Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 87
  1. #46
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:16:13 -0400,
    Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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;


    Nonsense. It's simply a matter of practicality -- small, inexpensive handsets
    just don't have enough processing power to do both at the same time.

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



    See More: Signal coverage--truth in advertising




  2. #47
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:13:59 -0400,
    Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.

    >
    >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.


    Indeed, because the market almost certainly wouldn't let that happen -- either
    the industry would get behind one standard, or we'd have multi-standard TVs.
    Even a very inexpensive DVD player can play both NTSC and PAL DVDs.

    >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....


    Really, really bad idea, and zero prospect of it happening fortunately.

    >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.


    Nonsense. Phones are essentially free with new service, and frequently
    "upgraded" by consumers, and thus aren't an impediment to switching carriers.

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



  3. #48
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

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

    In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:06:32 -0400,
    Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

    >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
    >news:jIaHe.6665$p%[email protected]:
    >
    >> NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that
    >> standard we'd probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS),
    >> rather than enjoying the benefits of vigorous competition between GSM
    >> and CDMA.

    >
    >True....But I bet before this conversion to digital TV is over, the
    >politicians will wish they'd never heard of digital TV.
    >
    >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....


    There's lots of good stuff on TV *if* you take the time to seek it out; e.g.,
    West Wing, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, The Sopranos,
    Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Over There, ...

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



  4. #49
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:17:45 -0400,
    Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"(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.


    Utter nonsense. PBS is one of the few relatively balanced broadcasters left
    in America, as shown by study after study.

    >Is it any wonder the
    >conservatives in the White House would cut them off?


    The neo-cons just want to live in a world where the only "choice" is Fox News,
    their idea of "balanced" coverage.

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



  5. #50

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:42:26 -0700, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Ben Skversky wrote:
    >> I've been with T-Mobile for ten days. So far the service is great. No
    >> dropped calls. 1000 minute family plan for $69.99.

    >
    >Again, coverage varies.

    It sure does!
    >
    >Sprint and T-Mobile *both* used to suck a whole lot more than they do now,
    >coverage-wise.


    In my experience after being on Sprint in Southern Calif since 1999
    Sprint's coverage was terrible, then improved greatly. It has however
    sucked for me for the last two years. It could be due to many
    subscribers in this area.

    We just switched to Tmobile a week ago. So far it's far better than
    Sprint, though not nearly "perfect". I have had 2 locations with no
    service.

    The difference between Tmobile and the rest seems to be this:

    1. Unlike Verizon and Sprint and Cingular they don't give you free
    mobile to mobile so you can call people free that you don't know and
    won't be calling. And they charge lots less. It was a good tradeoff
    for us.

    2. Tmobile only wants you to sign a one year contract and are giving
    you a new phone every 12 months. I like their demeanor better as well,
    though this has been admittedly a brief test.

    On Sprint they give you a $150 mail in rebate after 18 months (I
    actually witnessed them moving that date back on their site), but the
    phones you would want are $399. BFD! 2 year contract.

    3. Compared to CDMA GSM handsets are very slick. I am seriously
    impressed with the hardware. Much more advanced IMHO.

    4. The GSM cellsite equipment is light years ahead of CDMA (I have
    been inside CDMA cellsites-it's a huge concrete building with 2500# of
    batteries).

    The GSM cellsites, you can't go inside, it's a little box. If anyone
    could afford to improve coverage the magnitude of the problem with GSM
    is a fraction of what Sprint, Verizon or Nextel have to haul out there
    and install!

    GSM also has the capability of putting a cellsite where there is no
    dataline, they use a little Nokia link radio to backhaul. It's a
    fraction of all the rackmouted junk the CDMA carriers are using.

    I got a RAZR for $100, $50 after rebate, wife got a free Samsung e335.

    We presently have 1000 minutes each for $39.99. We will switch to a
    family plan in a month or so more than likely.




  6. #51
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > 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.


    And you put up with that?
    Why not put a decent antenna on your roof or in your attic, and distribute
    that signal to the various rooms that need it.


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


    Yep, sure is.

    --
    John Richards






  7. #52
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    Joseph Huber wrote:
    > 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.


    Hey, but you can download different ringtones now!
    Aren't the technical advancements wonderful?

    --
    John Richards






  8. #53
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:38:28 -0000,
    [email protected] (Jim Seymour) wrote:

    >In article <sVeHe.6694$p%[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> writes:


    >> 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.


    There's lots of good stuff on commercial TV if you take the time to seek it
    out; e.g., West Wing, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, The
    Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Over There, ...

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



  9. #54
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:16:13 -0400,
    > Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> 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;

    >
    > Nonsense. It's simply a matter of practicality -- small, inexpensive handsets
    > just don't have enough processing power to do both at the same time.


    Small, inexpensive GSM handsets do it easily.

    --
    John Richards






  10. #55
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:40:36
    GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:16:13 -0400,
    >> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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;

    >>
    >> Nonsense. It's simply a matter of practicality -- small, inexpensive handsets
    >> just don't have enough processing power to do both at the same time.

    >
    >Small, inexpensive GSM handsets do it easily.


    Actually they don't. GPRS (and EGRPS/EDGE) comes in three classes:

    Class A mobile phones can be connected to both GPRS and GSM services
    simultaneously.

    Class B mobile phones can be attached to both GPRS and GSM services,
    using one service at a time. Class B enables making or receiving a
    voice call, or sending/receiving an SMS during a GPRS connection.
    During voice calls or SMS, GPRS services are suspended and then
    resumed automatically after the call or SMS session has ended.

    Class C mobile phones are attached to either GPRS or GSM voice
    service. You need to switch manually between services.

    All GSM phones I know of are Class B.

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



  11. #56
    (PeteCresswell)
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    Per Jim Seymour:
    >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?


    Huge development in this area.

    Corn fields have become corporate plazas and upscale developments.

    Dunno about the "tall" part, but certainly plenty of new structures.

    Antenna towers? At least one humongous one that is decked out as a faux
    redwood tree.
    --
    PeteCresswell



  12. #57
    (PeteCresswell)
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    Per John Richards:
    >And you put up with that?
    >Why not put a decent antenna on your roof or in your attic, and distribute
    >that signal to the various rooms that need it.


    Got a link?

    I was thinking about some sort of signal repeater as described in another thread
    - as in www.wirelessextenders.com

    Solving the home problem would go a long way for me. Right now I'm leaving a
    window open, staging the cell phone on the hood of my car, and running outside
    everytime it rings....-)
    --
    PeteCresswell



  13. #58
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per John Richards:
    >> And you put up with that?
    >> Why not put a decent antenna on your roof or in your attic, and distribute
    >> that signal to the various rooms that need it.

    >
    > Got a link?
    >
    > I was thinking about some sort of signal repeater as described in another thread
    > - as in www.wirelessextenders.com
    >
    > Solving the home problem would go a long way for me. Right now I'm leaving a
    > window open, staging the cell phone on the hood of my car, and running outside
    > everytime it rings....-)


    Actually, I was commenting on your TV reception problem.
    Sorry, I'm not familiar with cellular repeaters.

    --
    John Richards






  14. #59
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    >
    > 1. Unlike Verizon and Sprint and Cingular they don't give you free
    > mobile to mobile so you can call people free that you don't know and
    > won't be calling. And they charge lots less. It was a good tradeoff
    > for us.


    It depends on the plan, you can get unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes. I
    actually have a T-Mobile phone on a friend's plan just for the
    mobile-to-mobile, between that and Cingular I have a good portion of mobile
    users for "talk free" minutes.

    TH




  15. #60
    CellGuy
    Guest

    Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:49:15 -0700, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

    > 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?


    Cell phones and TV both use radio signals. The multipath effect that causes
    signal loss in different areas works the same.

    Different frequencies will also exhibit different multipath effects - that's
    why 800MHz cell phones will work better in some areas where 1900MHz ones
    don't, and visa-versa.



Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast