Florida Report on Verizon and Cingular

gerry wrote:

> Drop the "CDMA vs GSM" comparison.

It's significant, because GSM has a built-in distance limitation.

GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a tower, no
matter how strong the signal.

In a densely populated area, the 22 mile limit doesn't really matter,
since you'd have cells much closer than that anyway in order to provide
sufficient capacity. In rural areas, and coastlines, GSM is at a
disadvantage because of the 22 mile limit.

There is a variation of GSM called Extended range GSM, but it hasn't
been deployed in the U.S. as of yet.

---

› See More: Florida Report on Verizon and Cingular

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:23:08 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>gerry wrote:
>
>> Drop the "CDMA vs GSM" comparison.
>
>It's significant, because GSM has a built-in distance limitation.
>
>GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a tower, no
>matter how strong the signal.
>
>In a densely populated area, the 22 mile limit doesn't really matter,
>since you'd have cells much closer than that anyway in order to provide
>sufficient capacity. In rural areas, and coastlines, GSM is at a
>disadvantage because of the 22 mile limit.

Even in rural areas it's rarely an issue.

>There is a variation of GSM called Extended range GSM, but it hasn't
>been deployed in the U.S. as of yet.

Citation? Or just another unsubstantiated claim?

I've posted direct evidence here of Extended Range GSM here off the
coast of San Francisco. I suspect it's being used in other areas as
well.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:23:08 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>gerry wrote:
>>
>>> Drop the "CDMA vs GSM" comparison.
>>
>>It's significant, because GSM has a built-in distance limitation.
>>
>>GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a tower, no
>>matter how strong the signal.
>>
>>In a densely populated area, the 22 mile limit doesn't really matter,
>>since you'd have cells much closer than that anyway in order to provide
>>sufficient capacity. In rural areas, and coastlines, GSM is at a
>>disadvantage because of the 22 mile limit.
>
> Even in rural areas it's rarely an issue.
>
>>There is a variation of GSM called Extended range GSM, but it hasn't
>>been deployed in the U.S. as of yet.
>
> Citation? Or just another unsubstantiated claim?
>
> I've posted direct evidence here of Extended Range GSM here off the
> coast of San Francisco.

You mean you've posted unsubstantiated, anecdotal suspicions of vaporware
usage.


>I suspect it's being used in other areas as
> well.
>

I suspect you don't have a clue about it.

John Navas wrote:
> 100 feet. Satisfied?

I would have been satisfied if you'd omitted both the "Satisfied?" and
the cute little winkie.

--
St. John
Weinberg's Principle:
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while
sweeping on to the grand fallacy.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:56:41 -0400, "St. John Smythe" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> 100 feet. Satisfied?
>
>I would have been satisfied if you'd omitted both the "Satisfied?" and
>the cute little winkie.

Sorry -- that was really in response to the intervening nasty responses,
not your question.

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

Scott wrote:

>> I've posted direct evidence here of Extended Range GSM here off the
>> coast of San Francisco.
>
> You mean you've posted unsubstantiated, anecdotal suspicions of vaporware
> usage.

Given his history of lies in this newsgroup, he's going to have to come
up with actual evidence, not simply a claim that he was out on his boat
at a specific location, and had coverage.

His statements remind me of the quote, "It is not necessary to
understand things in order to argue about them." Caron de Beaumarchais

George wrote:

> VZW has battery and generators on each site. Ask anyone who went thru
> the Florida hurricanes and had VZW why they were the most popular person
> on their block for weeks after the storms.

LOL, it's a familiar story for the person with VZW to suddenly become
popular like that! I was talking to my son's den master this morning
about a hike the pack is doing in Sanborn Park (near Saratoga, CA) next
Saturday. He said that his daughter's school class had had a hike in the
same park last school year, and the bus didn't arrive to pick them up.
He was the only person able to make a call, using AMPS on his Verizon
tri-mode phone. There was no CDMA or GSM coverage where they were at the
park, just one bar of AMPS, which was sufficient.

John Navas wrote:
>> I was picking up some relatives from a cruise at Port Canaveral, and it
>> was interesting to note that they could use their Verizon phones very
>> far from the shore (about 50 miles), ...
>
> Color me very skeptical.

Must have been "extended CDMA" [/snicker mode]

John Navas wrote:
>> GSM has a hard limit of about 22 miles, though one person in
>> the U.S. has extended range GSM.
>
> Extended range GSM has range comparable to CDMA2000.

But of course extended GSM is not deployed in the U.S.

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:56:39 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:50:15 -0400, gerry <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:16:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>RichC wrote:
>>>
>>>> Verizon is the only service I've had since I moved to Florida & the coverage
>>>> is great. The only place where it's a little spotty for me is on Alligator
>>>> alley. Did you use an external antenna to get coverage 50 miles out? I never
>>>> thought it would extend that far.
>>>
>>>I wasn't on the cruise, I was picking up some people. CDMA has no
>>>problem at 50 miles (though I don't know if the people were on AMPS or
>>>on CDMA). GSM has a hard limit of about 22 miles, though one person in
>>>the U.S. has extended range GSM.
>>
>>
>>Drop the "CDMA vs GSM" comparison.
>>
>>What matters more is tower locations and which frequency is being used.
>>1.8 GHz attenuates much faster (shorter distance) in humid air or other
>>substance than 800 MHz.
>
>Signal propagation is actually just a function of distance, not
>frequency. (<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>)

In a vacuum, note the comment about "absorption" below. Humid air
attenuation is a function of frequency.

gerry

> Other
>factors include reflection, diffraction, scattering, absorbtion, and
>transmit power. The primary difference between 800 and 1900 (not 1800)
>bands is the lower power permitted in 1900, but that's only a range
>difference of about 18%, and only matters when range is limited only by
>power (e.g., not by terrain), which is relatively rare.


--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry mis*****ed in my email address to confuse robots

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:54:46 -0400, George <[email protected]> wrote
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> And another feature is that Verizon doesn't omit things like batteries,
>> generators and redundant data paths. ...
>
> Likewise other carriers, including Cingular.

Wrong yet again, but then...you are not a cellular professional and
would not know this.

Of the several hundred AT&T towers in Missouri, of which all are the
same configuration and of which I have personally been inside about
fifty the cabinets, none of the had a back up power system including
batteries.

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:23:08 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>gerry wrote:
>
>> Drop the "CDMA vs GSM" comparison.
>
>It's significant, because GSM has a built-in distance limitation.
>
>GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a tower, no
>matter how strong the signal.

22 miles rarely is the issue, obstruction or attenuation (can be via
multiple mechanisms) more often is the problem.

An example in my local area. Both Verizon (800+ MHz) works fine in the
summer. Sprint (~1.9GHz) works in the winter but not in the summer! The
difference is the foliage canopy.

gerry

>
>In a densely populated area, the 22 mile limit doesn't really matter,
>since you'd have cells much closer than that anyway in order to provide
>sufficient capacity. In rural areas, and coastlines, GSM is at a
>disadvantage because of the 22 mile limit.
>
>There is a variation of GSM called Extended range GSM, but it hasn't
>been deployed in the U.S. as of yet.
\

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry mis*****ed in my email address to confuse robots

John Navas wrote:
> Signal propagation is actually just a function of distance, not
> frequency. (<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>) Other
> factors include reflection, diffraction, scattering, absorbtion, and
> transmit power. The primary difference between 800 and 1900 (not 1800)
> bands is the lower power permitted in 1900, but that's only a range
> difference of about 18%, and only matters when range is limited only by
> power (e.g., not by terrain), which is relatively rare.


You are bound and determined to find references to "prove" your
statement that a higher frequency as less range by pulling up citations
that don't address the freq vs range factor or obfusicate it with other
factors.

Your citation above is a perfect example - it points out a myriad of
other factors the limit the range. It does NOT imply, much less state
that frequency is a factor.

John Navas wrote:
> Citation? Or just another unsubstantiated claim?

Like extended GSM....

John Navas wrote:
> I've posted direct evidence here of Extended Range GSM here off the
> coast of San Francisco. I suspect it's being used in other areas as
> well.

Not so.

You posted that your personal experience was evidence in itself. You
posted that an engineer told you so.

You did NOT post any verified and credible evidence.

Hardly direct evidence, much less anything that meets your strict
standards you demand of others.