The great "walkie-talkie" wars .... who will win?

Always A Next Test for Nextel

By Yuki Noguchi

Nextel Communications Inc. defies those who think it's charting
the wrong course, or won't be big enough to survive.

For 16 years, the Reston firm championed a walkie-talkie
service that all its major competitors are now copying. It
recently doubled network capacity, despite predictions it
would tap out the radio spectrum required to carry its traffic.
Nextel, the nation's fifth-largest mobile phone carrier, grew
despite the squeeze on the economy, posting profit for the
first time last year. Past talks with potential merger partners,
including serious ones with WorldCom Inc., led nowhere, and
it has become an important Washington area employer, with a
local workforce of 2,000 and $8.7 billion in revenue last year.
Analysts are expecting it to announce another profitable
quarter today.

"People have been saying that Nextel will run out of spectrum
for years," Nextel Chief Operating Officer Tom Kelly said
testily, as if he's been asked that question too many times.
"We have plenty of spectrum for 10 years, at least."

So why, then, is the company facing another round of
skepticism about its future?

In part, it's because Nextel's signature service -- its
walkie-talkie feature that lets users push a button to
talk to other Nextel users -- is under attack by rivals.
Its largest competitor, Verizon Wireless, rolled out a
copycat feature in August. Sprint PCS and AT&T Wireless
are planning to introduce their own versions next year.

Meanwhile, Nextel is the only major cellular carrier that
hasn't laid out a plan to offer high-speed Internet service
on its network. Also, regulators are stalling on a Nextel-backed
plan to exchange its existing spectrum for more valuable
airwaves, in return for eliminating cell-phone interference
with public safety systems. And finally, a new rule allowing
consumers to keep their phone numbers when switching providers
is expected to touch off even more price wars and competition
in the industry.

Yet Kelly, in an interview last week, declined to indulge
in any speculation about Nextel's future plans about spectrum,
mergers, technology choices or competitive plans. "It is not
in our best interest to discuss that," he said.

That doesn't put a stop to the probing.

"For Nextel, the challenge is: How in the world are they
going to be competitive with these other, larger carriers?"
said Albert Lin, a telecom analyst with American Technology
Research. Unlike most wireless carriers, Nextel doesn't have
the backing of a large parent company or affiliate that can
help market a package such as local and long-distance phone
service and high-speed Internet access, he said. It also can't
match the marketing muscle of rivals, he said.

In recent years, it managed to stay largely above the
competitive fray, thanks in part to its trademark product -- the
walkie-talkie -- which is used by well over 90 percent of its
subscribers, who pay a premium for the privilege.

Walkie-talkies are more than just a feature; they're the
foundation of Nextel. Begun as Fleet Call Inc. in 1987,
Nextel spent years buying spectrum from a series of small
walkie-talkie carriers around the country, cobbling
together slices of airwaves that eventually made up a
national network. The technology Nextel uses in its
network is also unique; it was developed by Motorola Inc.,
which now supplies more than 95 percent of Nextel's phones.
The walkie-talkie feature allowed Nextel to play up its image
as a "workhorse" phone service -- one that appealed to
construction workers, delivery truck and taxi drivers willing
to pay more for Nextel's sturdy radio phones that let them
talk without having to dial numbers. So even though its rivals
are bigger -- Verizon Wireless has about 35 million customers,
three times Nextel's 11.7 million -- the average Nextel bill is
fatter, at about $70 a month, or roughly $8 to $20 more than
the average of other companies.

That's why Verizon Wireless's introduction of its walkie-talkie
service struck at the heart of Nextel and was tantamount to a
declaration of war -- one that is being fought by both companies
in court.

In June, Verizon Wireless sued Nextel for "corporate espionage,"
claiming Nextel officials took possession of two unreleased
Verizon phones and then tested them hundreds of times without
Verizon Wireless's permission. Nextel denied any illegal
activity and vowed to defend itself in court. Last month,
Nextel countersued, claiming Verizon Wireless misrepresented
the quality of Nextel's network in its recent advertisements.

While both suits make their way through the legal process,
Nextel is trying to trademark its phrase "push to talk" to
block its use by others in the industry. It has dismissed
Verizon's walkie-talkie service as slower and inferior, and
Kelly said competition won't force Nextel to cut prices to keep
customers.

"As far as a price war is concerned, that's the stupidest
thing a wireless carrier can do," he said.

Meanwhile, analysts say it's not clear how Nextel will be
able to match competitors with new technologies.

It will be harder for it to develop products that stand
out for being newer or better than the competition, Lin
said. Though the proprietary Motorola technology served
Nextel well in the past, it won't be cheap or easy to
upgrade to the types of technology other wireless carriers
use, he said. "At some point, Nextel will transition from
being the leader to looking like one of many, to one of the
technology laggards," he said.

Verizon Wireless recently launched super-high-speed Internet
access on its network in pilot markets in Washington and
San Diego. Cingular Wireless and AT&T Wireless are planning
rollouts of a different type of high-speed data service next year.

That could undermine Nextel's grasp on the business customer,
said Brian Marshall, vice president of mobile services at
Fairfax consulting firm American Management Systems Inc.
"The reasons to buy Nextel as opposed to Verizon go down.
The question becomes: 'Why get a Nextel phone when we could
get this?' "

The primary problem that analysts and some sources close to
the company identify is spectrum -- a scarce resource that
becomes more valuable as the use of wireless technologies
increases. Nextel's spectrum is a hodgepodge of airwaves
licenses accumulated from the mom-and-pop operations it
purchased at its founding. Nextel's 800-megahertz spectrum
interweaves with a host of other users in the same
frequency band, including the public safety radio users.
That has caused interference with public safety systems
and periodic outages in emergency systems around the
country. Analysts say the inconsistency of its spectrum
also limits Nextel's ability to develop high-speed
wireless Internet services.

"The bear story on Nextel is whether they have enough
spectrum," says Susan Kalla, an analyst with Friedman,
Billings, Ramsey & Co. They aren't offering high-speed
Internet access, and their efforts to secure the scarce
resource haven't panned out, she said. "They've got a
long-term problem."

Nextel so far has two potential plans to get new spectrum: One
is a $144 million bid it has placed to purchase high-frequency
spectrum from WorldCom, which can be configured to transmit
high-speed Internet services if the Federal Communications
Commission approves it for that use. It is also lobbying the
FCC to accept a plan that would allow Nextel to essentially
exchange its existing spectrum in the public-safety band for
more valuable spectrum in a higher frequency, in return for
contributing $850 million to the relocation of all users in
the 800MHz range.

Insiders at Nextel said executives were infuriated when
Motorola sent a letter to the FCC suggesting a technical
fix that could preempt the spectrum swap Nextel desired.
Although Nextel is still its largest customer, Motorola,
they said, was trying to curry favor and potential business
with some of Nextel's competitors.

The FCC denied that the process has been delayed.
Solving the interference issue is difficult, complex and
still undecided, said Edmond Thomas, chief of the FCC's
engineering and technology division. "Alternatives are being
discussed every day."

Nextel executives pooh-pooh the idea that they lack enough
spectrum to compete in wireless data, and they contend
rivals are pushing a high-speed Internet technology for
which there is currently little demand. Text messaging and
other data applications still account for less than 3
percent of wireless companies' revenue, they said.

"We are as involved in developing data and data applications
as anyone in the industry," said Nextel's Kelly. But it's
still too easy to hack into wireless networks and compromise
security when using it for the Internet, he said.

It's not wise to invest billions of dollars in something
that may not pay off, he added. "I don't think speed is the
issue with data. At the end of the day, people are not that
interested in paying for things that they can stop at their
office or their desktop and get for free."
============================================
Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...r=emailarticle

---

› See More: The great "walkie-talkie" wars .... who will win?

Who cares.......the walkie talkie feature, unless you are in
the construction business etc, is nothing but a gimmick aimed
at kids. Like the camera phone, realtors might be a good market,
but other than kids, it's a gimmick. The quality of the picture
is horrible.



>Always A Next Test for Nextel
>
>By Yuki Noguchi
>
>Nextel Communications Inc. defies those who think it's charting
>the wrong course, or won't be big enough to survive.
>
>For 16 years, the Reston firm championed a walkie-talkie
>service that all its major competitors are now copying. It
>recently doubled network capacity, despite predictions it
>would tap out the radio spectrum required to carry its traffic.
>Nextel, the nation's fifth-largest mobile phone carrier, grew
>despite the squeeze on the economy, posting profit for the
>first time last year. Past talks with potential merger partners,
>including serious ones with WorldCom Inc., led nowhere, and
>it has become an important Washington area employer, with a
>local workforce of 2,000 and $8.7 billion in revenue last year.
>Analysts are expecting it to announce another profitable
>quarter today.
>

Name withheld by request wrote:
> Who cares.......the walkie talkie feature, unless you are in
> the construction business etc, is nothing but a gimmick aimed
> at kids. Like the camera phone, realtors might be a good market,
> but other than kids, it's a gimmick. The quality of the picture
> is horrible.


Anyone reading the fine print at the bottom of all the TV adverts will
notice the images presented are simulations - not the real deals. Which
should tell you something about their confidence in their own product's
capability.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:50:42 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> said:

>Name withheld by request wrote:
>> Who cares.......the walkie talkie feature, unless you are in
>> the construction business etc, is nothing but a gimmick aimed
>> at kids. Like the camera phone, realtors might be a good market,
>> but other than kids, it's a gimmick. The quality of the picture
>> is horrible.
>
>
>Anyone reading the fine print at the bottom of all the TV adverts will
>notice the images presented are simulations - not the real deals. Which
>should tell you something about their confidence in their own product's
>capability.


I guess you haven't noticed that every single ad for a TV always says
that same thing, too...even the ad from which I bought my Sony Wega,
which is by no means something Sony has no confidence in.

[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:50:42 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> said:
>
>
>>Name withheld by request wrote:
>>
>>>Who cares.......the walkie talkie feature, unless you are in
>>>the construction business etc, is nothing but a gimmick aimed
>>>at kids. Like the camera phone, realtors might be a good market,
>>>but other than kids, it's a gimmick. The quality of the picture
>>>is horrible.
>>
>>
>>Anyone reading the fine print at the bottom of all the TV adverts will
>>notice the images presented are simulations - not the real deals. Which
>>should tell you something about their confidence in their own product's
>>capability.
>
>
>
> I guess you haven't noticed that every single ad for a TV always says
> that same thing, too...even the ad from which I bought my Sony Wega,
> which is by no means something Sony has no confidence in.


And now you know why I lend no credence to adverts - anyone's adverts.

You actually spent money on a wega? Poor soul, next time, get a Panny
plasma - then the truth will set you free.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:42:16 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>Always A Next Test for Nextel
>
Thanks for the article. Who's PTT service in the business sector has
nothing to do with phones, hype, advertising or giveaways.
Subcontractors in the building business (electricians, drywall
installers, roofers, plumbers, etc.) are simply told in their
contracts that they MUST have a Nextel PTT phone on all key personnel,
written right into their contracts. No Nextel, no contract.

Businesses doing business with these people, ever looking to make
selling them something more convenient, have all Nextel phones, too,
and give out their group numbers freely to anyone who wants to buy
something.

Contractors, ever trying to get more contracts, POST their Nextel
group numbers on the side of their truck advertising so that
prospective buyers and main contractors can easily call them on PTT
for the same reason. Their group number is on the truck right under
their phone number for those unfortunates who don't have Nextel PTT.

The shell around this long-standing phenomenon is made more of granite
than egg and is going to be very hard to crack. They all already have
their phones, which are far more rugged than the glitzy kiddie toys
with the flashing antennas, fragile cases and cheap Chinese equipment.
You can't crawl up under a house dragging a V60 under your belt in the
dirt. You can the Nextel foldup iDEN phones. They are less glitzy
and more "Motorola" in nature. Hold one in your hand and you can
easily see the difference. The "cover" is only a cover to protect the
keys and mic hole. It's easily replaceable. The plumber knows that,
too......

Nextel doesn't give a damn about Verizon's kiddie kustomers......

Estimated earnings of $1.11/share this year:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NXTL&d=t
and recovering very nicely within a dollar of its 52 week highs from
the telecom/internet crash:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NXTL&t=5y
it doesn't look like their investors are in a panic over Verizon's
idiotically long connection and switching delays the other cellular
customers will suffer unless some internet miracle happens. Nextel's
iDEN system is a TRUNKED RADIO system with a telephone interconnect,
made for PTT service.....not a duplex cellular service made for phone
calls, loaded up with internet data service and cluged-up VoIP phones.

Wallstreet agrees, which is the only thing that's important:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=NXTL
being that it is a public company.......(c;



Larry W4CSC

US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
condemning Apartheid Wall.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
Can apartheid at home be far away?....
Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!

One market for PTT that will get cracked is newspapers. Most of us have
switched from proprietary two-way systems to c-phones over the last 10-12
years for a variety of reasons. A few went Nextel to keep the two-way, but
are being severely hampered by the low Nextel data speeds for transmitting
photos and stories from the field. 1XRTT offers a very significant advantage
and I have already seen papers seriously considering dropping Nextel for one
or another 1x service. I expect my shop to consider it, at least for photo,
when Alltel offers it (and when we finally get OS 10 on our Macs, older OS
versions have been tricky to use at 1x speed). We actually would probably
have gone Nextel, but we were early on the c-phone thing and Nextel was not
available. Then we didn't want to change phone numbers.


--
Thomas M. Goethe


"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:42:16 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Always A Next Test for Nextel
> >
> Thanks for the article. Who's PTT service in the business sector has
> nothing to do with phones, hype, advertising or giveaways.
> Subcontractors in the building business (electricians, drywall
> installers, roofers, plumbers, etc.) are simply told in their
> contracts that they MUST have a Nextel PTT phone on all key personnel,
> written right into their contracts. No Nextel, no contract.
>
> Businesses doing business with these people, ever looking to make
> selling them something more convenient, have all Nextel phones, too,
> and give out their group numbers freely to anyone who wants to buy
> something.
>
> Contractors, ever trying to get more contracts, POST their Nextel
> group numbers on the side of their truck advertising so that
> prospective buyers and main contractors can easily call them on PTT
> for the same reason. Their group number is on the truck right under
> their phone number for those unfortunates who don't have Nextel PTT.
>
> The shell around this long-standing phenomenon is made more of granite
> than egg and is going to be very hard to crack. They all already have
> their phones, which are far more rugged than the glitzy kiddie toys
> with the flashing antennas, fragile cases and cheap Chinese equipment.
> You can't crawl up under a house dragging a V60 under your belt in the
> dirt. You can the Nextel foldup iDEN phones. They are less glitzy
> and more "Motorola" in nature. Hold one in your hand and you can
> easily see the difference. The "cover" is only a cover to protect the
> keys and mic hole. It's easily replaceable. The plumber knows that,
> too......
>
> Nextel doesn't give a damn about Verizon's kiddie kustomers......
>
> Estimated earnings of $1.11/share this year:
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NXTL&d=t
> and recovering very nicely within a dollar of its 52 week highs from
> the telecom/internet crash:
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NXTL&t=5y
> it doesn't look like their investors are in a panic over Verizon's
> idiotically long connection and switching delays the other cellular
> customers will suffer unless some internet miracle happens. Nextel's
> iDEN system is a TRUNKED RADIO system with a telephone interconnect,
> made for PTT service.....not a duplex cellular service made for phone
> calls, loaded up with internet data service and cluged-up VoIP phones.
>
> Wallstreet agrees, which is the only thing that's important:
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=NXTL
> being that it is a public company.......(c;
>
>
>
> Larry W4CSC
>
> US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
> condemning Apartheid Wall.
> http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
> Can apartheid at home be far away?....
> Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!
>
>

As 801.11-whatever goes to higher and higher powers and spreads, like
cellular did at its AMPS inception, these stopgap internet options,
like the pagers were by cellular, will be overrun by WiFi's much
broader bandwidth. It already is in some markets. There is a demand
for it.

What amazes me is that cable internet providers haven't simply
installed Wi-Fi nodes, already, hanging from their lines. The lines
are present on all poles across the cities and someone must be making
nodes for them. Like you do at home, you'd simply have to be within a
few hundred feet from a TV cable line (look around, it's everywhere)
and would pay a premium to have it added to your cable broadband bill.
Cellular would hardly be able to compete with true broadband.

Wonder how much cellular interests are paying the bureaucrats and
politicians to keep high powered WiFi from being a reality? I've yet
to see a cellular internet connection that didn't really SUCK.





On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:23:58 -0400, "Thomas M. Goethe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> One market for PTT that will get cracked is newspapers. Most of us have
>switched from proprietary two-way systems to c-phones over the last 10-12
>years for a variety of reasons. A few went Nextel to keep the two-way, but
>are being severely hampered by the low Nextel data speeds for transmitting
>photos and stories from the field. 1XRTT offers a very significant advantage
>and I have already seen papers seriously considering dropping Nextel for one
>or another 1x service. I expect my shop to consider it, at least for photo,
>when Alltel offers it (and when we finally get OS 10 on our Macs, older OS
>versions have been tricky to use at 1x speed). We actually would probably
>have gone Nextel, but we were early on the c-phone thing and Nextel was not
>available. Then we didn't want to change phone numbers.
>
>
>--
>Thomas M. Goethe
>
>
>"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:42:16 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Always A Next Test for Nextel
>> >
>> Thanks for the article. Who's PTT service in the business sector has
>> nothing to do with phones, hype, advertising or giveaways.
>> Subcontractors in the building business (electricians, drywall
>> installers, roofers, plumbers, etc.) are simply told in their
>> contracts that they MUST have a Nextel PTT phone on all key personnel,
>> written right into their contracts. No Nextel, no contract.
>>
>> Businesses doing business with these people, ever looking to make
>> selling them something more convenient, have all Nextel phones, too,
>> and give out their group numbers freely to anyone who wants to buy
>> something.
>>
>> Contractors, ever trying to get more contracts, POST their Nextel
>> group numbers on the side of their truck advertising so that
>> prospective buyers and main contractors can easily call them on PTT
>> for the same reason. Their group number is on the truck right under
>> their phone number for those unfortunates who don't have Nextel PTT.
>>
>> The shell around this long-standing phenomenon is made more of granite
>> than egg and is going to be very hard to crack. They all already have
>> their phones, which are far more rugged than the glitzy kiddie toys
>> with the flashing antennas, fragile cases and cheap Chinese equipment.
>> You can't crawl up under a house dragging a V60 under your belt in the
>> dirt. You can the Nextel foldup iDEN phones. They are less glitzy
>> and more "Motorola" in nature. Hold one in your hand and you can
>> easily see the difference. The "cover" is only a cover to protect the
>> keys and mic hole. It's easily replaceable. The plumber knows that,
>> too......
>>
>> Nextel doesn't give a damn about Verizon's kiddie kustomers......
>>
>> Estimated earnings of $1.11/share this year:
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NXTL&d=t
>> and recovering very nicely within a dollar of its 52 week highs from
>> the telecom/internet crash:
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NXTL&t=5y
>> it doesn't look like their investors are in a panic over Verizon's
>> idiotically long connection and switching delays the other cellular
>> customers will suffer unless some internet miracle happens. Nextel's
>> iDEN system is a TRUNKED RADIO system with a telephone interconnect,
>> made for PTT service.....not a duplex cellular service made for phone
>> calls, loaded up with internet data service and cluged-up VoIP phones.
>>
>> Wallstreet agrees, which is the only thing that's important:
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=NXTL
>> being that it is a public company.......(c;
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry W4CSC
>>
>> US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
>> condemning Apartheid Wall.
>> http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
>> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
>> Can apartheid at home be far away?....
>> Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!
>>
>>
>
>


Larry W4CSC

US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
condemning Apartheid Wall.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
Can apartheid at home be far away?....
Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!

You miss part of the point. PTT is a very valuable feature among
workgroups such as newspaper photographers. PTT is not so valuable for most
typical cellular users. PTT voice won't be addressed by Wi Fi anywhere in
the near term. News dinks need better coverage than Nextel provides and
faster data connections. We can be rather pleased with what Verizon is
offering. PTT is a bonus. We have no contracts that require us to use
Nextel.

Further, Wi Fi does not address getting photos out from remote locations
that are currently well served by cellular. You may not be satisfied with
cellular Internet connections but they work pretty well for my purposes,
sending pictures back to the newspaper and monitoring email. And we are just
around the corner from much higher speeds from cellular. The early reports
on the Verizon EV-DO are pretty good.

What I don't understand is why you hate digital cellular but are so
quick to embrace Wi Fi. Sure, they could hang access points all over their
cables (which will work really swell here since most of them are
underground), but is there really a market when they already have the wires
going into the homes?

If you like Wi Fi because it somehow keeps you from having to deal with
monopolistic, evil corporations, I am sure you will be a lot happier with
Time-Warner.

The only places where setting up high speed wireless Internet access is
justified is where there is a market for mobile use or there isn't land
based service available, UNLESS you can piggy back it on some existing
technology such as cellular with attendant gains in spectrum efficiency or
sales of additional (and admittedly frivolous) services like camera phones
and games.

And yeah, I am sure there is a vast, dark consortium that lives solely
to prevent the spread of Wi Fi. I am sure T-Mobile and Verizon are at the
heart of it.


--
Thomas M. Goethe




"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As 801.11-whatever goes to higher and higher powers and spreads, like
> cellular did at its AMPS inception, these stopgap internet options,
> like the pagers were by cellular, will be overrun by WiFi's much
> broader bandwidth. It already is in some markets. There is a demand
> for it.
>
> What amazes me is that cable internet providers haven't simply
> installed Wi-Fi nodes, already, hanging from their lines. The lines
> are present on all poles across the cities and someone must be making
> nodes for them. Like you do at home, you'd simply have to be within a
> few hundred feet from a TV cable line (look around, it's everywhere)
> and would pay a premium to have it added to your cable broadband bill.
> Cellular would hardly be able to compete with true broadband.
>
> Wonder how much cellular interests are paying the bureaucrats and
> politicians to keep high powered WiFi from being a reality? I've yet
> to see a cellular internet connection that didn't really SUCK.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:23:58 -0400, "Thomas M. Goethe"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > One market for PTT that will get cracked is newspapers. Most of us
have
> >switched from proprietary two-way systems to c-phones over the last 10-12
> >years for a variety of reasons. A few went Nextel to keep the two-way,
but
> >are being severely hampered by the low Nextel data speeds for
transmitting
> >photos and stories from the field. 1XRTT offers a very significant
advantage
> >and I have already seen papers seriously considering dropping Nextel for
one
> >or another 1x service. I expect my shop to consider it, at least for
photo,
> >when Alltel offers it (and when we finally get OS 10 on our Macs, older
OS
> >versions have been tricky to use at 1x speed). We actually would probably
> >have gone Nextel, but we were early on the c-phone thing and Nextel was
not
> >available. Then we didn't want to change phone numbers.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Thomas M. Goethe
> >
> >
> >"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:42:16 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >Always A Next Test for Nextel
> >> >
> >> Thanks for the article. Who's PTT service in the business sector has
> >> nothing to do with phones, hype, advertising or giveaways.
> >> Subcontractors in the building business (electricians, drywall
> >> installers, roofers, plumbers, etc.) are simply told in their
> >> contracts that they MUST have a Nextel PTT phone on all key personnel,
> >> written right into their contracts. No Nextel, no contract.
> >>
> >> Businesses doing business with these people, ever looking to make
> >> selling them something more convenient, have all Nextel phones, too,
> >> and give out their group numbers freely to anyone who wants to buy
> >> something.
> >>
> >> Contractors, ever trying to get more contracts, POST their Nextel
> >> group numbers on the side of their truck advertising so that
> >> prospective buyers and main contractors can easily call them on PTT
> >> for the same reason. Their group number is on the truck right under
> >> their phone number for those unfortunates who don't have Nextel PTT.
> >>
> >> The shell around this long-standing phenomenon is made more of granite
> >> than egg and is going to be very hard to crack. They all already have
> >> their phones, which are far more rugged than the glitzy kiddie toys
> >> with the flashing antennas, fragile cases and cheap Chinese equipment.
> >> You can't crawl up under a house dragging a V60 under your belt in the
> >> dirt. You can the Nextel foldup iDEN phones. They are less glitzy
> >> and more "Motorola" in nature. Hold one in your hand and you can
> >> easily see the difference. The "cover" is only a cover to protect the
> >> keys and mic hole. It's easily replaceable. The plumber knows that,
> >> too......
> >>
> >> Nextel doesn't give a damn about Verizon's kiddie kustomers......
> >>
> >> Estimated earnings of $1.11/share this year:
> >> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NXTL&d=t
> >> and recovering very nicely within a dollar of its 52 week highs from
> >> the telecom/internet crash:
> >> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NXTL&t=5y
> >> it doesn't look like their investors are in a panic over Verizon's
> >> idiotically long connection and switching delays the other cellular
> >> customers will suffer unless some internet miracle happens. Nextel's
> >> iDEN system is a TRUNKED RADIO system with a telephone interconnect,
> >> made for PTT service.....not a duplex cellular service made for phone
> >> calls, loaded up with internet data service and cluged-up VoIP phones.
> >>
> >> Wallstreet agrees, which is the only thing that's important:
> >> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=NXTL
> >> being that it is a public company.......(c;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Larry W4CSC
> >>
> >> US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
> >> condemning Apartheid Wall.
> >> http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
> >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
> >> Can apartheid at home be far away?....
> >> Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> Larry W4CSC
>
> US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
> condemning Apartheid Wall.
> http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
> Can apartheid at home be far away?....
> Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!
>
>

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:11:06 -0400, "Thomas M. Goethe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You miss part of the point. PTT is a very valuable feature among
>workgroups such as newspaper photographers. PTT is not so valuable for most
>typical cellular users. PTT voice won't be addressed by Wi Fi anywhere in
>the near term. News dinks need better coverage than Nextel provides and
>faster data connections. We can be rather pleased with what Verizon is
>offering. PTT is a bonus. We have no contracts that require us to use
>Nextel.

Excellent. Please remember that Verizon didn't build Verizon.
Verizon merely ACQUIRED Verizon. GTE didn't build a lot of it,
either. The reason for its long reach is AMPS companies GTE bought
up, like Cellular One. I find its PTT offering very lacking because
the delays are very disturbing to the flow of conversation.

Do you use the PTT to a group of people at once? More than two others
you could use with much better service than on a conference call? Too
bad your newspaper centrex doesn't have a conference center your group
could call to connect all the group together in an unlimited
conference call, which is as good as being there except you can't see
the editor scowl at your ideas..(c;....without stepping back into the
dark ages of two-way radios. Check with your office landline system
to see if that can be done for you. It's a matter of setting up a
conference phone number you all would call....or be called from.
Someone calls the number and presses a number to call the other group
members. Once connected, the conference is full duplex as if you all
were on the phone....much more useful. Noone can interrupt this PTT
toy to make a point like they could on a conference call. If your
office system doesn't support it, your landline carrier will do it for
you. Check them out. Conference calls in full duplex aren't new.
>
> Further, Wi Fi does not address getting photos out from remote locations
>that are currently well served by cellular. You may not be satisfied with
>cellular Internet connections but they work pretty well for my purposes,
>sending pictures back to the newspaper and monitoring email. And we are just
>around the corner from much higher speeds from cellular. The early reports
>on the Verizon EV-DO are pretty good.

Are these photos publishable? All the ones I've seen are so small and
low resolution as to be nearly useless, unless perhaps they are going
into the want ads for houses where low res pictures can hide faults
with a house.

On Wi-Fi you can quickly transfer megabyte-sized professional pictures
straight out of the photographer's digital cameras.
>
> What I don't understand is why you hate digital cellular but are so
>quick to embrace Wi Fi. Sure, they could hang access points all over their
>cables (which will work really swell here since most of them are
>underground), but is there really a market when they already have the wires
>going into the homes?

I don't hate digital cellular. I hate the way it was shoved down the
public's throat without proper oversight from its regulators, allowing
proprietary modulation schemes to prevent churning and phones that can
be locked onto a company with passwords so you have no choice of
carriers. CDMA, GSM, TDMA, 1XRTT....the new list of proprietary
modulation schemes designed to make sure phone sales keep increasing
is a bunch of nonsense. If we "improve" the system every couple of
years, we can play the same obsolescense games the computer business
has been getting away with....spoon feeding "new and improved" on the
public by force if we can get former modulation schemes turned off so
their "old phone" no longer works when we come out with "new and
improved". That was NOT why the FCC gave them such a wonderful band
of frequencies to use with so many channels. AMPS was, and is,
UNIVERSAL across the systems. Every AMPS carrier will connect with an
AMPS phone and no other proprietary nonsense was permitted. Someone
must have been bribed because in the entire history of the FCC, it has
always been the FCC which set the standard they must all follow....if
they'd like a license. This new precedence is very dangerous. What's
next, incompatible TVs that only get FOX? FM radios that will only
play Clear Channel Communications stations? Very dangerous to the
consumer...same as his proprietary, controlled, locked-on cellular
phone. If it were THEIR phone, I wouldn't care as much. But, like
his TV, it's HIS phone, useless without the proprietary, incompatible
system it was programmed for......that's my concern.

Of course, I'd like a toyphone that works, with stiff fines and other
licensing incentives to keep the licensees from diverting
infrastructure funds away from the construction of radio equipment to
provide the proper level of service into the advertising, marketing
and glitz departments. If MegaCom has a hole in their licensed area
in Booville, west of Central Street, MegaCom should be given 30 days
to "correct it" or face stiff FCC fines and enforcement actions
against their license, just like every other public radio service the
FCC regulates. WABC runs 50KW on 770 Khz, not because they want to
pay the light bill on a 55KW load on the grid, but because they are
REQUIRED to run 50KW and provide an RF field level across their
license area, properly enforced by a "Proof of Performance" done at
regular intervals. Consumers shouldn't have to call MegaCom Wireless
to report the hole in Booville. Mega's engineering company should
have reported that hole to them and the FCC long ago and that hole
should have been filled before any NAL (notice of apparent liability)
was issued by FCC's enforcement bureau.....just like it would to WABC.

As it is now, there's no penalty at all. There's no churning because
all the cellular companies coverage sucks, just some worse than
others. Turning the phone's power down to the milliwatt level just to
increase airtime/square mile revenues was just more mud thrown at the
customers as it made their problem worse. Nothing will be done until
the Enforcement Bureau starts doing its job.

>
> If you like Wi Fi because it somehow keeps you from having to deal with
>monopolistic, evil corporations, I am sure you will be a lot happier with
>Time-Warner.

I like Wi-Fi because it DOESN'T share already limited resources with
narrow-band voice lines. In many areas, cities, the phone system is
already loaded up all day with voice traffic. Now, we're going to add
more and more data services to the load. Those pictures are far more
load than 8Kbps low-grade digital voice to the problem. That's those
dropped calls people experience. Wi-Fi wouldn't suffer from this
malady as only computers will be on the system at much higher, more
efficient speeds. 2.4 Ghz is also capable of much wider bandwidths
than 800 Mhz cellular's or 1900 Mhz PCS voice channels. 802.11 was
designed, like iDEN for PTT, to provide data service, completely. All
that needs to be done to make 802.11 shine is for the FCC to allow
POWER to increase. A 3W to 5W transmitter in your notebook won't
significantly lower it's already short-lived battery pack. PDAs would
suffer, but that's not much of a wifi market. Put up respectable
802.11 cells and 5W notebook transmitters and cellular internet will
be an overpriced joke.
>
> The only places where setting up high speed wireless Internet access is
>justified is where there is a market for mobile use or there isn't land
>based service available, UNLESS you can piggy back it on some existing
>technology such as cellular with attendant gains in spectrum efficiency or
>sales of additional (and admittedly frivolous) services like camera phones
>and games.

Yes. The technology is that lower coax cable swinging under the phone
lines. Cable TV internet systems only need to add a Wi-Fi node
hanging from the cables between poles to make it happen. The DC power
and broadband access is already right inside that shield. Every town
in the country, even tiny ones, are getting cable broadband that's
faster than a T1 incoming. Someone must be pulling the strings to
keep them from offering WiFi to every neighborhood and office around
the town. Look up....the broadband infrastructure to provide you REAL
broadband to that laptop is right over your head. In cities with
underground utilities, it only needs to hang out a window or ride up a
light pole.
>
> And yeah, I am sure there is a vast, dark consortium that lives solely
>to prevent the spread of Wi Fi. I am sure T-Mobile and Verizon are at the
>heart of it.
>
>
You can bet the national cellular organizations will fight it as much
or more than they have number portability......it's a major threat.



Larry W4CSC

US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
condemning Apartheid Wall.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
Can apartheid at home be far away?....
Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!

"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:11:06 -0400, "Thomas M. Goethe"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Excellent. Please remember that Verizon didn't build Verizon.
> Verizon merely ACQUIRED Verizon. GTE didn't build a lot of it,
> either. The reason for its long reach is AMPS companies GTE bought
> up, like Cellular One.

And that matters how?

> I find its PTT offering very lacking because
> the delays are very disturbing to the flow of conversation.

I suspect I will have the same problem. I found the delay when going
from a simplex system to a repeater system slightly annoying and the delay
when going from a one channel repeater system to a Motorola trunked even
more annoying. For real irritation there was the original analog GE trunked
system. I suspect the VZW PTT will be further along that space time
continium of irritation.
>
> Do you use the PTT to a group of people at once? More than two others
> you could use with much better service than on a conference call? Too
> bad your newspaper centrex doesn't have a conference center your group
> could call to connect all the group together in an unlimited
> conference call, which is as good as being there except you can't see
> the editor scowl at your ideas..(c;....without stepping back into the
> dark ages of two-way radios.

We have such a system and it is such a hassle to implement that it is
never used. It was far too time consuming to set up when you were trying to
alert the folks on the other side of the fire scene that the wind was about
to blow their way. The phone bridge was one of the ways they conned us out
of our Motorola MX-330's. PTT is far easier.

>
> Are these photos publishable? All the ones I've seen are so small and
> low resolution as to be nearly useless, unless perhaps they are going
> into the want ads for houses where low res pictures can hide faults
> with a house.

Say what? We publish them frequently. How do you think all the stuff got
back from the war? I can send a 300 to 500k JPEG file in a minute or so on a
VZW 1x phone and that has all the resolution we need for a four or five
column photo. Honest, I do this for a living at one of the larger papers in
the country, 300,000 plus circulation. New York Times, LA Times, all of us
are doing this. You can't do this with analog digital phones. Honest, we
tried.

>
> On Wi-Fi you can quickly transfer megabyte-sized professional pictures
> straight out of the photographer's digital cameras.

Files don't need to be a meg to produce perfectly acceptable results on
newsprint. Honest. I do this for a living.

>
> I don't hate digital cellular. I hate the way it was shoved down the
> public's throat without proper oversight from its regulators, allowing
> proprietary modulation schemes to prevent churning and phones that can
> be locked onto a company with passwords so you have no choice of
> carriers.

I will agree with locking phones. The modulation schemes have something
to do with profits since you can probably get by with less hardware to carry
a given number of subscribers on CDMA. With the NIMBY problem on new towers
and the cost of infrastructure that does move the advantage to CDMA. 1X has
the advantage of backward compatibility. And my results with AMPs while
roaming was never as sanguine as yours. I had too many occasions where I had
to wait for verification of my account that came after I left an area. The
most amusing was with GTE in the early 90's. I had a GTE Tampa phone that
GTE San Francisco would not let me use for two days. By then I had moved
onto a PACTEL area where I was able to immediately use the phone. No
problems with my CDMA phones.

>
> Of course, I'd like a toyphone that works, with stiff fines and other
> licensing incentives to keep the licensees from diverting
> infrastructure funds away from the construction of radio equipment to
> provide the proper level of service into the advertising, marketing
> and glitz departments.

That works for me. I am certainly missing the build quality of old
Motorola/NEC/OKI stuff. And it might be nice to have some minimums enforced
on service.

>
> I like Wi-Fi because it DOESN'T share already limited resources with
> narrow-band voice lines. In many areas, cities, the phone system is
> already loaded up all day with voice traffic.

Actually, that is an argument for the newer standards as we get more
voice into the same bandwidth. A spot for your regulators to watch is how
that bandwidth is used. Priority should go to voice, not data. But if we
want to use it, AMPS is going to have to go.


>........... Put up respectable
> 802.11 cells and 5W notebook transmitters and cellular internet will
> be an overpriced joke.

I don't know enough about bandwidth on 802.11 to be sure there is space
for all this. There are only 11 channels in the US. How many users can use
those same channels at the same time? And how much overlap can there be
between cells? This does sound good for rural areas not yet wired for cable
(and it is being done). There is also an attraction for areas with high
population density, especially high roller high tech sorts, but I just can't
see it in most of suburbia.

>
> Yes. The technology is that lower coax cable swinging under the phone
> lines. Cable TV internet systems only need to add a Wi-Fi node
> hanging from the cables between poles to make it happen.

But as I pointed out, the cable is NOT swinging from poles in many
places. It is underground. And if it is already there, why bother with
wireless? Yes, you can run it up light poles, but will they want to spend
the money when they aren't going to pick up many subscribers? Most of the
folks who want wireless at home can just drop a few bucks for a wireless
router, plug it into their cable or DSL and off they go. No extra fee to the
cable company.


--
Thomas M. Goethe

It would be nice, but in the city I live it, those of us that have
amateur radios, or commercial VHF/UHF radios call our town
an "RF junkyard". Some of the commercial pager companies
have the deviation set so high, that they can page from DC
to microwaves LOL. It's been said that our city is one of the
hardest to propogate an RF signal into or out of without
interference.




>
>What amazes me is that cable internet providers haven't simply
>installed Wi-Fi nodes, already, hanging from their lines. The lines
>are present on all poles across the cities and someone must be making
>nodes for them. Like you do at home, you'd simply have to be within a
>few hundred feet from a TV cable line (look around, it's everywhere)
>and would pay a premium to have it added to your cable broadband bill.
>Cellular would hardly be able to compete with true broadband.
>
>Wonder how much cellular interests are paying the bureaucrats and
>politicians to keep high powered WiFi from being a reality? I've yet
>to see a cellular internet connection that didn't really SUCK.
>
>

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:13:28 -0400, "Thomas M. Goethe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> We have such a system and it is such a hassle to implement that it is
>never used. It was far too time consuming to set up when you were trying to
>alert the folks on the other side of the fire scene that the wind was about
>to blow their way. The phone bridge was one of the ways they conned us out
>of our Motorola MX-330's. PTT is far easier.
>
That's unfortunate. You should get your telecom carrier to set up a
demonstration of their own system to see if it meets your needs
better. I have friends in broadcast news that use such a system,
right on the air at times. It's not their system, it's setup by
Bell$outh. They simply dial a telephone number on any cellular
carrier into Bell$outh's system. Then push a group button to
touchtone the system into action. Everyone else gets called by the
POTS carrier which has already connected them all up in full duplex.
If one fails, the system keeps the others connected and continues to
redial the dead cellphone number(s), as necessary, to reconnect the
group until cancelled by a group member, assuring connectivity if any
is possible. They still use AMPS for the same reason as I do. It
simply works better away from the city and major interstates.
>>
>> Are these photos publishable? All the ones I've seen are so small and
>> low resolution as to be nearly useless, unless perhaps they are going
>> into the want ads for houses where low res pictures can hide faults
>> with a house.
>
> Say what? We publish them frequently. How do you think all the stuff got
>back from the war? I can send a 300 to 500k JPEG file in a minute or so on a
>VZW 1x phone and that has all the resolution we need for a four or five
>column photo. Honest, I do this for a living at one of the larger papers in
>the country, 300,000 plus circulation. New York Times, LA Times, all of us
>are doing this. You can't do this with analog digital phones. Honest, we
>tried.
>
I'm glad it all works for you. Thanks for telling us. I had no
intention of doing this on an analog phone.
>>
>> On Wi-Fi you can quickly transfer megabyte-sized professional pictures
>> straight out of the photographer's digital cameras.
>
> Files don't need to be a meg to produce perfectly acceptable results on
>newsprint. Honest. I do this for a living.
>
Ok...
>>
>> I don't hate digital cellular. I hate the way it was shoved down the
>> public's throat without proper oversight from its regulators, allowing
>> proprietary modulation schemes to prevent churning and phones that can
>> be locked onto a company with passwords so you have no choice of
>> carriers.
>
> I will agree with locking phones. The modulation schemes have something
>to do with profits since you can probably get by with less hardware to carry
>a given number of subscribers on CDMA. With the NIMBY problem on new towers
>and the cost of infrastructure that does move the advantage to CDMA. 1X has
>the advantage of backward compatibility. And my results with AMPs while
>roaming was never as sanguine as yours. I had too many occasions where I had
>to wait for verification of my account that came after I left an area. The
>most amusing was with GTE in the early 90's. I had a GTE Tampa phone that
>GTE San Francisco would not let me use for two days. By then I had moved
>onto a PACTEL area where I was able to immediately use the phone. No
>problems with my CDMA phones.
>
Verizon IS GTE, though not in name. Partnering with Vodaphone didn't
change the company's basic issues here. I don't think CDMA is a
"problem", IF everyone was using CDMA and everyone wasn't locked out
so the phone's PRL prevented its use while standing in the shadow of a
working tower, something they cannot prevent an AMPS phone from doing.
>>
>> Of course, I'd like a toyphone that works, with stiff fines and other
>> licensing incentives to keep the licensees from diverting
>> infrastructure funds away from the construction of radio equipment to
>> provide the proper level of service into the advertising, marketing
>> and glitz departments.
>
> That works for me. I am certainly missing the build quality of old
>Motorola/NEC/OKI stuff. And it might be nice to have some minimums enforced
>on service.
>
It's crazy the FCC does, in effect, nothing. The old "buildout"
excuse has long past, used successfully for years and years to keep
from investing in less profitable areas, which created the holes we
all know about. It's time to force them to provide service ACROSS THE
ENTIRE LICENSE AREA. If they refuse, the area needs to be either
turned over to a company who will do it or the area needs to be
divided up so a different company can come into these areas and
provide the needed service. They've had plenty of time to build a
COMPLETE communications system, now.....and if they can afford the
massive advertising and marketing which is in the billions, they can
afford to install the infrastructure to service the customers.
>>
>> I like Wi-Fi because it DOESN'T share already limited resources with
>> narrow-band voice lines. In many areas, cities, the phone system is
>> already loaded up all day with voice traffic.
>
> Actually, that is an argument for the newer standards as we get more
>voice into the same bandwidth. A spot for your regulators to watch is how
>that bandwidth is used. Priority should go to voice, not data. But if we
>want to use it, AMPS is going to have to go.
>
AMPS will go as soon as there is a tower every 2 miles across the
license area that can service a 200 milliwatt peanut-whistle of a
phone. Hell, some of them only put out 150 mw, now! Even 2 miles is
stretching the limit of a readable signal attenuated over that area.
The phones STILL, no matter what marketing thinks or says, must have a
signal level 20-30db above the background noise of a hot parking lot
or it's NO GO on signal.
>
>>........... Put up respectable
>> 802.11 cells and 5W notebook transmitters and cellular internet will
>> be an overpriced joke.
>
> I don't know enough about bandwidth on 802.11 to be sure there is space
>for all this. There are only 11 channels in the US. How many users can use
>those same channels at the same time? And how much overlap can there be
>between cells? This does sound good for rural areas not yet wired for cable
>(and it is being done). There is also an attraction for areas with high
>population density, especially high roller high tech sorts, but I just can't
>see it in most of suburbia.
>
In downtown Charleston, at Ashley Marina where my friend has his 41'
ketch docked, the guy next door has a secure internet 802.11b in a box
about 10' above the floating dock on DSL. The marina has an open
802.11b network for all to use and a repeater to extend its range on
the face dock in a lounge for transient boaters. I get two more
signals from various hospitals and companies in range of the boat's
navigation table with a simple Linksys 802.11b plugin in the side of
the notebook we use for navigation and control at sea.

Using the weaker signal from the marina under the 95% signal from the
bow of the boat, I get near DSL speeds 99% of the time with 35-50%
signal levels. This is all with a milliwatt-level standard modem with
no external antenna.

Imagine how nice that would work if the notebook had a real antenna
and a few watts of RF power to a proper, not amateur-installed,
professional 802.11-whatever network.

It'll happen. I keep watching that Knology Cable coax for new
boxes...(c;
>>
>> Yes. The technology is that lower coax cable swinging under the phone
>> lines. Cable TV internet systems only need to add a Wi-Fi node
>> hanging from the cables between poles to make it happen.
>
> But as I pointed out, the cable is NOT swinging from poles in many
>places. It is underground. And if it is already there, why bother with
>wireless? Yes, you can run it up light poles, but will they want to spend
>the money when they aren't going to pick up many subscribers? Most of the
>folks who want wireless at home can just drop a few bucks for a wireless
>router, plug it into their cable or DSL and off they go. No extra fee to the
>cable company.
>
It's suspended here in backwards SC, just like our power from SCANA.
Even buried, the infrastructure to make it happen is ALREADY INSTALLED
and OPERATIONAL. All that would be needed is to bring it above ground
at intervals like PCS to make it work over a wide area.

http://www.roamad.com/roam_home_nf.html



Larry W4CSC

US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
condemning Apartheid Wall.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
Can apartheid at home be far away?....
Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:24:27 GMT, Name withheld by request
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It would be nice, but in the city I live it, those of us that have
>amateur radios, or commercial VHF/UHF radios call our town
>an "RF junkyard". Some of the commercial pager companies
>have the deviation set so high, that they can page from DC
>to microwaves LOL. It's been said that our city is one of the
>hardest to propogate an RF signal into or out of without
>interference.
>
AS you can see, I'm a ham. Have been one since I was 11 in 1957.
I've been around RF all my life in the military, broadcasting, paging,
ham radio, etc. I've been around.

You'll find many hams to blame paging companies' high powered VHF and
UHF transmitters for all their problems.....instead of the cheap
receiver's broadband front end because they insist the 2 meter radio
have a 144-174 Mhz scanner for a receiver. To do this, the
manufacturer must leave out the front end filtering that would limit
the signal passed to the first amplifier FET to 144-148 Mhz, the ham
band. Passing 5V of paging signal to that poor little FET produces
amazing intermodulation (signals mixing with other signals fed to the
non-linear devices like transistors, ICs, any amplifier device).
These cheap receivers create their own interference. Marine VHF
radios, made as cheaply as ham radios in a competitive market, also
suffer from paging's big transmitter intermod in their own boxes.

I solve this simple-to-fix problem by putting a single bandpass
cavity, about the size of a smoker's oxygen bottle, between the cheap
receiver and the antenna, passing the signal through this filter both
in and out. Tear apart an old cellphone you're no longer allowed to
use, and you'll find a little "brick" about 1/4th the size of a AA
battery near the antenna connector. It will have holes in it,
probably 6 to 8. This is a "duplexer" that sorts out the receive band
of frequencies from the transmit band of frequencies, which are quite
wide apart in a cellphone, so you can transmit on one band
simultaneously while receiving on another unless the signal gets too
weak. It filters your cellphone so it won't pick up out-of-band
interference like a 2400 Mhz 802.11b WiFi network or the 5 megawatt
UHF TV station near cellular's frequency (800). The filter in a
bagphone or mobile AMPS cellular phone, having to cope with more power
from its bigger transmitter, is more extensive and effective.

I used to run a ham radio digital Packet radio node on a 152/460 Mhz
cellphone tower run by a friend of mine. From its 330' tall tower
candelabra, it had a good range of about 100 miles in this flat land
in coastal SC. My little japanese cheap radio, an Alinco, shared an
antenna with a 550W Motorola paging transmitter on 152.48 Mhz, not too
far from the node's 145.090 Mhz ham radio network frequency. My
friend engineered the 3-cavity combiner that allowed us to share the
paging antenna at the top of the tower right through the pager's big
rigid hardline cabling. There was one bandpass cavity in series with
the paging transmitter's powerful output tuned to 152.48 to clean up
any noise from the final amplifier's big tube amp. There were two
145.090 Mhz bandpass cavities in series with my packet radio system,
which also included a 140 watt power amplifier and high gain MOSFET
preamplifier that could pickup signals in the sub-microvolt level just
above the sun noise. It worked perfectly for years, serving our ham
radio community over eastern SC with range extending digital
keyboarding, ham radio BBS and email right to your car. He used to
use it to dispel local law enforcement who refused to improve their
system that the paging they were hearing wasn't caused by his
transmitters which were very clean, indeed. FCC agreed from their
personal inspections.



Larry W4CSC

US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
condemning Apartheid Wall.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
Can apartheid at home be far away?....
Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!

Ham here too, only since 1990 KB0GNK
I do agree with you about the poor front ends in most amateur
equipment because of what you state, that most hams also want
their xcvrs to work as "scanners". This one paging company
that I'm referring to, is known to "tweak" their deviation though.
They've been popped by the FCC a few times. Less than a mile
from their main tower is a broadcast FM studio for a local university.
The chief engineer there is a stickler for a good clean quality
signal. So much so, that anytime I'm in the market for an FM
receiver, speakers etc, I use his station as a test. (PBS station).
He has probably the cleanest FM signal in town.

Most hams around our area, can really cut the front end noise by
using a single band antenna now, because all of our public service
agencies have quit using VHF and UHF and have gone to 800 mhz
trunked radio.

73's


On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:54:21 GMT, [email protected] (Larry W4CSC) wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:24:27 GMT, Name withheld by request
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It would be nice, but in the city I live it, those of us that have
>>amateur radios, or commercial VHF/UHF radios call our town
>>an "RF junkyard". Some of the commercial pager companies
>>have the deviation set so high, that they can page from DC
>>to microwaves LOL. It's been said that our city is one of the
>>hardest to propogate an RF signal into or out of without
>>interference.
>>
>AS you can see, I'm a ham. Have been one since I was 11 in 1957.
>I've been around RF all my life in the military, broadcasting, paging,
>ham radio, etc. I've been around.
>
>You'll find many hams to blame paging companies' high powered VHF and
>UHF transmitters for all their problems.....instead of the cheap
>receiver's broadband front end because they insist the 2 meter radio
>have a 144-174 Mhz scanner for a receiver. To do this, the
>manufacturer must leave out the front end filtering that would limit
>the signal passed to the first amplifier FET to 144-148 Mhz, the ham
>band. Passing 5V of paging signal to that poor little FET produces
>amazing intermodulation (signals mixing with other signals fed to the
>non-linear devices like transistors, ICs, any amplifier device).
>These cheap receivers create their own interference. Marine VHF
>radios, made as cheaply as ham radios in a competitive market, also
>suffer from paging's big transmitter intermod in their own boxes.
>
>I solve this simple-to-fix problem by putting a single bandpass
>cavity, about the size of a smoker's oxygen bottle, between the cheap
>receiver and the antenna, passing the signal through this filter both
>in and out. Tear apart an old cellphone you're no longer allowed to
>use, and you'll find a little "brick" about 1/4th the size of a AA
>battery near the antenna connector. It will have holes in it,
>probably 6 to 8. This is a "duplexer" that sorts out the receive band
>of frequencies from the transmit band of frequencies, which are quite
>wide apart in a cellphone, so you can transmit on one band
>simultaneously while receiving on another unless the signal gets too
>weak. It filters your cellphone so it won't pick up out-of-band
>interference like a 2400 Mhz 802.11b WiFi network or the 5 megawatt
>UHF TV station near cellular's frequency (800). The filter in a
>bagphone or mobile AMPS cellular phone, having to cope with more power
>from its bigger transmitter, is more extensive and effective.
>
>I used to run a ham radio digital Packet radio node on a 152/460 Mhz
>cellphone tower run by a friend of mine. From its 330' tall tower
>candelabra, it had a good range of about 100 miles in this flat land
>in coastal SC. My little japanese cheap radio, an Alinco, shared an
>antenna with a 550W Motorola paging transmitter on 152.48 Mhz, not too
>far from the node's 145.090 Mhz ham radio network frequency. My
>friend engineered the 3-cavity combiner that allowed us to share the
>paging antenna at the top of the tower right through the pager's big
>rigid hardline cabling. There was one bandpass cavity in series with
>the paging transmitter's powerful output tuned to 152.48 to clean up
>any noise from the final amplifier's big tube amp. There were two
>145.090 Mhz bandpass cavities in series with my packet radio system,
>which also included a 140 watt power amplifier and high gain MOSFET
>preamplifier that could pickup signals in the sub-microvolt level just
>above the sun noise. It worked perfectly for years, serving our ham
>radio community over eastern SC with range extending digital
>keyboarding, ham radio BBS and email right to your car. He used to
>use it to dispel local law enforcement who refused to improve their
>system that the paging they were hearing wasn't caused by his
>transmitters which were very clean, indeed. FCC agreed from their
>personal inspections.
>
>
>
>Larry W4CSC
>
>US Supports Apartheid! Vetoes UN resolution
>condemning Apartheid Wall.
>http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h052103.html
>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...917478560.html
>Can apartheid at home be far away?....
>Apartheid NOW! Wall off Mississippi!
>