Results 16 to 30 of 99
- 05-26-2005, 06:52 AM #16GeorgeGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>>So will signal/noise ratios,
>
>
> Wrong again. Irrelevant with a digital system, stupid.
>
>
>>and will the people living near cell towers not
>>complain if their output power increases 10x,
>
>
> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.
I can't think of anything involving the use of radio waves where the S/N
ratio is not an important consideration. S/N ratio has a lot to do with
the ability to make and carry a call even on digital systems. One of the
key things that is measured when doing system quality tests is S/N ratio.
› See More: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
- 05-26-2005, 07:53 AM #17Brian ElfertGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
[email protected] (Don Klipstein) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>MrPepper11 wrote:
> The companies expand their capacity and deploy improved technologies,
>and get more customers to take up most of the added slack. Meanwhile,
>I have noticed that my signal quality is better than it was a few years
>ago, although is still not perfect.
I've noticed huge improvements in signal quality in fringe areas in the
past year or two.
When I am in the metro area of Minneapolis/St. Paul, or on a major highway
in the 5 state area, I would say 95% of my cell calls go through with no
quality problems at all.
I can now go into rural areas 20 miles from a town of any size and still
get full digital service. This area used to be analog with fairly decent
coverage, but went digital in the last year. With digital, I can make
calls with one bar of signal and the quality will be fine where analog
would be total static.
There is another area that used to get two bars of analog if you stood in
just the right spot. Now, there is one or two bars of digital in the
whole area.
Cell service continues to get better and better at least for me.
Brian Elfert
- 05-26-2005, 09:10 AM #18Steven M. ScharfGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
"MrPepper11" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
Stupid article. A cellular phone is a two way radio. It will never be as
good as a landline. You choose the carrier with the best coverage for the
places you go, and hope for the best. If I chose Cingular, I would never
have any dropped calls at my house, because Cingular has no signal here,
most of the time, yet Verizon, and AT&T TDMA, are excellent. The situation
may be different elsewhere.
- 05-26-2005, 11:28 AM #19Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
George <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Don Klipstein <[email protected]> wrote
>>> MrPepper11 wrote:
>>>>One out of three cellphone calls had quality problems last year.
>>>><SNIP>
>>>>In an attempt to eradicate the dropped calls and dead zones that plague
>>>>cellphone users, wireless companies have spent small fortunes trying to
>>>>improve their networks. As part of a telecom mergers boom, last fall,
>>>>Cingular Wireless bought AT&T Wireless for $41 billion, in part to get
>>>>access to additional network capacity.
>>>>But billions of dollars in investments later and several mergers
>>>>further -- and at a time when some 11 million customers have ditched
>>>>their traditional phone service and become more reliant on cellphones
>>>>-- the long-promised improvement still hasn't come. This is an enormous
>>>>source of bafflement and irritation to consumers, whose patience has
>>>>begun to run out as evidenced by a continuing high volume of complaints.
>>>>Roughly one out of three cellphone calls had quality problems of some
>>>>kind last year, according to an online survey by J.D. Power &
>>>>Associates of 21,700 wireless customers. The result was essentially
>>>>unchanged from the 2003 survey, the first year it was conducted.
>>>>Besides dropped calls and an inability to connect, callers constantly
>>>>experienced interference, echoes and voice distortion.
>>> The companies expand their capacity and deploy improved technologies,
>>> and get more customers to take up most of the added slack. Meanwhile,
>>> I have noticed that my signal quality is better than it was a few years
>>> ago, although is still not perfect.
>>> Most cellphone transmissions use some sort or another of digital
>>> technology at least part of the way, apparently with the signal going in
>>> "packets" the way internet communications work, although with need to do
>>> what they can in real time if any packets get lost or delayed in a traffic
>>> jam or on a leg where the signal is weak.
>>> The ratio of transmission capacity to demand will have to go up an order
>>> of magnitude or two in order to make cell phone quality like that of
>>> landlines.
>> Wrong.
>>> So will signal/noise ratios,
>> Wrong again. Irrelevant with a digital system, stupid.
>>> and will the people living near cell towers not
>>> complain if their output power increases 10x,
>> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.
> I can't think of anything involving the use of radio waves where the S/N ratio
> is not an important consideration.
Your problem. One obvious example is with GSM
where the range is determined by the digital cliff
and has nothing to do with the S/N ratio at all.
In spades with the channel capacity which also
has nothing to do with the S/N ratio either.
> S/N ratio has a lot to do with the ability to make and carry a call even on
> digital systems.
Nope, **** all with GSM particularly. Its a system that is
designed to have a relatively high base density so S/N
is essentially irrelevant. The range is determined by the
digital cliff where the base ignores handsets past a specified
range, determined digitally, essentially so handsets further
out dont bleed into the adjacent channel time wise.
> One of the key things that is measured when doing system quality tests is S/N
> ratio.
Its much more complicated than that with digital
system capacity, what was actually being discussed.
>>> and what will people think if their phones put 10x as much radiation
>>> into their brains (regardless of actual degree of health threat),
>> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.
>>> and need for 10x as much battery weight and size?
>> Pathetic, really.
>>> Otherwise increase the number of cell
>>> towers a good order of magnitude -
>> Not necessary either.
>>> what will people say then?
>> Taint gunna happen. No need for that.
>>> I think cell users are actually getting a pretty good deal.
>>> My phone works fully with no lost or garbled words or
>>> severe noises or dropped calls or calls not going through
>>> about 99% of the time and usably for most of the other
>>> 1% of the time. I do expect the situation to improve over
>>> the years,
>> It already has, most obviously with cdma, stupid.
>>> although far from everyone will have an improvement every year
>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist stupids, stupid ?
>>> - in many locations in many years expect that year to
>>> be one where the capability is not outpacing the demand.
>> That should just result in an inability to initiate
>> calls with a properly configured system.
- 05-26-2005, 12:19 PM #20bampGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
"Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:51:39 -0500, "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Horsefeathers! Get a V400 on Cingular and do away with dropped calls.
>>>Worked
>>>for me.
>>
>>You are under the false assumption that dropped calls are only the
>>result of a substandard handset.
>
> It can be a VERY significant part of the problem. I switched to AT&T
> Wireless/Cingular GSM from Verizon and got myself a fairly expensive
> Motorola v551. I then switched my wife's line over as well, but got
> her Motorola v220 because she didn't need Bluetooth. WHAT A
> DIFFERENCE! I've tested the two phones side by side at our home, where
> the signal is marginal (1 to 2 bars max). I never have problems
> placing, receiving or maintaining connection with v551, but I can
> pretty much NEVER place, receive or maintain calls with her v220. I
> just got off the phone with Cingular - I'm replacing her v220 for
> another v551.
>
> Of course, when you're in an area with no coverage, no handset is
> going to help you. But if you're in an area with marginal coverage, a
> handset with great RF performance makes ALL the difference in the
> world!
That's what I said earlier in this thread.
bamp
- 05-26-2005, 12:22 PM #21bampGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>
>>>So will signal/noise ratios,
>>
>>
>> Wrong again. Irrelevant with a digital system, stupid.
>>
>>
>>>and will the people living near cell towers not
>>>complain if their output power increases 10x,
>>
>>
>> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.
>
>
> I can't think of anything involving the use of radio waves where the S/N
> ratio is not an important consideration. S/N ratio has a lot to do with
> the ability to make and carry a call even on digital systems. One of the
> key things that is measured when doing system quality tests is S/N ratio.
>
Yep the better the S/N ratio of the handset, the fewer dropped calls.
bamp
- 05-26-2005, 12:28 PM #22Mij AdyawGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a marginal
signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that the
phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
"bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:51:39 -0500, "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Horsefeathers! Get a V400 on Cingular and do away with dropped calls.
>>>>Worked
>>>>for me.
>>>
>>>You are under the false assumption that dropped calls are only the
>>>result of a substandard handset.
>>
>> It can be a VERY significant part of the problem. I switched to AT&T
>> Wireless/Cingular GSM from Verizon and got myself a fairly expensive
>> Motorola v551. I then switched my wife's line over as well, but got
>> her Motorola v220 because she didn't need Bluetooth. WHAT A
>> DIFFERENCE! I've tested the two phones side by side at our home, where
>> the signal is marginal (1 to 2 bars max). I never have problems
>> placing, receiving or maintaining connection with v551, but I can
>> pretty much NEVER place, receive or maintain calls with her v220. I
>> just got off the phone with Cingular - I'm replacing her v220 for
>> another v551.
>>
>> Of course, when you're in an area with no coverage, no handset is
>> going to help you. But if you're in an area with marginal coverage, a
>> handset with great RF performance makes ALL the difference in the
>> world!
>
> That's what I said earlier in this thread.
>
> bamp
>
- 05-26-2005, 12:54 PM #23Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
"bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So will signal/noise ratios,
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong again. Irrelevant with a digital system, stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>>>and will the people living near cell towers not
>>>>complain if their output power increases 10x,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.
>>
>>
>> I can't think of anything involving the use of radio waves where the S/N
>> ratio is not an important consideration. S/N ratio has a lot to do with the
>> ability to make and carry a call even on digital systems. One of the key
>> things that is measured when doing system quality tests is S/N ratio.
> Yep the better the S/N ratio of the handset, the fewer dropped calls.
Its much more complicated than that, most obviously with GSM.
- 05-26-2005, 02:27 PM #24Steven M. ScharfGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
"bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Did you say that dropped calls are not the fault of a substandard handset?
Rarely is this the case, because the handsets are not all that different in
terms of how well they perform. Dropped calls on GSM are usually the result
of trying to move from one cell to another cell, where the other cell has no
capacity to take the handoff.
Your statement that a V400 on Cingular will solve the problem is
particularly ridiculous. This may have worked for you, but this means
nothing. I can guarantee that it won't work for me, I have had three GSM
phones, and never have been able to get a decent Cingular GSM signal, but
have good TDMA and CDMA coverage. The first rule in selecting a carrier is
to only choose a carrier that evolved from the old A or B AMPS carrier.
These carriers have the infrastructure and the better spectrum.
- 05-26-2005, 04:20 PM #25NotanGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
> An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a marginal
> signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that the
> phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
I was under the impression that extendable antennas only
enhanced analog signals, not digital.
Wrong?
Notan
- 05-26-2005, 04:45 PM #26Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
Notan <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mij Adyaw wrote
>> An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
>> marginal signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common
>> problem is that the phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
> I was under the impression that extendable antennas
> only enhanced analog signals, not digital.
> Wrong?
Yes, wrong. Still works with digital cdma and while you cant buy
them anymore with gsm, it worked with gsm when you could.
- 05-26-2005, 04:46 PM #27Mij AdyawGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
That is one the the reasons wny GSM systems are inferior to CDMA systems.
They simply do not want to deal with replacing broken antennas.
"Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
>>marginal
>>signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that
>>the
>>phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
>
> Those things have gone the way of horse-drawn carriages. I don't think
> there's a single GSM phone on the market today with an extendable
> antenna...
- 05-26-2005, 04:49 PM #28Mij AdyawGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
You are correct. The GSM companies removed them so that they would not have
to deal with replacing broken antennas. It is that simple. A pull-out
antenna will improve the performance for analog, GSM, CDMA, TDMA, ... etc.
My GSM friends are constantly borrowing my SprintPCS phone with an external
antenna whenever their GSM phone fails to make or hold a call.
"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Notan <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mij Adyaw wrote
>
>>> An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
>>> marginal signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common
>>> problem is that the phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
>
>> I was under the impression that extendable antennas
>> only enhanced analog signals, not digital.
>
>> Wrong?
>
> Yes, wrong. Still works with digital cdma and while you cant buy
> them anymore with gsm, it worked with gsm when you could.
>
- 05-26-2005, 05:13 PM #29Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:alsle.43$4p.20@fed1read03...
> That is one the the reasons wny GSM systems are inferior to CDMA systems.
Nope, its an inevitable consequence of the completely different
design approach. GSM uses a high density of bases with a digital
cliff that sees the base ignore handsets that are further away than
a specified distance from the base, even when it can hear them.
In THAT situation internal antennas work fine.
CDMA is completely different with the technology allowing
communication with more than one base at a time, and that
means that the antenna requirements are quite different.
> They simply do not want to deal with replacing broken antennas.
That has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
> "Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a marginal
>>>signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that the
>>>phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
>>
>> Those things have gone the way of horse-drawn carriages. I don't think
>> there's a single GSM phone on the market today with an extendable
>> antenna...
>
>
- 05-26-2005, 05:22 PM #30Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now
Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:Cnsle.44$4p.14@fed1read03...
> You are correct. The GSM companies removed them so that they would not have to
> deal with replacing broken antennas. It is that simple.
Wrong. They basically just designed them better so they
arent needed with the design philosophy that is the basis
of GSM, a high density of bases with a digital cliff that
sees the base ignore a handset thats further away then
specified, so it doesnt bleed into another time slot.
They initially had the stub antennas like with the Nokia
5110 and have now gone to entirely internal antennas,
because the entirely internal antennas perform well enough.
Your broken antenna claim cant fly with the stubs like on the 5110.
> A pull-out antenna will improve the performance for analog, GSM, CDMA, TDMA,
> ... etc.
Wrong. When you have an adequate
signal level, the pull out antenna is useless.
> My GSM friends are constantly borrowing my SprintPCS phone with an external
> antenna whenever their GSM phone fails to make or hold a call.
Separate issue entirely to whether a GSM handset with
a pullout antenna will work any better in that location.
> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Notan <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Mij Adyaw wrote
>>
>>>> An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
>>>> marginal signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common
>>>> problem is that the phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
>>
>>> I was under the impression that extendable antennas
>>> only enhanced analog signals, not digital.
>>
>>> Wrong?
>>
>> Yes, wrong. Still works with digital cdma and while you cant buy
>> them anymore with gsm, it worked with gsm when you could.
>>
>
>
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.nextel
- alt.cellular.nextel
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat