"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:68isg1pam1dj3js0nrfsge33gd4778juqg@4ax.com...
> well. If you're not going to opt for a quad band phone you'll have to
> make the decision which is more imporant for you to have 850/1800/1900
> or 900/1800/1900.
IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get a
850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
service to consider that a vaible option.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
DaveC wrote:
> Thus spake Donald Newcomb:
>
>
>>IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get a
>>850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
>>purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
>>travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
>>service to consider that a vaible option.
>
>
> Your advice rings of that from someone well travelled with wisdom to impart.
> I'll take it to heart.
>
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without service?
It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
Global System for Mobiles!
--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.
DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without service?
The only phone I've used in the US was a 900/1800/1900, so I can't really
compare, but...
With a Cingular SIM card, I could not get a signal in many parts of
Georgetown, DC (a very densely-populated area which I am sure has a lot of
cell phone users), even standing outdoors on the sidewalk.
Also had trouble inside buildings in Phoenix sometimes.
My phone has 8 bars for signal quality; it was rare anywhere in the US
outside of Los Angeles that I had all 8 bars showing - usually 3 or 4 (but
the phone worked in those cases). By contrast, in Asia and Europe, even in
small Indonesian towns and the like, it is rare that I do NOT have all 8
bars showing.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan
"DaveC" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF34156600F4DCE4F04075B0@news.readfreenews.net...
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US
where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without
service?
Yes, this is a big problem, today; but they only came out with GSM-850 a
couple of years ago. My solution has always been to have two phones. My wife
has an account with an old-line cellular company that has been using TDMA
and we have always had coverage everywhere in the US & Canada with her
phone. I've also had a TDMA prepaid that gave me the coverage GSM 1900
didn't. What's more, is that my US GSM carrier is T-Mobile, which has always
been only 1900 MHz and only recently got some 850 MHz roaming agreements.
This is sort of like being an Orange customer in UK or Metror customer in
Ireland. Since GSM 1900 was the first, and for many years, only form of GSM,
the companies that employed it tried to build continuous coverage over those
areas they covered.
Contrast this with the countries which either have no GSM-1800 or only use
it for spot augmentation of GSM-900 or only have GSM-1800 in cities. In the
Netherlands it doesn't matter; the 900 and 1800 coverage maps are the same
but in Norway it could be a big deal and in most of Africa you will be flat
out of luck without 900.
Yes, I am looking for a good deal on an unlocked Quad-band phone (with BT,
Java & EDGE, if you please) but I certainly wouldn't take an 850/1800/1900
phone as a substitute.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
"Simon Templar" <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in message
news:430ecbcb$1_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
> Global System for Mobiles!
This debate got off the boat with Noah.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "Simon Templar" <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in message
> news:430ecbcb$1_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>
>>It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
>>Global System for Mobiles!
>
>
> This debate got off the boat with Noah.
I realise it is an old debate.
The fact remains that 850 GSM is an oddball allocation that only works
in the US and as such has created a problem for worldwide roaming,
whether you are a visitor to the US or taking a US phone overseas.
Whatever the cause or reason it is still a shame.
--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.
Northern Wisc and MN, you need 850 GSM if you are a T-Mobile Customer and
want to roam on Dobson. If you don't have 850 GSM, you are out of luck.
This covers a pretty big area.
Mike Schumann
"DaveC" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF34156600F4DCE4F04075B0@news.readfreenews.net...
> Thus spake Donald Newcomb:
>
>> IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get
>> a
>> 850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
>> purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
>> travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
>> service to consider that a vaible option.
>
> Your advice rings of that from someone well travelled with wisdom to
> impart.
> I'll take it to heart.
>
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US
> where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without
> service?
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> me@privacy.net
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>
>> The fact remains that 850 GSM is an oddball allocation that
>> only works in the US and as such has created a problem for
>> worldwide roaming, whether you are a visitor to the US or
>> taking a US phone overseas.
> GSM @ 900 was put in place without considering that cellular was
> at 800 Mhz for most all installations of AMPS and not just in
> the USA and Canada.
>
> To blame the US for not following what was *originally* going to
> be only a European standard and when the European GSM forces
> decided on 900 Mhz when that spectrum in the US could not or
> would not be easily moved.
Nobody is to blame at all.
It was quite clear right from the beginning that no universal
frequency band would be available around the globe. What we call
"roaming" today, right from the beginning was conceived as the
possibility to take your SIM and put it into another phone when
travelling from Europe to North America (or vice versa) without
further hassle: This is itself being already much, much more than
could have been imagined previously.
"Michael Pronay" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96BF603CDAE00pronaygmxat@pronay.com...
> It was quite clear right from the beginning that no universal
> frequency band would be available around the globe. What we call
> "roaming" today, right from the beginning was conceived as the
> possibility to take your SIM and put it into another phone when
> travelling from Europe to North America (or vice versa) without
> further hassle: This is itself being already much, much more than
> could have been imagined previously.
I'm really reluctant to stick my oar in this topic yet again, but here goes.
Everyone who was born before the 1980s should be able to remember when 99%
of mobile phones were things bolted into vehicles. When GSM was developed,
the SIM card was something you slid into the handset of what ever mobile
phone was mounted in the car you were riding in. It was only important to
have the same frequencies used in countries you might drive your car to.
That was then and this is now, and that's why we have this debate.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
In article <Xns96BF603CDAE00pronaygmxat@pronay.com>, Michael Pronay wrote:
> It was quite clear right from the beginning that no universal
> frequency band would be available around the globe. What we call
> "roaming" today, right from the beginning was conceived as the
> possibility to take your SIM and put it into another phone when
> travelling from Europe to North America (or vice versa) without
> further hassle: This is itself being already much, much more than
> could have been imagined previously.
Actually it was intended for country to country roaming. At the time GSM was devised it was illegal to import a cell phone from one European
country to another.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.
> I'm really reluctant to stick my oar in this topic yet again,
> but here goes. Everyone who was born before the 1980s should be
> able to remember when 99% of mobile phones were things bolted
> into vehicles. When GSM was developed, the SIM card was
> something you slid into the handset of what ever mobile phone
> was mounted in the car you were riding in.
Sorry, I don't know where you live, but over here (AT, DE, CH, FR,
IT) the first mobile phones have not been GSM at at all. The first
two mobile phone generations were for cars. The third was still
analog and had already widespread mobile handsets. The fourth
generation (GSM) was already totally mobile and not stuck to cars.
"Michael Pronay" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96BFEB1931702pronaygmxat@pronay.com...
> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:
> Sorry, I don't know where you live, but over here (AT, DE, CH, FR,
> IT) the first mobile phones have not been GSM at at all. The first
> two mobile phone generations were for cars. The third was still
> analog and had already widespread mobile handsets. The fourth
> generation (GSM) was already totally mobile and not stuck to cars.
GSM was first developed in the mid 1980s. I think the first network went
live in '92 in Finland. The first SIM cards were all the size of a credit
card. As an afterthought they created the postage-stamp sized card to fit in
the ever shrinking handsets. All of these things ware running in parallel.
The IDEA of GSM was to be able to move that credit-card sized SIM from phone
to phone, as needed. In practice, it turned out easier to carry the phone
with you.
In any case, I can recall asking, almost 10 (maybe 8) years ago on some of
these Usenet groups, why people thought it was important to have a
dual-band (900/1900) phone (remember the Bosch World 918?). After all, I had
a Nokia 2110 and a 2190, when I went overseas I carried both phones but just
one charger and battery. Swapping phones as needed gave me global coverage.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
In message <Xns96BFEB1931702pronaygmxat@pronay.com> Michael Pronay
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm really reluctant to stick my oar in this topic yet again,
>> but here goes. Everyone who was born before the 1980s should be
>> able to remember when 99% of mobile phones were things bolted
>> into vehicles. When GSM was developed, the SIM card was
>> something you slid into the handset of what ever mobile phone
>> was mounted in the car you were riding in.
>
>Sorry, I don't know where you live, but over here (AT, DE, CH, FR,
>IT) the first mobile phones have not been GSM at at all. The first
>two mobile phone generations were for cars. The third was still
>analog and had already widespread mobile handsets. The fourth
>generation (GSM) was already totally mobile and not stuck to cars.
Sure, but that's unrelated to what GSM was developed for initially.
--
Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts
-- Jeff Foxworthy
> In any case, I can recall asking, almost 10 (maybe 8) years ago
> on some of these Usenet groups, why people thought it was
> important to have a dual-band (900/1900) phone (remember the
> Bosch World 918?). After all, I had a Nokia 2110 and a 2190,
> when I went overseas I carried both phones but just one charger
> and battery. Swapping phones as needed gave me global coverage.
Linear Mode
