Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

Joseph wrote:

>>I can confirm that my tri-mode 1900CDMA/800CDMA/800AMPS Samsung VGA-1000
>>has an extendable antenna. So did my tri-mode Samsung VI-660. (Samsung
>>model numbers SPH-A620 and SPH-A660, respectively.)
>
> You just confirmed what I said.

My intention was to confirm what you just said.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

---

› See More: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

Joseph wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 05:10:47 +1000, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>And US mobile telcos are completely irrelevant to GSM particularly.
>
>
> Really! And I suppose T-Mobile and cingular

....and a couple of CellularONE franchisees and some smaller carriers...

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:11:50 GMT, "John Richards"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If you happen to be close to a tower you don't need a good antenna.
>>But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a
>>collapsed antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and
>>voila, now you have enough signal to make a call.
>
> You are under the impression that simply pulling out an antenna gives
> you superior performance under all conditions with the assumption that
> it "sees" the signal better. Such is not the case. Best performance
> will happen when the *correct* size antenna is used.

I said no such thing as "under all conditions." But let me give you
one extreme example. If you put a perfectly sized antenna inside a
thick concrete bunker, I assure you it's not going to work, even close
to a tower. That's one extreme. There's a middle ground where one is
within a few miles of the tower, but there's a lot of signal attenuation
due to intervening buildings and foliage. Under those conditions
the extended antenna gives that little extra punch that's needed.

--
John Richards

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>> A pull-out antenna will improve the performance for analog, GSM, CDMA, TDMA,
>>>> ... etc.
>
>>> Wrong. When you have an adequate
>>> signal level, the pull out antenna is useless.
>
>> If you happen to be close to a tower you don't need a good antenna.
>
> If you are anywhere in a decently design GSM network, you dont either.
>
>> But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a collapsed
>> antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and voila, now you have
>> enough signal to make a call.
>
> Doesnt work like that with GSM when you are
> outside the hard digital limit on the distance
> from the base, the base just ignores you.

You're making an unwarranted assumption that the distance is beyond
GSM's hard digital limit.
I'm talking about an intermediate location that is inside the limit,
but the signal strength is poor due to attenuation from the terrain
(buildings, trees, etc.). Under those conditions the superior RF performance
of the extended antenna makes a difference.

--
John Richards

"clifto" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Joseph wrote:
>> Yes wrong. CDMA requires it.
>
> Definitely wrong. Verizon requires it. Sprint is CDMA and has lots of
> phones with no extendable antennas that work just fine.

"Fine" is relative. I bet if one did a side-by-side comparison of a phone
with an extended antenna and a similar model with a non-extendable antenna,
the former would have better fringe area reception. There are times
when a phone manufacturer's stylists prevail over its engineers.

--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:11:50 GMT, "John Richards"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>If you happen to be close to a tower you don't need a good antenna.
>>>But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a collapsed
>>>antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and voila, now you have
>>>enough signal to make a call.
>>
>> You are under the impression that simply pulling out an antenna gives
>> you superior performance under all conditions with the assumption that
>> it "sees" the signal better. Such is not the case. Best performance
>> will happen when the *correct* size antenna is used.
>
> I said no such thing as "under all conditions." But let me give you
> one extreme example. If you put a perfectly sized antenna inside a thick
> concrete bunker, I assure you it's not going to work, even close
> to a tower. That's one extreme. There's a middle ground where one is
> within a few miles of the tower, but there's a lot of signal attenuation
> due to intervening buildings and foliage. Under those conditions
> the extended antenna gives that little extra punch that's needed.

Not when the modern GSM handset has been designed to perform
as well as the handset two generations before that with its pullout
antenna extended. And I can test that anytime, because I have
GSM handsets from all 3 generations and a marginal signal situation
where even the handset with the pullout antenna doesnt perform
as well as the one with the well designed internal antenna.

Thats not true with cdma, because the cdma system
works differently with handsets allowed to be much
further from the base and not be ignored by the base.

John Richards <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> A pull-out antenna will improve the performance for analog, GSM, CDMA,
>>>>> TDMA, ... etc.

>>>> Wrong. When you have an adequate
>>>> signal level, the pull out antenna is useless.

>>> If you happen to be close to a tower you don't need a good antenna.

>> If you are anywhere in a decently design GSM network, you dont either.

>>> But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a collapsed
>>> antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and voila, now you have
>>> enough signal to make a call.

>> Doesnt work like that with GSM when you are
>> outside the hard digital limit on the distance
>> from the base, the base just ignores you.

> You're making an unwarranted assumption

Nope, I am making no assumption whatever.

> that the distance is beyond GSM's hard digital limit.
> I'm talking about an intermediate location that is inside the limit,
> but the signal strength is poor due to attenuation from the terrain
> (buildings, trees, etc.). Under those conditions the superior RF performance
> of the extended antenna makes a difference.

I know it doesnt, because not only do I use a GSM handset in that
situation, a steel and concrete house, with a very marginal lower
power GSM base, where I KNOW that the generation of GSM
handsets with extendable antennas dont perform as well IN
THAT SITUATION as modern well designed GSM handsets.

Its quite feasible to design a handset that performs as well
as an extendible antenna with GSM and THATS why NONE
of the most recent GSM handsets have extendable antennas.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I said no such thing as "under all conditions." But let me give you
>> one extreme example. If you put a perfectly sized antenna inside a thick
>> concrete bunker, I assure you it's not going to work, even close
>> to a tower. That's one extreme. There's a middle ground where one is
>> within a few miles of the tower, but there's a lot of signal attenuation
>> due to intervening buildings and foliage. Under those conditions
>> the extended antenna gives that little extra punch that's needed.
>
> Not when the modern GSM handset has been designed to perform
> as well as the handset two generations before that with its pullout
> antenna extended. And I can test that anytime, because I have
> GSM handsets from all 3 generations and a marginal signal situation
> where even the handset with the pullout antenna doesnt perform
> as well as the one with the well designed internal antenna.

Comparing different generation handsets is like comparing apples
and oranges. Obviously the technology has gotten better.
It appears that GSM handset manufacturers have cashed in on
better receiver sensitivity by teaming it with a less costly antenna
design. Unfortunately there are no modern GSM handsets with a
pull-out antenna, so a true comparison test can not be done.

--
John Richards

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a collapsed
>>>> antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and voila, now you have
>>>> enough signal to make a call.
>
>>> Doesnt work like that with GSM when you are
>>> outside the hard digital limit on the distance
>>> from the base, the base just ignores you.
>
>> You're making an unwarranted assumption
>
> Nope, I am making no assumption whatever.
>
>> that the distance is beyond GSM's hard digital limit.
>> I'm talking about an intermediate location that is inside the limit,
>> but the signal strength is poor due to attenuation from the terrain
>> (buildings, trees, etc.). Under those conditions the superior RF performance
>> of the extended antenna makes a difference.
>
> I know it doesnt, because not only do I use a GSM handset in that
> situation, a steel and concrete house, with a very marginal lower
> power GSM base, where I KNOW that the generation of GSM
> handsets with extendable antennas dont perform as well IN
> THAT SITUATION as modern well designed GSM handsets.

That would not be a fair test of the antenna because circuit design
doesn't stay stagnant, consequently receiver performance has gotten
better with each successive generation of handset.
For whatever reason, GSM handset manufacturers have chosen to
limit reception capability under marginal signal conditions.

--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I said no such thing as "under all conditions." But let me give you
>>> one extreme example. If you put a perfectly sized antenna inside a thick
>>> concrete bunker, I assure you it's not going to work, even close
>>> to a tower. That's one extreme. There's a middle ground where one is
>>> within a few miles of the tower, but there's a lot of signal attenuation
>>> due to intervening buildings and foliage. Under those conditions
>>> the extended antenna gives that little extra punch that's needed.
>>
>> Not when the modern GSM handset has been designed to perform
>> as well as the handset two generations before that with its pullout
>> antenna extended. And I can test that anytime, because I have
>> GSM handsets from all 3 generations and a marginal signal situation
>> where even the handset with the pullout antenna doesnt perform
>> as well as the one with the well designed internal antenna.

> Comparing different generation handsets is like comparing apples and oranges.

Nope, not when you can see that modern GSM handsets where
NONE have pullout antennas anymore, perform just as well in
poor signal situations as the generation which had pullout antennas.

> Obviously the technology has gotten better.

Yep, they worked out how to do as well with an internal
antenna as with the pullout antennas extended, with GSM
where the base will ignore you if you're too far from the base.

> It appears that GSM handset manufacturers have cashed in on better receiver
> sensitivity

It aint just receiver sensitivity, its also
transmit efficiency too with the antenna.

> by teaming it with a less costly antenna design.

It wasnt the cost that was the reason it was abandoned
with GSM, the pullout antennas cost peanuts.

There's a reason they are still seen with cdma handsets,
those can be MUCH further from the base and not be
ignored and so they do have a useful purpose with cdma.

> Unfortunately there are no modern GSM handsets with a pull-out antenna,

Because the manufacturers realised that the pullout antennas
didnt provide any useful benefit at all with GSM now.

> so a true comparison test can not be done.

Bull****. There are still a few GSM handsets that can have an
external antenna plugged in and you will find that when you do
with a pathetic little pullout antenna equivalent, it doesnt help.

It doesnt help with a full 5/8 plugin antenna either except when
you can get that outside the faraday cage like with a car etc.

"The Real Bev" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Curtis CCR wrote:
> >
> > The Real Bev wrote:
<snip>
> I've seen several "disguised" towers -- and can't tell which looks
sillier,
> the pine tree or the palm tree.

The palms look better unless of course you're in Chicago!

I saw a pine tree tower today that was hidden beside some real trees
of the same height. The top looked OK the mast was bright gray and
stood out like a sore thumb!

Chas.

John Richards <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a
>>>>> collapsed antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and voila,
>>>>> now you have enough signal to make a call.

>>>> Doesnt work like that with GSM when you are
>>>> outside the hard digital limit on the distance
>>>> from the base, the base just ignores you.

>>> You're making an unwarranted assumption

>> Nope, I am making no assumption whatever.

>>> that the distance is beyond GSM's hard digital limit.
>>> I'm talking about an intermediate location that is inside the limit,
>>> but the signal strength is poor due to attenuation from the terrain
>>> (buildings, trees, etc.). Under those conditions the superior RF performance
>>> of the extended antenna makes a difference.

>> I know it doesnt, because not only do I use a GSM handset in that
>> situation, a steel and concrete house, with a very marginal lower
>> power GSM base, where I KNOW that the generation of GSM
>> handsets with extendable antennas dont perform as well IN
>> THAT SITUATION as modern well designed GSM handsets.

> That would not be a fair test of the antenna

Corse it is.

> because circuit design doesn't stay stagnant, consequently receiver
> performance has gotten better with each successive generation of handset.

And using the external antenna ON THE MOST
RECENT GSM HANDSET allows for that.

> For whatever reason, GSM handset manufacturers have chosen to limit reception
> capability under marginal signal conditions.

Wrong again. They have actually worked out how to design the
internal antennas SO THEY PERFORM AS WELL AS THE
PULLOUT ANTENNAS DO AND HAVE NOTICED THAT ONCE
THEY DID THAT, THE PULLOUT ANTENNA DOESNT HELP ANYMORE.

That has not been possible with cdma because its completely
different technology which sees the handsets needing to communicate
with bases at MUCH lower signal levels than with GSM.

GSM has always been a technology that relys on a high density
of bases and deliberately ignoring handsets that can still be
heard by the base fine when its past the hard distance cutoff.
IN THAT SITUATION A BETTER ANTENNA IS USELESS.

The only time modern GSM handsets cant see the base
while still within the hard distance limit is in situations like
railway tunnels etc, AND A PULLOUT ANTENNA WONT
HELP IN THAT SITUATION AND YOU CAN PROVE THAT
ANY TIME BY USING A MODERN GSM HANDSET THAT
ALLOWS AN EXTERNAL ANTENNA TO BE PLUGGED IN.

And that is only useful in a faraday cage type situation where
the external antenna can be outside the faraday cage.

* * Chas wrote:
>
> "The Real Bev" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I've seen several "disguised" towers -- and can't tell which looks
> > sillier, the pine tree or the palm tree.
>
> The palms look better unless of course you're in Chicago!
>
> I saw a pine tree tower today that was hidden beside some real trees
> of the same height. The top looked OK the mast was bright gray and
> stood out like a sore thumb!

The "trunks" of the "palms" are telephone-pole straight, but the "fronds"
aren't that dissimilar to real palms. They should have planted real ones
nearby the same height as the phony one, though. The real ones all being 10
feet shorter is a dead giveaway.

--
Cheers,
Bev
*----------------------------------------------------*
*Are you *sure* there's a hyphen in "anal-retentive?"*

Joseph wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 11:37:28 -0500, clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>That's because Verizon insists on them for their phones, while AT&T and
>>Cingular didn't care. It has nothing to do with "the technology used".
>
> Bull****. It has everything to do with the technology used. Just
> because you won't bother to research the subject doesn't mean that you
> know what the hell you're blabbering on about. If you don't do
> research you end up looking like a fool or worse an idiot. And it's
> not Verizon "insisting" it's the manufacturers who put the right
> antenna on the right phone.

It's fun watching you babble, as you provide all the evidence any reader
needs to see that you're widely divorced from reality.

--
I miss my .signature.

Concerning hard distance limits, CDMA also has hard distance limits,
where otherwise usable signals are ignored due to the distance between
the mobile and the cell site. It's just that, as opposed to GSM where
the limit is built into the protocol, the hard limit with CDMA can be
set in each cell site, as the maximum "P/N offset" deviation from the
mobile which will be accepted by that cell site. Ask any CDMA user on a
hill overlooking a distant valley, who has "5 bars" and cannot make a
call, until his phone falls back to analog, which has no hard distance
limits.