Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/...og_cell_phones

"Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Br_Fe.27027$bp.17432@fed1read03...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/...og_cell_phones
>
The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that this
problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in message
news:42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net...
>
> The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
> power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that
> this
> problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
> live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
> work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.

So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

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

In <42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:09:12 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
>power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that this
>problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
>live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
>work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.

Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers in
cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies. The
problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
and thus is taking longer.

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

jfitz wrote:

> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> jfitz wrote:
>
> > So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
> > for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>
> You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
> paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?

And we folks, in the boonies, thank you for your support. <g>

Notan

"jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
newssmdncLqxPxwp3ffRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

Oh no, not at all. I don't think I suggested any thing of the kind. What I
said is that digital technology works at least as well as analog in rural
areas. They already have the coverage*. All that is lacking is higher power
car phones with good external antennas. The carriers don't have to build one
single tower, they just have to make higher power phones available to people
who need them. This was common 10 years ago. You used to be able to get a
FCC type-accepted (i.e. approved) booster for the Nokia 2160 TDMA phones, so
that when you slipped the phone into the hands free unit in your car it
became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
accepted)

What I said is that since 99% of customer live within the range of a
low-power handset, the carriers have dropped the high power models and
concentrated on just low-power phones. BTW, US carriers are not alone in
this. Just try to find a "Class I" (20 Watt) GSM phone in Europe. You may
find them in Australia but they are very rare beasts. I think that carriers
who serve rural areas should address the needs of their customers. And the
customers should pay for the higher cost of these special phones.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
*Note: Some GSM rural systems may need special firmware to allow for ranges
beyond 35 km.

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:q8rGe.6182$p%3.32400@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because
subscribers in
> cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.
The
> problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the
boonies,
> and thus is taking longer.

Have you seen the FCC's old combined cellular coverage map of the US?
Believe me, the US had penty of rural coverage 8 years ago. The problem is
that it was designed around 3-watt phones with high-gain roof-mount
antennas. And it worked, you could often get over 50 miles from the nearest
tower and your phone would still work. This was not because analog was in
any way superior to digital: because it's not. You just had the power and
antenna to provide an adequate link margin. Folks in the boonies don't need
a tower every 5 miles; they just need phones and antennas that will reach
the towers they've got.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

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

In <42ea992d_3@news1.prserv.net> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>*Note: Some GSM rural systems may need special firmware to allow for ranges
>beyond 35 km.

<http://www.cell-talk.com/Tower _range-5949827-1217-a.html>:

Absolute maximum range for standard GSM is 35 km. This is dictated
by the Timing Advance range being restricted to values between zero
and 63, with each step corresponding to 553.5 metres from the tower.

Configuring the available timeslots in pairs, Extended Range GSM
gives 72 km usable range, but lacks GPRS capability, and halves the
number of concurrent calls possible. Using more sensitive BTS
receivers, Enhanced Extended Range GSM been demonstrated to be usable
at 120 km (with the same drawbacks as ER).

Within these limits, usable range will depend of BTS design and
power, antenna orientation, elevation, topography (obstructions), and
many other factors (including the moisture content of any intervening
foliage).

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

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

In <42ea992d_3@news1.prserv.net> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

>
>"jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>newssmdncLqxPxwp3ffRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
>> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>
>Oh no, not at all. I don't think I suggested any thing of the kind. What I
>said is that digital technology works at least as well as analog in rural
>areas. They already have the coverage*. All that is lacking is higher power
>car phones with good external antennas. The carriers don't have to build one
>single tower, they just have to make higher power phones available to people
>who need them. This was common 10 years ago. You used to be able to get a
>FCC type-accepted (i.e. approved) booster for the Nokia 2160 TDMA phones, so
>that when you slipped the phone into the hands free unit in your car it
>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>accepted)

<http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/da4000.htm>
"FCC / CSA approved"
On sale for $220

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

No different than it already is with the monthly "universal
connectivity fee" on my bill to service rural areas.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:19:24 -0400, "jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote in message
>news:42ea2b36_2@news1.prserv.net...
>>
>> The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
>> power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that
>> this
>> problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
>> live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
>> work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.
>
>So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
>for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>

In <42ea9934_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:

>Have you seen the FCC's old combined cellular coverage map of the US?
>Believe me, the US had penty of rural coverage 8 years ago. The problem is
>that it was designed around 3-watt phones with high-gain roof-mount
>antennas. And it worked, you could often get over 50 miles from the nearest
>tower and your phone would still work. This was not because analog was in
>any way superior to digital: because it's not. You just had the power and
>antenna to provide an adequate link margin.

Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
distance limit due to timing slot concerns.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
comes to mind.


[a] a car top antenna with a groundplane is way, way, better
than a miniscule wire inside that Farady cage.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald Newcomb" wrote:

>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>accepted)

www.digitalantenna.com and www.wilsoncellular.com both sell FCC-type
accepted (when used with an appropriate antenna) amplifiers and
repeaters. I travel to the "boonies", and have an amplifier that
works for AMPS (3 W) and CDMA (2 W). It does work wonders for AMPS.
I think it helps some for CDMA, but CDMA might have some inherent
distance limitations. One of the technical folks here can probably
speak to that.

Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dcebuo$blh$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In <42ea9934_3@news1.prserv.net> "Donald Newcomb"
<DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> writes:
> Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
> a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
> distance limit due to timing slot concerns.
>
> I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
> comes to mind.

35 km for regular vanilla GSM. Extended range is available (at a cost). No
limit I know of for CDMA or TDMA.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1HwGe.6324$p%3.32508@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Configuring the available timeslots in pairs, Extended Range GSM
> gives 72 km usable range, but lacks GPRS capability, and halves the
> number of concurrent calls possible. Using more sensitive BTS
> receivers, Enhanced Extended Range GSM been demonstrated to be usable
> at 120 km (with the same drawbacks as ER).

True but analog does not have GPRS either.

> Within these limits, usable range will depend of BTS design and
> power, antenna orientation, elevation, topography (obstructions), and
> many other factors (including the moisture content of any intervening
> foliage).

Right, we are talking the same limitations as analog at 50 miles. More or
less, it works from a hilltop. In the places they mentioned in the article
(e.g. S. Dakota) foliage absorption is not a big issue. We're talking about
the rural West, not northern Maine. Of course, one issue is how to make an
antenna high gain at both 850 and 1900 MHz, but that can be limited to
high-gain at 850 MHz and working reasonably well at 1900.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net