Signal coverage--truth in advertising

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:07:42
-0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:19:37 GMT, John Navas wrote:

>>I rest my case.
>
>So you think it would have been better in the long run to have
>competing systems from RCA, CBS, CTI, GE, Philco, Hazeltine, (and
>whoever else) duke it out in the market, rather than have them all
>combine their efforts to develop a standard?

Yep. As in so many other products. The market has a way of sorting such
things out efficiently and effectively, whereas the government has a way of
mucking them up.

>>Surely you must be joking. We've seen rapid advances in handset shrinkage,
>>sophistication, battery life, call quality, data transmission speed, PoC, and
>>rapidly falling prices, to name just a few.
>
>I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
>GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned.

I think it's quite clear that competitive pressure from CDMA has greatly
spurred innovation in GSM, and vice versa. Had we all rallied around GSM (or
worse, government-mandated IS-136), there wouldn't have been anything like the
same pressure to innovate.

>Similar changes
>took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
>increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
>particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
>standard.

Say what? The pace of innovation in NTSC TV was far less than the innovation
in cellular. But for Sony, we might all still be watching dot-trio monsters.
But for laptop computers, we wouldn't be seeing affordable flat panel TVs.
And the picture is just as crappy as ever.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:50:41
-0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Per Larry:

>>I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
>>which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....
>
>Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current administration
>is in the process of remedying that particular irritant..

PBS has already gone to way of commercial TV -- the difference now is only a
matter of degree, and the gap is closing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:01:37 -0400,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:Zc6He.6608$p%[email protected]:
>
>> Under what statute or regulation?
>
>Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
>Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
>providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
>is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
>competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
>such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
>standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
>review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers.
>
>http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
>FCC rules, Part 22 is cellular.
>
>Want your own license?
>http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cel...ing/index.html


Interesting, but not even close to supporting your claims.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Per Larry:
>Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
>the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!

Actually, we're probably the only people in the neighborhood without cable TV.

Rabbit ears all the way.

Reception has never been wonderful, but it was a *lot* better say, 15, years
ago.

No ghosting, but lots of snow and other wierdnesses. We can get different
qualities of picture by walking around in the room - or even raising an arm or
moving a leg. Some channels are hopeless in one room, but pretty good in
another.

But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it another
indication of geographic factors?
--
PeteCresswell

Per Larry:
>I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
>which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....

Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current administration
is in the process of remedying that particular irritant..
--
PeteCresswell

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:27:05 GMT, John Navas wrote:
0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:
>>So you think it would have been better in the long run to have
>>competing systems from RCA, CBS, CTI, GE, Philco, Hazeltine, (and
>>whoever else) duke it out in the market, rather than have them all
>>combine their efforts to develop a standard?
>Yep. As in so many other products. The market has a way of sorting such
>things out efficiently and effectively, whereas the government has a way of
>mucking them up.

That would have been something to see. Of course, such a battle was
economically unfeasible for most of those companies, and the standards
proposed by the companies that probably could afford the fight was
flawed. Working together, the companies developed a robust standard
that allowed the manufacturers to concentrate on mass producing and
improving hardware, instead of fighting over the underlying standard.

>I think it's quite clear that competitive pressure from CDMA has greatly
>spurred innovation in GSM, and vice versa. Had we all rallied around GSM (or
>worse, government-mandated IS-136), there wouldn't have been anything like the
>same pressure to innovate.

From a Sprint end-user standpoint, the only CDMA-related innovation
that I see over my years with Sprint has been the addition and
improvement of data capability, and you still can't simultaneously use
the data capability and make a voice call, despite the fact that the
voice call is really data. What kind of innovation is that??? This
is possible with GSM, but that sure hasn't prompted the CDMA side to
deal with that shortcoming in a timely manner.

When I first joined Sprint, I could make calls. Now I can make calls
and work with data. The underlying engineering might have improved
radically, but from the end-user perspective, the innovation hasn't
been all that impressive. It's certainly not impressive when I need
to place a call and I'm standing 100 yards away from a GSM tower, but
have to switch over to analog AMPS to make the call because there is
no CDMA tower nearby. The handsets are much more advanced, but that
is primarily due to the improvement in electronics, not the CDMA/GSM
network.



Joe Huber
[email protected]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:21:50
-0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:27:05 GMT, John Navas wrote:

>>Yep. As in so many other products. The market has a way of sorting such
>>things out efficiently and effectively, whereas the government has a way of
>>mucking them up.
>
>That would have been something to see. Of course, such a battle was
>economically unfeasible for most of those companies, and the standards
>proposed by the companies that probably could afford the fight was
>flawed. Working together, the companies developed a robust standard
>that allowed the manufacturers to concentrate on mass producing and
>improving hardware, instead of fighting over the underlying standard.

The market at work.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Sobol <[email protected]> writes:
> daniel cairns wrote:
>
>>>Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
>>
>> Dearborn, Michigan.
>> DC
>
> I have to wonder how Cingular (former Ameritech Cellular) is in your area.
[snip]

I'm in S.E. MI. as well, Steve. Used to be, back in analog days,
Ameritech (now p/o Cingular) and AirTouch (absorbed by Verizon) had
the best coverage by far. But now it would appear to be SprintPCS
and Verizon vying for #1, Cingular in 2nd place (by a good margin, I
think), then T-Mobile and Nextel (not sure about their order).

SprintPCS *appears* to me to have better coverage, but I must admit
much of that impression is based on the performance of my wife's
phone, which hasn't had a PRL update since she first got it, when
AirTouch still existed, so that impression is likely invalid.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
[email protected] | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

In article <[email protected]>,
"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> writes:
> Per Larry:
>>Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
>>the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!
>
> Actually, we're probably the only people in the neighborhood without cable TV.
>
> Rabbit ears all the way.
>
> Reception has never been wonderful, but it was a *lot* better say, 15, years
> ago.
>
> No ghosting, but lots of snow and other wierdnesses. We can get different
> qualities of picture by walking around in the room - or even raising an arm or
> moving a leg. Some channels are hopeless in one room, but pretty good in
> another.
>
> But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it another
> indication of geographic factors?

FSVO "geographic." Have you had lots of new construction,
particularly relatively tall structures (high-rise buildings, antenna
towers) in that 15 years? Or are you possibly in a minor geographic
depression and there's been build-up on high ground around you?

Are you in the north and, if so, does this problem persist in the
winter-time?

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
[email protected] | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

In article <sVeHe.6694$p%[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> writes:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:50:41
> -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Per Larry:
>
>>>I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
>>>which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....
>>
>>Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current administration
>>is in the process of remedying that particular irritant..
>
> PBS has already gone to way of commercial TV -- the difference now is only a
> matter of degree, and the gap is closing.

As long as it doesn't close to "five minutes of commercials every
seven minutes." I wouldn't mind commercials so much if it weren't
for the frequency and duration. PBS does retain one advantage: Good
programming. Commercial broadcast TV never was much good--but now
it's utter crap.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
[email protected] | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
> GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
> took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
> increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
> particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
> standard.
>
> Joe Huber
> [email protected]
>
>

He wouldn't be singing the same tune, Joe, if his new digital TV only
picked up NBC because CBS and ABC and CNN and HBO all had DIFFERENT digital
modulation schemes. It's way past time the FCC chose which scheme the
country was going to use and forced ALL OF THEM to use it and forced all of
them to put YOUR phone on their systems....

This latest bull**** about "You can't Verizon's phone on Alltel's system"
is just another scheme to prevent churning and sell multiyear contracts.
Remember when you couldn't put YOUR telephone on Bell's telephone system
because it might damage the system? The same thing is now happening to the
cellular system and FCC needs to stop it.

--
Larry

Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> you still can't simultaneously use
> the data capability and make a voice call

Whoa! Waitaminit! If you could do that, we'd only be charging you 20
minutes to make both calls. If we prevent you from doing that, we can
squeeze 20 minutes out of you for the data call and another 20 minutes out
of you for the voice call, right?

Follow the money trail....(c;

--
Larry

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current
> administration is in the process of remedying that particular
> irritant..
>

PBS is like Air America in its political slant. Is it any wonder the
conservatives in the White House would cut them off?

--
Larry

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it
> another indication of geographic factors?
>

I posted these links to another thread. Have a look at what REAL coverage
from a cell looks like:

http://www.wirelessmapping.com/Sampl...with_rings.jpg

Imagine traveling through this map on one of the roads and relate that to
your cellphone experience. See why it sucks if there aren't enough OTHER
cells to paint this picture with lots more red areas?

--
Larry

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:21:02 -0400,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news[email protected]:
>
>> But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it
>> another indication of geographic factors?
>
>I posted these links to another thread. Have a look at what REAL coverage
>from a cell looks like:
>
>http://www.wirelessmapping.com/Sampl...with_rings.jpg
>
>Imagine traveling through this map on one of the roads and relate that to
>your cellphone experience. See why it sucks if there aren't enough OTHER
>cells to paint this picture with lots more red areas?

That's Cooperstown, NY, and that's not "REAL" cellular coverage -- it's a
*sample* map for a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider), not cellular

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>