Big Brother is watching you

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

Big Brother is watching you

FCC did it again

By December 31, 2005, your cell phone company will always know exactly where
you are. That's when the FCC will complete Phase II of its Enhanced 911
(E911) program, requiring all U.S. wireless carriers to provide the
location-within 50 to 100 meters in most cases-

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1463748,00.asp
32 answers Last reply
More about brother watching
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:47:17 -0700, EL wrote:

    > Big Brother is watching you
    >
    > FCC did it again
    >
    > By December 31, 2005, your cell phone company will always know exactly where
    > you are.

    Wonder how they're going to implement that ?

    Here in the UK, the Vodafone GSM telco has a 'Find Me' service, and I've
    found it to no more accurate than a few miles at best.

    > That's when the FCC will complete Phase II of its Enhanced 911
    > (E911) program, requiring all U.S. wireless carriers to provide the
    > location-within 50 to 100 meters in most cases-

    All new handsets must have GPS fitted ?

    > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1463748,00.asp

    --
    Michael Turner

    Email (ROT13)

    zvxr.gheare1963@grfpb.arg
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, michael turner wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:47:17 -0700, EL wrote:
    >
    > > Big Brother is watching you
    > >
    > > FCC did it again
    > >
    > > By December 31, 2005, your cell phone company will always know exactly where
    > > you are.
    >
    > Wonder how they're going to implement that ?
    >
    > Here in the UK, the Vodafone GSM telco has a 'Find Me' service, and I've
    > found it to no more accurate than a few miles at best.
    >
    > > That's when the FCC will complete Phase II of its Enhanced 911
    > > (E911) program, requiring all U.S. wireless carriers to provide the
    > > location-within 50 to 100 meters in most cases-
    >
    > All new handsets must have GPS fitted ?
    >
    > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1463748,00.asp
    >
    > --
    > Michael Turner
    > Email (ROT13)
    > zvxr.gheare1963@grfpb.arg
    >

    They don't need GPS -- if you measure the phone signal's time of arrival
    at several cell towers, you can triangulate the position.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:15:17 +0100, michael turner
    <zvxr.gheare1963@grfpb.arg> wrote:

    >On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:47:17 -0700, EL wrote:
    >
    >> Big Brother is watching you
    >>
    >> FCC did it again
    >>
    >> By December 31, 2005, your cell phone company will always know exactly where
    >> you are.
    >
    >Wonder how they're going to implement that ?
    It is done by extracting more precise timing (at least on a GSM
    system). Normally the network only tracks timing to a few microseconds
    (+/- about 500 meters), however it can be tracked with much higher
    accuracy. If you get timings from two BTS's that are good to say .1
    microsceond,. The timing data and timing advance gives you the
    distance from the BTS, draw the two circules, and where they intersect
    (2 places) are the only possible locations.

    Often times the second position will be impossible because of the
    antenna geometry (it cannot be there, because if it was, the antenna
    we used couldn't hear it). Worst case is a 3rd BTS timing signal, even
    with relativley low accuarcy will tell you where the phone has to be.
    >
    >Here in the UK, the Vodafone GSM telco has a 'Find Me' service, and I've
    >found it to no more accurate than a few miles at best.
    >
    >> That's when the FCC will complete Phase II of its Enhanced 911
    >> (E911) program, requiring all U.S. wireless carriers to provide the
    >> location-within 50 to 100 meters in most cases-
    >
    >All new handsets must have GPS fitted ?
    >
    >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1463748,00.asp
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    michael turner wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:47:17 -0700, EL wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Big Brother is watching you
    >>
    >>FCC did it again
    >>
    >>By December 31, 2005, your cell phone company will always know exactly where
    >>you are.
    >
    >
    > Wonder how they're going to implement that ?
    >
    > Here in the UK, the Vodafone GSM telco has a 'Find Me' service, and I've
    > found it to no more accurate than a few miles at best.
    >
    >
    >>That's when the FCC will complete Phase II of its Enhanced 911
    >>(E911) program, requiring all U.S. wireless carriers to provide the
    >>location-within 50 to 100 meters in most cases-
    >
    >
    > All new handsets must have GPS fitted ?
    >


    That was one consideration in the early stages of planning. But
    handsets often disappear into an overhead areas where GPS won't work.

    However, here's the skinny for some U.S. wireless carriers...
    http://www.trueposition.com


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    Why they can not find our phone when it stolen or lost ?

    "matt weber" <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:h2qel0t97snc0u5ee6rsidg75u2bv1dqnn@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:15:17 +0100, michael turner
    > <zvxr.gheare1963@grfpb.arg> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:47:17 -0700, EL wrote:
    >>
    >>> Big Brother is watching you
    >>>
    >>> FCC did it again
    >>>
    >>> By December 31, 2005, your cell phone company will always know exactly
    >>> where
    >>> you are.
    >>
    >>Wonder how they're going to implement that ?
    > It is done by extracting more precise timing (at least on a GSM
    > system). Normally the network only tracks timing to a few microseconds
    > (+/- about 500 meters), however it can be tracked with much higher
    > accuracy. If you get timings from two BTS's that are good to say .1
    > microsceond,. The timing data and timing advance gives you the
    > distance from the BTS, draw the two circules, and where they intersect
    > (2 places) are the only possible locations.
    >
    > Often times the second position will be impossible because of the
    > antenna geometry (it cannot be there, because if it was, the antenna
    > we used couldn't hear it). Worst case is a 3rd BTS timing signal, even
    > with relativley low accuarcy will tell you where the phone has to be.
    >>
    >>Here in the UK, the Vodafone GSM telco has a 'Find Me' service, and I've
    >>found it to no more accurate than a few miles at best.
    >>
    >>> That's when the FCC will complete Phase II of its Enhanced 911
    >>> (E911) program, requiring all U.S. wireless carriers to provide the
    >>> location-within 50 to 100 meters in most cases-
    >>
    >>All new handsets must have GPS fitted ?
    >>
    >>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1463748,00.asp
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:03:25 -0700, "EL" <el12@operamail.com> wrote:

    >Why they can not find our phone when it stolen or lost ?
    Because at the moment, the operationg of the advanced timing software
    is tied to calling 911.
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    EL wrote:

    > Why they can not find our phone when it stolen or lost ?
    >

    Your question presumes...
    1. the phone is still turned on
    2. the battery hasn't gone dead yet
    3. the 'finder' system is always completely functional
    4. the phone is actually in a trackable location
    5. the phone was ever trackable in the first place
    6. anybody cares about finding it in the second place

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:45:57 -0700, matt weber wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:03:25 -0700, "EL" <el12@operamail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Why they can not find our phone when it stolen or lost ?
    > Because at the moment, the operationg of the advanced timing software
    > is tied to calling 911.

    So for the rest of us, the location is probably determined by which cell
    the phone is registered on. Which could explain why my SP's(Vodafone UK)
    'Find Me' feature is only accurate to a few miles at best, and is quite
    often more than ten miles out.

    --
    Michael Turner

    Email (ROT13)

    zvxr.gheare1963@grfpb.arg
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:50:07 +0100, michael turner
    <zvxr.gheare1963@grfpb.arg> wrote:

    >On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:45:57 -0700, matt weber wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:03:25 -0700, "EL" <el12@operamail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Why they can not find our phone when it stolen or lost ?
    >> Because at the moment, the operationg of the advanced timing software
    >> is tied to calling 911.
    >
    >So for the rest of us, the location is probably determined by which cell
    >the phone is registered on. Which could explain why my SP's(Vodafone UK)
    >'Find Me' feature is only accurate to a few miles at best, and is quite
    >often more than ten miles out.

    Actually most of the time, they should be able to find you with more
    accuracy than that. Your distance from the BTS is known to +/- about
    500 meters from the timing advance. Bearing is +/- 60 degrees. The
    closer you are to the BTS, the more accurate the position estimate is
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    >Actually most of the time, they should be able to find you with more
    >accuracy than that. Your distance from the BTS is known to +/- about
    >500 meters from the timing advance. Bearing is +/- 60 degrees. The
    >closer you are to the BTS, the more accurate the position estimate is

    I have done drive testing for AT&T Wireless and they can tell where you are
    withing about 3 meters. Testing would indicate that they can tell you the
    address that you are sitting in front of and or the distance from the closest
    intersection.

    Your above explanation is incorrect.

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On 29 Sep 2004 00:21:37 GMT, sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.)
    wrote:

    >>Actually most of the time, they should be able to find you with more
    >>accuracy than that. Your distance from the BTS is known to +/- about
    >>500 meters from the timing advance. Bearing is +/- 60 degrees. The
    >>closer you are to the BTS, the more accurate the position estimate is
    >
    >I have done drive testing for AT&T Wireless and they can tell where you are
    >withing about 3 meters. Testing would indicate that they can tell you the
    >address that you are sitting in front of and or the distance from the closest
    >intersection.
    >
    >Your above explanation is incorrect.
    AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!

    The original inquiry involved Vodaphone, and outside the USA, the FCC
    rules don't count, so all they have to work with is antennae bearing
    (+/- 60 degrees), and basic timing advance (+/- 500 meters).
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <7vjml0h2jjq250jbs09ebh4e2asmc1qc22@4ax.com> on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:16:56
    -0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:

    >On 29 Sep 2004 00:21:37 GMT, sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.)
    >wrote:

    >>I have done drive testing for AT&T Wireless and they can tell where you are
    >>withing about 3 meters. Testing would indicate that they can tell you the
    >>address that you are sitting in front of and or the distance from the closest
    >>intersection.
    >>
    >>Your above explanation is incorrect.

    >AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    >I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!

    Why not? Even a cheap consumer GPS can easily achieve that kind of accuracy.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  13. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    John Navas wrote:

    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <7vjml0h2jjq250jbs09ebh4e2asmc1qc22@4ax.com> on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:16:56
    > -0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On 29 Sep 2004 00:21:37 GMT, sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.)
    >>wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>I have done drive testing for AT&T Wireless and they can tell where you are
    >>>withing about 3 meters. Testing would indicate that they can tell you the
    >>>address that you are sitting in front of and or the distance from the closest
    >>>intersection.
    >>>
    >>>Your above explanation is incorrect.
    >
    >
    >>AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    >>I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!
    >
    >
    > Why not? Even a cheap consumer GPS can easily achieve that kind of accuracy.
    >


    Apparently, Matt is unaware that every BTS has it's own personal GPS
    receiver. Trimble seems to be the popular fashion.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    >AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    >I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!

    Well, they know within 3" where the BTS is. The GPS positioning system is very
    good.

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
  15. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:28:26 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

    >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <7vjml0h2jjq250jbs09ebh4e2asmc1qc22@4ax.com> on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:16:56
    >-0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
    >
    >>On 29 Sep 2004 00:21:37 GMT, sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.)
    >>wrote:
    >
    >>>I have done drive testing for AT&T Wireless and they can tell where you are
    >>>withing about 3 meters. Testing would indicate that they can tell you the
    >>>address that you are sitting in front of and or the distance from the closest
    >>>intersection.
    >>>
    >>>Your above explanation is incorrect.
    >
    >>AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    >>I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!
    >
    >Why not? Even a cheap consumer GPS can easily achieve that kind of accuracy.
    WRONG. A cheap GPS cannot achieve that sort of accuracy. You need
    WAAS to get anywhere near 3 meters.

    The other problem is you need a good view of the sky for a GPS work,
    which makes it unusable in many areas (like indoors, in parking
    garages, urban canyons, etc.)
    If what you said was true, car navigation systems would be a whole
    lot less expensive then they are, they could be pure GPS. The ones
    that work well are not!

    .. The reality is those systems incorporate either Inertial Navigation
    (3 axis solid state accelerometer), or Dead reckoning (Vss input from
    the vehicle for distance, and a gyro for direction).
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:04:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >
    >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >>
    >> In <7vjml0h2jjq250jbs09ebh4e2asmc1qc22@4ax.com> on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:16:56
    >> -0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On 29 Sep 2004 00:21:37 GMT, sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.)
    >>>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I have done drive testing for AT&T Wireless and they can tell where you are
    >>>>withing about 3 meters. Testing would indicate that they can tell you the
    >>>>address that you are sitting in front of and or the distance from the closest
    >>>>intersection.
    >>>>
    >>>>Your above explanation is incorrect.
    >>
    >>
    >>>AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    >>>I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!
    >>
    >>
    >> Why not? Even a cheap consumer GPS can easily achieve that kind of accuracy.
    >>
    >
    >
    >Apparently, Matt is unaware that every BTS has it's own personal GPS
    >receiver. Trimble seems to be the popular fashion.

    Except that the average accuarcy even with WAAS is no better than
    about 3 meters, and without WAAS, figure 10 meters. The GPS receiver
    on the BTS isn't there for positioning, it is there for timing. It is
    a cheap way to get atomic clock accuracy/stability. The BTS neither
    knows or cares where it is, but it certainly cares about network
    timing.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <20040930080950.07779.00000879@mb-m25.aol.com> on 30 Sep 2004 12:09:50 GMT,
    sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote:

    >>AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    >>I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!
    >
    >Well, they know within 3" where the BTS is. The GPS positioning system is very
    >good.

    GPS is indeed very good, but not that good:
    With WAAS, 1-2 meter accuracy
    Even with LAAS, 0.5 meter accuracy

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    If the carrier uses signal timing to determine your position, this
    would mean that your phone would have to be pinging the tower on a
    periodic basis. Is this correct? If so, how often does the phone
    trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?

    --Eric
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On 1 Oct 2004 14:46:36 -0700, Elise05@gmail.com (Elise05) wrote:

    >If the carrier uses signal timing to determine your position, this
    >would mean that your phone would have to be pinging the tower on a
    >periodic basis. Is this correct? If so, how often does the phone
    >trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?
    >
    >--Eric
    The requirement to locate the phone only exists while it is active,
    i.e. a call to 911.

    As a practical matter, GSM networks poll phones periodically to see
    where they are in relatively general times, and if they are still on
    the network, happens 2-4 times in 24 hours, depending upon the
    carrier. The FCC regulations in the US make most devices relative
    immune, but outside the USA, often the radio or TV will let loose with
    the 217 Hz buzz when it happens. When you hear it, it means either
    your phone is about to ring, or it was just polled.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    > how often does the phone
    >trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?

    The phone does not send anything unless there are several things that happen.

    First, if the phone is moved from one cell site to the other, it will identify
    itself to the new cell site so that call delivery is quicker.

    Second, if the phone is requested by the system to tell the system where it is.


    Finally, if the phone is used, it sends information to the system and is
    assigned a cell site to talk to.

    Otherwise standby is just that - standby (no transmissions of any kind).

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
  21. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    Wondering how they can find you ?!

    Well using the time advance method is not accurate due to reflections.
    It is not the first time that I am just under the base station and I
    have 20 time advances marked.

    What is really done is to feed several time advance readings from
    several base stations to a neural network. The neural network acts as
    a sort of a filter to those readings. Training the neural network
    however requires some time since training involves "you" going around
    with a mobile and a GPS gathering readings.

    Sounds simple and infact it is.

    David Joseph Bonnici
  22. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <5j9pl0hm5idctuifkj68568ja2i0ej47ue@4ax.com> on Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:39:19
    -0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:

    >On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:28:26 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >
    >>In <7vjml0h2jjq250jbs09ebh4e2asmc1qc22@4ax.com> on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:16:56
    >>-0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:

    >>>AT&T is obviously using signal timing, and i doubt it is +/- 3 meters.
    >>>I doubt they know the position of their BTS that well!
    >>
    >>Why not? Even a cheap consumer GPS can easily achieve that kind of accuracy.

    >WRONG. A cheap GPS cannot achieve that sort of accuracy. You need
    >WAAS to get anywhere near 3 meters.

    WAAS is available in cheap consumer GPS units; e.g., Magellan eXplorist 100,
    $77 at Compuplus.com

    >The other problem is you need a good view of the sky for a GPS work,

    A reasonable view.

    >which makes it unusable in many areas (like indoors, in parking
    >garages, urban canyons, etc.)

    My Magellan SporTrak GPS works fine under trees and in urban canyons.

    > If what you said was true, car navigation systems would be a whole
    >lot less expensive then they are, they could be pure GPS. The ones
    >that work well are not!
    >
    >. The reality is those systems incorporate either Inertial Navigation
    >(3 axis solid state accelerometer), or Dead reckoning (Vss input from
    >the vehicle for distance, and a gyro for direction).

    A Magellan SporTrak with DirectRoute software costs as little as $300, and
    works great.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  23. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <20041001191904.22932.00001229@mb-m10.aol.com> on 01 Oct 2004 23:19:04 GMT,
    sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote:

    >> how often does the phone
    >>trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?
    >
    >The phone does not send anything unless there are several things that happen.
    >
    >First, if the phone is moved from one cell site to the other, it will identify
    >itself to the new cell site so that call delivery is quicker.
    >
    >Second, if the phone is requested by the system to tell the system where it is.
    >
    >Finally, if the phone is used, it sends information to the system and is
    >assigned a cell site to talk to.
    >
    >Otherwise standby is just that - standby (no transmissions of any kind).

    CDMA devices typically register themselves every 10-20 minutes even stationary
    in a given zone. GSM typically does this as well, to guard against location
    database failure.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  24. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    matt weber wrote:
    > On 1 Oct 2004 14:46:36 -0700, Elise05@gmail.com (Elise05) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>If the carrier uses signal timing to determine your position, this
    >>would mean that your phone would have to be pinging the tower on a
    >>periodic basis. Is this correct? If so, how often does the phone
    >>trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?
    >>
    >>--Eric
    >
    > The requirement to locate the phone only exists while it is active,
    > i.e. a call to 911.
    >
    > As a practical matter, GSM networks poll phones periodically to see
    > where they are in relatively general times, and if they are still on
    > the network, happens 2-4 times in 24 hours, depending upon the
    > carrier. The FCC regulations in the US make most devices relative
    > immune, but outside the USA, often the radio or TV will let loose with
    > the 217 Hz buzz when it happens. When you hear it, it means either
    > your phone is about to ring, or it was just polled.


    I must have one of those cheap radios in my car, I hear it regularly.
    There's even one place where I hear it every time I drive through - must
    be a weak spot in network coverage.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  25. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    David Joseph Bonnici wrote:

    > Wondering how they can find you ?!
    >
    > Well using the time advance method is not accurate due to reflections.
    > It is not the first time that I am just under the base station and I
    > have 20 time advances marked.
    >
    > What is really done is to feed several time advance readings from
    > several base stations to a neural network. The neural network acts as
    > a sort of a filter to those readings. Training the neural network
    > however requires some time since training involves "you" going around
    > with a mobile and a GPS gathering readings.
    >
    > Sounds simple and infact it is.
    >
    > David Joseph Bonnici


    As I understand it, this is how the True Position system works.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  26. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    This is however still experimental.

    The same system is also used for credit cards. Lets say that for
    example you use your credit card two times a week and you never spend
    over 50 Dollars each time.

    A neural network is trained with this data:- i.e. amount of money
    spent, what it is purchased if possible, where it is purchase and the
    time of purchase.

    Lets say, they have pickpocketed you and you did not notice it. Lets
    assume also that they use your credit card to pay porn sites.

    The neural network will notice that this does not form part of the
    normal chaos and so will issue a warning at the bank that something
    smelly is happening. Then bank officers will call you on the mobile
    upoun the report generated.

    Interesting no. This is also a form of big brother.

    David Joseph Bonnici
  27. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:10:51 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

    >matt weber wrote:
    >> On 1 Oct 2004 14:46:36 -0700, Elise05@gmail.com (Elise05) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>If the carrier uses signal timing to determine your position, this
    >>>would mean that your phone would have to be pinging the tower on a
    >>>periodic basis. Is this correct? If so, how often does the phone
    >>>trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?
    >>>
    >>>--Eric
    >>
    >> The requirement to locate the phone only exists while it is active,
    >> i.e. a call to 911.
    >>
    >> As a practical matter, GSM networks poll phones periodically to see
    >> where they are in relatively general times, and if they are still on
    >> the network, happens 2-4 times in 24 hours, depending upon the
    >> carrier. The FCC regulations in the US make most devices relative
    >> immune, but outside the USA, often the radio or TV will let loose with
    >> the 217 Hz buzz when it happens. When you hear it, it means either
    >> your phone is about to ring, or it was just polled.
    >
    >
    >I must have one of those cheap radios in my car, I hear it regularly.
    >There's even one place where I hear it every time I drive through - must
    >be a weak spot in network coverage.
    No, devices intended for Mobil use are exempt from the relevant FCC
    regulation regarding conducted and radiated emissions. The result is a
    Car radio is exempt, a table radio is not.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    matt weber wrote:

    > On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:10:51 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>matt weber wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 1 Oct 2004 14:46:36 -0700, Elise05@gmail.com (Elise05) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>If the carrier uses signal timing to determine your position, this
    >>>>would mean that your phone would have to be pinging the tower on a
    >>>>periodic basis. Is this correct? If so, how often does the phone
    >>>>trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?
    >>>>
    >>>>--Eric
    >>>
    >>>The requirement to locate the phone only exists while it is active,
    >>>i.e. a call to 911.
    >>>
    >>>As a practical matter, GSM networks poll phones periodically to see
    >>>where they are in relatively general times, and if they are still on
    >>>the network, happens 2-4 times in 24 hours, depending upon the
    >>>carrier. The FCC regulations in the US make most devices relative
    >>>immune, but outside the USA, often the radio or TV will let loose with
    >>>the 217 Hz buzz when it happens. When you hear it, it means either
    >>>your phone is about to ring, or it was just polled.
    >>
    >>
    >>I must have one of those cheap radios in my car, I hear it regularly.
    >>There's even one place where I hear it every time I drive through - must
    >>be a weak spot in network coverage.
    >
    > No, devices intended for Mobil use are exempt from the relevant FCC
    > regulation regarding conducted and radiated emissions. The result is a
    > Car radio is exempt, a table radio is not.


    Funny that you mention table radios, because I've heard the 217 phantom
    on many of those as well. It's really not a problem for me as it's more
    a precursor to another call going to vmail.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  29. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    David Joseph Bonnici wrote:

    > This is however still experimental.
    >
    > The same system is also used for credit cards. Lets say that for
    > example you use your credit card two times a week and you never spend
    > over 50 Dollars each time.
    >
    > A neural network is trained with this data:- i.e. amount of money
    > spent, what it is purchased if possible, where it is purchase and the
    > time of purchase.
    >
    > Lets say, they have pickpocketed you and you did not notice it. Lets
    > assume also that they use your credit card to pay porn sites.
    >
    > The neural network will notice that this does not form part of the
    > normal chaos and so will issue a warning at the bank that something
    > smelly is happening. Then bank officers will call you on the mobile
    > upoun the report generated.
    >
    > Interesting no. This is also a form of big brother.
    >
    > David Joseph Bonnici


    Well, it's like I said, this sounds exactly like how the True Position
    system works. I do know that when a TP system is installed, calibrating
    the network is key to it's function. Each and every street all across
    the coverage territory is drive tested w/GPS, so that the RF
    characteristics of a radio transmitter are known (and therefore
    predictable) from any particular location. A drive tester I met was
    equipped with a roof-mounted Trimble GPS and a call simulator all tied
    into a laptop with a full-time active wireless network connection.
    Presumably the simulated calls were constantly being analysed by the
    BTS, and the GPS coordinates were being recorded into a database where
    an overlay to a street map was created. Personally, I found the whole
    deal quite interesting and seems to offer plausiblility to the idea of
    it actually working as intended.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  30. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    "John S." wrote:

    >> how often does the phone
    >>trasmit to the tower when in standby mode?
    >
    > The phone does not send anything unless there are several
    > things that happen.
    >
    > First, if the phone is moved from one cell site to the other,
    > it will identify itself to the new cell site so that call
    > delivery is quicker.

    Only if the next cell has a different LAC (Location Area Code)
    from the on already camped on. Registration is to an LAC, not
    to an individual cell. This makes sense when you consider that
    the paging for an incoming call is done over all cells within
    an LAC. Registration with the correct LAC is absolutely
    essential to the routing of incoming calls - it's not just a
    matter of quicker delivery.

    John
  31. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    >Only if the next cell has a different LAC (Location Area Code)
    >from the on already camped on.

    This used to be the case, however the cell phone's location is accounted for to
    the cell site now for faster call delivery.

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
  32. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    "John S." wrote:

    >>Only if the next cell has a different LAC (Location Area Code)
    >>from the on already camped on.
    >
    > This used to be the case, however the cell phone's location is
    > accounted for to the cell site now for faster call delivery.

    I can't believe that, unless each cell has its own unique LAC.
    But then battery life would be absolutely atrocious with so
    many location updates.

    What's potentially slow about being paged by every cell in an
    LAC? There are often hundreds of cells within each LAC where I
    live. There's no location update done when switching cells
    within an LAC, and paging takes a couple of seconds at most.

    John
Ask a new question

Read More

GSM Cell Phones Brother Wireless Carriers