Florida Report on Verizon and Cingular

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:01:19 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>> GSM has a hard limit of about 22 miles, though one person in
>>> the U.S. has extended range GSM.
>>
>> Extended range GSM has range comparable to CDMA2000.
>
>But of course extended GSM is not deployed in the U.S.

You of course know better than that.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Florida Report on Verizon and Cingular

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:11:59 -0400, gerry <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:56:39 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Signal propagation is actually just a function of distance, not
>>frequency. (<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>)
>
>In a vacuum, note the comment about "absorption" below. Humid air
>attenuation is a function of frequency.

Such effects are insignificant below 3 GHz. Citation:
<http://www.aegis-systems.co.uk/consultancy/propagat.html>
Yours?

>> Other
>>factors include reflection, diffraction, scattering, absorbtion, and
>>transmit power. The primary difference between 800 and 1900 (not 1800)
>>bands is the lower power permitted in 1900, but that's only a range
>>difference of about 18%, and only matters when range is limited only by
>>power (e.g., not by terrain), which is relatively rare.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:52:39 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Signal propagation is actually just a function of distance, not
>> frequency. (<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>) Other
>> factors include reflection, diffraction, scattering, absorbtion, and
>> transmit power. The primary difference between 800 and 1900 (not 1800)
>> bands is the lower power permitted in 1900, but that's only a range
>> difference of about 18%, and only matters when range is limited only by
>> power (e.g., not by terrain), which is relatively rare.
>
>You are bound and determined to find references to "prove" your
>statement that a higher frequency as less range by pulling up citations
>that don't address the freq vs range factor or obfusicate it with other
>factors.
>
>Your citation above is a perfect example - it points out a myriad of
>other factors the limit the range. It does NOT imply, much less state
>that frequency is a factor.

That citation makes clear that propagation is a function of distance,
not frequency.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:47:47 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>>> I've posted direct evidence here of Extended Range GSM here off the
>>> coast of San Francisco.
>>
>> You mean you've posted unsubstantiated, anecdotal suspicions of vaporware
>> usage.
>
>Given his history of lies in this newsgroup, he's going to have to come
>up with actual evidence, not simply a claim that he was out on his boat
>at a specific location, and had coverage.

But your similar claim is to be taken at face value?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:56:08 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>> I was picking up some relatives from a cruise at Port Canaveral, and it
>>> was interesting to note that they could use their Verizon phones very
>>> far from the shore (about 50 miles), ...
>>
>> Color me very skeptical.
>
>Must have been "extended CDMA" [/snicker mode]

There are in fact CDMA2000 "boomer cells" with range comparable to
Extended Range GSM. The problem in this case is the lack of sufficient
tower height to reach that far.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>> Actually no, and you can even verify this by observation. Anyone with
>> a commercial/industrial background would be shocked to see the
>> infrastructure of some of the carriers.
>
>
> Not every tower has battery and/or generator back-up. After the last
> hurricane season a lot more were installed. The Cingular press release
> after the big hurricane, about them sending generators down to Florida
> because of the loss of commercial power. Cingular stated that they have
> generators at 25% of their sites, though this was in a press release
> prior to the big hurricane season and they may have improved this since
> then.
>
> Verizon wasn't in such bad shape, as 80% of their sites have generators,
> though they did send in mobile cells to boost capacity.

Thats surprising, I know in my market and the couple adjoining markets I
know they are 100%. The tmobile and Cingular sites are at 0% and are
just toy things that look like they should have a "now with aol premium"
sticker on them.

gerry wrote:
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:23:08 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> gerry wrote:
>>
>>> Drop the "CDMA vs GSM" comparison.
>> It's significant, because GSM has a built-in distance limitation.
>>
>> GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a tower, no
>> matter how strong the signal.
>
> 22 miles rarely is the issue, obstruction or attenuation (can be via
> multiple mechanisms) more often is the problem.

But it _is_ the issue over unobstructed ocean.

George wrote:

> Thats surprising, I know in my market and the couple adjoining markets I
> know they are 100%.

Maybe they are now. The press releases from Verizon claimed 80%, while
the press releases from Cingular claimed 25%.

Maybe 80% is sufficient to have complete coverage, if not maximum capacity.

John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:01:19 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> GSM has a hard limit of about 22 miles, though one person in
>>>> the U.S. has extended range GSM.
>>> Extended range GSM has range comparable to CDMA2000.
>> But of course extended GSM is not deployed in the U.S.
>
> You of course know better than that.


"No, I don't know that..." <-- James Garner as Jim Rockford in the
Rockford Files, circa the 70s.

John Navas wrote:
> That citation makes clear that propagation is a function of distance,
> not frequency.

Incorrect. That citation address the *other* factor that affect
propagation regardless of the frequency, it simply didn't not address
the frequency issue. Stop reading between the lines

John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:47:47 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> I've posted direct evidence here of Extended Range GSM here off the
>>>> coast of San Francisco.
>>> You mean you've posted unsubstantiated, anecdotal suspicions of vaporware
>>> usage.
>> Given his history of lies in this newsgroup, he's going to have to come
>> up with actual evidence, not simply a claim that he was out on his boat
>> at a specific location, and had coverage.
>
> But your similar claim is to be taken at face value?


Ahhhhh....but he DID come up with actual evidence:
1) He experienced it, and that is the evidence in itself.
2) An engineer friend told him so.

George wrote:
> The tmobile and Cingular sites are at 0% and are
> just toy things that look like they should have a "now with aol premium"
> sticker on them.

The AOL logo is still under copyright, but the Cingular jumping jack
guys is fair use. LOL

Depends on where you are. Here in Florida, they are always extremely helpful
and friendly. In Ohio, when I had a line there, they didn't even know
Verizon pro-rates minutes. Swore they didn't. Then she admitted she was
brand new.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> SMS,
>
> I have verizon and i live in ohio. I have to say i never lose or drop
> calls. i have been in offices surrounded by cinder block and it still
> works. The only thing that i dont' like about verizon is the customer
> service. It is not very good and can be very unfriendly.
>
> [Holyhalokingdom u305617]
>
> Games that i enjoy playing:
>
> <a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Multiplayer Online Games</a> <a
> href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Unification Wars</a> - <a
> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Massive Multiplayer Online
> Games</a><br><a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Galactic Conquest</a> -
> <a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htm>Runescape</a><br><a
> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htm>Kings of chaos</a><br>
>

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:

> Ahhhhh....but he DID come up with actual evidence:
> 1) He experienced it, and that is the evidence in itself.
> 2) An engineer friend told him so.

Riiiiggghhht. And I have some land in Florida to sell you.

Frankster wrote:
>> It won't. He must have been using his external imagination.
>
> Nah... I was on a cruise from Miami recently and noticed the same thing. I
> attributed it to antennas being placed on the outlying islands and such as
> the ship was heading out to open sea.

Highly unlikely that those tiny islands would have cell sites on them.
They'd have to be operated by generators or solar power, as the small
islands have no electricity. There is CDMA on Bimini and throughout the
Bahamas, so you could pick up a signal from there, though you'd be roaming.