Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 208
  1. #1
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest




  2. #2
    Donald Newcomb
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones


    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/...og_cell_phones
    >

    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.

    --
    Donald Newcomb
    DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net





  3. #3
    jfitz
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

    "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?





  4. #4
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:09:12 -0500, "Donald
    Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.


    Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers in
    cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies. The
    problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
    and thus is taking longer.

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



  5. #5
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

    jfitz wrote:

    > So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
    > for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?


    You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies. Have you
    paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?

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



  6. #6
    Notan
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

    Isaiah Beard wrote:
    >
    > jfitz wrote:
    >
    > > So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
    > > for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

    >
    > 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>

    Notan



  7. #7
    Donald Newcomb
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones


    "jfitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]
    > So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
    > for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?


    Oh no, not at all. I don't think I suggested any thing of the kind. What I
    said is that digital technology works at least as well as analog in rural
    areas. They already have the coverage*. All that is lacking is higher power
    car phones with good external antennas. The carriers don't have to build one
    single tower, they just have to make higher power phones available to people
    who need them. This was common 10 years ago. You used to be able to get a
    FCC type-accepted (i.e. approved) booster for the Nokia 2160 TDMA phones, so
    that when you slipped the phone into the hands free unit in your car it
    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)

    What I said is that since 99% of customer live within the range of a
    low-power handset, the carriers have dropped the high power models and
    concentrated on just low-power phones. BTW, US carriers are not alone in
    this. Just try to find a "Class I" (20 Watt) GSM phone in Europe. You may
    find them in Australia but they are very rare beasts. I think that carriers
    who serve rural areas should address the needs of their customers. And the
    customers should pay for the higher cost of these special phones.

    --
    Donald Newcomb
    DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
    *Note: Some GSM rural systems may need special firmware to allow for ranges
    beyond 35 km.





  8. #8
    Donald Newcomb
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:q8rGe.6182$p%[email protected]
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because

    subscribers in
    > cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.

    The
    > problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the

    boonies,
    > and thus is taking longer.


    Have you seen the FCC's old combined cellular coverage map of the US?
    Believe me, the US had penty of rural coverage 8 years ago. The problem is
    that it was designed around 3-watt phones with high-gain roof-mount
    antennas. And it worked, you could often get over 50 miles from the nearest
    tower and your phone would still work. This was not because analog was in
    any way superior to digital: because it's not. You just had the power and
    antenna to provide an adequate link margin. Folks in the boonies don't need
    a tower every 5 miles; they just need phones and antennas that will reach
    the towers they've got.

    --
    Donald Newcomb
    DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net





  9. #9
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald
    Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >*Note: Some GSM rural systems may need special firmware to allow for ranges
    >beyond 35 km.


    <http://www.cell-talk.com/Tower _range-5949827-1217-a.html>:

    Absolute maximum range for standard GSM is 35 km. This is dictated
    by the Timing Advance range being restricted to values between zero
    and 63, with each step corresponding to 553.5 metres from the tower.

    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).

    Within these limits, usable range will depend of BTS design and
    power, antenna orientation, elevation, topography (obstructions), and
    many other factors (including the moisture content of any intervening
    foliage).

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



  10. #10
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:53:11 -0500, "Donald
    Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"jfitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news[email protected]
    >> So the "99%" should subsidize the tremendous cost of building cell towers
    >> for those who have CHOSEN to live in the boonies?

    >
    >Oh no, not at all. I don't think I suggested any thing of the kind. What I
    >said is that digital technology works at least as well as analog in rural
    >areas. They already have the coverage*. All that is lacking is higher power
    >car phones with good external antennas. The carriers don't have to build one
    >single tower, they just have to make higher power phones available to people
    >who need them. This was common 10 years ago. You used to be able to get a
    >FCC type-accepted (i.e. approved) booster for the Nokia 2160 TDMA phones, so
    >that when you slipped the phone into the hands free unit in your car it
    >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)


    <http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/da4000.htm>
    "FCC / CSA approved"
    On sale for $220

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



  11. #11
    Jerome Zelinske
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

    Those rural customers will just have to be willing to pay higher rates
    to install enough antenna sights, and keep them operating, to provide
    the coverage areas they most need. I doubt the manufacturers will start
    making analog phones again, much less making them with location
    technology. Those people way out in the sticks could probably use that
    location tech. They may have to use a separate gps unit.

    Mij Adyaw wrote:
    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/...og_cell_phones
    >
    >




  12. #12
    T Otte
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

    No different than it already is with the monthly "universal
    connectivity fee" on my bill to service rural areas.

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:19:24 -0400, "jfitz" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"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?
    >





  13. #13
    danny burstein
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

    In <[email protected]> "Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> writes:

    >Have you seen the FCC's old combined cellular coverage map of the US?
    >Believe me, the US had penty of rural coverage 8 years ago. The problem is
    >that it was designed around 3-watt phones with high-gain roof-mount
    >antennas. And it worked, you could often get over 50 miles from the nearest
    >tower and your phone would still work. This was not because analog was in
    >any way superior to digital: because it's not. You just had the power and
    >antenna to provide an adequate link margin.


    Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
    a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
    distance limit due to timing slot concerns.

    I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
    comes to mind.


    [a] a car top antenna with a groundplane is way, way, better
    than a miniscule wire inside that Farady cage.

    --
    _____________________________________________________
    Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
    [email protected]
    [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]



  14. #14
    Joseph Huber
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

    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. One of the technical folks here can probably
    speak to that.

    Joe Huber
    [email protected]



  15. #15
    Donald Newcomb
    Guest

    Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones


    "danny burstein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In <[email protected]> "Donald Newcomb"

    <[email protected]> writes:
    > Mostly, but not completely correct... While a better antenna [a] and
    > a bit mor epower are the key issues, there's also a physical
    > distance limit due to timing slot concerns.
    >
    > I don't recall the exact numbers, but 20 km as a maximum range
    > comes to mind.


    35 km for regular vanilla GSM. Extended range is available (at a cost). No
    limit I know of for CDMA or TDMA.

    --
    Donald Newcomb
    DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast