Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18
  1. #16
    Donald Newcomb
    Guest

    Re: Tri-band phones?


    "Richard Colton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]
    > Ok, thanks for the clarification. The original post must have disappeared
    > somewhere in the cross-post. On acn, this thread starts with a post by
    > Donald Newcomb where the original post isn't even quoted.


    I went back and followed this thread through Google groups. It started out
    with a post by "XY" on alt.cellular.verizon but when none @ none replied, he
    elected both to delete all prior quotes and attribution and also to
    cross-post to alt.cellular and alt.cellular.nokia. When the thread was
    limited to alt.cellular.verizon the context was clear. When it was
    cross-posted alt.cellular (where I first saw it) it became limited only to
    the subject of cellular phones in general, globally. If you go back and read
    none @ none's post in this context you will see why my reply was both
    appropriate and correct.

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





    See More: Tri-band phones?




  2. #17

    Re: Tri-band phones?

    Richard,

    Don't forget the new African Continent's use of GSM in the 400 MHtz
    range too. More power, fewer towers.

    As far as bands go on this side of the POND, the US Federal
    Communications Commission recognizes only two bands with subdivisions
    in them. The other confusion may be coming from the point that
    mobiles and towers transmitt on frequencies that are 45 MHtz apart to
    reduce intermod.

    BOTTOM LINE:

    Richard, research shows you are correct for Europe but are not so
    informed when it comes to State-side issues that extend to all of the
    Americas.

    Grin


    On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:07:13 GMT, "Richard Colton"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Pegleg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:38:29 GMT, "Richard Colton"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Although basically correct in that the 800-900MHz and 1800-1900Mhz ranges
    >>>are primarily used, it should be remembered that most phones are only
    >>>configured to utilise specific areas of those ranges. Therefore in Europe
    >>>most networks utilise either 900 or 1800Mhz - American networks seem to
    >>>prefer 850 and 1900Mhz. If you need your phone to operate cross
    >>>continent,
    >>>you'll need a tri-band or quad band handset.
    >>>
    >>>And that's without considering CDMA and the 2100Mhz frequency that the 3G
    >>>networks are using in Europe.

    >>
    >> He did specify carriers in the States!

    >
    >So? His statement:
    >
    >> There are only two bands of frequencies for wireless telephony:
    >> 800-900 MHtz (Old Cellular - 1980s) and 1800-1900 MHtz (PCS - Personal
    >> Communications Service - 1990s vintage) . So the most any phone can
    >> have is TWO BANDS.

    >
    >is just plain wrong. 800-900Mhz and 1800-1900Mhz cover a wide frequency
    >spectrum. As you believe that "none" is correct and that the most bands any
    >phone can have is two, show me one of these mythical dual-band handsets that
    >encompass the entire frequency ranges. I'm quite prepared to show you quad
    >band phones that can handle 850, 900, 1800 & 1900Mhz, and even a few that
    >are quite happy with 2100Mhz as well. We could go on to discuss the systems
    >that use 2000Mhz as well if you like.




  3. #18
    The Other Funk
    Guest

    Re: Tri-band phones?

    Finding the keyboard operational
    Todd Allcock entered:

    > At 30 Aug 2006 23:50:23 +0000 The Other Funk wrote:
    >
    >> For US carriers, the term Tri-band is a marketing invention for a
    >> phone

    > that operates on Cellular, PCS and Analog. Engineering gave up
    > trying to correct the mistake long ago.
    >
    > Not really. Tri-MODE was the (slightly) incorrect marketing
    > "invention", meaning an 800 Analog/800 Digital/1900 Digital US phone
    > in the early days of CDMA and TDMA (the preferred term was actually
    > "dual-band/dual-mode" but "tri-mode" was shorter and
    > catchier-sounding.) It was often incorrectly called tri-band by
    > salespeople because the GSM folks were starting to offer actual
    > tri-band (900/1800/1900) world phones around the same time.


    You are more correct then I was. In engineering we were so busy crying NO!
    that I mixed it all.
    Never try to convince marketing that the are wrong from an engineering point
    of view. It's just Dilbert in action.
    Bob

    --
    --
    Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
    www.moondoggiecoffee.com




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12