Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16
    Ronny Julian
    Guest

    Re: GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?

    OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.

    "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There are

    always
    > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If you

    think
    > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not have
    > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir. It
    > > cannot be done.
    > >
    > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact footprint

    of a
    > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking

    about is
    > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that kind

    of
    > > accuracy.
    > >
    > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a building or
    > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It

    happens
    > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost effective.

    >
    > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their maps.
    >
    > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.






    See More: GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?




  2. #17
    Røbert M
    Guest

    Re: GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.


    Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
    They are drawn by the marketing department

    >
    > "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There are

    > always
    > > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If you

    > think
    > > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not have
    > > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir. It
    > > > cannot be done.
    > > >
    > > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact footprint

    > of a
    > > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking

    > about is
    > > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that kind

    > of
    > > > accuracy.
    > > >
    > > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a building or
    > > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It

    > happens
    > > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost effective.

    > >
    > > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their maps.
    > >
    > > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.




  3. #18
    Ronny Julian
    Guest

    Re: GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?

    And your point would be?



    "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.

    >
    > Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
    > They are drawn by the marketing department
    >
    > >
    > > "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There

    are
    > > always
    > > > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If

    you
    > > think
    > > > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not

    have
    > > > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir.

    It
    > > > > cannot be done.
    > > > >
    > > > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact

    footprint
    > > of a
    > > > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking

    > > about is
    > > > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that

    kind
    > > of
    > > > > accuracy.
    > > > >
    > > > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a

    building or
    > > > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It

    > > happens
    > > > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost

    effective.
    > > >
    > > > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their

    maps.
    > > >
    > > > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.






  4. #19
    Røbert M
    Guest

    Re: GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > And your point would be?



    That all Carriers have violated their industry designed agreement to
    make available maps showing where coverage is generally available.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.

    > >
    > > Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
    > > They are drawn by the marketing department
    > >
    > > >
    > > > "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > > > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There

    > are
    > > > always
    > > > > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If

    > you
    > > > think
    > > > > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not

    > have
    > > > > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir.

    > It
    > > > > > cannot be done.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact

    > footprint
    > > > of a
    > > > > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking
    > > > about is
    > > > > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that

    > kind
    > > > of
    > > > > > accuracy.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a

    > building or
    > > > > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It
    > > > happens
    > > > > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost

    > effective.
    > > > >
    > > > > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their

    > maps.
    > > > >
    > > > > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.




  5. #20
    Ronny Julian
    Guest

    Re: GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?

    And that means what to anyone but you?


    "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > And your point would be?

    >
    >
    > That all Carriers have violated their industry designed agreement to
    > make available maps showing where coverage is generally available.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other

    thread.
    > > >
    > > > Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
    > > > They are drawn by the marketing department
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > > > > "Ronny Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post.

    There
    > > are
    > > > > always
    > > > > > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems.

    If
    > > you
    > > > > think
    > > > > > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will

    not
    > > have
    > > > > > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land

    sir.
    > > It
    > > > > > > cannot be done.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact

    > > footprint
    > > > > of a
    > > > > > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are

    talking
    > > > > about is
    > > > > > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show

    that
    > > kind
    > > > > of
    > > > > > > accuracy.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a

    > > building or
    > > > > > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal.

    It
    > > > > happens
    > > > > > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost

    > > effective.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with

    their
    > > maps.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.






  • Similar Threads

    1. Apple (iPhone)
    2. Motorola
    3. LG Voyager
    4. Nokia
    5. alt.cellular.nokia



  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12