GSM 900 network in Washington, DC?

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

Seems to me that I recall that there was a "temporary" GSM 900 network
set up in DC for some sort of GSM conference. When did this happen
and how long was the network up? Also, just googling for GSM 900
network Washington DC I came upon a snippet from Telestial mentioning
a GSM 900 network in DC. Does such a network still exist?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16 answers Last reply
More about network washington
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:46:04 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >Seems to me that I recall that there was a "temporary" GSM 900 network
    >set up in DC for some sort of GSM conference. When did this happen
    >and how long was the network up? Also, just googling for GSM 900
    >network Washington DC I came upon a snippet from Telestial mentioning
    >a GSM 900 network in DC. Does such a network still exist?
    >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    >
    There is reason to believe it has happened more than once, and will
    likely continue to occur. The FCC has granted short term licenses for
    GSM 900 microcells to support specific international conferences on
    several occaisons in the Washington DC area.

    The channels the Microcell is assigned are specifically chosen to
    minimize interference with other services. the life expectancy of
    these networks is about a week. So they come, and they go fairly
    quickly. There are NO permanent 900 Mhz GSM networks in the USA.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    Well, I have been in the business in the Wash DC market for 20 plus years,
    and am an avid gear head, and havent heard of it. I certainly do not doubt
    that becuase of the nature of Wash Dc and that Technology can basically do
    whatever it wants to provided someone has the power and the money, do not
    doubt it. But, I can tell you this, I am located 12 miles from the Capital
    and my fleet of phones pick up NOTHING in 900 MHZ.


    "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:gijcr01u33nahhn0urj4plpjscoefc12ln@4ax.com...
    > Seems to me that I recall that there was a "temporary" GSM 900 network
    > set up in DC for some sort of GSM conference. When did this happen
    > and how long was the network up? Also, just googling for GSM 900
    > network Washington DC I came upon a snippet from Telestial mentioning
    > a GSM 900 network in DC. Does such a network still exist?
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    PDA Man wrote:

    > Well, I have been in the business in the Wash DC market for 20 plus years,
    > and am an avid gear head, and havent heard of it. I certainly do not doubt
    > that becuase of the nature of Wash Dc and that Technology can basically do
    > whatever it wants to provided someone has the power and the money, do not
    > doubt it. But, I can tell you this, I am located 12 miles from the Capital
    > and my fleet of phones pick up NOTHING in 900 MHZ.
    >


    According to Matt Weber's post, it's a ghost network and only appears
    when it wants to.


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

    When GSM World or similar conferences appear in the US, they have permitted
    a microcell network for that purpose. There was such a network running for
    a week in Minnesota years ago as well. Similarly, I'm sure you'll find such
    a network at Motorola's development facilities. I don't understand the big
    deal. 900mhz is used for cordless phones. Opening up a few slices of the
    band for a week is no big deal. You can keep the transmtiters away from the
    fringes and away from known harmonics when you are dealing with this small a
    network.

    Stu
    "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
    news:cp5ssl$abk@library1.airnews.net...
    > PDA Man wrote:
    >
    >> Well, I have been in the business in the Wash DC market for 20 plus
    >> years,
    >> and am an avid gear head, and havent heard of it. I certainly do not
    >> doubt
    >> that becuase of the nature of Wash Dc and that Technology can basically
    >> do
    >> whatever it wants to provided someone has the power and the money, do not
    >> doubt it. But, I can tell you this, I am located 12 miles from the
    >> Capital
    >> and my fleet of phones pick up NOTHING in 900 MHZ.
    >>
    >
    >
    > According to Matt Weber's post, it's a ghost network and only appears when
    > it wants to.
    >
    >
    > --
    > jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    In article <96GdnSv8noXRwyvcRVn-1A@comcast.com>, PDA Man wrote:
    > Well, I have been in the business in the Wash DC market for 20 plus years,
    > and am an avid gear head, and havent heard of it. I certainly do not doubt
    > that becuase of the nature of Wash Dc and that Technology can basically do
    > whatever it wants to provided someone has the power and the money, do not
    > doubt it. But, I can tell you this, I am located 12 miles from the Capital
    > and my fleet of phones pick up NOTHING in 900 MHZ.

    There once was a GSM 900 network set up at an ITU conference, but I thought
    it was in Chicago, not Washington (but I may be wrong, don't count on the
    location). It was a very strange network, it was actually part of a Swedish
    network. The range was inside and around the convention center, not more
    than a square city block.

    The funny thing about it was that it made a profit.

    Geoff.

    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem Israel gsm@mendelson.com
    IL Voice: 972-544-608-069 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
    I may be an old fart, but I'm a high-tech, up to date old fart. :-)
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 04:02:18 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na>
    wrote:

    >When GSM World or similar conferences appear in the US, they have permitted
    >a microcell network for that purpose. There was such a network running for
    >a week in Minnesota years ago as well. Similarly, I'm sure you'll find such
    >a network at Motorola's development facilities. I don't understand the big
    >deal. 900mhz is used for cordless phones.
    the bind is the pieces that you can use in the 900Mhz band are quite
    small ( literaly a couple of Mhz), the problem is usually where to put
    the other half, because you need to find the matching bandwidth in the
    other direction. As a result these tend to be microcells with very
    modest call capacity, nowhere near enough for normal commercial use.

    > Opening up a few slices of the
    >band for a week is no big deal. You can keep the transmtiters away from the
    >fringes and away from known harmonics when you are dealing with this small a
    >network.
    >
    >Stu
    >"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
    >news:cp5ssl$abk@library1.airnews.net...
    >> PDA Man wrote:
    >>
    >>> Well, I have been in the business in the Wash DC market for 20 plus
    >>> years,
    >>> and am an avid gear head, and havent heard of it. I certainly do not
    >>> doubt
    >>> that becuase of the nature of Wash Dc and that Technology can basically
    >>> do
    >>> whatever it wants to provided someone has the power and the money, do not
    >>> doubt it. But, I can tell you this, I am located 12 miles from the
    >>> Capital
    >>> and my fleet of phones pick up NOTHING in 900 MHZ.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> According to Matt Weber's post, it's a ghost network and only appears when
    >> it wants to.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message

    > There once was a GSM 900 network set up at an ITU conference, but I thought
    > it was in Chicago, not Washington (but I may be wrong, don't count on the
    > location). It was a very strange network, it was actually part of a Swedish
    > network. The range was inside and around the convention center, not more
    > than a square city block.
    >
    > The funny thing about it was that it made a profit.
    >

    Really? Hundreds of cellphone users roaming in Swedish network and paying
    roaming fees it is not surprising at all.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    Yes, but only 900mhz users. I don't think the Ericsson I888 had hit the
    market. I don't remember whether it or the Bosch was the first world phone,
    but suffice it it to say that there weren't many multiband phones at the
    time.


    "Toomas" <tpman@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
    news:31p78jF3aeiatU1@individual.net...

    "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message

    > There once was a GSM 900 network set up at an ITU conference, but I
    > thought
    > it was in Chicago, not Washington (but I may be wrong, don't count on the
    > location). It was a very strange network, it was actually part of a
    > Swedish
    > network. The range was inside and around the convention center, not more
    > than a square city block.
    >
    > The funny thing about it was that it made a profit.
    >

    Really? Hundreds of cellphone users roaming in Swedish network and paying
    roaming fees it is not surprising at all.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:12:10 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na>
    wrote:

    >Yes, but only 900mhz users. I don't think the Ericsson I888 had hit the
    >market. I don't remember whether it or the Bosch was the first world phone,
    >but suffice it it to say that there weren't many multiband phones at the
    >time.
    The 900/1900Mhz phones is an electrical engineers nightmare come true.
    One of the reasons they took so long to come to market is the transmit
    side is a nightmare, and in fact is truly a worst case design scenario
    problem.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    matt weber wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:46:04 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > There is reason to believe it has happened more than once, and will
    > likely continue to occur. The FCC has granted short term licenses for
    > GSM 900 microcells to support specific international conferences on
    > several occaisons in the Washington DC area.
    >
    > The channels the Microcell is assigned are specifically chosen to
    > minimize interference with other services. the life expectancy of
    > these networks is about a week. So they come, and they go fairly
    > quickly. There are NO permanent 900 Mhz GSM networks in the USA.

    If the US did not have to be different from the rest of the world they
    would be using GSM900 like everyone else!


    --
    73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
    http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    In article <41b824d2$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com>, Simon Templar wrote:

    > If the US did not have to be different from the rest of the world they
    > would be using GSM900 like everyone else!

    Actually it's the other way around. The world standarized on 800mhz for
    cell phones, but the 800mHz service providers refused to give up their
    bandwith for GSM.

    GSM was originaly designed for SIM roaming, not handset roaming. It just
    so happened that all of Europe was able to kick the users of the 900 mHz
    band off, for example in the U.K. it was a citizen's band radio service.

    The irony of it is that when AT&T wireless wanted to upgrade from D-AMPS
    (TDMA), they found that C-AMPS (CDMA service) was vastly overrated and
    decided to go to GSM. At that time there was no 800mHz (GSM 850) so they
    had it built specially for them.

    If this had been done at the begining, GSM would have been 850 worldwide,
    not 900 in some places, 1800/1900* in others, and now 850 in the U.S.

    Geoff.

    * The 1800 and 1900 GSM bands overlap. Whether a phone operates on the 1800
    or 1900 or both bands is not a technical issue, but one of regulatory
    approval and marketing.

    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem Israel gsm@mendelson.com
    IL Voice: 972-544-608-069 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
    I may be an old fart, but I'm a high-tech, up to date old fart. :-)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:11:54 +1100, Simon Templar <vk3xem@vk3xem.net>
    wrote:

    >If the US did not have to be different from the rest of the world they
    >would be using GSM900 like everyone else!

    If you knew any of the reason why the US does not use GSM 900 you
    would look a whole lot less foolish! The US didn't arbitrarily decide
    not to use GSM at 900 Mhz. Do a little research before you make silly
    statements. Sheesh!

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

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

    In <41b824d2$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com> on Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:11:54
    +1100, Simon Templar <vk3xem@vk3xem.net> wrote:

    >matt weber wrote:
    >> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:46:04 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> There is reason to believe it has happened more than once, and will
    >> likely continue to occur. The FCC has granted short term licenses for
    >> GSM 900 microcells to support specific international conferences on
    >> several occaisons in the Washington DC area.
    >>
    >> The channels the Microcell is assigned are specifically chosen to
    >> minimize interference with other services. the life expectancy of
    >> these networks is about a week. So they come, and they go fairly
    >> quickly. There are NO permanent 900 Mhz GSM networks in the USA.
    >
    >If the US did not have to be different from the rest of the world they
    >would be using GSM900 like everyone else!

    The USA didn't use GSM900 because the frequency was already in use.

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

    On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:11:54 +1100, Simon Templar <vk3xem@vk3xem.net>
    wrote:

    >matt weber wrote:
    >> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:46:04 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> There is reason to believe it has happened more than once, and will
    >> likely continue to occur. The FCC has granted short term licenses for
    >> GSM 900 microcells to support specific international conferences on
    >> several occaisons in the Washington DC area.
    >>
    >> The channels the Microcell is assigned are specifically chosen to
    >> minimize interference with other services. the life expectancy of
    >> these networks is about a week. So they come, and they go fairly
    >> quickly. There are NO permanent 900 Mhz GSM networks in the USA.
    >
    >If the US did not have to be different from the rest of the world they
    >would be using GSM900 like everyone else!

    Actually it is the other way around. At time GSM was being set up, it
    was no secreat that the 900Mhz spectrum in the USA was already mostly
    in use. That is a matter of public record, Consult any of the ITU
    spectrum allocation charts. The other problem is that unlike in most
    of the world, the constitution has this thing called the 'takings'
    clause. Basically ifyou want to displace people who are already
    licensed to use spectrum, you need to buy it back, you can simply
    seize it.

    However as I pointed out, the fact that the space allocated at 900 and
    1800Mhz for Mobile phone service outside the USA, was already
    documented as having been assigned to and in use by other services
    long before there were any mobile phones using that spectrum.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
    > The 900/1900Mhz phones is an electrical engineers nightmare come true.
    > One of the reasons they took so long to come to market is the transmit
    > side is a nightmare, and in fact is truly a worst case design scenario
    > problem.

    How so and how does it differ from 900/1800 phones? Something to do with
    the fact that 1800 is approx half the wave-length of 900 where-as 1900
    wasn't and matching transmitters/circuitry/antenna was tricky?

    PD

    --
    Paul Day Web: www.bur.st/~paul GPG Key ID: 7FF655A8
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

    "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
    news:slrncrh0k3.nnr.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
    > Actually it's the other way around. The world standarized on 800mhz for
    > cell phones, but the 800mHz service providers refused to give up their
    > bandwith for GSM.

    Really? Let's see now - UK TACS 900MHz (launched 1985), Scandinavian NMT
    450MHz (launched 1981) 900MHz (launched 1986), France NMT 450MHz (1989),
    Italy TACS 900Mhz (1990), Swiss NMT 900MHz (1987), Austria NMT 450MHz (1984)
    TACS 900MHz (1990), Spain NMT 450MHz (1982) TACS 900MHz (1990).

    I don't see many 800MHz services.

    > GSM was originaly designed for SIM roaming, not handset roaming. It just
    > so happened that all of Europe was able to kick the users of the 900 mHz
    > band off, for example in the U.K. it was a citizen's band radio service.

    Wrong again - GSM was originally the baby of CEPT (Confernce Europeene des
    Postes et Telecommunications), a standardisation arena which in the early
    1980's included the European Administrations of Posts and Telecommunications
    of more than 20 European countries. In 1982 they were tasked to create a
    standardisation body to specify a unique radiocommunication system for
    Europe at 900MHz (as this band was already set aside earlier in 1978 for
    mobile communications in Europe). The body they created was "Groupe Special
    Mobile" (GSM) which held its first meeting in December 1982 in Stockholm.
    Only 31 persons from 11 counteries attended this meeting.

    In 1987 the famous GSM MoU was signed in Copenhagen (which was ammeded in
    1991 to accept members of non-CEPT counteries and extend its scope to cover
    co-operations agreements with non-signatory bodies, with Australia signing
    up in 1992). In 1988 ETSI was created and the work done under CEPT was
    transferred over to ETSI. Later GSM was renamed to "Global System for Mobile
    communication".

    So I am afraid that your idea that "GSM was originaly designed for SIM
    roaming, not handset roaming" is just plain wrong. The whole point about the
    original GSM system was all about interworking across the CEPT countries
    (including service, billing, tariffs and security) just like the postal
    service.
Ask a new question

Read More

GSM