EVRC (effective variable rate coder) for voice
in 1x RTT. Whatever it is called, it is terrible. Voices sound robotic
-- "Danger Will Robinson!" robotic.

Steven, our humble cell phone "expert", even mentioned that it was a
good thing he kept his older pre-EVRC phone because it uses a 13k QCELP
coder. The 13k bps QCELP vocoder is certainly better than the EVRC 8k as
I have an older Sprint PCS cell phone which uses it, but it still isn't
quite up to the quality of the 13k EFR coder used by GSM.

I see two things which would make CDMA the hands down winner in the
standards wars

1) Licensing the GSM effective full rate codec for CDMA use. Nokia
has designed a new adaptive multi-rate codec (8k bps) for W-CDMA which
according to testers is the best 8k out there and comparable to the EFR.
The AMR codec may be the solution to the problem of voice quality vs.
capacity for CDMA 2000. Nokia has apparently built the codec to work
seamlessly with CDMA 2000 as well as W-CDMA.
2) Requiring much higher quality of service standards than are
currently in place -- such that every caller gets extremely high quality
audio even if it means the network drops additional users.

There is a very pragmatic reason why I think these things are
important: understanding. Every time you have to ask someone to repeat a
word or become bored because you cannot clearly make out what they've
said, there is less understanding. This wastes people's time. And your
wasted time is money. Clarity and voice quality can increase the
enjoyment of a phone call and reduce the tendency toward shorter attention
span. Verizon 1x RTT phone calls are not enjoyable to me. I get bored
trying to figure out what the other person has said and why it sounds so
shitty. Tonal quality and balance makes human voices sound lifelike and I
think most people prefer talking to a human being.

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

In article <vjn909kqfhjcb1@corp.supernews.com>,
Steven Scharf <CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com> wrote:
>Every independent study on voice quality
>has shown CDMA to be equal to or better
>than GSM (in the U.S.). That said, I agree
>that all things being equal, GSM with a full rate
>vocoder will sound better than CDMA with
>a full rate vocoder.

This is an interesting statement. On the one hand, you say
"independent" studies find CDMA equal or better than GSM. On the other
you say GSM sounds better. In fact, most people I know who have used both
think GSM EFR sounds better. And the newsgroups appear to have borne that
out as well.

However, you've left out a very important fact here. Sprint PCS and
Verizon have released 1x RTT (CDMA 2000) on their networks. All phones
which are sold new use the EVRC 8k vocoder. And without a doubt, it is
worse than the QCLPR 13k Qualcomm vocoder -- although the jury is out on
how much worse. When I tried a 13k side by side with an 8k, the robotic
nature of the 8k was very disturbing to me. And since you've admitted
that you personally find GSM EFR better than the 13k QCLPR Qualcomm
vocoder, then it is time you admitted that the 8k EVRC codec has basically
put Verizon and Sprint near the bottom of the proverbial heap.

Remember, Steven, unlike John Navas, I am not a GSM shill. I like
GSM because it sounds better. My first cell phone was a CDMA PrimeCo
phone and I thought it was pretty damn nifty. But it never sounded as
good as my GSM phone does. I agree that the lack of AMPS roaming is a
problem which is why I am hoping that CDMA shills like yourself will start
putting pressure on Qualcomm to either adopt the Nokia AMR 8k codec to
replace the shitty EVRC. I promise it will make your Qualcomm stock go up
and you can go around bragging on your site that Verizon roolz and
actually be speaking something resembling the truth.

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

In article <vjn909kqfhjcb1@corp.supernews.com>,
Steven Scharf <CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com> wrote:
>Every independent study on voice quality
>has shown CDMA to be equal to or better
>than GSM (in the U.S.). That said, I agree
>that all things being equal, GSM with a full rate
>vocoder will sound better than CDMA with
>a full rate vocoder.

This is an interesting statement. On the one hand, you say
"independent" studies find CDMA equal or better than GSM. On the other
you say GSM sounds better. In fact, most people I know who have used both
think GSM EFR sounds better. And the newsgroups appear to have borne that
out as well.

However, you've left out a very important fact here. Sprint PCS and
Verizon have released 1x RTT (CDMA 2000) on their networks. All phones
which are sold new use the EVRC 8k vocoder. And without a doubt, it is
worse than the QCLPR 13k Qualcomm vocoder -- although the jury is out on
how much worse. When I tried a 13k side by side with an 8k, the robotic
nature of the 8k was very disturbing to me. And since you've admitted
that you personally find GSM EFR better than the 13k QCLPR Qualcomm
vocoder, then it is time you admitted that the 8k EVRC codec has basically
put Verizon and Sprint near the bottom of the proverbial heap.

Remember, Steven, unlike John Navas, I am not a GSM shill. I like
GSM because it sounds better. My first cell phone was a CDMA PrimeCo
phone and I thought it was pretty damn nifty. But it never sounded as
good as my GSM phone does. I agree that the lack of AMPS roaming is a
problem which is why I am hoping that CDMA shills like yourself will start
putting pressure on Qualcomm to either adopt the Nokia AMR 8k codec to
replace the shitty EVRC. I promise it will make your Qualcomm stock go up
and you can go around bragging on your site that Verizon roolz and
actually be speaking something resembling the truth.

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

"Steven Scharf" <CellAcademician@NOXXhotmailXXNO.com> wrote in message
news:vjn909kqfhjcb1@corp.supernews.com... >

> Verizon provides faster data service than T-Mobile,
> not sure what you mean by the data services are
> worse.
>

Tzones vs mobile web. I prefer the former. Also, global data roaming is a
big positive. The drawback is clearly speed and from what I've read
reliability.

> T-Mobile does have the advantage of being able
> to use the same handset for international roaming,
> though Verizon also offers GSM roaming if you
> get a GSM handset. T-Mobile's international roaming
> rates are better in the European countries, but Verizon
> covers a lot more places.

Great. See you in Gabon.

>
> What exactly do you mean regarding SMS? I use it
> all the time on my Verizon phone and don't have to
> establish any different connection.
>
When I used verizon sms and a call came in while establishing a data
connection on my 2235, it would roll to voicemail quite often. Tmobile
doesn't give me that problem.

> Yes the Verizon phone selection is poor.
>

Which is a huge deal to many of us.

> Every independent study on voice quality
> has shown CDMA to be equal to or better
> than GSM (in the U.S.). That said, I agree
> that all things being equal, GSM with a full rate
> vocoder will sound better than CDMA with
> a full rate vocoder. You could have a handset
> problem if you have echoing.
>

Even when it doesn't echo, I prefer the voice quality on tmobile. It is
clearer and doesn't distort like my verizon service does during peak times.
My personal opinion.

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