Pagers may be better than cell phones

Lawrence Glasser wrote:

> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>>This has always been an illusion. A lack of signal strength indicators
>>does not mean that you've always got a good signal. it's simply harder
>>to discern whether you've actually got good coverage on a pager than it
>>is on a cell phone.
>
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no.
>
> It's more of a binary (on/off) phenonenon, rather that incremental.

How is this a benefit? You either have coverage or you don't. Someone
who is missing their pages certainly doesn't care whether their pager is
binary or incremental... they're still out of range.

> My pager (a 2-way Motorola PF 1500) displays "Receiving Messages" when it's
> out of transmitting range, and "Storing Messages" when it's completely out
> of range.

A euphemism for "no service."

> And, while not scientifically proven, at least by me, my pager *does* seem
> to have better coverage than cell phones.
> I'm frequently in lead-lined, or highly shielded, areas, where *no one's"
> cell phone gets a signal, yet I'm able to send/receive paging messages.

As always, YMMV. I used pagers before I used cell phones too, and like
many people today, I had a problem where I couldn't get any pages in my
house, and an entire part of town wasn't covered. However, complicating
matters was the fact that PageNet (the company i was with back then)
very frequently would refuse to believe that they had any holes in their
coverage, because they too subscribed to the "we're not a cell phone
service, therefore we have better coverage" myth. A RadioShack police
scanner tuned to their paging frequency easily proved them wrong... but
while I was there, I managed to pick up a cell phone, too, which did
quite fine in my house and all over town. And that's when I got rid of
my pager.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

---

› See More: Pagers may be better than cell phones

Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Gee, thanks. At least with a cell phone, I can choose not to answer.
>>>With spam on a pager, i've received the message whether i wanted to or
>>>not. Nothing I can do about that once it's happened.
>>
>> Uhhh... same with SMS spam to a cell phone.
>
>Uhhh, I'm not paying to receive SMS messages; charges incur only upon
>sending. While still annoying, I know that I'm not paying for it.

Verizon Wireless charges to receive messages as well as send them, at
least on my plan.



==
Jack Hamilton
[email protected]

==
In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
Edward Gibbons

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> Lawrence Glasser wrote:
>
> > Isaiah Beard wrote:
> >>This has always been an illusion. A lack of signal strength indicators
> >>does not mean that you've always got a good signal. it's simply harder
> >>to discern whether you've actually got good coverage on a pager than it
> >>is on a cell phone.
> >
> >
> > Maybe yes, maybe no.
> >
> > It's more of a binary (on/off) phenonenon, rather that incremental.
>
> How is this a benefit? You either have coverage or you don't. Someone
> who is missing their pages certainly doesn't care whether their pager is
> binary or incremental... they're still out of range.

I never said it was a benefit. I was talking about "it's simply harder to
discern..."

>
> > My pager (a 2-way Motorola PF 1500) displays "Receiving Messages" when it's
> > out of transmitting range, and "Storing Messages" when it's completely out
> > of range.
>
> A euphemism for "no service."

Yep.

>
> > And, while not scientifically proven, at least by me, my pager *does* seem
> > to have better coverage than cell phones.
> > I'm frequently in lead-lined, or highly shielded, areas, where *no one's"
> > cell phone gets a signal, yet I'm able to send/receive paging messages.
>
> As always, YMMV. I used pagers before I used cell phones too, and like
> many people today, I had a problem where I couldn't get any pages in my
> house, and an entire part of town wasn't covered. However, complicating
> matters was the fact that PageNet (the company i was with back then)
> very frequently would refuse to believe that they had any holes in their
> coverage, because they too subscribed to the "we're not a cell phone
> service, therefore we have better coverage" myth. A RadioShack police
> scanner tuned to their paging frequency easily proved them wrong... but
> while I was there, I managed to pick up a cell phone, too, which did
> quite fine in my house and all over town. And that's when I got rid of
> my pager.

Again, what works for me might not work for you, and vice versa.

How much time do *you* spend in shielded areas? <g>

Larry

In alt.cellular Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Really? Based on what? A one way pager requires me to rely on whatever
>>>news source the paging carrier has contracted with, and I'm stuck with
>>>small stale headlines that are a couple lines long per item (I know
>>>because I used to subscribe to this back in the day). With a cell
>>>phone, I can choose my news source, and get a completed story at will.
>>
>>
>> SMS is limited to 160 characters.
>
> 1. What does SMS have to do with the above topic? I was referring to
> WAP browsing.

Ok, I was making a comparison of alpha paging to the cellular service that
most directly compares to it - SMS being the cellular equivalent of alpha
paging on a pager. Of course, that limitation doesn't apply to WAP browsing.

>> Uhhh... same with SMS spam to a cell phone.
>
> Uhhh, I'm not paying to receive SMS messages; charges incur only upon
> sending. While still annoying, I know that I'm not paying for it.

With Verizon and Sprint, at least, you pay both ways.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

On Tue, 18 May 2004 02:55:01 GMT, Lawrence Glasser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Stan wrote:
>>
>> "Robert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Mainly because cell phones have more dead spots than pagers!
>> >
>> That depends on the animal. 2-way pagers have plenty of dead spots,
>> including inside buildings where my cell phone has no problem.
>>
>> One way pagers are useless, since they don't offer store-and-forward
>> service. How do you know when you're out of area?
>
>The pager displays "Storing Messages."
>
>Larry

The Two-Way my employer used to supply us would store messages until
you got back into a service area and then start beeping you... and
beeping you... and beeping you over and over with same damn message
that kept repeating the page until you got back into service. That
was very annoying since you usually were driving your car when it
happened.

Russ

respond here or email responses to cruzincat"deletethis"@cruzincat.com

Russell Patterson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 02:55:01 GMT, Lawrence Glasser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Stan wrote:
> >>
> >> "Robert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Mainly because cell phones have more dead spots than pagers!
> >> >
> >> That depends on the animal. 2-way pagers have plenty of dead spots,
> >> including inside buildings where my cell phone has no problem.
> >>
> >> One way pagers are useless, since they don't offer store-and-forward
> >> service. How do you know when you're out of area?
> >
> >The pager displays "Storing Messages."
> >
> >Larry
>
> The Two-Way my employer used to supply us would store messages until
> you got back into a service area and then start beeping you... and
> beeping you... and beeping you over and over with same damn message
> that kept repeating the page until you got back into service. That
> was very annoying since you usually were driving your car when it
> happened.

I could see where that might be a bit annoying! <g>

I've never had that problem with Verizon.

Larry

I have 3 lines in my house, Cable modem, cat-5 to every room, wifi for
laptops, Direct TV, 2 cells and...... my Skyel Talkabout pager. I
love the pager. Rarely out of range (for incoming) had 250 char
display, micro (full) keypad. I can get a text message and reply
while in a meeting without being rude. They are a great business tool
and until cell phones coverage is as good and as easy to use. It is no
fun typing messages on a cell.



"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "PagerGuy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > From newsgroup: news:tnn.comm.pager
> >
>
> Yeah!!! I mean, just because I carry a cell phone doesn't mean I have to
> ditch my pager. I may drive an SUV but I still tow my horse trailer behind
> it as a back-up. THE HORSE IS NOT DEAD!!!! -Dave

Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> And, while not scientifically proven, at least by me, my pager *does*
> seem to have better coverage than cell phones.
>
> I'm frequently in lead-lined, or highly shielded, areas, where *no
> one's" cell phone gets a signal, yet I'm able to send/receive paging
> messages.
>
Pagers will always have better coverage than cellphones. Your toyphone
listens to ONE little transmitter at 150' on the other side of the
building, with the same poor reception you get on voice. The pager, on the
other hand, is listening to an entire network of 350 to 500 watt monster
transmitters, all on the SAME frequency, all transmitting the SAME data,
all the time. Because so many high powered transmitters are broadcasting
your data, there are no "shadows", like there are, as we all know, on a
cellular system. The reality of narrowband FM, the modulation used by the
pager, encoded with various tone encoding schemes for the data, is that an
FM receiver locks onto the strongest signal on the frequency, by default of
the physics of FM.

All these transmitters are very close, within a few Hz, of being on the
exact same frequency, which prevents them beating against each other. With
all this high powered RF spraying around from very tall antennas trying to
reach as far as possible, without the cellular worries of overlapping
coverage reducing revenues, it's nearly impossible to get a pager into an
area of the city where it has no signal, in a properly designed system.

Pagers also have the advantage of being on lower frequency spectrum.
Pagers operate in one of several bands....152, 462, 800 Mhz bands simply
have better coverage than the higher, near microwave bands of cellular near
900 and 1900 Mhz. But, most importantly to get the signal through, is the
POWER. POWER IS OUR FRIEND. And, paging HAS the power to make it happen.

Reverse paging sucks. It doesn't have the power....

Larry

"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pagers also have the advantage of being on lower frequency spectrum.
> Pagers operate in one of several bands....152, 462, 800 Mhz bands simply
> have better coverage than the higher, near microwave bands of cellular
near
> 900 and 1900 Mhz.

Actually, most 150 & 450 MHz systems are no longer in use, as most
infrastructure & device manufacturers have dedicated their frail & limited
resources in the 900 MHz band where all the middle/upper-tier carriers have
moved to. Substantially all POCSAG, FLEX, and ReFLEX systems in use today
in the US are operating between 929-932 MHz. It is cellular & SMR that
occupies in the 800 MHz band, with PCS at 1900 MHz.

Your overall point is correct, but I wanted to make sure the facts were
presented as accurately as possible.

---
MD

"MD" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually, most 150 & 450 MHz systems are no longer in use, as most
> infrastructure & device manufacturers have dedicated their frail &
> limited resources in the 900 MHz band where all the middle/upper-tier
> carriers have moved to. Substantially all POCSAG, FLEX, and ReFLEX
> systems in use today in the US are operating between 929-932 MHz. It
> is cellular & SMR that occupies in the 800 MHz band, with PCS at 1900
> MHz.
>
> Your overall point is correct, but I wanted to make sure the facts
> were presented as accurately as possible.
>
> ---
> MD
>

I'd like to report the 152 and 460 Mhz bands are alive and well in the rest
of the country! The millions of really cheap pagers will keep these bands
online for years and years.

Shhh....don't blab. My little voice-storage pager on a friend's system on
462.925 uses two-tone paging....like the old fire station equipment on the
TV show "Rescue 51"...(c; The pager stores two voice pages in its memory
that can be played back, at will. Keeps me from having to use cellular
airtime to replay last pages by calling the paging company voicemail
server. Just press the button and play the page as many times as you like.

Remember, on digital pagers, you can't hear them scream....(c;

Code is F159 for my two-tones. Hell, it'll page 30 miles from the nearest
tower, just fine.

Larry