A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.

On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article [email protected],
"Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:C2C57170.700F8%[email protected]...
>> On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article [email protected],
>> "Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:C2C55D1A.700AD%[email protected]...
>>>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
>>>> [email protected],
>>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote in
>>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>>>>> for cell phone companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>>>>> interference.
>>>>
>>>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>>>>
>>>> California has a government.
>>>>
>>>> The US has a government.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
>>>> have
>>>> California start pushing at the state level.
>>>
>>> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
>>> republic,
>>> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Naïve point of view.
>
> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
> federal republic.
>
>> The feds grabbed?
>
> Yep, common knowledge
>
>> Do you recall how the state's
>> representatives become feds?
>
> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>>
>
>

I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities as
a citizen, but there it is..........

---

› See More: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.

"Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C2C58661.70110%[email protected]...
> On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article [email protected],
> "Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:C2C57170.700F8%[email protected]...
>>> On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article
>>> [email protected],
>>> "Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:C2C55D1A.700AD%[email protected]...
>>>>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
>>>>> [email protected],
>>>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>>>>>> for cell phone companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>>>>>> interference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> California has a government.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US has a government.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives
>>>>> than
>>>>> have
>>>>> California start pushing at the state level.
>>>>
>>>> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
>>>> republic,
>>>> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Naïve point of view.
>>
>> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
>> federal republic.
>>
>>> The feds grabbed?
>>
>> Yep, common knowledge
>>
>>> Do you recall how the state's
>>> representatives become feds?
>>
>> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
>> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities
> as
> a citizen, but there it is..........

Actually being a citizen requires that you understand our form of
government, which is a federal republic, with a federal government that has
clearly defined powers. All other powers, are for the people and the states.
>

On Jul 19, 8:44 pm, "Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:C2C57170.700F8%[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article [email protected],
> > "Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:C2C55D1A.700AD%[email protected]...
> >>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
> >>> [email protected],
> >>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote in
> >>>> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
> >>>>> for cell phone companies.
>
> >>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
> >>>> interference.
>
> >>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>
> >>> California has a government.
>
> >>> The US has a government.
>
> >>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
> >>> have
> >>> California start pushing at the state level.
>
> >> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
> >> republic,
> >> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>
> > Naïve point of view.
>
> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
> federal republic.
>
> > The feds grabbed?
>
> Yep, common knowledge
>
> > Do you recall how the state's
> > representatives become feds?
>
> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep - The US Senators should be 'appointed' by the
King of the State {Oops Governor} cause their should
represent the Big {Money} People.

the divine right of money & the golden rule :
those with the gold make the rules ~ RHF
.
.
.. .

"RHF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 19, 8:44 pm, "Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:C2C57170.700F8%[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article
> > [email protected],
> > "Dana" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> "Don Bowey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:C2C55D1A.700AD%[email protected]...
> >>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
> >>> [email protected],
> >>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote
> >>>> in
> >>>> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
> >>>>> for cell phone companies.
>
> >>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
> >>>> interference.
>
> >>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>
> >>> California has a government.
>
> >>> The US has a government.
>
> >>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives
> >>> than
> >>> have
> >>> California start pushing at the state level.
>
> >> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
> >> republic,
> >> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>
> > Naïve point of view.
>
> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
> federal republic.
>
> > The feds grabbed?
>
> Yep, common knowledge
>
> > Do you recall how the state's
> > representatives become feds?
>
> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep - The US Senators should be 'appointed' by the
King of the State {Oops Governor} cause their should
represent the Big {Money} People.

And you think that the representatives and senators now publicly elected
represent the people. Come on, why do you think there are so many lobbyists
in D.C.

the divine right of money & the golden rule :
those with the gold make the rules ~ RHF
.
.
.. .

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:28 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>for cell phone companies.
>
>Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>interference.

Yeah, right - I mean ,who needs insider trading rules from govt
interfering with commerce, dratted FCC saying who can and can't use
bandwidth etc etc...

*sigh*.
--
Mark McIntyre

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:

>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>> also apply:
>>>
>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>
>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>
>If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

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

On Aug 15, 11:07 pm, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
> >> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
> >>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
> >>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
> >>>> also apply:
>
> >>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>
> >> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>
> >If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
> >including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

DOH ! Suggest that you not Reply and
Re-Cross-Post to Rec.Radio.Shortwave.
.
.
.. .

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:
>
>>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>> also apply:
>>>>
>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>
>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>
>>If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.

On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article [email protected],
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:
>
>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>> also apply:
>>>>
>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>
>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>
>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?

Brenda Ann wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:
>>
>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
>
>



I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.

Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz, and
14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
POTS digital dialup systems out now.

It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.

BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.

When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.

Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.

It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
WFMT, but less limiting.

ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
dollars.

Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
the end of a long ride.

On Aug 16, 10:29 am, D Peter Maus <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's easier, more cost effective and
> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
> much easier on the broadcaster.

Wasn't there a rumor a couple years back that the phone companies are
slowly discontinuing ISDN service? Or is that only for residential
services as opposed to radio stations?

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

Stephanie Weil wrote:
> On Aug 16, 10:29 am, D Peter Maus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's easier, more cost effective and
>> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
>> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
>> much easier on the broadcaster.
>
> Wasn't there a rumor a couple years back that the phone companies are
> slowly discontinuing ISDN service? Or is that only for residential
> services as opposed to radio stations?
>
> Stephanie Weil
> New York City, USA
>
>


They don't want to do ISDN internet services, anymore. But I'm using
ISDN as a studio-studio link. So far, no one has suggested to me that
it's not going to continue.

On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
[email protected], "D Peter Maus"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Brenda Ann wrote:
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
>>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
>>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
>> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
>> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
> client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
> line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
> an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
> Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
> modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.
>
> Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz,

I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
a POTS line.

> and
> 14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
> CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
> speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
> are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
> wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
> hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
> passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
> could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
> you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
> experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
> clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
> were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
> least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
> POTS digital dialup systems out now.
>
> It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.
>
> BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
> but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
> and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
> before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
> much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
> house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.
>
> When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
> noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
> studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
> loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
> unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
> control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
> dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.
>
> Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
> extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.
>
> It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
> WFMT, but less limiting.
>
> ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
> Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
> and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
> dollars.

AT&T didn't sell local channels. What Telco are you calling AT&T?


>
> Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
> the end of a long ride.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Don Bowey wrote:
> On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
> [email protected], "D Peter Maus"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Brenda Ann wrote:
>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
>>>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>>>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>>>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
>>> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
>>> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
>> client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
>> line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
>> an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
>> Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
>> modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.
>>
>> Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz,
>
> I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
> a POTS line.
>

ATT does. So does Verizon. And GTE,...at least before they became
Sprint. If you don't meet those figures, you can complain. They'll move
on it. It's part of the tariff structure. I spent a number of years at
working with Telcos on just this matter.





>> and
>> 14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
>> CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
>> speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
>> are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
>> wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
>> hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
>> passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
>> could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
>> you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
>> experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
>> clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
>> were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
>> least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
>> POTS digital dialup systems out now.
>>
>> It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.
>>
>> BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
>> but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
>> and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
>> before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
>> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
>> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
>> much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
>> house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.
>>
>> When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
>> noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
>> studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
>> loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
>> unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
>> control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
>> dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.
>>
>> Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
>> extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.
>>
>> It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
>> WFMT, but less limiting.
>>
>> ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
>> Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
>> and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
>> dollars.
>
> AT&T didn't sell local channels. What Telco are you calling AT&T?
>
>
>> Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
>> the end of a long ride.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On Aug 16, 4:29 am, "Brenda Ann" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <[email protected]> wrote
> > in <C2C5616E.700B1%[email protected]>:
>
> >>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article [email protected],
> >>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
> >>> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
> >>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
> >>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
> >>>>> also apply:
>
> >>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>
> >>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>
> >>If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
> >>including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> > Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> > --
> > Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's

? "STL's" ?