Yes, I stalk Rob. I do.

Justin Green wrote:
>
> <snip - It's all been said, before.>
>
> So, no offense, and don't take this as antagonistic, but you are taking
> Rob's side.

OK, to be fair, Rob - You're as much to blame as Justin.

With the exception that the two of you appear to be educated and,
I assume, have most of your teeth, reading these threads is not
unlike watching "White Trash Day" on The Jerry Springer Show.

Nothing but fighting.

"He pushed me." "He pushed me, first."

"He's a liar." "No, *he's* a liar."

If the two of you could just leave out the little "dig", at
the end of every post, we'd all be a bit more educated.

And Happy!

Larry

---

› See More: Yes, I stalk Rob. I do.

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>> True. But as far as the frequencies themselves are concerned, if you had
> 800MHz AMPS and 1900 MHz AMPS, then the 800 MHz would work better, right? I
> mean, any advantages are due to the CDMA technology and not the frequency,
> or so I understand it to be.
>

I don't think that question can easily be answered, since noone has
devoloped a 1900MHz AMPS, and the 800MHz CDMA is just a digitized AMPS.

So, no real world data on how 1900MHz AMPS would work, there is no other
results other than hypothetical.

Anyone here have a physics degree with a specalty in RF technology?

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Lawrence Glasser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> >
> > <snip - It's all been said, before.>
> >
> > So, no offense, and don't take this as antagonistic, but you are taking
> > Rob's side.
>
> OK, to be fair, Rob - You're as much to blame as Justin.
>
> With the exception that the two of you appear to be educated and,
> I assume, have most of your teeth, reading these threads is not
> unlike watching "White Trash Day" on The Jerry Springer Show.
>
> Nothing but fighting.
>
> "He pushed me." "He pushed me, first."
>
> "He's a liar." "No, *he's* a liar."
>
> If the two of you could just leave out the little "dig", at
> the end of every post, we'd all be a bit more educated.
>
> And Happy!
>
> Larry

Ok, point taken. But like I've said, I've already offered to drop this
whole ordeal twice.

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> >> True. But as far as the frequencies themselves are concerned, if you
had
> > 800MHz AMPS and 1900 MHz AMPS, then the 800 MHz would work better,
right? I
> > mean, any advantages are due to the CDMA technology and not the
frequency,
> > or so I understand it to be.
> >
>
> I don't think that question can easily be answered, since noone has
> devoloped a 1900MHz AMPS, and the 800MHz CDMA is just a digitized AMPS.
>
> So, no real world data on how 1900MHz AMPS would work, there is no other
> results other than hypothetical.
>
> Anyone here have a physics degree with a specalty in RF technology?
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

Or better yet, 800 MHz CDMA. Better building penetration, distance, cost,
and the benefits you listed above. After all, if AMPS isn't as efficient,
and more consumers are buying sell phones, they'll have to switch eventually
anyway.

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > I don't think that question can easily be answered, since noone has
> > devoloped a 1900MHz AMPS, and the 800MHz CDMA is just a digitized AMPS.
> >
> > So, no real world data on how 1900MHz AMPS would work, there is no other
> > results other than hypothetical.
> >
> > Anyone here have a physics degree with a specalty in RF technology?
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
> Or better yet, 800 MHz CDMA. Better building penetration, distance, cost,
> and the benefits you listed above. After all, if AMPS isn't as efficient,
> and more consumers are buying sell phones, they'll have to switch eventually
> anyway.
>

Can't compare 800MHz CDMA to 1900MHz CDMA - the 800MHz version is only a
digitized AMPS signal, not a true 'CDMA' signal, but enough so it can be
called a 'CDMA" signal. They just put digital vocoders on the AMPS
network, which is why the 800MHz AMPS companies were able to upgrade
easily and without breaking the bank.

Honestly, I'd love to see the comparison with a true 800 vs 1900 CDMA,
or even if someone made a 1900MHz AMPS and tested it.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> >
> > "Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > I don't think that question can easily be answered, since noone has
> > > devoloped a 1900MHz AMPS, and the 800MHz CDMA is just a digitized
AMPS.
> > >
> > > So, no real world data on how 1900MHz AMPS would work, there is no
other
> > > results other than hypothetical.
> > >
> > > Anyone here have a physics degree with a specalty in RF technology?
> > >
> > > [posted via phonescoop.com]
> >
> > Or better yet, 800 MHz CDMA. Better building penetration, distance,
cost,
> > and the benefits you listed above. After all, if AMPS isn't as
efficient,
> > and more consumers are buying sell phones, they'll have to switch
eventually
> > anyway.
> >
>
> Can't compare 800MHz CDMA to 1900MHz CDMA - the 800MHz version is only a
> digitized AMPS signal, not a true 'CDMA' signal, but enough so it can be
> called a 'CDMA" signal. They just put digital vocoders on the AMPS
> network, which is why the 800MHz AMPS companies were able to upgrade
> easily and without breaking the bank.
>
> Honestly, I'd love to see the comparison with a true 800 vs 1900 CDMA,
> or even if someone made a 1900MHz AMPS and tested it.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

Is the Bell Mobility 800MHz also not a true CDMA? I think they're in
Canada, right?

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Is the Bell Mobility 800MHz also not a true CDMA? I think they're in
> Canada, right?
>

That, I do not know. I have very little experience with out-of country
providers (with the exception of a few roaming calls from Bermuda).

[posted via phonescoop.com]

Justin Green wrote:
>
> "Lawrence Glasser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Justin Green wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip - It's all been said, before.>
> > >
> > > So, no offense, and don't take this as antagonistic, but you are taking
> > > Rob's side.
> >
> > OK, to be fair, Rob - You're as much to blame as Justin.
> >
> > With the exception that the two of you appear to be educated and,
> > I assume, have most of your teeth, reading these threads is not
> > unlike watching "White Trash Day" on The Jerry Springer Show.
> >
> > Nothing but fighting.
> >
> > "He pushed me." "He pushed me, first."
> >
> > "He's a liar." "No, *he's* a liar."
> >
> > If the two of you could just leave out the little "dig", at
> > the end of every post, we'd all be a bit more educated.
> >
> > And Happy!
> >
> > Larry
>
> Ok, point taken. But like I've said, I've already offered to drop this
> whole ordeal twice.

My suggestion: Drop it. Don't offer. Just drop it.

One of the many signs of maturity is being able to filter out the petty
stuff. Like name calling.

Someone calls you a name, ignore them.

They call you a name, again? Ignore them.

Eventually, if the name calling only comes from one side, it begins to
look pretty silly, and people will start to see that person for what
they really are.

As the saying goes, "Silence Sometimes Speaks Louder Than Words."

Larry

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Or better yet, 800 MHz CDMA. Better building penetration, distance, cost,
> and the benefits you listed above. After all, if AMPS isn't as efficient,
> and more consumers are buying sell phones, they'll have to switch eventually
> anyway.
>

1900MHz does a much better job at handoffs, but that could also be the
CDMA working.

1900MHZ offers clearer reception (similar to a 900MHz vs. 2400MHz
cordless phons).

1900MHz, even though it won't travel as far or penetrate as well, is
much stronger and reliable (handoffs as stated above, along with less
suseptable to non-deliberate interference)

Also look at the frequency itself, 800MHz is very close to 900MHz
cordless phones, when you factor in the spectrum itself, you can get
interference between the two.

I do not know of any frequencies closer to 1900MHz other than 2400MHz
(high end cordless phones) off hand, either (I think the FCC is planning
on auctioning 1700MHz, which could cause come interference with 1900MHz)
- and since 1900MHz is by itself, allows more bandwidth.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Really. That's why a google search only lists FOUR posts from you over
> there.=20
>=20

Just curious, bigot. How many posts should I have posted to "prove" I=20
was already reading there?

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All spectrum styles has their ups and downs.
>
> 800MHz AMPS offers:
>
> Better penetration
> Further range
> lower costs
>
>
>
> 1900MHz CDMA allows:
>
> True digital signal (no static - unless its a mechanical fault in the
> phone)
> Higher tower capacity
> Higher data speeds and capacity
> Conserves battery life better by putting the power in the tower and not
> in the phone

You skipped 800 MHz CDMA, which is important to be comparing apples to
apples.

Tom Veldhouse

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Can't compare 800MHz CDMA to 1900MHz CDMA - the 800MHz version is only a
> digitized AMPS signal, not a true 'CDMA' signal, but enough so it can be
> called a 'CDMA" signal. They just put digital vocoders on the AMPS
> network, which is why the 800MHz AMPS companies were able to upgrade
> easily and without breaking the bank.

You are completely wrong. The CDMA used on the two bands is identical
(let's ignore the generations, 1G 2G 3G, etc). The only difference is the
frequency and the compesation made for it. You very much can and should
compare the two.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:

> You are completely wrong. The CDMA used on the two bands is identical
> (let's ignore the generations, 1G 2G 3G, etc). The only difference is the
> frequency and the compesation made for it. You very much can and should
> compare the two.

I'm going by the training I've had. The carriers here in the US who use
"800MHz CDMA" took their 800MHz AMPS system, added digital vocoders (as
opposed to the analog ones for AMPS) and labeled it "CDMA".



[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > You are completely wrong. The CDMA used on the two bands is identical
> > (let's ignore the generations, 1G 2G 3G, etc). The only difference is
the
> > frequency and the compesation made for it. You very much can and should
> > compare the two.
>
> I'm going by the training I've had. The carriers here in the US who use
> "800MHz CDMA" took their 800MHz AMPS system, added digital vocoders (as
> opposed to the analog ones for AMPS) and labeled it "CDMA".
>

Absolutely incorrect. CDMA is a spread spectrum technology that is
completely different than AMPS. The only similarity is that they both run
on 800 Mhz in the case of the CDMA cellular providers. The OTA technology
is the same for all CDMA providers (although some have adopted some of the
newer next generation iterations of CDMA ... i.e. CDMA2000) in this country.


Tom Veldhouse

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > You are completely wrong. The CDMA used on the two bands is identical
> > (let's ignore the generations, 1G 2G 3G, etc). The only difference is
the
> > frequency and the compesation made for it. You very much can and should
> > compare the two.
>
> I'm going by the training I've had. The carriers here in the US who use
> "800MHz CDMA" took their 800MHz AMPS system, added digital vocoders (as
> opposed to the analog ones for AMPS) and labeled it "CDMA".
>

TDMA is much more like what you mention. Perhaps that is what you are
thinking of. They simply divided up a given channel into timeslots and each
caller gets so much time on a channel. Then the voice is digitized and
compressed, but the OTA carrier is basically analog in nature (much like a
computer modem is analog versus DSL which is digital .... TDMA -vs- CDMA).

Tom Veldhouse