Results 46 to 60 of 208
- 07-31-2005, 10:41 AM #46Isaiah BeardGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1HwGe.6324$p%[email protected]...
>
>> Configuring the available timeslots in pairs, Extended Range GSM
>> gives 72 km usable range, but lacks GPRS capability, and halves the
>> number of concurrent calls possible. Using more sensitive BTS
>> receivers, Enhanced Extended Range GSM been demonstrated to be usable
>> at 120 km (with the same drawbacks as ER).
>
>
> True but analog does not have GPRS either.
One of the many reasons people would like to see some for of digital
service in these areas.
What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
by broadband ISPs. Data services are typically sold at a premium, and
one would think that at least some people living in these areas might be
interested in broadband enough to take a "fixed wireless" solution from
a cell carrier in lieu of nonexistent DSL or cable in these parts.
People paying such a premium to get reliable data would better justify
the cost of the building than just selling the voice service alone.
> Right, we are talking the same limitations as analog at 50 miles. More or
> less, it works from a hilltop. In the places they mentioned in the article
> (e.g. S. Dakota) foliage absorption is not a big issue. We're talking about
> the rural West, not northern Maine. Of course, one issue is how to make an
> antenna high gain at both 850 and 1900 MHz, but that can be limited to
> high-gain at 850 MHz and working reasonably well at 1900.
Considering both CDMA and GSM work just fine in the 850Mhz range, the
incumbent cellular carriers shouldn't really see the 1900MHz issue as a
problem.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
› See More: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
- 07-31-2005, 10:44 AM #47Isaiah BeardGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
Joseph Huber wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald Newcomb" wrote:
>
>
>>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>>accepted)
>
>
> www.digitalantenna.com and www.wilsoncellular.com both sell FCC-type
> accepted (when used with an appropriate antenna) amplifiers and
> repeaters. I travel to the "boonies", and have an amplifier that
> works for AMPS (3 W) and CDMA (2 W). It does work wonders for AMPS.
> I think it helps some for CDMA, but CDMA might have some inherent
> distance limitations.
Yes, CDMA has inherent distance limitations. The timing of each
transmiission by the phone must be in sync with the tower, and beyond a
certain distance it just isn't going to happen. GSM also has a distance
limitation, but I don't think it's as pronounced.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
- 07-31-2005, 11:15 AM #48John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:41:18 -0400,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
>out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
>GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
>by broadband ISPs. Data services are typically sold at a premium, and
>one would think that at least some people living in these areas might be
>interested in broadband enough to take a "fixed wireless" solution from
>a cell carrier in lieu of nonexistent DSL or cable in these parts.
>People paying such a premium to get reliable data would better justify
>the cost of the building than just selling the voice service alone.
In a word, WiMAX.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 11:16 AM #49NotanGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> > Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> >>You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
> >>paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?
> >
> >
> > And we folks, in the boonies, thank you for your support. <g>
>
> No problem! I like to know I'll have some form of service when I vist
> the boonies.
City folks like you is welcome all the time. Just be sure y'all call
ahead... That way Ma can stop sloppin' the hogs and git herself all
prettied up! <g>
Notan
- 07-31-2005, 11:19 AM #50John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:44:49 -0400,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>Joseph Huber wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald Newcomb" wrote:
>>
>>>became a 3-watt digital TDMA phone. Boosters of this sort are still
>>>available but AFAIK they are all marked "For export only." (not FCC type
>>>accepted)
>>
>> www.digitalantenna.com and www.wilsoncellular.com both sell FCC-type
>> accepted (when used with an appropriate antenna) amplifiers and
>> repeaters. I travel to the "boonies", and have an amplifier that
>> works for AMPS (3 W) and CDMA (2 W). It does work wonders for AMPS.
>> I think it helps some for CDMA, but CDMA might have some inherent
>> distance limitations.
>
>Yes, CDMA has inherent distance limitations. The timing of each
>transmiission by the phone must be in sync with the tower, and beyond a
>certain distance it just isn't going to happen.
The only real inherent distance limitation in CDMA is signal power (given
suitable terrain). Given the right base station, 3 watt device power, and a
suitable device antenna, range of 50-80 miles is possible.
>GSM also has a distance
>limitation, but I don't think it's as pronounced.
Standard GSM has a distance limitation based on timing of 35 km. That range
can be extended to a range comparable to CDMA by changing the timing.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 12:49 PM #51Bob ScheurleGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:19:28 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The only real inherent distance limitation in CDMA is signal power (given
>suitable terrain). Given the right base station, 3 watt device power, and a
>suitable device antenna, range of 50-80 miles is possible.
I believe you are incorrect; propagation delays limit CDMA to about
35 miles.
--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
[email protected] | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
- 07-31-2005, 12:58 PM #52Isaiah BeardGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:41:18 -0400,
> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
>>out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
>>GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
>>by broadband ISPs.
> In a word, WiMAX.
That word does not answer my question, but thanks for trying anyway.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
- 07-31-2005, 01:08 PM #53David SGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:19:24 -0400, "jfitz" <[email protected]> chose to
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>"Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The problem is really not one of analog vs. digital but rather very low
>> power & no antenna vs. high power & good antenna. The only reason that
>> this
>> problem exists is that the wireless carriers only care about the 99% who
>> live and work in cities & towns (where the wireless executives live and
>> work) and could care less about folks who live and work in the boonies.
>
>So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
>for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
You mean those who have CHOSEN to work their asses off to produce the food
you eat in your city? And those who have CHOSEN to cut down the trees to
provide the lumber for your house and the pulp for the newspaper you read?
And those who have CHOSEN to mine the metals that your car/bus/train are
made of and the coal that lights your city? And those who have CHOSEN to
move all that stuff to your city?
Or don't those people deserve to have cellular service just as good as
yours?
--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"STOP: DRIVE SIDEWAYS" - detour sign in Kyushi, Japan
- 07-31-2005, 01:38 PM #54GeorgeGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
David S wrote:
>>So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
>>for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?
>
>
> You mean those who have CHOSEN to work their asses off to produce the food
> you eat in your city? And those who have CHOSEN to cut down the trees to
> provide the lumber for your house and the pulp for the newspaper you read?
> And those who have CHOSEN to mine the metals that your car/bus/train are
> made of and the coal that lights your city? And those who have CHOSEN to
> move all that stuff to your city?
>
But that arguement is an old one and not valid today. At one time it
made sense to subsidize farmers and others so they could could use
electricity to refrigerate the milk or have lights in the barn but the
farms have been replaced by Mcmansions and gated community housing
developments.
> Or don't those people deserve to have cellular service just as good as
> yours?
>
- 07-31-2005, 01:41 PM #55Bob ScheurleGuest
Re: range, was: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:26:54 GMT, CellGuy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> I believe the maximum range for CDMA is about 35 miles.
>
>CDMA's range is limited only by the signal strength between the phone and
>the closest tower. Some users have reported ranges over 50 miles.
No, it's not that simple. There are issues relating to the chip timing.
I can't even begin to explain it, but see
http://www.howcdmaworks.com/intro/132v3.pdf pages 95-97. I believe the
table on page 96 goes up to the maximum distance for the CDMA system
currently used, 34.3 miles (55.2 km).
--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
[email protected] | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
- 07-31-2005, 02:04 PM #56John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:58:49 -0400,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:41:18 -0400,
>> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
>>>out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
>>>GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
>>>by broadband ISPs.
>
>> In a word, WiMAX.
>
>That word does not answer my question, ...
Suit yourself.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 02:05 PM #57JerGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
Isaiah Beard wrote:
> What I don't understand is why cellular carriers don't start building
> out advancaed digital to rural areas, and advertising services such as
> GPRS, EDGE or 1xRTT/EVDO to these areas that are typically underserved
> by broadband ISPs. Data services are typically sold at a premium, and
> one would think that at least some people living in these areas might be
> interested in broadband enough to take a "fixed wireless" solution from
> a cell carrier in lieu of nonexistent DSL or cable in these parts.
> People paying such a premium to get reliable data would better justify
> the cost of the building than just selling the voice service alone.
It is my impression that some carriers may be more tuned to their client
base then some give them credit for. My own relatives living and
working in the boonies couldn't care less about anything other than what
they've got now - AMPS - it works for what they need it for and that's
that. Visiting them for for suppers has offered opportunities to
discuss this issue at length, and I can't say they're wrong with their
perspective. They honestly don't give a rat's ass about internet stuff,
voice mail, etc, even conference calling isn't on their list of
necessities. By the time they've finished their days work in the
fields, it's family time and all else waits until tomorrow, or next week
- even analog B&W TV suits one uncle of mine, until the sun sets and
bang! it's bedtime - 4am is time for coffee and the cows.
Okay, this is on the extreme end of the stick, but it may surprise some
that this type of person still exists in a number of rural areas (8 mi.
SW of Vernon, TX), and their particular skew on life is like another
planet compared to today's urban lifestyles. The only time my uncle has
seen more than five cars on Vernon's main street together was during a
parade. Their idea of a big city is Wichita Falls that has those ugly
skyscrapers. "GPRS? Wot'n tarnayshun is dat?" I told him... and
then... "wot wud I do widdat?" The internet Pops. "Innernet and dat
computerin stuff is fer fokes dat ain't got nuff to do".
They're convinced they don't need it and they're never gonna buy
anything they can't use, and there's a bunch of folks out there just
like them. So, how would any provider expect to sell anything other
than the most basic services to these people? Answer? They're not, so
spending the first dime for more just isn't going to happen for a while
yet. Fortunately, their wireless service comes from Vernon, well within
range of digital, so a new cell phone *is* in the cards.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
- 07-31-2005, 02:17 PM #58John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:49:22
GMT, Bob Scheurle <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:19:28 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>The only real inherent distance limitation in CDMA is signal power (given
>>suitable terrain). Given the right base station, 3 watt device power, and a
>>suitable device antenna, range of 50-80 miles is possible.
>
>I believe you are incorrect; propagation delays limit CDMA to about
>35 miles.
<http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/cdma.htm>:
...
The theoretical limit of CDMA is set by a key signal-processing chip
in the base-station which has the job of searching incoming signals
for codes from the surrounding handsets. Radio signals take a finite
time to travel distance, and so there's always a round-trip delay in
signals reaching handsets and returning to the base-station.
The expected maximum delay is known as the 'search-window', and the
chip is programmed to search only during this time for the individual
handset codes. The less time the signal processor spends searching,
the better, because it has other things to do in processing the
codes.
In the US, where analog remains to fill in the long-range coverage
requirements of Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, etc. a CDMA window
corresponding to 57 kilometres is deemed to be adequate. But not for
Australia where AMPS must disappear.
What Nortel (the Telstra contractor) proposes to do here is to add
extra chips (up to three) in their base-stations, each designed to
hunt for incoming codes in a series of delayed search-windows. They
hope, therefore, to have base-stations which can handle signals from
transmitters up to 200 kilometres away.
So far this has only been laboratory simulation. However the idea was
recently tested in America over a 100 kilometre link, but using a
different radio frequency (the PCS band of 1.9GHz).
...
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 02:34 PM #59John NavasGuest
Re: range, was: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:41:11
GMT, Bob Scheurle <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:26:54 GMT, CellGuy <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the maximum range for CDMA is about 35 miles.
>>
>>CDMA's range is limited only by the signal strength between the phone and
>>the closest tower. Some users have reported ranges over 50 miles.
>
>No, it's not that simple. There are issues relating to the chip timing.
>I can't even begin to explain it, but see
>http://www.howcdmaworks.com/intro/132v3.pdf pages 95-97. I believe the
>table on page 96 goes up to the maximum distance for the CDMA system
>currently used, 34.3 miles (55.2 km).
<http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corporate/news/newsreleases/1999c/8_5_9999287_Boomer.html>
August 5, 1999
Nortel Networks Extended Range CDMA "Boomer" Cell Ready for Prime Time
Telstra Will Deploy First to Help Meet Australia's Unique Rural Coverage Needs
DALLAS - Nortel Networks* [NYSE/TSE: NT] announced commercial availability of
the industry's longest-range 800 MHz cdmaOne* base station - the Nortel
Networks CDMA Rural Cell.
Designed to improve the economics of rural digital cellular service, the
Nortel Networks CDMA Rural Cell can provide a coverage radius up to 180
kilometers under suitable conditions, more than 10 times the range of a
typical CDMA base station.
Nicknamed "Boomer" Cell, this pioneering technology was first demonstrated in
March at Nortel Networks' Wireless Solutions lab in Ottawa, Ontario. Recent
field trials with Telstra in Australia have achieved coverage in excess of 120
kilometers on land and 130 kilometers for marine service under typical
conditions, using standard CDMA handsets and car kits.
[MORE]
Nortel's CDMA "Boomer" Cell is also deployed in China.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 05:16 PM #60LarryGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
Jer <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> They're convinced they don't need it and they're never gonna buy
> anything they can't use, and there's a bunch of folks out there just
> like them.
Millions like them....even in the cities.
One thing overlooked here is the POWER the man you describe has. Notice
his rural road gets paved every few years when your city street looks like
Beirut's? Wonder why that is? HIS congressman only represents 24000
people in that huge district. Everyone there KNOWS how he votes, too. If
he votes "wrong", say with Verizon Wireless or some other corporate
fatcats, well, they'll get EVEN in the next election...Just try them.
AMPS will be on the air for a long time, whether you technokiddies like it
or not. I DOES just work better across the land. Those boys driving the
tractors and feeding your sorry asses know what works...AMPS works for them
just fine. Change comes slow in the country. It took them YEARS to get
those tractors off 2-way FM onto IMTS or AMPS.
--
Larry
Similar Threads
- LG
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.nokia
- alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat