Analog systems, remaining channel capacity.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:46:01 GMT, "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>> As long as the crypto voice from the President's limo is on AMPS, I'd
>> say we're quite safe for a while....(c;
>
>I'd say the limophone has little bearing on the FCC's decision, one way or
>another. The 2008 sunset is already warning enough to carriers,
>manufacturers and users alike.

Oh, like the White House, Pentagon, Secret Service, NSA, etc. can't spend
all the bucks they want to completely redo the limo in about 3 days,
anytime they want.

I'm surprised they even bother with the commercial cellular network as it
is. (For a dedicated vehicle like that, I mean; I'm sure they all carry toy
phones just like you see on The West Wing (albeit some of them with a lot
more capabilities than anything you and I can get our hands on).)

-
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I avoid church religiously." - Lt. Col. Henry Blake

---

› See More: Analog systems, remaining channel capacity.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:55:59 GMT, David S <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Oh, like the White House, Pentagon, Secret Service, NSA, etc. can't spend
>all the bucks they want to completely redo the limo in about 3 days,
>anytime they want.

Er, ah, I think it's probably more related to the impossibility of
passing NSA amazing encryption through the amazingly narrow-banded 8
or 13 Kbps CDMA phone system that can't even reproduce Verizon's OWN
music-on-hold, much less a 128-bit encryption endcoded voice.
>
>I'm surprised they even bother with the commercial cellular network as it
>is. (For a dedicated vehicle like that, I mean; I'm sure they all carry toy
>phones just like you see on The West Wing (albeit some of them with a lot
>more capabilities than anything you and I can get our hands on).)
>
They don't "bother" with it. It's the backup system.

George also calls his missus to see if he needs to stop by the Piggly
Wiggly to pick up anything on the way home from Iraq.


Larry W4CSC

NNNN

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
Lines: 24
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular:43835 alt.cellular.cingular:26483 alt.cellular.verizon:132104



Daoler wrote:
>>Just out of curiousity, which tri-modes will they be supporting?
>>GSM? TDMA? CDMA? 850Mhz cellular? 1900MHz PCS?
>>
>
>
> 1900MHz PCS is actually GSM;
> and GSM is one of the TDMA systems
> CDMA works on 850MHz band
>
>

PCS simply refers to 1900 mHz band. DCS 1900 is actually GSM. TDMA,
GSM, and CDMA all run in 1900 mHz band. GSM, TDMA, CDMA, and AMPS all
run in the 800/850 mHz band (which is the same band, normally with
TDMA/CDMA/AMPS it is referred to as 800, but is referred to 850 with
GSM). Motorola's iDEN, the Nextel National Network, also runs in the
800 mHz band, but it has licenses that differ from the Cellular A and
Cellular B carriers.

==AD

Mike wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:18:20 -0600, Aboutdakota
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I think it will depend on how GSM/UMTS and CDMA have coverage everywhere
>>there is coverage. Right now, AMPS is the only truly universal wireless
>>voice protocol in the United States. Many parts of Canada and Mexico
>>still also have AMPS coverage, and thier upgrade schedule to digital is
>>minimal.
>
>
> Well, Canada seems to be doing better about it (in its populated areas
> and beyond) than some U.S. carriers! I've personally driven through
> western New Brunswick, near the U.S. border with Maine, with a GSM
> signal available in many places along the main highway through there.
> Entering New Brunswick at St. Stephen (?), I got a Rogers AT&T GSM
> signal near the border over on the U.S. side, and AT&T's U.S. GSM
> coverage was nowhere to be found for miles before that.
>
> Mike

Yes, I do agree that Canadian coverage in border areas far exceeds the
coverage from U.S. carriers. When I get about 35 miles from Canada, I
can start expecting a text message from Rogers welcoming me to Canada.
I used to live in one of Verizon's ""100 % Digital"" markets, yet almost
every phone call would connect to SaskTel Mobility AMPS, and more
recently SaskTel Mobility CDMA. Most VZW customers need to have their
phones taken in to have thei SaskTel SID marked as negative, because
that signal is much stronger and more consistent than Verizon's. They
also have coverage beat. With any of the Mobility Companies(Telus may
be an exception, because it is not a "Crown Corporation"), you do not
have any roaming charges while in Canada. I think Rogers has followed
this. Fido (Microcell) has begun offering "Local Wireless Service",
where it claims to effectively replace a landline (I have not heard any
complaints of its Vancouver service yet).

Telus has been in legal trouble recently for false advertising and
harassment of competitors' customers. Telus has been calling customers
on wireless phones urging them to switch to Telus, the "most reliable
network with fewer dropped calls". Not surprisingly, Verizon
Communications own a stake in Telus Mobility. Telus's advertising of
"most reliable network with fewer dropped calls" also had the plug
pulled because it does not meet that line, often having more dropped
calls than any other carrier.

==AD

>After years of experience with cellular, literally from its first
>installations, I'm convinced cellular either doesn't have this kind of
>automated operational tests,

Yes it does. Starting around 1995 with Lucent's Series II equipment. It does
all that and more. Radios -and- antennas are routinely checked every 10-30
minutes. Pain in the butt since the microprocessors sometimes get confuzzed
and "forget" to tell the radio to transmit, triggering a bogus automated
trouble ticket. There are a lot of other unrelated causes of false positives
as well. Nearly all the major cellular base station platforms do this now
(Nokia, Ericsson, Lucent, etc).

>.....bringing back
>some fond paging memories at 1AM on Sunday night after a massive storm
>front passage. Ah, the smell of burning hardline....(c;

And burning brakes if you towed generators.

Try pager therapy. That's adapting a skeet-throwing machine to sling old
inoperative pagers. Consider enlisting a reloading friend make 'hideous'
rounds (ground up glass & wire brad nails instead of lead shot)...it's
gratifying to see that cloud of misery hit a flying pager. Plus, you should
find a nearly endless supply of non-working (but otherwise intact) pagers
from stores, repair centers & carriers. Resist the urge to use machine guns,
as the surviving locals will be really annoyed at you. [8^)

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:02:22 -0500, "John Smith" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>After years of experience with cellular, literally from its first
>>installations, I'm convinced cellular either doesn't have this kind of
>>automated operational tests,
>
>Yes it does. Starting around 1995 with Lucent's Series II equipment. It does
>all that and more. Radios -and- antennas are routinely checked every 10-30
>minutes. Pain in the butt since the microprocessors sometimes get confuzzed
>and "forget" to tell the radio to transmit, triggering a bogus automated
>trouble ticket. There are a lot of other unrelated causes of false positives
>as well. Nearly all the major cellular base station platforms do this now
>(Nokia, Ericsson, Lucent, etc).

Are they 100% retrofitted to old acquisitions like Charleston, SC's
old Motorola switches on formerly GTE Wireless formerly Cellular One
formerly Cellular One of Charleston systems they bought up and
consolidated? Would the fact that we cannot get caller ID data (only
number like the old days) indicated our archaeic system doesn't have
this kind of capability, either? (I'm told caller ID name cannot be
printed on tickets and displayed on phone capable of it because our
switch is too old by Verizon employees.)
>
>>.....bringing back
>>some fond paging memories at 1AM on Sunday night after a massive storm
>>front passage. Ah, the smell of burning hardline....(c;
>
>And burning brakes if you towed generators.
>
>Try pager therapy. That's adapting a skeet-throwing machine to sling old
>inoperative pagers. Consider enlisting a reloading friend make 'hideous'
>rounds (ground up glass & wire brad nails instead of lead shot)...it's
>gratifying to see that cloud of misery hit a flying pager. Plus, you should
>find a nearly endless supply of non-working (but otherwise intact) pagers
>from stores, repair centers & carriers. Resist the urge to use machine guns,
>as the surviving locals will be really annoyed at you. [8^)
>
I learned a lesson in Robert's office one day. There was a great
looking pager sitting on his desk and dummy me picks it up to look at
it. Robert, not missing a beat or looking up from his monitor, says
"That pager was returned after they dropped it in a loaded toilet." I
never handled a pager he didn't handle first after that....(c;

He bought huge banks of pager parts. We built a screen room and he
had all the tests sets and fixtures for a huge variety of pagers. We
sat for hours matching working decoder boards with working receivers.
His system covered all the bands, VHF, UHF, 900 Mhz so he could put
anyone's pager on his system a customer brought in. He also had all
the pager hacker gadgets to break into locked up pagers to reprogram
them....

Larry W4CSC wrote:

> I learned a lesson in Robert's office one day. There was a great
> looking pager sitting on his desk and dummy me picks it up to look at
> it. Robert, not missing a beat or looking up from his monitor, says
> "That pager was returned after they dropped it in a loaded toilet." I
> never handled a pager he didn't handle first after that....(c;
>


This just begs the question, "what was he doing with it on his desk?"


--
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

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry W4CSC <[email protected]> wrote:
>Are they 100% retrofitted to old acquisitions like Charleston, SC's
>old Motorola switches on formerly GTE Wireless formerly Cellular One
>formerly Cellular One of Charleston systems they bought up and
>consolidated? Would the fact that we cannot get caller ID data (only
>number like the old days) indicated our archaeic system doesn't have
>this kind of capability, either? (I'm told caller ID name cannot be
>printed on tickets and displayed on phone capable of it because our
>switch is too old by Verizon employees.)

You mean the caller ID name on the mobile phone? Does ANY system send
the caller ID name info to the mobile? (Distinct from the phone looking
up the number in its phone book and displaying the name if found.)

Or the mobile user's name on landline phones' caller ID? This seems to
depend on whether the landline company and the wireless company have
come to financial terms on the cost of access to the wireless company's
name database, and if the wireless company is technically able to
provide it. The name is not carried in the caller id info.

> Or the mobile user's name on landline phones' caller ID? This seems to
> depend on whether the landline company and the wireless company have
> come to financial terms on the cost of access to the wireless company's
> name database, and if the wireless company is technically able to
> provide it. The name is not carried in the caller id info.

I was a T-mobile customer for 6 years until a few days ago when I moved to
Verizon. In the last 6 months or so on T-Mobile when I made calls to people
with caller ID that could display names it would show my name.

-Eric

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:34:41 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry W4CSC wrote:
>
>> I learned a lesson in Robert's office one day. There was a great
>> looking pager sitting on his desk and dummy me picks it up to look at
>> it. Robert, not missing a beat or looking up from his monitor, says
>> "That pager was returned after they dropped it in a loaded toilet." I
>> never handled a pager he didn't handle first after that....(c;
>>
>
>
>This just begs the question, "what was he doing with it on his desk?"
>
Parts, man, it's always the parts!

On 30 Dec 2003 05:19:48 GMT, [email protected]lid (CharlesH) wrote:


>You mean the caller ID name on the mobile phone? Does ANY system send
>the caller ID name info to the mobile? (Distinct from the phone looking
>up the number in its phone book and displaying the name if found.)
>
>Or the mobile user's name on landline phones' caller ID? This seems to
>depend on whether the landline company and the wireless company have
>come to financial terms on the cost of access to the wireless company's
>name database, and if the wireless company is technically able to
>provide it. The name is not carried in the caller id info.

Both. The phones are fully capable of displaying Name and Number.
The POTS company is delivering that data to them, just like they do
your home phone.

If I can get that data from a $20 gadget from Radio Shack, there must
be a way a multibillion-dollar corporation can transmit it to a phone.

"The Ghost of General Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:49:33 GMT, [email protected] (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
>
> >I'm convinced cellular either doesn't have this kind of
> >automated operational tests, or chooses to ignore them, because they
> >always seem quite interested in my outage reports as if it were the
> >first they'd heard that the equipment in X location was dead.

Well, they actually do have that kind of equipment, but there is still the
human element involved unfortunately. I speak with experience. If they would
just automate the notice system insted of relying on a human to relay it to
the tech, things would get taken care of much more quickly. I have to say
one thing in the op centers defence. Usually an outage is caused by landline
problems, not cell problems, so they see the alarm and make the judgement
call as to who needs to receive the trouble ticket. Its a process, but a
good one. And not quite so simple as a paging network in that you have MANY
telco lines involved because of the bandwidth.
>
> Yeah, kind of reminds me of every time I would talk to a CSR about the
> well known (at least in this group) SMS bugs with the 3035, it was
> always the "first time we've ever heard of it." Didn't matter that at
> one time I had six trouble tickets open on the matter. Communications
> companies generally do a piss poor job of communicating within their
> own company.

I have to agree with you on this. I work for a communications company, and
very often never hear of changes that I need to know about until its way too
late to make adjustments.
B.

You actually have automatically generated trouble tickets? What market are
you refering to??
B

"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >After years of experience with cellular, literally from its first
> >installations, I'm convinced cellular either doesn't have this kind of
> >automated operational tests,
>
> Yes it does. Starting around 1995 with Lucent's Series II equipment. It
does
> all that and more. Radios -and- antennas are routinely checked every 10-30
> minutes. Pain in the butt since the microprocessors sometimes get
confuzzed
> and "forget" to tell the radio to transmit, triggering a bogus automated
> trouble ticket. There are a lot of other unrelated causes of false
positives
> as well. Nearly all the major cellular base station platforms do this now
> (Nokia, Ericsson, Lucent, etc).
>
> >.....bringing back
> >some fond paging memories at 1AM on Sunday night after a massive storm
> >front passage. Ah, the smell of burning hardline....(c;
>
> And burning brakes if you towed generators.
>
> Try pager therapy. That's adapting a skeet-throwing machine to sling old
> inoperative pagers. Consider enlisting a reloading friend make 'hideous'
> rounds (ground up glass & wire brad nails instead of lead shot)...it's
> gratifying to see that cloud of misery hit a flying pager. Plus, you
should
> find a nearly endless supply of non-working (but otherwise intact) pagers
> from stores, repair centers & carriers. Resist the urge to use machine
guns,
> as the surviving locals will be really annoyed at you. [8^)
>
>

But did it show your name to EVERYONE you called or just to those that had
your number and name in the cell phone book?
B

"Eric Rosenberry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Or the mobile user's name on landline phones' caller ID? This seems to
> > depend on whether the landline company and the wireless company have
> > come to financial terms on the cost of access to the wireless company's
> > name database, and if the wireless company is technically able to
> > provide it. The name is not carried in the caller id info.
>
> I was a T-mobile customer for 6 years until a few days ago when I moved to
> Verizon. In the last 6 months or so on T-Mobile when I made calls to
people
> with caller ID that could display names it would show my name.
>
> -Eric
>
>

But do you actually get the name even with landline caller ID? I thought it
had to be in the list on your unit to display the actual name of the person
calling. I thought only the number showed up.
B

"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 30 Dec 2003 05:19:48 GMT, [email protected]lid (CharlesH) wrote:
>
>
> >You mean the caller ID name on the mobile phone? Does ANY system send
> >the caller ID name info to the mobile? (Distinct from the phone looking
> >up the number in its phone book and displaying the name if found.)
> >
> >Or the mobile user's name on landline phones' caller ID? This seems to
> >depend on whether the landline company and the wireless company have
> >come to financial terms on the cost of access to the wireless company's
> >name database, and if the wireless company is technically able to
> >provide it. The name is not carried in the caller id info.
>
> Both. The phones are fully capable of displaying Name and Number.
> The POTS company is delivering that data to them, just like they do
> your home phone.
>
> If I can get that data from a $20 gadget from Radio Shack, there must
> be a way a multibillion-dollar corporation can transmit it to a phone.
>
>