Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:55:49 AM

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/ap_on_hi_te/analog_...
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 12:09:12 PM

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

"Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Br_Fe.27027$bp.17432@fed1read03...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/ap_on_hi_te/analog_...
>
The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that this
problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:19:24 PM

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

"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in message
news:42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net...
>
> The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
> power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that
> this
> problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
> live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
> work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.

So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 3:03:21 PM

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

jfitz wrote:

> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 3:03:22 PM

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

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> jfitz wrote:
>
> > So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
> > for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>
> You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
> paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?

And we folks, in the boonies, thank you for your support. <g>

Notan
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:35:02 PM

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

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

In <42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:09:12 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
>power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that this
>problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
>live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
>work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.

Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers in
cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies. The
problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
and thus is taking longer.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:53:11 PM

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

"jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:D smdncLqxPxwp3ffRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

Oh no, not at all. I don't think I suggested any thing of the kind. What I
said is that digital technology works at least as well as analog in rural
areas. They already have the coverage*. All that is lacking is higher power
car phones with good external antennas. The carriers don't have to build one
single tower, they just have to make higher power phones available to people
who need them. This was common 10 years ago. You used to be able to get a
FCC type-accepted (i.e. approved) booster for the Nokia 2160 TDMA phones, so
that when you slipped the phone into the hands free unit in your car it
became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
accepted)

What I said is that since 99% of customer live within the range of a
low-power handset, the carriers have dropped the high power models and
concentrated on just low-power phones. BTW, US carriers are not alone in
this. Just try to find a "Class I" (20 Watt) GSM phone in Europe. You may
find them in Australia but they are very rare beasts. I think that carriers
who serve rural areas should address the needs of their customers. And the
customers should pay for the higher cost of these special phones.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
*Note: Some GSM rural systems may need special firmware to allow for ranges
beyond 35 km.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:00:59 PM

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:q8rGe.6182$p%3.32400@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because
subscribers in
> cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.
The
> problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the
boonies,
> and thus is taking longer.

Have you seen the FCC's old combined cellular coverage map of the US?
Believe me, the US had penty of rural coverage 8 years ago. The problem is
that it was designed around 3-watt phones with high-gain roof-mount
antennas. And it worked, you could often get over 50 miles from the nearest
tower and your phone would still work. This was not because analog was in
any way superior to digital: because it's not. You just had the power and
antenna to provide an adequate link margin. Folks in the boonies don't need
a tower every 5 miles; they just need phones and antennas that will reach
the towers they've got.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 10:50:08 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald Newcomb" wrote:

>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>accepted)

www.digitalantenna.com and www.wilsoncellular.com both sell FCC-type
accepted (when used with an appropriate antenna) amplifiers and
repeaters. I travel to the "boonies", and have an amplifier that
works for AMPS (3 W) and CDMA (2 W). It does work wonders for AMPS.
I think it helps some for CDMA, but CDMA might have some inherent
distance limitations. One of the technical folks here can probably
speak to that.

Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:53:17 AM

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

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

In <42ea992d_3@news1.prserv.net> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>*Note: Some GSM rural systems may need special firmware to allow for ranges
>beyond 35 km.

<http://www.cell-talk.com/Tower _range-5949827-1217-a.html>:

Absolute maximum range for standard GSM is 35 km. This is dictated
by the Timing Advance range being restricted to values between zero
and 63, with each step corresponding to 553.5 metres from the tower.

Configuring the available timeslots in pairs, Extended Range GSM
gives 72 km usable range, but lacks GPRS capability, and halves the
number of concurrent calls possible. Using more sensitive BTS
receivers, Enhanced Extended Range GSM been demonstrated to be usable
at 120 km (with the same drawbacks as ER).

Within these limits, usable range will depend of BTS design and
power, antenna orientation, elevation, topography (obstructions), and
many other factors (including the moisture content of any intervening
foliage).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 1:00:34 AM

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

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

In <42ea992d_3@news1.prserv.net> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>
>"jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:D smdncLqxPxwp3ffRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
>> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>
>Oh no, not at all. I don't think I suggested any thing of the kind. What I
>said is that digital technology works at least as well as analog in rural
>areas. They already have the coverage*. All that is lacking is higher power
>car phones with good external antennas. The carriers don't have to build one
>single tower, they just have to make higher power phones available to people
>who need them. This was common 10 years ago. You used to be able to get a
>FCC type-accepted (i.e. approved) booster for the Nokia 2160 TDMA phones, so
>that when you slipped the phone into the hands free unit in your car it
>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>accepted)

<http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/da4000.htm&gt;
"FCC / CSA approved"
On sale for $220

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 1:09:38 AM

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1HwGe.6324$p%3.32508@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Configuring the available timeslots in pairs, Extended Range GSM
> gives 72 km usable range, but lacks GPRS capability, and halves the
> number of concurrent calls possible. Using more sensitive BTS
> receivers, Enhanced Extended Range GSM been demonstrated to be usable
> at 120 km (with the same drawbacks as ER).

True but analog does not have GPRS either.

> Within these limits, usable range will depend of BTS design and
> power, antenna orientation, elevation, topography (obstructions), and
> many other factors (including the moisture content of any intervening
> foliage).

Right, we are talking the same limitations as analog at 50 miles. More or
less, it works from a hilltop. In the places they mentioned in the article
(e.g. S. Dakota) foliage absorption is not a big issue. We're talking about
the rural West, not northern Maine. Of course, one issue is how to make an
antenna high gain at both 850 and 1900 MHz, but that can be limited to
high-gain at 850 MHz and working reasonably well at 1900.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:03:08 AM

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

Those rural customers will just have to be willing to pay higher rates
to install enough antenna sights, and keep them operating, to provide
the coverage areas they most need. I doubt the manufacturers will start
making analog phones again, much less making them with location
technology. Those people way out in the sticks could probably use that
location tech. They may have to use a separate gps unit.

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/ap_on_hi_te/analog_...
>
>
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:46:51 AM

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

No different than it already is with the monthly "universal
connectivity fee" on my bill to service rural areas.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:19:24 -0400, "jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in message
>news:42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net...
>>
>> The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
>> power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that
>> this
>> problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
>> live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
>> work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.
>
>So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
>for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:52:08 AM

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

In <42ea9934_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:

>Have you seen the FCC's old combined cellular coverage map of the US?
>Believe me, the US had penty of rural coverage 8 years ago. The problem is
>that it was designed around 3-watt phones with high-gain roof-mount
>antennas. And it worked, you could often get over 50 miles from the nearest
>tower and your phone would still work. This was not because analog was in
>any way superior to digital: because it's not. You just had the power and
>antenna to provide an adequate link margin.

Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
distance limit due to timing slot concerns.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
comes to mind.


[a] a car top antenna with a groundplane is way, way, better
than a miniscule wire inside that Farady cage.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:52:09 AM

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

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D cebuo$blh$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In <42ea9934_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb"
<DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:
> Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
> a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
> distance limit due to timing slot concerns.
>
> I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
> comes to mind.

35 km for regular vanilla GSM. Extended range is available (at a cost). No
limit I know of for CDMA or TDMA.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 10:10:47 AM

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

While 3W is probably still legal output for an analog phone, I don't
know if 2W is legal for a CDMA cellular phone. 0.2W is the maximum
legal output for a CDMA PCS phone

Joseph Huber wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald Newcomb" wrote:
>
>
>>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>>accepted)
>
>
> www.digitalantenna.com and www.wilsoncellular.com both sell FCC-type
> accepted (when used with an appropriate antenna) amplifiers and
> repeaters. I travel to the "boonies", and have an amplifier that
> works for AMPS (3 W) and CDMA (2 W). It does work wonders for AMPS.
> I think it helps some for CDMA, but CDMA might have some inherent
> distance limitations. One of the technical folks here can probably
> speak to that.
>
> Joe Huber
> huber.joseph@comcast.net
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 11:44:10 AM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A2EB2869D1Enoone@63.223.7.253...
> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in
> news:42ea992d_3@news1.prserv.net:
>
> > All that is lacking is higher power
> > car phones with good external antennas.
>
> You boys are describing the old IMTS "Carphones".....
> Rotary-dialled narrow-band FM radio with the simplest of interfaces in the
> trunk running 10, 25, 50 watts on 152 Mhz, which is MUCH farther ranged in
> the trees of the countryside than 800 or 1900 could ever offer. Search
> Google for IMTS Carphones and check it out.

I don't think anyone is asking to bring back IMTS (which I do remember quite
well). That was a completely different service from AMPS cellular. Folks
just want a cellular system that will duplicate the coverage of the AMPS
system they already had.

Another possible solution would be a good satellite roaming system, similar
to ACeS in East Asia. This is how Globalstar was supposed to work but it
never really worked that way. Anyone dumb enough to try to activate the
cellular side of a North American Globalstar phone will find himself trying
to set up an 800 MHz only account on an old analog rate plan. You end up
with two accounts, as though it were dual NAM. One account is the satellite
side and the other is is the cellular side; they have different phone
numbers and you have to switch manually between them. It end up being much
easier to have two phones: one cellular, the other satellite. ACeS and
Thuraya phones will switch automatically between cellular (GSM 900) and
their respective satellite systems.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:04:28 PM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 06:10:47 GMT, Jerome Zelinske wrote:

> While 3W is probably still legal output for an analog phone, I don't
>know if 2W is legal for a CDMA cellular phone. 0.2W is the maximum
>legal output for a CDMA PCS phone

Why do you suppose that the amplifiers would be FCC type accepted for
CDMA with illegal output? I suppose it's possible, albiet unlikely...

Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:20:05 PM

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

In <42eb70fa_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:
[ ... ]
>> Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
>> a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
>> distance limit due to timing slot concerns.
>>
>> I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
>> comes to mind.

>35 km for regular vanilla GSM. Extended range is available (at a cost). No
>limit I know of for CDMA or TDMA.

I've got one spot in the (extended) NYC area where this an isse,
and I'd guess there are similar ones (see below).

There are ferries that travel from Long Island (east of NYC)
across Long Island Sound up to Connecticut. I made it a point
of walking around on the upper level - which gave me line
of sight to structures on the shore, and probably towers,
alomst the entire length.

For roughly the middle third of the trip the phone's display,
for whatever that's worth... showed numerous bars of
signal strength. But if I tried making a call it either
didn't succeed or I got that famous "underwater" audio
clipping and mangling.

I'd guess there are similar issues on te Great Lakes,
where coverage would be pretty useful.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:20:06 PM

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

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D cfr9k$28i$1@reader2.panix.com...
> I'd guess there are similar issues on te Great Lakes,
> where coverage would be pretty useful.

Once upon a time I was in the Mediterranean, working on and off the coast of
Italy. I had a little 4-element, 900 MHz Yagi to help and had all sorts of
"bars" but as soon as we hit 18 nm off the coast it was like a brick wall.
All the bars in the world didn't help. Needless to say, they didn't have ER
GSM.

Petrocom has set up a GSM-850 network in the northen Gulf of Mexico. I don't
know if they are using ER or not.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 5:54:02 PM

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

In message <42eb70fa_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb"
<DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>
>"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D cebuo$blh$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In <42ea9934_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb"
><DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:
>> Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
>> a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
>> distance limit due to timing slot concerns.
>>
>> I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
>> comes to mind.
>
>35 km for regular vanilla GSM. Extended range is available (at a cost). No
>limit I know of for CDMA or TDMA.

The ~35KM limit applies to all TDMA-based technologies, including what
is commonly known as "TDMA" in Canada and the US, as well as GSM and
iDEN.

--
I don't approve of political jokes...
I've seen too many of them get elected.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 8:34:40 PM

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

>In <42eb70fa_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:
> [ ... ]
>>> Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
>>> a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
>>> distance limit due to timing slot concerns.
>>>
>>> I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
>>> comes to mind.
>
>>35 km for regular vanilla GSM. Extended range is available (at a cost). No
>>limit I know of for CDMA or TDMA.

I believe the maximum range for CDMA is about 35 miles.

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 10:12:54 PM

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

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> I doubt the manufacturers will start
> making analog phones again

What do you mean by "again"?
If you buy any current Sprint phone that is priced above bargain basement,
it will be Dual-Band/Tri-Mode, which includes fallback to analog if their
is no digital signal.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 10:37:18 PM

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

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:GqPGe.2835$gt5.2524@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> > I doubt the manufacturers will start
> > making analog phones again
>
> What do you mean by "again"?
> If you buy any current Sprint phone that is priced above bargain basement,
> it will be Dual-Band/Tri-Mode, which includes fallback to analog if their
> is no digital signal.
>
> --
> John Richards

True John, but those aren't 3W phones...

Bob
July 31, 2005 1:45:01 AM

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

"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in
news:42eba6df_3@news1.prserv.net:

> Another possible solution would be a good satellite roaming system,

I have boater friends on Iridium, the failed satcom company the military
saved. $1.50/min from any point on the planet with polar LEOs, I think.
Seems to work fine. When Iridium went bankrupt, but before the govt save,
I bought one for $25, just as a souvenir. I have all the toys with it, but
won't be putting it online. It works fine outside, but, of course, is
pretty useless inside as the satellite signal is just too weak from 200
miles away at Zenith.



--
Larry
July 31, 2005 1:50:31 AM

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

"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in
news:42eba920_1@news1.prserv.net:

> Once upon a time I was in the Mediterranean, working on and off the
> coast of Italy. I had a little 4-element, 900 MHz Yagi to help and had
> all sorts of "bars" but as soon as we hit 18 nm off the coast it was
> like a brick wall. All the bars in the world didn't help. Needless to
> say, they didn't have ER GSM.
>
>

I sail on a French-made Amel Sharki 41' ketch along the southeast coast of
USA. I have a Decibel Products 800 Mhz, 11 element yagi that's end-
mounted, made for 800 Mhz paging relay service from a paging friend. It's
very broadbanded at this band. SWR is 1.15:1 across cellular after a
little tuning of the gamma match on it.

When I had Verizon's AMPS online, hooked to a 3W Motorola bagphone running
off ship's 12VDC house batteries, service was near perfect with the beam
hauled up the mast and pointed towards shore at 55' for about 45-50 miles
offshore. Every offshore sailor should be carrying a 99 cent thrift store
bagphone, even if they won't let you put it on the air! With the little
beam, it works farther than VHF marine usually does and can dial 911 by
law. Our boat has one that's not provisioned for emergency comms...another
backup.



--
Larry
July 31, 2005 1:56:15 AM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:chUGe.2338$iM7.85@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> Timing. Propagation delay over that distance gets too large.
>
> -Quick
>
>

The other problem, on land, is the multipath delays, the same physics that
causes terrible "ghosts" on UHF TV at any distance without a very
directional antenna, i.e. your little cellphone antennas. Data
transmissions, even these really slow ones, is torn apart when the direct
signal and another signal that has bounced off a building or mountain or
AIRPLANE OVERHEAD comes in later than the main signal.

When multipath occurs on FM, whether it's FM radio or FM 2-way or AMPS,
you'll hear the multipath cause the analog FM signal to fade in and out in
the fringe areas as the long path signal reinforces, then a little later
opposes the main signal. Your FM broadcast radio, VHF or UHF analog TV has
that fading in and out rapidly from a passing aluminum cloud (airplane)
going overhead. As the plane moves, the multipath signals drive it crazy.
Computers, including digital phone magic, don't like confusing signals
fading in and out rapidly or any other way. YOU moving in a car with
multipath is why the signal comes and goes and drops your call.

It's the same physics we always had....it's the same RF radio system, no
matter what the modulation schemes put on it are....



--
Larry
July 31, 2005 2:40:44 AM

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

"jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:D smdncLqxPxwp3ffRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in message
> news:42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net...
>>
>> The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
>> power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that
>> this
>> problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
>> live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
>> work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.
>
> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>

AND for those who frequently travel into the boonies.
July 31, 2005 2:40:45 AM

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

"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote in news:MlTGe.50077$5N3.36389@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> AND for those who frequently travel into the boonies.
>
>
>

And ESPECIALLY for those city dwellers with the broken fanbelt 42 miles
from the city on Route 59, 8 miles from the nearest farmhouse with a
landline.....it benefits them, too!

--
Larry
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 7:59:00 AM

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

Larry wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> news:chUGe.2338$iM7.85@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Timing. Propagation delay over that distance gets too
>> large.
>>
>> -Quick
>>
>>
>
> The other problem, on land, is the multipath delays, the
> same physics that causes terrible "ghosts" on UHF TV at
> any distance without a very directional antenna, i.e.
> your little cellphone antennas. Data transmissions, even
> these really slow ones, is torn apart when the direct
> signal and another signal that has bounced off a building
> or mountain or AIRPLANE OVERHEAD comes in later than the
> main signal.
>
> When multipath occurs on FM, whether it's FM radio or FM
> 2-way or AMPS, you'll hear the multipath cause the analog
> FM signal to fade in and out in the fringe areas as the
> long path signal reinforces, then a little later opposes
> the main signal. Your FM broadcast radio, VHF or UHF
> analog TV has that fading in and out rapidly from a
> passing aluminum cloud (airplane) going overhead. As the
> plane moves, the multipath signals drive it crazy.
> Computers, including digital phone magic, don't like
> confusing signals fading in and out rapidly or any other
> way. YOU moving in a car with multipath is why the
> signal comes and goes and drops your call.
>
> It's the same physics we always had....it's the same RF
> radio system, no matter what the modulation schemes put
> on it are....

I'm not sure, but doesn't CDMA deal really well with multipath?

-Quick
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:00:03 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:50:31 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

Every offshore sailor should be carrying a 99 cent thrift store
>bagphone,
Just what is a 99 cent thrift store phone?
TIA


Pegleg
U.S. Navy Retired
Support Our Troops

All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words:
freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Sir Winston Churchill
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:12:47 AM

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

"Bob Scheurle" <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:qtane1ls01uhc925322s3se0be6ia4tdc6@4ax.com...
> I believe the maximum range for CDMA is about 35 miles.

Any reason why? I can't think of one.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:36:13 PM

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

Notan wrote:
> Isaiah Beard wrote:

>>You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
>>paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?
>
>
> And we folks, in the boonies, thank you for your support. <g>

No problem! I like to know I'll have some form of service when I vist
the boonies. ;) 

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:36:14 PM

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

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> > Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> >>You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
> >>paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?
> >
> >
> > And we folks, in the boonies, thank you for your support. <g>
>
> No problem! I like to know I'll have some form of service when I vist
> the boonies. ;) 

City folks like you is welcome all the time. Just be sure y'all call
ahead... That way Ma can stop sloppin' the hogs and git herself all
prettied up! <g>

Notan
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:41:18 PM

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

Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:1HwGe.6324$p%3.32508@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>> Configuring the available timeslots in pairs, Extended Range GSM
>> gives 72 km usable range, but lacks GPRS capability, and halves the
>> number of concurrent calls possible. Using more sensitive BTS
>> receivers, Enhanced Extended Range GSM been demonstrated to be usable
>> at 120 km (with the same drawbacks as ER).
>
>
> True but analog does not have GPRS either.

One of the many reasons people would like to see some for of digital
service in these areas.

What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
by broadband ISPs. Data services are typically sold at a premium, and
one would think that at least some people living in these areas might be
interested in broadband enough to take a "fixed wireless" solution from
a cell carrier in lieu of nonexistent DSL or cable in these parts.
People paying such a premium to get reliable data would better justify
the cost of the building than just selling the voice service alone.


> Right, we are talking the same limitations as analog at 50 miles. More or
> less, it works from a hilltop. In the places they mentioned in the article
> (e.g. S. Dakota) foliage absorption is not a big issue. We're talking about
> the rural West, not northern Maine. Of course, one issue is how to make an
> antenna high gain at both 850 and 1900 MHz, but that can be limited to
> high-gain at 850 MHz and working reasonably well at 1900.

Considering both CDMA and GSM work just fine in the 850Mhz range, the
incumbent cellular carriers shouldn't really see the 1900MHz issue as a
problem.




--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:44:49 PM

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

Joseph Huber wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald Newcomb" wrote:
>
>
>>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>>accepted)
>
>
> www.digitalantenna.com and www.wilsoncellular.com both sell FCC-type
> accepted (when used with an appropriate antenna) amplifiers and
> repeaters. I travel to the "boonies", and have an amplifier that
> works for AMPS (3 W) and CDMA (2 W). It does work wonders for AMPS.
> I think it helps some for CDMA, but CDMA might have some inherent
> distance limitations.

Yes, CDMA has inherent distance limitations. The timing of each
transmiission by the phone must be in sync with the tower, and beyond a
certain distance it just isn't going to happen. GSM also has a distance
limitation, but I don't think it's as pronounced.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:23:19 PM

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

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 03:59:00 GMT, Quick wrote:

> I'm not sure, but doesn't CDMA deal really well with multipath?

Much better than TDMA or GSM, since CDMA can use data packets from more than
one tower during a conversation. If one tower fades another one fills in.

TDMA/GSM use only one tower at a time, handing off when needed.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:26:54 PM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:34:40 GMT, Bob Scheurle wrote:

> I believe the maximum range for CDMA is about 35 miles.

CDMA's range is limited only by the signal strength between the phone and
the closest tower. Some users have reported ranges over 50 miles.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:43:44 PM

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

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

In <42eb70fa_3@news1.prserv.net> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:54:09 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D cebuo$blh$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In <42ea9934_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb"
><DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:
>> Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
>> a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
>> distance limit due to timing slot concerns.
>>
>> I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
>> comes to mind.
>
>35 km for regular vanilla GSM. Extended range is available (at a cost). No
>limit I know of for CDMA or TDMA.

Range is roughly comparable for all three flavors.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
July 31, 2005 7:05:56 PM

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

Isaiah Beard wrote:

> What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
> out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
> GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
> by broadband ISPs. Data services are typically sold at a premium, and
> one would think that at least some people living in these areas might be
> interested in broadband enough to take a "fixed wireless" solution from
> a cell carrier in lieu of nonexistent DSL or cable in these parts.
> People paying such a premium to get reliable data would better justify
> the cost of the building than just selling the voice service alone.


It is my impression that some carriers may be more tuned to their client
base then some give them credit for. My own relatives living and
working in the boonies couldn't care less about anything other than what
they've got now - AMPS - it works for what they need it for and that's
that. Visiting them for for suppers has offered opportunities to
discuss this issue at length, and I can't say they're wrong with their
perspective. They honestly don't give a rat's ass about internet stuff,
voice mail, etc, even conference calling isn't on their list of
necessities. By the time they've finished their days work in the
fields, it's family time and all else waits until tomorrow, or next week
- even analog B&W TV suits one uncle of mine, until the sun sets and
bang! it's bedtime - 4am is time for coffee and the cows.

Okay, this is on the extreme end of the stick, but it may surprise some
that this type of person still exists in a number of rural areas (8 mi.
SW of Vernon, TX), and their particular skew on life is like another
planet compared to today's urban lifestyles. The only time my uncle has
seen more than five cars on Vernon's main street together was during a
parade. Their idea of a big city is Wichita Falls that has those ugly
skyscrapers. "GPRS? Wot'n tarnayshun is dat?" I told him... and
then... "wot wud I do widdat?" The internet Pops. "Innernet and dat
computerin stuff is fer fokes dat ain't got nuff to do".

They're convinced they don't need it and they're never gonna buy
anything they can't use, and there's a bunch of folks out there just
like them. So, how would any provider expect to sell anything other
than the most basic services to these people? Answer? They're not, so
spending the first dime for more just isn't going to happen for a while
yet. Fortunately, their wireless service comes from Vernon, well within
range of digital, so a new cell phone *is* in the cards.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 7:43:42 PM

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

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

In <tr54o8c8o54m.1d26qmt2t7l6c.dlg@40tude.net> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:23:19
GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 03:59:00 GMT, Quick wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure, but doesn't CDMA deal really well with multipath?
>
>Much better than TDMA or GSM, since CDMA can use data packets from more than
>one tower during a conversation. If one tower fades another one fills in.

It doesn't really work that way, and is still subject to the same kinds of
signal issues as TDMA (including the GSM variation of TDMA).

>TDMA/GSM use only one tower at a time, handing off when needed.

True, which has pros and cons, just as CDMA has pros and cons.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 7:44:19 PM

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

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

In <Xns96A3DFCCD92EDnoone@63.223.7.253> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:56:15 -0400,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
>news:chUGe.2338$iM7.85@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Timing. Propagation delay over that distance gets too large.
>
>The other problem, on land, is the multipath delays, ...

Nonsense.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 8:33:11 PM

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

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

In <Xns96A3DED3D71E9noone@63.223.7.253> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:50:31 -0400,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>I sail on a French-made Amel Sharki 41' ketch along the southeast coast of
>USA. I have a Decibel Products 800 Mhz, 11 element yagi that's end-
>mounted, made for 800 Mhz paging relay service from a paging friend. It's
>very broadbanded at this band. SWR is 1.15:1 across cellular after a
>little tuning of the gamma match on it.
>
>When I had Verizon's AMPS online, hooked to a 3W Motorola bagphone running
>off ship's 12VDC house batteries, service was near perfect with the beam
>hauled up the mast and pointed towards shore at 55' for about 45-50 miles
>offshore.

The critical issue there is height above the water. Otherwise the signal
would be blocked by the curvature of the earth. It's why lighthouses need to
be tall.

>Every offshore sailor should be carrying a 99 cent thrift store
>bagphone, even if they won't let you put it on the air! With the little
>beam, it works farther than VHF marine usually does and can dial 911 by
>law. Our boat has one that's not provisioned for emergency comms...another
>backup.

EPIRB makes much more sense.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 8:34:43 PM

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

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

In <1sako863vmhq9$.rf6awsaai4pk$.dlg@40tude.net> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:26:54
GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:34:40 GMT, Bob Scheurle wrote:
>
>> I believe the maximum range for CDMA is about 35 miles.
>
>CDMA's range is limited only by the signal strength between the phone and
>the closest tower. Some users have reported ranges over 50 miles.

Likewise IS-136 and iDEN (both TDMA). Only standard GSM (also TDMA) has a
timing imposed maximum range (of 35 km, not miles).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 9:15:24 PM

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

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

In <11epvpf5f2b6r38@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:41:18 -0400,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

>What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
>out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
>GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
>by broadband ISPs. Data services are typically sold at a premium, and
>one would think that at least some people living in these areas might be
>interested in broadband enough to take a "fixed wireless" solution from
>a cell carrier in lieu of nonexistent DSL or cable in these parts.
>People paying such a premium to get reliable data would better justify
>the cost of the building than just selling the voice service alone.

In a word, WiMAX.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 9:15:25 PM

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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <11epvpf5f2b6r38@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:41:18 -0400,
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
>>out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
>>GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
>>by broadband ISPs.


> In a word, WiMAX.


That word does not answer my question, but thanks for trying anyway.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 9:19:28 PM

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

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

In <11eq001ss54cr9e@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:44:49 -0400,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

>Joseph Huber wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald Newcomb" wrote:
>>
>>>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>>>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>>>accepted)
>>
>> www.digitalantenna.com and www.wilsoncellular.com both sell FCC-type
>> accepted (when used with an appropriate antenna) amplifiers and
>> repeaters. I travel to the "boonies", and have an amplifier that
>> works for AMPS (3 W) and CDMA (2 W). It does work wonders for AMPS.
>> I think it helps some for CDMA, but CDMA might have some inherent
>> distance limitations.
>
>Yes, CDMA has inherent distance limitations. The timing of each
>transmiission by the phone must be in sync with the tower, and beyond a
>certain distance it just isn't going to happen.

The only real inherent distance limitation in CDMA is signal power (given
suitable terrain). Given the right base station, 3 watt device power, and a
suitable device antenna, range of 50-80 miles is possible.

>GSM also has a distance
>limitation, but I don't think it's as pronounced.

Standard GSM has a distance limitation based on timing of 35 km. That range
can be extended to a range comparable to CDMA by changing the timing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 10:49:22 PM

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

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:19:28 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
wrote:
>The only real inherent distance limitation in CDMA is signal power (given
>suitable terrain). Given the right base station, 3 watt device power, and a
>suitable device antenna, range of 50-80 miles is possible.

I believe you are incorrect; propagation delays limit CDMA to about
35 miles.

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:08:41 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:19:24 -0400, "jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> chose to
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in message
>news:42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net...
>>
>> The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
>> power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that
>> this
>> problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
>> live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
>> work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.
>
>So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
>for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

You mean those who have CHOSEN to work their asses off to produce the food
you eat in your city? And those who have CHOSEN to cut down the trees to
provide the lumber for your house and the pulp for the newspaper you read?
And those who have CHOSEN to mine the metals that your car/bus/train are
made of and the coal that lights your city? And those who have CHOSEN to
move all that stuff to your city?

Or don't those people deserve to have cellular service just as good as
yours?

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"STOP: DRIVE SIDEWAYS" - detour sign in Kyushi, Japan
!