Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
  1. #1
    Snapper
    Guest
    Have a read of this gem:

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html

    And in particular this paragraph...

    "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile coverage doesn't,"
    said Insp Bell.

    I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts excessive to
    prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works well enough when there are
    brief periods of network connection.

    The problem with this is that many people head bush and reckon that they'll be
    OK. ie. don't take the appropriate precautions when heading into isolated
    country, if they take their mobile phones with them, thinking that they'll save
    their arses if they get themselves into trouble.

    What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure that they have two radios,
    27mhz and UHF CB and an EPIRB, as well as warm clothing, water, energy bars and
    other food if necessary.

    If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too risky to try and rely on a
    mobile phone to get help.




    See More: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't




  2. #2
    Graeme Willox
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Snapper wrote:
    > Have a read of this gem:
    >
    > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html
    >
    > And in particular this paragraph...
    >
    > "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile coverage doesn't,"
    > said Insp Bell.
    >
    > I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts excessive to
    > prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works well enough when there are
    > brief periods of network connection.
    >
    > The problem with this is that many people head bush and reckon that they'll be
    > OK. ie. don't take the appropriate precautions when heading into isolated
    > country, if they take their mobile phones with them, thinking that they'll save
    > their arses if they get themselves into trouble.
    >
    > What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure that they have two radios,
    > 27mhz and UHF CB and an EPIRB, as well as warm clothing, water, energy bars and
    > other food if necessary.
    >
    > If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too risky to try and rely on a
    > mobile phone to get help.
    >


    There have been references to that type of situation before. What I
    have previously been told is that text messages don't travel via the
    same route as voice calls on GSM and therefore aren't subjected to the
    35km limit that GSM voice calls are generally subjected to. It's not
    necessarily a case of SMS's working during brief periods of network
    connection. It can be a case of the SMS being sent via a base station
    which is out of range for voice call purposes.

    As i said, this is just repeating what someone has told me. I can't
    guarantee the accuracy though.



  3. #3
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Snapper <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Have a read of this gem:


    > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html


    Just another Murdoch **** rag.

    > And in particular this paragraph...


    > "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile coverage
    > doesn't," said Insp Bell.


    He's right.

    > I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts
    > excessive to prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works
    > well enough when there are brief periods of network connection.


    Nope, when you are outside the GSM digital cliff, SMS still works.

    > The problem with this is that many people head bush and reckon that
    > they'll be OK. ie. don't take the appropriate precautions when heading
    > into isolated country, if they take their mobile phones with them, thinking
    > that they'll save their arses if they get themselves into trouble.


    They can do just that.

    > What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure
    > that they have two radios, 27mhz and UHF CB


    That wont necessarily save your bacon.

    NextG and GlobalStar makes more sense.

    > and an EPIRB, as well as warm clothing,
    > water, energy bars and other food if necessary.


    You dont actually need the food.

    > If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too
    > risky to try and rely on a mobile phone to get help.


    It does make a lot of sense to take a mobile phone as well, that can be much
    easier for the authoritys to use than an EPIRB if you know where you are.

    And a GPS mobile phone in spades.





  4. #4
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Graeme Willox <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Snapper wrote:
    >> Have a read of this gem:
    >>
    >> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html
    >>
    >> And in particular this paragraph...
    >>
    >> "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile
    >> coverage doesn't," said Insp Bell.
    >>
    >> I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts
    >> excessive to prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works
    >> well enough when there are brief periods of network connection.
    >>
    >> The problem with this is that many people head bush and reckon that
    >> they'll be OK. ie. don't take the appropriate precautions when
    >> heading into isolated country, if they take their mobile phones with
    >> them, thinking that they'll save their arses if they get themselves
    >> into trouble. What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure that they have
    >> two radios, 27mhz and UHF CB and an EPIRB, as well as warm clothing,
    >> water, energy bars and other food if necessary.
    >>
    >> If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too risky to try
    >> and rely on a mobile phone to get help.


    > There have been references to that type of situation before. What I have previously been told is that text messages
    > don't travel via the same route as voice calls on GSM


    That is just plain wrong.

    > and therefore aren't subjected to the 35km limit that GSM voice calls are generally subjected to.


    Thats whats relevant.

    > It's not necessarily a case of SMS's working during brief periods of network connection.


    Yes it is.

    > It can be a case of the SMS being sent via a base station which is out of range for voice call purposes.


    Which is the same thing in different words.

    > As i said, this is just repeating what someone has told me. I can't guarantee the accuracy though.


    Its easy enough to think thru the basics.





  5. #5
    Graeme Willox
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Graeme Willox <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Snapper wrote:
    >>> Have a read of this gem:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html
    >>>
    >>> And in particular this paragraph...
    >>>
    >>> "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile
    >>> coverage doesn't," said Insp Bell.
    >>>
    >>> I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts
    >>> excessive to prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works
    >>> well enough when there are brief periods of network connection.
    >>>
    >>> The problem with this is that many people head bush and reckon that
    >>> they'll be OK. ie. don't take the appropriate precautions when
    >>> heading into isolated country, if they take their mobile phones with
    >>> them, thinking that they'll save their arses if they get themselves
    >>> into trouble. What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure that they have
    >>> two radios, 27mhz and UHF CB and an EPIRB, as well as warm clothing,
    >>> water, energy bars and other food if necessary.
    >>>
    >>> If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too risky to try
    >>> and rely on a mobile phone to get help.

    >
    >> There have been references to that type of situation before. What I have previously been told is that text messages
    >> don't travel via the same route as voice calls on GSM

    >
    > That is just plain wrong.


    Perhaps my terminology wasn't correct. What I meant is that it's not
    processed the same as a voice call (either by the handset internally, or
    by the network). If it was, it'd have the same range limitation that
    voice calls do.



  6. #6
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Graeme Willox <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Graeme Willox <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Snapper wrote:
    >>>> Have a read of this gem:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html
    >>>>
    >>>> And in particular this paragraph...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile
    >>>> coverage doesn't," said Insp Bell.
    >>>>
    >>>> I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts
    >>>> excessive to prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works
    >>>> well enough when there are brief periods of network connection.
    >>>>
    >>>> The problem with this is that many people head bush and reckon that
    >>>> they'll be OK. ie. don't take the appropriate precautions when
    >>>> heading into isolated country, if they take their mobile phones
    >>>> with them, thinking that they'll save their arses if they get themselves
    >>>> into trouble. What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure
    >>>> that they have two radios, 27mhz and UHF CB and an EPIRB, as well
    >>>> as warm clothing, water, energy bars and other food if necessary.
    >>>>
    >>>> If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too risky to try
    >>>> and rely on a mobile phone to get help.

    >>
    >>> There have been references to that type of situation before. What
    >>> I have previously been told is that text messages don't travel via
    >>> the same route as voice calls on GSM

    >>
    >> That is just plain wrong.

    >
    > Perhaps my terminology wasn't correct. What I meant is that it's not
    > processed the same as a voice call (either by the handset internally,
    > or by the network). If it was, it'd have the same range limitation
    > that voice calls do.


    Its still hopelessly mangled. The only thing thats relevant is the 35KM
    digital cliff that applys to voice comms and not to SMS. That doesnt
    have a damned thing to do with anything the handset does.





  7. #7
    John Henderson
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Graeme Willox wrote:

    > There have been references to that type of situation before.
    > What I have previously been told is that text messages don't
    > travel via the same route as voice calls on GSM and therefore
    > aren't subjected to the 35km limit that GSM voice calls are
    > generally subjected to.


    On standard GSM, SMS range is distance-limited by Timing Advance
    in exactly the same way as voice range is. So the 35 km limit
    applies to all but the very few extended range cells.

    > It's not necessarily a case of SMS's working during brief
    > periods of network connection. It can be a case of the SMS
    > being sent via a base station which is out of range for voice
    > call purposes.


    SMS will work at a lower signal strength than voice can. In
    simple terms, that's because it needs much less bandwidth.

    > As i said, this is just repeating what someone has told me. I
    > can't guarantee the accuracy though.


    I once had the same misunderstanding

    John



  8. #8
    Snapper
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Rod Speed wrote...

    > > "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile coverage
    > > doesn't," said Insp Bell.

    >
    > He's right.
    >
    > > I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts
    > > excessive to prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works
    > > well enough when there are brief periods of network connection.

    >
    > Nope, when you are outside the GSM digital cliff, SMS still works.


    Graeme said this in another message. I don't understand why this would work. If
    there's a tower that your phone can communicate with, then why don't all
    services work, instead of just SMS?

    > > What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure
    > > that they have two radios, 27mhz and UHF CB

    >
    > That wont necessarily save your bacon.


    Of course. It depends on the situation at the time and whether there are other
    people using similar comms in range who may be able to get the call out.

    > NextG and GlobalStar makes more sense.


    Again, NextG has limited coverage, but more than GSM obviously. However, once
    you get any significant distance from the towns that have it then it's as
    useless as a GSM phone.

    As for Globalstar, that's OK if you're super cashed up and can justify such a
    phone for the small percentage of your time that you're out in isolated areas.

    > > If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too
    > > risky to try and rely on a mobile phone to get help.

    >
    > It does make a lot of sense to take a mobile phone as well, that can be much
    > easier for the authoritys to use than an EPIRB if you know where you are.


    How can a phone, IF it works make it easier for the emergency services people to
    locate you? EPIRBs send out a signal so they can lock in on your position.

    Case in point. A few mates out dirt biking come across these greenies hiking.
    One of them had broken his leg when he fell. He couldn't be carried out by his
    mates. So the lads, helped them get him to the top of the hill. One of them then
    set off his EPIRB. Within half an hour or so, the rescue helicopter, Helimed
    One, which services the area was hovering above.

    The victim, as it turned out, was the Harold Scruby of bush walking. His rabid
    passion was the banning of all motorised traffic from the bush, and he
    constantly told the mates to **** off, that he didn't want their help, etc.

    Perhaps they should've left the prick there to bleed to death or whatever.




  9. #9
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Snapper <[email protected]> wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote


    >>> "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when mobile coverage doesn't," said Insp Bell.


    >> He's right.


    >>> I think that he means that when call quality is poor and dropouts
    >>> excessive to prevent a decent conversation is that SMS'ing works
    >>> well enough when there are brief periods of network connection.


    >> Nope, when you are outside the GSM digital cliff, SMS still works.


    > Graeme said this in another message. I don't understand why this
    > would work. If there's a tower that your phone can communicate
    > with, then why don't all services work, instead of just SMS?


    Because with GSM, the base ignores handsets that are further away
    from the base then 35KM, because they bleed into the timeslot for
    the next channel thats being used by a different handset.

    >>> What they should do is to is if 4WD'ing is to ensure
    >>> that they have two radios, 27mhz and UHF CB


    >> That wont necessarily save your bacon.


    > Of course. It depends on the situation at the time and whether there are other
    > people using similar comms in range who may be able to get the call out.


    Much better to use NextG or Globalstar and GPS for your location.

    >> NextG and GlobalStar makes more sense.


    > Again, NextG has limited coverage,


    Much less limited than CB.

    > but more than GSM obviously. However, once you get any significant
    > distance from the towns that have it then it's as useless as a GSM phone.


    The particular individuals being discussed werent that far out in the sticks.

    > As for Globalstar, that's OK if you're super cashed up and can
    > justify such a phone for the small percentage of your time that
    > you're out in isolated areas.


    They arent that expensive. Only a tiny part of the cost of the vehicle involved.

    >>> If hiking, at the very least, an EPIRB. It's far too
    >>> risky to try and rely on a mobile phone to get help.


    >> It does make a lot of sense to take a mobile phone as well, that can be much
    >> easier for the authoritys to use than an EPIRB if you know where you are.


    > How can a phone, IF it works make it easier for
    > the emergency services people to locate you?


    You can just ring them up and tell them where you are stuck.

    > EPIRBs send out a signal so they can lock in on your position.


    And something need to be able to be above it checking for that EPIRB.

    When someone is just bogged like those two were, its much cheaper
    to ring someone up and tell them where you are stuck etc.

    > Case in point. A few mates out dirt biking come across these greenies
    > hiking. One of them had broken his leg when he fell. He couldn't be
    > carried out by his mates. So the lads, helped them get him to the top
    > of the hill. One of them then set off his EPIRB. Within half an hour
    > or so, the rescue helicopter, Helimed One, which services the area
    > was hovering above.


    And thats no use for the two being discussed who just bogged their vehicle.

    > The victim, as it turned out, was the Harold Scruby of bush walking.
    > His rabid passion was the banning of all motorised traffic from the
    > bush, and he constantly told the mates to **** off, that he didn't
    > want their help, etc.


    > Perhaps they should've left the prick there to bleed to death or whatever.


    Different matter entirely to the two being discussed who just got bogged.

    Same would apply to a vehicle failure. It would cost a hell of a lot more to
    work out where they are if they had just used an EPIRB instead of a mobile.





  10. #10
    Snapper
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Rod Speed wrote...

    > > but more than GSM obviously. However, once you get any significant
    > > distance from the towns that have it then it's as useless as a GSM phone.

    >
    > The particular individuals being discussed werent that far out in the sticks.


    Yes, I know that. My point is, and it stems from what the copper said, is that
    people tend to rely on mobile phones a bit too much for emergency situations
    when they go bush and I mean real bush, not say, a few kays out of town.




  11. #11
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Snapper <[email protected]> wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote


    >>> but more than GSM obviously. However, once you get any significant
    >>> distance from the towns that have it then it's as useless as a GSM phone.


    >> The particular individuals being discussed werent that far out in the sticks.


    > Yes, I know that. My point is, and it stems from what the copper said, is that
    > people tend to rely on mobile phones a bit too much for emergency situations
    > when they go bush and I mean real bush, not say, a few kays out of town.


    **** all need to bother with an EPIRB.





  12. #12
    John Henderson
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Snapper wrote:

    > Rod Speed wrote...
    >
    >> > "Thanks to text messaging, which sometimes works when
    >> > mobile coverage doesn't," said Insp Bell.

    >>
    >> He's right.
    >>
    >> > I think that he means that when call quality is poor and
    >> > dropouts excessive to prevent a decent conversation is that
    >> > SMS'ing works well enough when there are brief periods of
    >> > network connection.

    >>
    >> Nope, when you are outside the GSM digital cliff, SMS still
    >> works.

    >
    > Graeme said this in another message. I don't understand why
    > this would work. If there's a tower that your phone can
    > communicate with, then why don't all services work, instead of
    > just SMS?


    Unless the base station is "extended range" (there are only a
    handfull of these in existence), then the signal bursts from
    the GSM phone will run out of time before they reach the base
    station. This limit happens at 35 km, irrespective of signal
    strength.

    GSM uses "time division", whereas 3G uses "code division" to
    keep multiple users from corrupting each others' signals. Base
    stations dynamically give GSM phones a timing advance (TA)
    value to apply to their transmissions, so that the bursts
    arrive exactly in sync with their allocated timeslot. Each of
    the 64 possible TA steps (range 0 to 63, implemented in a 6-bit
    field) enables the phone to operate about 554 metres further
    out from the base station. TA = maximum = 63 happens at 35 km.

    If no voice call is in progress, SMS is usually carried on the
    SDCCH (Stand-alone Dedicated Control CHannel). SDCCH does not
    use TA (it can be used measure the required TA value for a
    traffic channel), leading to the view that SMS could be sent at
    greater distances than 35 km. Unfortunately, I believe an
    RLC/MAC access preamble is required to set up an SMS
    transmission, and this does require a valid TA value.

    So no SMS outside normal TA limits. I have personally tried on
    several occasions to send an SMS with good signal strength at
    distances greater than 35 km (generally near the tops of
    mountains). All such attempts have failed.

    If you can be bothered going through the technical specs, start
    with GSM 04.04, 04.08, 04.11, and 04.60, and 05.10.

    John



  13. #13
    Graeme Willox
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Snapper wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote...
    >
    >>> but more than GSM obviously. However, once you get any significant
    >>> distance from the towns that have it then it's as useless as a GSM phone.

    >> The particular individuals being discussed werent that far out in the sticks.

    >
    > Yes, I know that. My point is, and it stems from what the copper said, is that
    > people tend to rely on mobile phones a bit too much for emergency situations
    > when they go bush and I mean real bush, not say, a few kays out of town.
    >


    One of the limitations of relying on mobile phones for coverage is being
    withinn range. I'm not just referring to the obvious though. For
    several years now, we've been told to ring 112 from mobiles. That will
    get people connected if they're out of range of their home network. The
    drawback is that emergency services can't ring people back if they've
    been connected via anyone other than their home network. If people have
    made 112 calls and help hasn't arrived within an expected timeframe,
    they should dial 112 again to provide additional information.

    Of course, the whole 112 number is going to have limited functionality
    in the future anyway. If you're out of GSM range, you won't be able to
    access other networks anyway, unless manufacturers produce handsets with
    850 mhz and 900mhz 3G. The exception to this is will be Optus and
    Vodafone customers seeing as they're both building 900mhz 3G networks.

    It's a shame in a way that this is happening. Even with Telstra having
    the largest network footprint, it's likely that there will be pockets
    where there is no Telstra coverage but there will be Optus or Vodafone
    coverage.



  14. #14
    John Henderson
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Graeme Willox wrote:

    > One of the limitations of relying on mobile phones for
    > coverage is being withinn range. I'm not just referring to
    > the obvious though. For several years now, we've been told to
    > ring 112 from mobiles. That will get people connected if
    > they're out of range of their home network. The drawback is
    > that emergency services can't ring people back if they've
    > been connected via anyone other than their home network. If
    > people have made 112 calls and help hasn't arrived within an
    > expected timeframe, they should dial 112 again to provide
    > additional information.


    Calls to 000 work the same way these days. They get mapped to
    112, and will use any available network if the home network
    can't carry the call.

    In both GSM SIMs and 3G USIMs, there's an Emergency Call Codes
    file, EF_ECC, at SIM address 6FB7. The ones I've read have
    included 000 as a priority (ie, mapped to 112) number. They
    have also included 911 and/or 106 (emergency teletype service).

    > Of course, the whole 112 number is going to have limited
    > functionality in the future anyway. If you're out of GSM
    > range, you won't be able to access other networks anyway,
    > unless manufacturers produce handsets with 850 mhz and 900mhz
    > 3G. The exception to this is will be Optus and Vodafone
    > customers seeing as they're both building 900mhz 3G networks.
    >
    > It's a shame in a way that this is happening. Even with
    > Telstra having the largest network footprint, it's likely that
    > there will be pockets where there is no Telstra coverage but
    > there will be Optus or Vodafone coverage.


    In my view, all new 3G phones sold here should cover the 850,
    900 and 2100 mHz UMTS bands. That's the only way of
    guaranteeing that emergency calls will connect via any
    available carrier. This would also have the consumer advantage
    of ensuring that you could switch to and use any network's SIM
    (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone or 3) for ordinary calls, assuming
    the phone was unlocked.

    John



  15. #15
    Snapper
    Guest

    Re: Texting Works When Mobile Coverage Doesn't

    Graeme Willox wrote...

    > It's a shame in a way that this is happening. Even with Telstra having
    > the largest network footprint, it's likely that there will be pockets
    > where there is no Telstra coverage but there will be Optus or Vodafone
    > coverage.


    Omeo in NE Vic's high country is one such spot. Having lunch there recently I
    tried to make a call. No NextG signal. A mate's Optus mobile had full bars. This
    wasn't the new 900Mhz system either, but the original Optus GSM service.

    But you raise some good points with regards to the available frequencies that
    the phones can operate on.




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast