CDMA vs EDGE vs HSPA vs LTE range

[RAvirani]

Question out of curiosity: if someone ran CDMA, EDGE, HSPA and LTE all on the same frequency, how would the ranges compare to each other?

[WiWavelength]

Infinity.  To Alpha Centauri and beyond.

 

AJ

[lordsutch]

A slightly more serious answer: the more advanced technologies tend to be more susceptible to interference, so the effective usable range for the same power is higher with simpler signals like those in GSM and CDMA 1X.

 

GSM, due to its use of TDMA, also has a hard limitation on its range of 35 km.

[WiWavelength]

GSM, due to its use of TDMA, also has a hard limitation on its range of 35 km.

 

...if timing advance is limited to one time slot.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

...if timing advance is limited to one time slot.

 

AJ

With more time you can expand the range to 120 km

[RAvirani]

A slightly more serious answer: the more advanced technologies tend to be more susceptible to interference, so the effective usable range for the same power is higher with simpler signals like those in GSM and CDMA 1X.

 

GSM, due to its use of TDMA, also has a hard limitation on its range of 35 km.

So something like CDMA>GSM>HSPA>LTE

[Ascertion]

A similar question was asked here.

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4575-so-ignoring-bandswhich-technology-has-the-best-building-penetration/

 

I would skip to page 2. 

[S4GRU]

So something like CDMA>GSM>HSPA>LTE

And yet, in real life, I can get CDMA 1x on 800 much further distances than EDGE on 850.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[Fraydog]

I would guess HSPA goes farther than EDGE because of the fact that HSPA is highly (and I mean highly) derivative of CDMA. On 850 it is probably fairly close to CDMA 1x. Not exactly there due to higher channel bandwidth, but close.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[gusherb]

I think in reality, what goes farther is gonna be largely network dependant. On paper 1X is probably king, followed by GSM, and then UMTS/WCDMA, and lastly LTE.

 

In reality I've seen it all over the place, though one thing that holds true almost all of the time is that 1x is king for distance. Locally, EDGE on 850 outcovers UMTS on 850, and UMTS on 850 outdoes B17 LTE, though I often see B17 LTE and UMTS 850 being a close tie.

 

On T-Mobile I have seen band 4 LTE outperform UMTS on PCS in several odd instances as far as signal goes.

 

I do believe it's been claimed that the 35 km distance on GSM is no longer true and that it can reach almost as far as CDMA 1x now. I've personally never picked up an EDGE signal from further than maybe 20 miles away, that I know of anyway.

[MrZorbatron]

I think in reality, what goes farther is gonna be largely network dependant. On paper 1X is probably king, followed by GSM, and then UMTS/WCDMA, and lastly LTE.

 

In reality I've seen it all over the place, though one thing that holds true almost all of the time is that 1x is king for distance. 

...

 

...

On T-Mobile I have seen band 4 LTE outperform UMTS on PCS in several odd instances as far as signal goes.

 

Wider LTE signal is usable for a greater distance than a narrower one.

[gusherb]

Wider LTE signal is usable for a greater distance than a narrower one.

Yes that is one of the things to factor in. Just today I was in a place where I could barely hold a signal on WCDMA 850 but had little problem hanging onto B17 LTE. That's a 5mhz WCDMA channel vs a 10 MHz LTE channel.

[RAvirani]

Yes that is one of the things to factor in. Just today I was in a place where I could barely hold a signal on WCDMA 850 but had little problem hanging onto B17 LTE. That's a 5mhz WCDMA channel vs a 10 MHz LTE channel.

I notice that on AT&T too all the time considering I spend a lot of time in an area with -114 to -118 LTE/HSPA. Phone holds on to LTE a lot better. How would they compare if they were both 5mhz tho?

[MrZorbatron]

I notice that on AT&T too all the time considering I spend a lot of time in an area with -114 to -118 LTE/HSPA. Phone holds on to LTE a lot better. How would they compare if they were both 5mhz tho?

UMTS would have somewhat better fringe performance.

 

CDMA2000 would be much better still. Just because WCDMA has some CDMA style features, it is a totally different type of signal.

[WiWavelength]

UMTS would have somewhat better fringe performance.

 

CDMA2000 would be much better still. Just because WCDMA has some CDMA style features, it is a totally different type of signal.

 

HSPA is an issue for W-CDMA.  If the carrier were running only Release 99 W-CDMA, it would have greater range.

 

AJ

[MrZorbatron]

HSPA is an issue for W-CDMA.  If the carrier were running only Release 99 W-CDMA, it would have greater range.

 

AJ

True, but still not greater than 1x IIRC just due to signal types, modulation schemes, etc.

[S4GRU]

I find HSPA+/WCDMA to only have the slightest edge over LTE in the same frequency. Here in Western South Dakota, T-Mobile has both AWS WCDMA and LTE, and AT&T has both Cellular 850 WCDMA and LTE. And all four instances are 5MHz FDD carriers. In both instances, the WCDMA will peter out at the same point as the LTE, or only a few hundred feet farther. And the LTE is more usable with a fringe signal than the WCDMA.

 

I lose WCDMA between -109 and -111 RSSI. It is completely unusable at this strength. It may provide the slightest throughput between -105 and -109 RSSI. But I really need a -103 or better on WCDMA to be useful.

 

I can still use Tmo LTE on a 5MHz channel down to a -128 RSRP. Still pull 1-2Mbps DL. But upload will time out, or run a paltry 0.01Mbps. AT&T LTE won't really work past -118 RSRP here. Because they have a lot more noise from so many sites, and they have a lot more traffic, and I don't believe they run 4x MIMO.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[RAvirani]

Ok so this conversation has raised a question for me. How is it that Verizon's 700 MHz LTE dies when CDMA800 is at about -98 when Sprints 800 MHz LTE cannot eclipse CDMA1900?

[WiWavelength]

Ok so this conversation has raised a question for me. How is it that Verizon's 700 MHz LTE dies when CDMA800 is at about -98 when Sprints 800 MHz LTE cannot eclipse CDMA1900?

 

Base station power/gain may be configured for capacity, not coverage.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Base station power/gain may be configured for capacity, not coverage.

 

AJ

I thought 800 was meant for coverage while 1900 and 2.5 were capacity? And also it's not like a single site in referring to - my overall experience has been that 800mhz LTE dies (-120) when 3G on 1900mhz is ~-98 to -100

[WiWavelength]

RAvirani, on 24 Dec 2015 - 4:16 PM, said:

 

I thought 800 was meant for coverage while 1900 and 2.5 were capacity? And also it's not like a single site in referring to - my overall experience has been that 800mhz LTE dies (-120) when 3G on 1900mhz is ~-98 to -100

Not surprising. Those are basically equivalent RF figures between the two airlinks. For further reference, read my article on The Wall. RSSI vs RSRP.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Not surprising. Those are basically equivalent RF figures between the two airlinks. For further reference, read my article on The Wall. RSSI vs RSRP.

 

AJ

So Verizon has just increased the power on their LTE to higher really? Also wouldn't it make more sense if the signals were equivalent on the same band (PCS LTE)?

[WiWavelength]

So Verizon has just increased the power on their LTE to higher really?

 

Not sure.  But VZW band 13 is 10 MHz FDD -- and often has 10-20 MHz FDD backing it on band 4.  In that situation, coverage may be more important than capacity.  Sprint does not have such luxury, since both band 25 and band 26 typically are limited to 5 MHz FDD.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Not sure. But VZW band 13 is 10 MHz FDD -- and often has 10-20 MHz FDD backing it on band 4. In that situation, coverage may be more important than capacity. Sprint does not have such luxury, since both band 25 and band 26 typically are limited to 5 MHz FDD.

 

AJ

Oh that makes sense. So once sprint refarms some more PCS LTE and gets more 2.5 carriers up, they may increase power levels on B26?

[gusherb]

Not sure. But VZW band 13 is 10 MHz FDD -- and often has 10-20 MHz FDD backing it on band 4. In that situation, coverage may be more important than capacity. Sprint does not have such luxury, since both band 25 and band 26 typically are limited to 5 MHz FDD.

 

AJ

Do you really think that 800 MHz LTE would crash if it were optimized for coverage in a market with 2x B41, and 2x 5Mhz FDD B25 (one of them growing to 10 MHz FDD)?