TDMA and iDEN do...

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On 22 Nov 2003 14:28:23 -0800, [email protected] (Michael
> Notforyou) posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >My Nokia 3390 (Cingular/old BellSouth Mobility DCS) does this, but it
> >has to be RIGHT NEXT to the speaker. I can hear, "Bzz. Bzz.
> >Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. RING!" when I have it next to my laptop's
> >JBLPro speakers.
>
> Good computer speakers are well shielded.

I guess you don't like Bluetooth phones or cordless phones or stereo
speakers or car radios or XM satellite radios or DirecTV then , cause all of
them (and more) go ballistic and do the same thing when my friend comes over
with his Nextel phone. Is your argument that people should be allowed to do
whatever they want and it's up to the rest of us to shield against it? I can
just see that sort of argument coming up, I want a nuclear reactor in my
back yard with no shielding, and it's up to my neighbors to shield
themselves <-- absurd example but meant to make a point. Do we have the
legal right to limit transmissions in our own house/property or do the
transmitters have the legal right to radiate whatever whenever they want?

---

› See More: TDMA and iDEN do...

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On 22 Nov 2003 14:28:23 -0800, [email protected] (Michael
> Notforyou) posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >My Nokia 3390 (Cingular/old BellSouth Mobility DCS) does this, but it
> >has to be RIGHT NEXT to the speaker. I can hear, "Bzz. Bzz.
> >Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. RING!" when I have it next to my laptop's
> >JBLPro speakers.
>
> Good computer speakers are well shielded.

I guess you don't like Bluetooth phones or cordless phones or stereo
speakers or car radios or XM satellite radios or DirecTV then , cause all of
them (and more) go ballistic and do the same thing when my friend comes over
with his Nextel phone. Is your argument that people should be allowed to do
whatever they want and it's up to the rest of us to shield against it? I can
just see that sort of argument coming up, I want a nuclear reactor in my
back yard with no shielding, and it's up to my neighbors to shield
themselves <-- absurd example but meant to make a point. Do we have the
legal right to limit transmissions in our own house/property or do the
transmitters have the legal right to radiate whatever whenever they want?

"Hopper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2%Kub.49299$Dw6.253149@attbi_s02...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > GSM phones are horrible with this (at least the PCS variety). Since GSM
> is
> > TDMA based, it does not surprise me.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
> >
>
> It's not really TDMA based. It instead uses a system of time division. GSM
> incorporates it, but is not an extention TDMA.

TDMA is a generic term for time division ("time division multiple access").
I am not aware of any cell system officially called TDMA, it was merely used
in the US to describe the only TDMA system we had (though there were others
in the past).

Look at one of the charts in this interference study, which refers to GSM as
"TDMA 217Hz (1900)." The 217Hz is the time-division rate for GSM, and the
1900 is a U.S. band.

http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/98/09/008.html


---
Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003

"Hopper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2%Kub.49299$Dw6.253149@attbi_s02...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > GSM phones are horrible with this (at least the PCS variety). Since GSM
> is
> > TDMA based, it does not surprise me.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
> >
>
> It's not really TDMA based. It instead uses a system of time division. GSM
> incorporates it, but is not an extention TDMA.

TDMA is a generic term for time division ("time division multiple access").
I am not aware of any cell system officially called TDMA, it was merely used
in the US to describe the only TDMA system we had (though there were others
in the past).

Look at one of the charts in this interference study, which refers to GSM as
"TDMA 217Hz (1900)." The 217Hz is the time-division rate for GSM, and the
1900 is a U.S. band.

http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/98/09/008.html


---
Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003

> I guess you don't like Bluetooth phones or cordless phones or stereo
> speakers or car radios or XM satellite radios or DirecTV then , cause all of
> them (and more) go ballistic and do the same thing when my friend comes over
> with his Nextel phone. Is your argument that people should be allowed to do
> whatever they want and it's up to the rest of us to shield against it? I can
> just see that sort of argument coming up, I want a nuclear reactor in my
> back yard with no shielding, and it's up to my neighbors to shield
> themselves <-- absurd example but meant to make a point. Do we have the
> legal right to limit transmissions in our own house/property or do the
> transmitters have the legal right to radiate whatever whenever they want?


You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device must
accept any interference it receives, including interference that could
cause undesirable operation".

The easy way out -- don't use electricity.

AD

> I guess you don't like Bluetooth phones or cordless phones or stereo
> speakers or car radios or XM satellite radios or DirecTV then , cause all of
> them (and more) go ballistic and do the same thing when my friend comes over
> with his Nextel phone. Is your argument that people should be allowed to do
> whatever they want and it's up to the rest of us to shield against it? I can
> just see that sort of argument coming up, I want a nuclear reactor in my
> back yard with no shielding, and it's up to my neighbors to shield
> themselves <-- absurd example but meant to make a point. Do we have the
> legal right to limit transmissions in our own house/property or do the
> transmitters have the legal right to radiate whatever whenever they want?


You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device must
accept any interference it receives, including interference that could
cause undesirable operation".

The easy way out -- don't use electricity.

AD

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:57:12 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>I guess you don't like Bluetooth phones or cordless phones or stereo
>speakers or car radios or XM satellite radios or DirecTV then , cause all of
>them (and more) go ballistic and do the same thing when my friend comes over
>with his Nextel phone. Is your argument that people should be allowed to do
>whatever they want and it's up to the rest of us to shield against it?

If the phone is meeting the spec under which it was licensed, yes.
All those devices are required to operate under whatever ambient legal
signals there are.

> I can just see that sort of argument coming up, I want a nuclear reactor in my
>back yard with no shielding, and it's up to my neighbors to shield
>themselves <-- absurd example but meant to make a point.

Too bad it didn't. Cell phones are type-approved - speakers and car
radios aren't. If the designers can't design a device that will
operate correctly in the presence of legal radiation, it's not the
radiator's fault.

> Do we have the legal right to limit transmissions in our own house/property

No. You have the right to shield your house if you like, but you
don;t have the right to limit what radiation people can put into
space.

> or do the transmitters have the legal right to radiate whatever whenever they want?

They have the right to radiate the radiation they were approved and
licensed for, anywhere they're licensed to radiate it.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:57:12 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>I guess you don't like Bluetooth phones or cordless phones or stereo
>speakers or car radios or XM satellite radios or DirecTV then , cause all of
>them (and more) go ballistic and do the same thing when my friend comes over
>with his Nextel phone. Is your argument that people should be allowed to do
>whatever they want and it's up to the rest of us to shield against it?

If the phone is meeting the spec under which it was licensed, yes.
All those devices are required to operate under whatever ambient legal
signals there are.

> I can just see that sort of argument coming up, I want a nuclear reactor in my
>back yard with no shielding, and it's up to my neighbors to shield
>themselves <-- absurd example but meant to make a point.

Too bad it didn't. Cell phones are type-approved - speakers and car
radios aren't. If the designers can't design a device that will
operate correctly in the presence of legal radiation, it's not the
radiator's fault.

> Do we have the legal right to limit transmissions in our own house/property

No. You have the right to shield your house if you like, but you
don;t have the right to limit what radiation people can put into
space.

> or do the transmitters have the legal right to radiate whatever whenever they want?

They have the right to radiate the radiation they were approved and
licensed for, anywhere they're licensed to radiate it.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:22 -0600, Aboutdakota
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device must
>accept any interference it receives, including interference that could
>cause undesirable operation".

The majority of the population either has no idea that provision
exists, or doesn't like it. (Hams have been facing the situation
since the early years of the 20th century.)

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:22 -0600, Aboutdakota
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device must
>accept any interference it receives, including interference that could
>cause undesirable operation".

The majority of the population either has no idea that provision
exists, or doesn't like it. (Hams have been facing the situation
since the early years of the 20th century.)

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:22 -0600, Aboutdakota
> <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device must
> >accept any interference it receives, including interference that could
> >cause undesirable operation".
>
> The majority of the population either has no idea that provision
> exists, or doesn't like it. (Hams have been facing the situation
> since the early years of the 20th century.)

I guess the lawyers will have a field day then. I just looked at 37 items
here and not a single one has a label anything like that on it. Was at both
a Circuit City and a Best Buy today and not a single item at either store
had a label on it remotely similar. I would surmise that either such a
label/requirement does not exist, or it is not being enforced against
hundreds of manufacturers. Seems if there is a fine associated for not
affixing that label to products, the FCC can start prosecuting and make
billions of dollars. Wow, it could actually be one of the few government
agencies that have a surplus!

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:22 -0600, Aboutdakota
> <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device must
> >accept any interference it receives, including interference that could
> >cause undesirable operation".
>
> The majority of the population either has no idea that provision
> exists, or doesn't like it. (Hams have been facing the situation
> since the early years of the 20th century.)

I guess the lawyers will have a field day then. I just looked at 37 items
here and not a single one has a label anything like that on it. Was at both
a Circuit City and a Best Buy today and not a single item at either store
had a label on it remotely similar. I would surmise that either such a
label/requirement does not exist, or it is not being enforced against
hundreds of manufacturers. Seems if there is a fine associated for not
affixing that label to products, the FCC can start prosecuting and make
billions of dollars. Wow, it could actually be one of the few government
agencies that have a surplus!

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
>=20
> "Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:22 -0600, Aboutdakota
> > <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
> >
> > >You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device =
must
> > >accept any interference it receives, including interference that =
could
> > >cause undesirable operation".
> >
> > The majority of the population either has no idea that provision
> > exists, or doesn't like it. (Hams have been facing the situation
> > since the early years of the 20th century.)
>=20
> I guess the lawyers will have a field day then. I just looked at 37 =
items
> here and not a single one has a label anything like that on it. Was at =
both
> a Circuit City and a Best Buy today and not a single item at either =
store
> had a label on it remotely similar. I would surmise that either such a
> label/requirement does not exist, or it is not being enforced against
> hundreds of manufacturers. Seems if there is a fine associated for not
> affixing that label to products, the FCC can start prosecuting and =
make
> billions of dollars. Wow, it could actually be one of the few =
government
> agencies that have a surplus!
>=20
>=20

The label requirement is real for radio-receiving devices.
Aboutdakota's words are a direct quote from one sentence of the notice.
Did you look at 37 toasters, or something like that?
---JRC---

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
>=20
> "Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:22 -0600, Aboutdakota
> > <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
> >
> > >You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device =
must
> > >accept any interference it receives, including interference that =
could
> > >cause undesirable operation".
> >
> > The majority of the population either has no idea that provision
> > exists, or doesn't like it. (Hams have been facing the situation
> > since the early years of the 20th century.)
>=20
> I guess the lawyers will have a field day then. I just looked at 37 =
items
> here and not a single one has a label anything like that on it. Was at =
both
> a Circuit City and a Best Buy today and not a single item at either =
store
> had a label on it remotely similar. I would surmise that either such a
> label/requirement does not exist, or it is not being enforced against
> hundreds of manufacturers. Seems if there is a fine associated for not
> affixing that label to products, the FCC can start prosecuting and =
make
> billions of dollars. Wow, it could actually be one of the few =
government
> agencies that have a surplus!
>=20
>=20

The label requirement is real for radio-receiving devices.
Aboutdakota's words are a direct quote from one sentence of the notice.
Did you look at 37 toasters, or something like that?
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:22 -0600, Aboutdakota
> > <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
> >
> > >You have to read the FCC label on electronic deviced..."this device
must
> > >accept any interference it receives, including interference that could
> > >cause undesirable operation".
> >
> > The majority of the population either has no idea that provision
> > exists, or doesn't like it. (Hams have been facing the situation
> > since the early years of the 20th century.)
>
> I guess the lawyers will have a field day then. I just looked at 37 items
> here and not a single one has a label anything like that on it. Was at
both
> a Circuit City and a Best Buy today and not a single item at either store
> had a label on it remotely similar. I would surmise that either such a
> label/requirement does not exist, or it is not being enforced against
> hundreds of manufacturers. Seems if there is a fine associated for not
> affixing that label to products, the FCC can start prosecuting and make
> billions of dollars. Wow, it could actually be one of the few government
> agencies that have a surplus!
>
>

The label requirement is real for radio-receiving devices.
Aboutdakota's words are a direct quote from one sentence of the notice.
Did you look at 37 toasters, or something like that?
---JRC---

Nope, I'm a technojunkie, Hate cables, LCD/Plasma/CRT and projection
televisions, Wireless speaker systems (both JBL and AR), Media
transmitter/receivers, Cordless phones, Cell Phones, Jabra cordless
headsets, wireless indoor/outdoor temp/humidity displays, DirecTV and Dish
system, 802.11b&g WAP's/PCMCIA cards, USB xmitter/recievers for desktops
(standalone and plug into a USB port to make non networked computers nodes
on a wireless network) , etc. Fraid I don't want or own a toaster. Seems
like a lot of the stuff I have here are considered receivers.