FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:13:06 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:50:52 -0600,
>> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >And how many sites in the FQ were inside? Any? And how many of those
>> >inside cells had full access to the outside world?
>>
>> I don't know. Do you? Regardless, it is quite possible to have coverage with
>> a limited number of "hardened" sites.
>
>Then your original statement, "But not all, especially those inside
>structures" is not based in fact.

At least as much fact as your statements.

>> >They operate under the same guidelines as landline
>>
>> Cellular and landline are regulated differently.
>
>Yes they are- your point?

That your statement was incorrect.

>Maybe you missed the FCC public notices issued
>after the hurricane, putting many more restrictions on cellular in dealing
>with their affected customers. It would appear that there is no difference
>in time of need. Of course, you'll disagree, as you refuse to be proven
>wrong.

I will indeed disagree, because you are misinformed.

>> >and show much quicker recovery rates.
>>
>> Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
>
>Examples of landline coming up quicker?

Landline frequently stays up in emergencies.

>> >Your focus is misguided, as usual.
>>
>> Ad hominem. Grow up.
>
>Your repeated use of this phrase in your post shows that maybe I'm not the
>one needing to grow up.

Neener, neener? How childish.

No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
13:13:06 -0600,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
09:50:52 -0600,
> >> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >And how many sites in the FQ were inside? Any? And how many of those
> >> >inside cells had full access to the outside world?
> >>
> >> I don't know. Do you? Regardless, it is quite possible to have
coverage with
> >> a limited number of "hardened" sites.
> >
> >Then your original statement, "But not all, especially those inside
> >structures" is not based in fact.
>
> At least as much fact as your statements.

As I have direct knowledge, that would be incorrect......again.

>
> >> >They operate under the same guidelines as landline
> >>
> >> Cellular and landline are regulated differently.
> >
> >Yes they are- your point?
>
> That your statement was incorrect.
>
> >Maybe you missed the FCC public notices issued
> >after the hurricane, putting many more restrictions on cellular in
dealing
> >with their affected customers. It would appear that there is no
difference
> >in time of need. Of course, you'll disagree, as you refuse to be proven
> >wrong.
>
> I will indeed disagree, because you are misinformed.

Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer.

>
> >> >and show much quicker recovery rates.
> >>
> >> Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
> >
> >Examples of landline coming up quicker?
>
> Landline frequently stays up in emergencies.

Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for such
a self-professed smart guy.

>
> >> >Your focus is misguided, as usual.
> >>
> >> Ad hominem. Grow up.
> >
> >Your repeated use of this phrase in your post shows that maybe I'm not
the
> >one needing to grow up.
>
> Neener, neener? How childish.
>
> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all.
>

No meaningful response to anything from you, which is so typical. I guess
you got what you give.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:58:47 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As I have direct knowledge, that would be incorrect......again.

Except that you clearly don't.

>Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer.

Not really, since you don't seem able to be enlightened.

>> Landline frequently stays up in emergencies.
>
>Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for such
>a self-professed smart guy.

Knock yourself out. But wait ... you've not had any examples of your own, so
....

>> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all.
>
>No meaningful response to anything from you, which is so typical. I guess
>you got what you give.

Not even a good try.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

As a ham op who uses Morse code, it has the advantage of using very
little power to go a long way.

But, morse code is dead, for all practical matters, but not the very low
power rtty dsp run modes.

Emergency communications is an ART and takes careful planning.
1)You have to be able to communicate with a local infra structure.
1) Sattelite phones
2) Ham HF
3) ham vhf to a distant repeater using a yagi.

2)You must have power.
1)This means that you must have a generator with lots of gasoline.
2)have solar cell array to charge you batteries.

Every year out ham club has a SET (Simulated Emergency Test), and we
have to work arround problems like no land lines, phone lines, etc and
it not EASY, and sometimes NOT possible.

I guess what I am saying, cell phones and line lines are NOT going to
work in these situations. Other test means have to be in place.

Chip

Tropical Haven wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Why should the FCC mandate that an outdated
>> technology be resurected?
>> - -
>>
>>
> Because, it would create jobs in the telegraph industry, not to mention
> the time and effort it would take to make sure *everyone* know Morse
> Code. Some of the copper companies would also have economic benefit,
> especially if they ship on the steam powered locomotive.
>
> TH

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
20:58:47 -0600,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >As I have direct knowledge, that would be incorrect......again.
>
> Except that you clearly don't.

Then go ahead and cite my credentials and knowledge base, as that is the
only way you make such a statement. However, I do realize this task is far
above both your knowledge of the subject and ability as a Usenet poster.

>
> >Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer.
>
> Not really, since you don't seem able to be enlightened.

So, when asked for details, you are unable to provide them. I seem to be
the last one here to have a problem with enlightenment.

>
> >> Landline frequently stays up in emergencies.
> >
> >Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for
such
> >a self-professed smart guy.
>
> Knock yourself out. But wait ... you've not had any examples of your own,
so

I was not asked for any, and will be glad to provide such once you have
given examples of landline coming up before cellular in this type of
situation.

> ...
>
> >> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all.
> >
> >No meaningful response to anything from you, which is so typical. I
guess
> >you got what you give.
>
> Not even a good try.

Try at what? I simply stated the truth.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:40:29 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 18 Sep 2005
>20:58:47 -0600,
>> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >As I have direct knowledge, that would be incorrect......again.
>>
>> Except that you clearly don't.
>
>Then go ahead and cite my credentials and knowledge base, as that is the
>only way you make such a statement. ...

On the contrary -- your lack of knowledge is evident from the content of your
posts.

>> >Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer.
>>
>> Not really, since you don't seem able to be enlightened.
>
>So, when asked for details, you are unable to provide them. ...

I've provided sufficient details. You just don't like them.

>> >Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for such
>> >a self-professed smart guy.
>>
>> Knock yourself out. But wait ... you've not had any examples of your own, so
>
>I was not asked for any,

You've made several unsupported claims. One wonders if you have anything to
back them up.

>and will be glad to provide such once you have
>given examples of landline coming up before cellular in this type of
>situation.

I didn't think so.

>> >> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all.
>> >
>> >No meaningful response to anything from you, which is so typical. I guess
>> >you got what you give.
>>
>> Not even a good try.
>
>Try at what? I simply stated the truth.

You were actually confirming your lack of knowledge of WPS, even now, when
you've had ample opportunity to check the link I provided and/or search on
your own.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
17:40:29 -0600,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>


> >
> >Then go ahead and cite my credentials and knowledge base, as that is the
> >only way you make such a statement. ...
>
> On the contrary -- your lack of knowledge is evident from the content of
your
> posts.

Wow- a post from Navas without substance- what a shock.


> >
> >So, when asked for details, you are unable to provide them. ...
>
> I've provided sufficient details. You just don't like them.

You've provided no details- you are incapable of doing so. Although I do
notice that your 'opinion' is frequently cited in your posts- your uniformed
opinion is of no worth here.


> >I was not asked for any,
>
> You've made several unsupported claims. One wonders if you have anything
to
> back them up.

I do, and will be more than happy to share once you have backed up your own
unsupported and false claims (many of which are in this thread).

>
> >and will be glad to provide such once you have
> >given examples of landline coming up before cellular in this type of
> >situation.
>
> I didn't think so.

That's the problem- you don't think. You only spout your uniformed opinion
and take great offense when it is shown to be incorrect. In fact, very
little of what you post is based in fact and most of it is nothing more than
your little attempt at Usenet humor. It falls far short of entertaining. I
see in another thread you are now second guessing MBA's. So, that would
make you a self-professed expert in:

Accounting
Law
Music Copyrights
Cellular technology
Computer science
Marketing

I'm sure I missed a few, but one of the regulars will be sure to add to the
list.

>
> >> >> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all.
> >> >
> >> >No meaningful response to anything from you, which is so typical. I
guess
> >> >you got what you give.
> >>
> >> Not even a good try.
> >
> >Try at what? I simply stated the truth.
>
> You were actually confirming your lack of knowledge of WPS, even now, when
> you've had ample opportunity to check the link I provided and/or search on
> your own.
>
> --

I took the Navas approach- never directly answer the post- just act like a
moron. From your response, I must have perfected the impression.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:13 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>[SNIP content-free ad hominem]

Since you had nothing of substance to say, I have no response, thus giving you
the last word you so clearly crave. "Move along, folks, nothing more to see
here."

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 14 Sep 2005
> 21:20:49 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>True- AMPS phones can generally operate over a greater distance than
>>CDMA/GSM/iDen phones.
>
>
> Both CMDA and GSM will work over great distances.

Five miles is NOT a great distance for CDMA...Perhaps in Australia, but
CDMA has only a 5 mile or so range in the U.S.

Google Australia and CDMA and compare what U.S. CDMA can do.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 19 Nov 2005
06:20:34 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 14 Sep 2005
>> 21:20:49 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>True- AMPS phones can generally operate over a greater distance than
>>>CDMA/GSM/iDen phones.
>>
>> Both CMDA and GSM will work over great distances.
>
>Five miles is NOT a great distance for CDMA...Perhaps in Australia, but
>CDMA has only a 5 mile or so range in the U.S.
>
>Google Australia and CDMA and compare what U.S. CDMA can do.

U.S. CDMA works over distances much greater than 5 miles, on the order of
10-20 miles, depending on tower and terrain.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
MY HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
<http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
>>John Navas wrote:
> U.S. CDMA works over distances much greater than 5 miles, on the order of
> 10-20 miles, depending on tower and terrain.

Ummm...you haven't engineered much CDMA, have you?

Past 5 miles the timing has too much latency and it simply won't work.
The U.S. CDMA carries intentionally set the timing limit.

Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 20 Nov 2005
15:34:57 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>> U.S. CDMA works over distances much greater than 5 miles, on the order of
>> 10-20 miles, depending on tower and terrain.
>
>Ummm...you haven't engineered much CDMA, have you?

Ummm...no, but I've actually done quite a bit of testing, in addition to both
specs and coverage maps.

>Past 5 miles the timing has too much latency and it simply won't work.
>The U.S. CDMA carries intentionally set the timing limit.

Sure you're not thinking of TDMA? But even TDMA has range well in excess of
5 miles -- standard GSM has a range of 35 km, or more than 20 miles, and
Extended Range GSM is capable of much more.

>Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so.

Ever hear of rural and coastal areas? Apparently not. Pilot pollution is an
issue in dense area, not sparse areas.

25 km, or a little over 15 miles, is considered nominal range for CDMA *when*
such range is needed, as in the case of relatively flat rural and coastal
areas.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> Ummm...no, but I've actually done quite a bit of testing, in addition to both
> specs and coverage maps.

Ok, so you're not a wireless professional then, just a user.

> Sure you're not thinking of TDMA? But even TDMA has range well in excess of
> 5 miles -- standard GSM has a range of 35 km, or more than 20 miles, and
> Extended Range GSM is capable of much more.

No, not thinking of TDMA. TDMA is great, have made 30 mile hops with it.

>>Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so.
>
> Ever hear of rural and coastal areas? Apparently not. Pilot pollution is an
> issue in dense area, not sparse areas.

Oh kayyyyyyyy.....and you got the $50,000 worth of test equpiment in
your van to verify this? "Apparently not" Opps...forgot, you're not a
wireless professional then, just a user.

> 25 km, or a little over 15 miles, is considered nominal range for CDMA *when*
> such range is needed, as in the case of relatively flat rural and coastal
> areas.

Normal? For who????????

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

In <B24gf.21211$q%[email protected]> on Sun, 20 Nov 2005
19:23:13 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Ummm...no, but I've actually done quite a bit of testing, in addition to both
>> specs and coverage maps.
>
>Ok, so you're not a wireless professional then, just a user.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

>>>Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so.
>>
>> Ever hear of rural and coastal areas? Apparently not. Pilot pollution is an
>> issue in dense area, not sparse areas.
>
>Oh kayyyyyyyy.....and you got the $50,000 worth of test equpiment in
>your van to verify this? "Apparently not" Opps...forgot, you're not a
>wireless professional then, just a user.

No need for all that -- see below.

>> 25 km, or a little over 15 miles, is considered nominal range for CDMA *when*
>> such range is needed, as in the case of relatively flat rural and coastal
>> areas.
>
>Normal? For who????????

Few weeks ago I was over 12 NM from land (as the Navigator I had both chart
and triple GPS confirmation of that) on a racing sailboat, and was able to
make CDMA digital (as well as GSM) calls. Floating towers?!

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>