So how good/bad is Cingular?

[email protected] wrote:

> I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
> Why bother?

Well, the frequencies used in the US of A are 850 and 1900. In England
and France however, the frequencies used are 900 and 1800. This is
only one example. Most of North America is 850 and 1900, while most of
Europe is 900 and 1800. (I didn't have time to research but a half a
dozen countries.)

So if you only have a dual frequency 850/1900 phone, it would be
useless if you brought it to England or France for instance. Many
people travel back and forth to Europe, and it is very useful for them
to have a phone that works on both sides of the big pond. Even if you
only make one trip over there, using a phone that you are familiar
with, with your phonebook inside, is very convenient.

Having access to both 850 and 1900 in the US gives you access to a
useful wireless signal in the most places. Having access to 900 and
1800 in England or France (and most likely all of Europe) gives you
access to a wireless signal in the most places. If you have a quad
band phone 850/900/1800/1900, you can access almost all GMS frequencies
available across the world. See links below:

http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml

http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_gb.shtml

http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_fr.shtml

---

› See More: So how good/bad is Cingular?

On 25 Jul 2005 16:27:59 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
>> Why bother?
>
>Well, the frequencies used in the US of A are 850 and 1900. In England
>and France however, the frequencies used are 900 and 1800. This is
>only one example. Most of North America is 850 and 1900, while most of
>Europe is 900 and 1800. (I didn't have time to research but a half a
>dozen countries.)
>
>So if you only have a dual frequency 850/1900 phone, it would be
>useless if you brought it to England or France for instance. Many
>people travel back and forth to Europe, and it is very useful for them
>to have a phone that works on both sides of the big pond. Even if you
>only make one trip over there, using a phone that you are familiar
>with, with your phonebook inside, is very convenient.
>
>Having access to both 850 and 1900 in the US gives you access to a
>useful wireless signal in the most places. Having access to 900 and
>1800 in England or France (and most likely all of Europe) gives you
>access to a wireless signal in the most places. If you have a quad
>band phone 850/900/1800/1900, you can access almost all GMS frequencies
>available across the world. See links below:
>
>http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml
>
>http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_gb.shtml
>
>http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_fr.shtml

No, what I was getting at was the choice of 1800 for the non US band.

I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I used to but I believe
with the exception of Brazil, 900 is always the primary band.

In other words the big providers grab the 900 slots first.

Maybe the answer is that phone is targeted toward people that travel
to Brazil?

[email protected] wrote:

> No, what I was getting at was the choice of 1800 for the non US band.

> I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I used to but I believe
> with the exception of Brazil, 900 is always the primary band.

> In other words the big providers grab the 900 slots first.

> Maybe the answer is that phone is targeted toward people that travel
> to Brazil?

Well, I really haven't researched it that far, so you could be right.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:37:48
-0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On 25 Jul 2005 16:27:59 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
>>> Why bother?

>No, what I was getting at was the choice of 1800 for the non US band.
>
>I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I used to but I believe
>with the exception of Brazil, 900 is always the primary band.
>
>In other words the big providers grab the 900 slots first.
>
>Maybe the answer is that phone is targeted toward people that travel
>to Brazil?

No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing efficiency of
a tri-band phone:

It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones can
be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as useful
as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to make.

The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and 900 than
between 850 and 1800.

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

John Navas wrote:

> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
> efficiency of a tri-band phone:

> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
> make.

> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
> 900 than between 850 and 1800.

But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
missing something here?

Joseph wrote:

> Yes you are. It's not that simple.

Very enlightening. Thank you very much!!!

On 26 Jul 2005 17:13:31 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
>> efficiency of a tri-band phone:
>
>> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
>> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
>> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
>> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
>> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
>> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
>> make.
>
>> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
>> 900 than between 850 and 1800.
>
>But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
>to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
>close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
>missing something here?

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but as I recall, the 1800 and
1900 bands actually overlap. My first triband phone (L something
Timeport from Mot which I still have) had to be manually switched
between 1900 and 900/1800 and there was potential for interference
because the TX from one band was in the RX in the other.

So, when building the RF section it's probably close enough. The 850
and 900 are far enough apart that it probably requires more
engineering.

Historically I have found that the rates for the 1800 carriers are
cheaper but I would not want to travel with an 1800 only phone (unless
it was Brazil) because you may not get the coverage out in West
Overcoat or East Pinhole.

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

In <[email protected]> on 26 Jul 2005
17:13:31 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
>> efficiency of a tri-band phone:
>
>> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
>> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
>> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
>> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
>> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
>> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
>> make.
>
>> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
>> 900 than between 850 and 1800.
>
>But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
>to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
>close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
>missing something here?

Indeed, you are missing something: issues of chipset cost and availability.
Tri-band "world phone" 900/1800/1900 chipsets were developed when the USA only
had GSM 1900. These chipsets are now dirt cheap. With the advent of GSM 850
in the USA, the easiest and cheapest way to add GSM 850 was to convert an
900/1800/1900 chipset to 850/1800/1900. 850/1900 was a new design, and thus
more expensive (at least initially). Quad-band 850/900/1800/1900 was likewise
a new design, more complex, and thus even more expensive. This is why we see
so many tri-band phones that are offered in two versions, 850/1800/1900 for
the USA, and 900/1800/1900 for the rest of the world.

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

Well, at least I got a real answer as to what I was missing from John
Navas as opposed to some quip from Joseph.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:30:16 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on 26 Jul 2005
>17:13:31 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
>>> efficiency of a tri-band phone:
>>
>>> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
>>> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
>>> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
>>> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
>>> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
>>> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
>>> make.
>>
>>> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
>>> 900 than between 850 and 1800.
>>
>>But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
>>to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
>>close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
>>missing something here?
>
>Indeed, you are missing something: issues of chipset cost and availability.
>Tri-band "world phone" 900/1800/1900 chipsets were developed when the USA only
>had GSM 1900. These chipsets are now dirt cheap. With the advent of GSM 850
>in the USA, the easiest and cheapest way to add GSM 850 was to convert an
>900/1800/1900 chipset to 850/1800/1900. 850/1900 was a new design, and thus
>more expensive (at least initially). Quad-band 850/900/1800/1900 was likewise
>a new design, more complex, and thus even more expensive. This is why we see
>so many tri-band phones that are offered in two versions, 850/1800/1900 for
>the USA, and 900/1800/1900 for the rest of the world.

NOW I get it.