difficult reception area

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Does anyone here, by chance, live in Manhattan, facing the HUdson River.

I live in the 90s and on VZ, I pick up a Jersey City Cell site which
really just isn't strong enough for the distance.

Of course there are several VZ sites geographically nearer to me ....
but I have the misfortune to be picking up that cell site.

I'm womdering whether Cingular has a more appropriately located cell
site for me.

Louise

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
news:7%ree.2664$5o2.370@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> You can go to a Cingular store and based on your street address they can
> tell you where the nearest tower is.

You ARE kidding right?

Most people in the local stores have no idea how cellular works, let alone
where the local towers are located. I have talked to people in the two local
stores out here where I live and although in both instances they can see the
"local" tower out their business window, they have no idea where it is.

In bigger cities it is even worse. And as the cell companies share towers
and own fewer and fewer themselves, it will only get even worse (if that is
possible).

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <A_6dnQxvruuKFOffRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
"* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> wrote:

> "Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ce376eee990c15989859@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > Does anyone here, by chance, live in Manhattan, facing the HUdson
> River.
> >
> > I live in the 90s and on VZ, I pick up a Jersey City Cell site
> which
> > really just isn't strong enough for the distance.
> >
> > Of course there are several VZ sites geographically nearer to me
> ....
> > but I have the misfortune to be picking up that cell site.
> >
> > I'm womdering whether Cingular has a more appropriately located cell
> > site for me.
> >
> > Louise
>
> Cellular phone signals are "Line of Sight" technology. That is they
> radiate out from the cell site in straight lines. The range is
> generally from 1/2 mile to 5 miles depending on weather and other
> influences - YMMV.
>
> Cellular reception in the "canyons" of many large cities can be poor
> for many reasons.
>
> 1.) More users in a smaller area, sites tend to be overloaded at peak
> usage times.
>
> 2.) Cellular RF signals don't travel too well through big buildings.
>
> 3.) Fewer cell sites in some downtown areas.
>
> Few people outside of engineering can tell where the cell cites are
> located and they wont divulge that kind of information for many
> reasons.

Nonsense. Tower location maps are in the public domain.

>
> Your best bet is to move around town to where you get the best
> reception.
>
> Funny thing, I had AT&TWS One Rate TDMA plan. I had a client over by
> the Meadowlands. I could look over and see Manhattan but I had NO
> coverage any where across the river in Jersey!
>
> Chas.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
newsoxee.2776$5o2.1607@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> As far as i know, the people in Cingular stores have access to an
> application that pin points tower locations.

You are right on that. They can even tell you which ones were erected by
Cingular, and which ones were purchased by ATT, and which ones are GSM, but
not on the Cingular/ATT network. -Dave

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-245D23.17293105052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...

> Nonsense. Tower location maps are in the public domain.

Point to the location that you can find this information.

Cellular carriers are not required to disclose the individual site
information within their lisenced area. Building roof tops are not disclosed
anyplace publicly. Most tower locations now days are on shared towers owned
by someone else. In fact, if a tower is under 200' it doesn't even have to
be registered with the FAA (with certain exceptions) so a cellular tower
under 200' (that might even be owned by a particular carrier) doesn't even
need to show up on any data base other than in the engineering department of
the individual carrier.

You should speak only of what you know.

WAIT WAIT..... That would cause you to stop posting! hmmmmmmmmmm that would
be a good thing.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote in message
news:427b5c59$0$64151$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
> newsoxee.2776$5o2.1607@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> As far as i know, the people in Cingular stores have access to an
>> application that pin points tower locations.
>
> You are right on that. They can even tell you which ones were erected by
> Cingular, and which ones were purchased by ATT, and which ones are GSM,
> but not on the Cingular/ATT network. -Dave

Which store??? Address, City and State please!

I have never been in any Cingular or AWS store that had this information
available. In any state or any city!!! I would like to visit this
mythological store.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-9A7C05.10085906052005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

> In article <2jLee.6616$HL2.3051@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:jzwick3-245D23.17293105052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > Nonsense. Tower location maps are in the public domain.
> >
> > Point to the location that you can find this information.
> >
> > Cellular carriers are not required to disclose the individual site
> > information within their lisenced area. Building roof tops are not
> > disclosed
> > anyplace publicly. Most tower locations now days are on shared towers owned
> > by someone else. In fact, if a tower is under 200' it doesn't even have to
> > be registered with the FAA (with certain exceptions) so a cellular tower
> > under 200' (that might even be owned by a particular carrier) doesn't even
> > need to show up on any data base other than in the engineering department
> > of
> > the individual carrier.
> >
> > You should speak only of what you know.
> >
> > WAIT WAIT..... That would cause you to stop posting! hmmmmmmmmmm that
> > would
> > be a good thing.
>
> http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/ [...] rmaps.html
>
> http://www.t-mobiletowers.com/homeTowers.aspx
>
> http://www.nwconline.com/towers.cfm
>
> You may apologize now.

And all towers may be found (with some difficulty) at:

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/Ul [...] icense.jsp

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <t35fe.8821$HL2.5749@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-> And
> all towers may be found (with some difficulty) at:
> >
> > http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/Ul [...] icense.jsp
>
> Not true.

Sorry, its true.

We're all still waiting for you to apologize. After saying no carrier
makes public their Tower information, I proved you wrong.

> http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/ [...] rmaps.html
>
> http://www.t-mobiletowers.com/homeTowers.aspx
>
> http://www.nwconline.com/towers.cfm

I love the way you snipped that part of the post out.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-FDE22E.13521307052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <t35fe.8821$HL2.5749@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-> And
>> all towers may be found (with some difficulty) at:
>> >
>> > http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/Ul [...] icense.jsp
>>
>> Not true.
>
> Sorry, its true.
>
> We're all still waiting for you to apologize. After saying no carrier
> makes public their Tower information, I proved you wrong.

I looked at the link. Several towers that I know about within 5 miles of my
home are not listed.

Go away Phillipe!

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <5aafe.10410$HL2.7703@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-FDE22E.13521307052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <t35fe.8821$HL2.5749@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-> And
> >> all towers may be found (with some difficulty) at:
> >> >
> >> > http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/Ul [...] icense.jsp
> >>
> >> Not true.
> >
> > Sorry, its true.
> >
> > We're all still waiting for you to apologize. After saying no carrier
> > makes public their Tower information, I proved you wrong.
>
> I looked at the link. Several towers that I know about within 5 miles of my
> home are not listed.

Are you sure you're not JOHN Navas. Such childish arogance.

Lack of perfection (if one belives you, still leaves you wrong saying
cellular carriers don't tell where theii towers are, and of course, you
childishly left out the links proving you wrong.

We're all still waiting for you to apologize. After saying no carrier
makes public their Tower information, I proved you wrong.

> http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/ [...] rmaps.html
>
> http://www.t-mobiletowers.com/homeTowers.aspx
>
> http://www.nwconline.com/towers.cfm

I love the way you snipped that part of the post out.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <Xns964FACEA583DAjc1Gao9@69.28.186.121>,
Poseur <julioYODUDEcastaneda@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:jzwick3-FDE22E.13521307052005@news1.west.earthlink.net:
>
> > We're all still waiting for you to apologize. After saying
> > no carrier makes public their Tower information, I proved
> > you wrong.
>
> This is the internet. There are no apologies on the internet.

We're all still waiting for you him apologize. After saying no carrier
makes public their Tower information, I proved you wrong.

> http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/ [...] rmaps.html
>
> http://www.t-mobiletowers.com/homeTowers.aspx
>
> http://www.nwconline.com/towers.cfm

I love the way you snipped that part of the post out.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-FB24A5.16535807052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...

>
> Are you sure you're not JOHN Navas. Such childish arogance.
>
> Lack of perfection (if one belives you, still leaves you wrong saying
> cellular carriers don't tell where theii towers are, and of course, you
> childishly left out the links proving you wrong.
>
> We're all still waiting for you to apologize. After saying no carrier
> makes public their Tower information, I proved you wrong.
>
> > http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/ [...] rmaps.html
> >
> > http://www.t-mobiletowers.com/homeTowers.aspx
> >
> > http://www.nwconline.com/towers.cfm
>
> I love the way you snipped that part of the post out.

Thank you for showing that the maps are accurate. Otherwise, why would you
use them? I will now ask you to refrain from your whining about cellular
maps when the subject comes up in the future.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-FB24A5.16535807052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...

You are just an ignorant Troll. This is my last post to ANY message you
write.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <RVafe.8646$GQ5.7302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-FB24A5.16535807052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <5aafe.10410$HL2.7703@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jzwick3-FDE22E.13521307052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <t35fe.8821$HL2.5749@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >> > "John S" <johndsummers@teraearthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3->
> >> >> And
> >> >> all towers may be found (with some difficulty) at:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/Ul [...] icense.jsp
> >> >>
> >> >> Not true.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, its true.
> >> >
> >> > We're all still waiting for you to apologize. After saying no carrier
> >> > makes public their Tower information, I proved you wrong.
> >>
> >> I looked at the link. Several towers that I know about within 5 miles of
> >> my
> >> home are not listed.
> >
> > Are you sure you're not JOHN Navas. Such childish arogance.
>
> I am not John Navas. That's why my signature doesn't say John Navas.
>
> No arogance at all.

But you again snip the proof you were wrong.


> http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/ [...] rmaps.html
>
> http://www.t-mobiletowers.com/homeTowers.aspx
>
> http://www.nwconline.com/towers.cfm

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 23:24:48 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>You said no carrier makes public their tower locations.

I don't believe he did say that. He said this:

Cellular carriers are not required to disclose the individual site
information within their lisenced area. Building roof tops are not
disclosed
anyplace publicly. Most tower locations now days are on shared towers
owned
by someone else. In fact, if a tower is under 200' it doesn't even
have to
be registered with the FAA (with certain exceptions) so a cellular
tower
under 200' (that might even be owned by a particular carrier) doesn't
even
need to show up on any data base other than in the engineering
department of
the individual carrier.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 13:59:18 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick4@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>In article <oanu7199220h7b5r4b9ops9n8hk9i3c2oo@4ax.com>, nospam@ptd.net
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 23:24:48 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You said no carrier makes public their tower locations.
>>
>> I don't believe he did say that. He said this:
>>
>> Cellular carriers are not required to disclose the individual site
>> information within their lisenced area. Building roof tops are not
>> disclosed
>> anyplace publicly. Most tower locations now days are on shared towers
>> owned
>> by someone else. In fact, if a tower is under 200' it doesn't even
>> have to
>> be registered with the FAA (with certain exceptions) so a cellular
>> tower
>> under 200' (that might even be owned by a particular carrier) doesn't
>> even
>> need to show up on any data base other than in the engineering
>> department of
>> the individual carrier.
>
>Fine but the URL's I listed prove even that VERY wrong, which re never
>discussed, and merely omitted from his replies. Which strangely you did
>also, but maybe you are John.
>
>> http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/ [...] rmaps.html
>>
>> http://www.t-mobiletowers.com/homeTowers.aspx
>>
>> http://www.nwconline.com/towers.cfm

Looks like two different statements. I was looking at the first
sentence (Cellular carriers are not required...) and overlooked the
second (Building roof tops are not disclosed...) which is countered by
the links.

I've looked at the t-mobile app before and it's pretty slick. In fact
it's a bit too conservative.

Then again, maybe everyone in this group is either you or John.