NextG in marginal CDMA reception areas

Today I got the chance to test my Samsung A501 out on a mate's farm
where there is bugger all GSM coverage and CDMA reception is marginal,
at best.

Where he couldn't get a signal, I had between two and zero bars, but the
3G symbol was still displayed. I then received a call. I could hear the
other person clearly but he said that I was breaking up a bit. I then
moved around the patio area and inside the house where it became
clearer.

The mate's CDMA would cut out where I was breaking up, and in some
places where I had a good connection his CDMA wouldn't have a signal.

He lives about 15 km as the flow cries from the mobile towers at the
edge of town, which are at the highest point of the area. He lives down
a bit of a valley and there are some low lying hills in between his
place and the towers in town.

There's a power station to the north of his place where the 362m high
chimneys can be seen. Now, THEY would be a top place to erect a mobile
tower. I wonder if they'd be able to. If they did, it would certainly
boost phone coverage for the region.

---

› See More: NextG in marginal CDMA reception areas

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:32:16 +1100, Emjaye <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Today I got the chance to test my Samsung A501 out on a mate's farm
>where there is bugger all GSM coverage and CDMA reception is marginal,
>at best.
>
>Where he couldn't get a signal, I had between two and zero bars, but the
>3G symbol was still displayed. I then received a call. I could hear the
>other person clearly but he said that I was breaking up a bit. I then
>moved around the patio area and inside the house where it became
>clearer.
>
>The mate's CDMA would cut out where I was breaking up, and in some
>places where I had a good connection his CDMA wouldn't have a signal.
>
>He lives about 15 km as the flow cries from the mobile towers at the
>edge of town, which are at the highest point of the area. He lives down
>a bit of a valley and there are some low lying hills in between his
>place and the towers in town.
>
>There's a power station to the north of his place where the 362m high
>chimneys can be seen. Now, THEY would be a top place to erect a mobile
>tower. I wonder if they'd be able to. If they did, it would certainly
>boost phone coverage for the region.

I get the feeling that the soot and **** out of the chimney would not
go well with the antennas.

Tsunami Australia wrote:

> I get the feeling that the soot and **** out of the chimney would not
> go well with the antennas.


Microwave dishes are quite often placed on power station chimneys... and
at that (much higher) frequency I would have thought soot would be even
more of a problem as opposed to 850MHz. Doesn't seem to though. One on
Swanbank B has been there for ages.

Emjaye wrote:
> Today I got the chance to test my Samsung A501 out on a mate's farm
> where there is bugger all GSM coverage and CDMA reception is marginal,
> at best.
>
> Where he couldn't get a signal, I had between two and zero bars, but the
> 3G symbol was still displayed. I then received a call. I could hear the
> other person clearly but he said that I was breaking up a bit. I then
> moved around the patio area and inside the house where it became
> clearer.
>
> The mate's CDMA would cut out where I was breaking up, and in some
> places where I had a good connection his CDMA wouldn't have a signal.
>
> He lives about 15 km as the flow cries from the mobile towers at the
> edge of town, which are at the highest point of the area. He lives down
> a bit of a valley and there are some low lying hills in between his
> place and the towers in town.
>
> There's a power station to the north of his place where the 362m high
> chimneys can be seen. Now, THEY would be a top place to erect a mobile
> tower. I wonder if they'd be able to. If they did, it would certainly
> boost phone coverage for the region.
There might be politics and money involved as to why an installation
isn't there.

you're suggesting a tower where theres high voltage conduits.........it'll
never happen


"Spokes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Emjaye wrote:
>> Today I got the chance to test my Samsung A501 out on a mate's farm
>> where there is bugger all GSM coverage and CDMA reception is marginal,
>> at best.
>>
>> Where he couldn't get a signal, I had between two and zero bars, but the
>> 3G symbol was still displayed. I then received a call. I could hear the
>> other person clearly but he said that I was breaking up a bit. I then
>> moved around the patio area and inside the house where it became
>> clearer.
>>
>> The mate's CDMA would cut out where I was breaking up, and in some
>> places where I had a good connection his CDMA wouldn't have a signal.
>>
>> He lives about 15 km as the flow cries from the mobile towers at the
>> edge of town, which are at the highest point of the area. He lives down
>> a bit of a valley and there are some low lying hills in between his
>> place and the towers in town.
>>
>> There's a power station to the north of his place where the 362m high
>> chimneys can be seen. Now, THEY would be a top place to erect a mobile
>> tower. I wonder if they'd be able to. If they did, it would certainly
>> boost phone coverage for the region.
> There might be politics and money involved as to why an installation
> isn't there.
>

Tsunami said....

>>There's a power station to the north of his place where the 362m high
>>chimneys can be seen. Now, THEY would be a top place to erect a mobile
>>tower. I wonder if they'd be able to. If they did, it would certainly
>>boost phone coverage for the region.
>
> I get the feeling that the soot and **** out of the chimney would not
> go well with the antennas.

Actually, there's no "**** or soot" out of the chimneys due to emission
control plant. In any case, the chimneys are to the east of the mate's
place in relation to where the local cells are located (NW).

Adrian wrote:
> you're suggesting a tower where theres high voltage conduits.........it'll
> never happen

Then why are there so many base stations on top of 275kV transmission
lines around Queensland? Because they DON'T interfere. 50Hz is a
radically different frequency to 850MHz+.

Adrian said....

> you're suggesting a tower where theres high voltage
> conduits.........it'll never happen

I think that lightning would be a bigger issue. The chimneys cop it
regularly.

Albinus wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> you're suggesting a tower where theres high voltage
>> conduits.........it'll never happen
>
> Then why are there so many base stations on top of 275kV transmission
> lines around Queensland? Because they DON'T interfere. 50Hz is a
> radically different frequency to 850MHz+.

I think the previous poster was implying the electrical safety issue
NOT the RFI issue which doesn't exist (outside of induced 50Hz currents
in cabling but that is what grounding is for)

Base stations have been located above high voltage pylons for a LONG
time. As long as the antennas are mounted ABOVE the aerial conductors
and spaced far enough away from them to satisfy Australian Standards and
the coax cable lines are attached on a riser that is inside the
perimeter of the pylon base and correctly grounded there aren't any issues.

Kubalister wrote:

> I think the previous poster was implying the electrical safety issue
> NOT the RFI issue which doesn't exist (outside of induced 50Hz currents
> in cabling but that is what grounding is for)


Powerlink has a dedicated crew that has done RF training and does the
installation/maintenance for the telcos - I would imagine the likes of
TransGrid and SPI PowerNet would have a similar setup. That's how they
avoid getting up to 500kV through them

"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Adrian said....
>
>> you're suggesting a tower where theres high voltage
>> conduits.........it'll never happen
>
> I think that lightning would be a bigger issue. The chimneys cop it
> regularly.

Nope. Plenty of BTSes on top of high rise buildings in Melb.Syd/Bris
>
>

Emjaye wrote:
>
> I think that lightning would be a bigger issue. The chimneys cop it
> regularly.
>

That's what lightning arrestors are for!

Michael said....

>> I think that lightning would be a bigger issue. The chimneys cop it
>> regularly.
>
> Nope. Plenty of BTSes on top of high rise buildings in Melb.Syd/Bris

Maybe. But most buildings in those cities aren't as high as some of the
chimneys around here. and when they're stuck out in the middle of
nowhere it's pretty well a no brainer for the lightning as to which
structure it should zap first. And this is what we constantly see
whenever we experience thunderstorms.

Emjaye wrote:
> Michael said....
>
>>> I think that lightning would be a bigger issue. The chimneys cop it
>>> regularly.
>> Nope. Plenty of BTSes on top of high rise buildings in Melb.Syd/Bris
>
> Maybe. But most buildings in those cities aren't as high as some of the
> chimneys around here. and when they're stuck out in the middle of
> nowhere it's pretty well a no brainer for the lightning as to which
> structure it should zap first. And this is what we constantly see
> whenever we experience thunderstorms.

The type of structure (CBD 60 storey office building, exhaust chimney
stack or cooling tower) is irrelevant to the fact that ANY man made
structure greater than 10m in height must have TWO earthing
downconductors as well as an adequate air terminal network at the top of
the structure. If a BTS antenna system is located at the top of any
structure 10m in height or greater it must have an air terminal
(lightning rod etc.) attached to the antenna frame which is securely
bonded to the other grounded air terminals of the roof structure which
are subsequently bonded to the 2 or more downconductors. The coaxial
feed lines must obviously also have a lightning arrestor.

"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael said....
>
>>> I think that lightning would be a bigger issue. The chimneys cop it
>>> regularly.
>>
>> Nope. Plenty of BTSes on top of high rise buildings in Melb.Syd/Bris
>
> Maybe. But most buildings in those cities aren't as high as some of the
> chimneys around here. and when they're stuck out in the middle of
> nowhere it's pretty well a no brainer for the lightning as to which
> structure it should zap first. And this is what we constantly see
> whenever we experience thunderstorms.

You dont think 101 Collins or the Rialto is high enough?

As the other poster said "thats what lightning arrestors are for"