Is in-building coverage about the same for all four technologies?
Theoretically, CDMA has the best in-building coverage due to a greater tolerance of weak signals. In practice, you will probably be able to use a CDMA phone A LITTLE DEEPER inside a building than with GSM, IS-136, or iDEN, but there is a far more important factor at work here.
Networks can provide excellent in-building coverage by means of indoor picocells (or enhancers). Most of the Toronto PCS providers have coverage in Toronto's underground concourses (known as the PATH system) using these picocells. In the absence of such cells however, the ability to penetrate a building is highly dependent upon the proximity of the closest site. You can check my maps to see how close a site is to the building you wish to use your phone in.
Statistically speaking, Rogers (who has the most sites) should provide in-building coverage in more places than Mike (who has the least). However, a secondary factor plays a part here too. Because of the huge number of sites Rogers have, they must greatly reduce the range of each site to avoid interference. This means you must be much closer to one of their sites to get descent in-building signals. Mike can keep the output of their sites relatively high, and you can be further away and still get good in-building coverage.
CDMA systems have one peculiarity that does not affect GSM, IS-136, or iDEN. As the number of subscribers using a particular site goes up, the range of that site goes down. This is difficult to explain without getting into the technical details of CDMA systems. The upshot of this is that what seemed like good in-building coverage one day, may not be so good the next. In-building coverage would suffer the most during rush hour.
The bottom line is: All service providers have their good buildings and their bad buildings. The closer the site is to the building, the better the coverage. No one technology is inherently much better than another, so don't let misinformed souls lead down the garden path on this one.
How come I hear horror stories about the service provided with some technologies?
The key to answering this question is in the word "some". All four competing technologies can be implemented well, or they can be implemented poorly. In some areas, the local GSM provider may have done a horrible job of implementing their system, and people living in those areas may rightfully conclude that any of the other three technologies is the better choice for them. In other areas however, the local CDMA, iDEN, or IS-136 systems may be poorly implemented, and you'll get a high number of GSM supporters.
Since most people can only judge the technologies based on the service provided in their area, biases against certain technologies are bound to occur. And because of this disparity in implementation, it is impossible to tell someone who doesn't live in your part of the country which technology is best for them.
Frank's gonna say: There comes Elmat with one of his postings that has no URL!!
YOu're right my database on in-building has some sources that I could not retrace. Sorry. |
