reply to discussion

Post a reply to the thread: 911 Call location accuracy

Your Message

If you are already a member Click here to log in
 
  • :)
  • :heart:
  • :(
  • ;)
  • :p
  • :cool:
  • :rolleyes:
  • :ah:
  • :evil:
  • :flamemad:
  • :sad:
  • :laugh:
  • :D
  • :smart:
  • :blush:

Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces)

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

  • If selected, :) will not be replaced with smile

Subscription
Rate Thread

You may rate this thread from 1-star (Terrible) to 5-stars (Excellent) if you wish to do so.

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 05-02-2007, 03:57 AM
    xPosTech
    On 5/1/2007 12:45 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

    >
    > the Feds required 95% of the handsets on the system to be E-911 compliant
    > by a certain date, and unless the GSM guys wanted to start *excersizing*
    > the same draconian control of handsets on their networks that Sprint and
    > Verizon do, the system they chose made sense.
    >


    My emphasis.
    Shouldn't that be *exorcising*? Merriam-Webster says it means (1b)to
    get rid of something menacing. "Get Thee out, bitpim! Get Thee out, MPT!"

    By the way, do you know what you get when you don't pay your Excorcist?
    You get repossessed.

    Via con Dios
    --
    Ted
    I wasn't born in Texas but
    I got back here as soon as I could
    (Don't forget to take out the trash)

    No one can make you feel inferior without your consent,
    but you'd be a fool to withhold that from your superiors.
  • 04-30-2007, 11:45 PM
    Todd Allcock
    At 30 Apr 2007 12:08:39 -0700 SMS wrote:

    > You're comparing apples and oranges.


    True- to a point. I was jumping on your comment that GSM was a "few
    years behind CDMA." The two major US GSM carriers chose the less
    accurate system for sound business reasons, not because of any
    technological reason preventing a more accurate assisted-GPS system. IIRC,

    the Feds required 95% of the handsets on the system to be E-911 compliant
    by a certain date, and unless the GSM guys wanted to start excersizing
    the same draconian control of handsets on their networks that Sprint and
    Verizon do, the system they chose made sense.


    > The advantage of the Snaptrack system is that it's a hybrid system for
    > locating the phone.


    I understand that. Verizon, Sprint and their resellers (like Disney
    Mobile) are leveraging the more accurate system for addition revenue.
    There's nothing wrong with that, (except every customer is paying for
    those AGPS Qualcomm chips regardless of the fact that probably only 1% of
    the customer base want or need L-B services.) My point was only that GSM
    carriers could (and have) offered GPS capable handsets, so they could
    choose to offer LBS (with the caviat that you'd be required to use
    particular handsets instead of any handset, like with CDMA.)

    > The GPS applications you can run on a PDA phone are unrelated to LBS
    > or E-911.


    You're missing my point- noth ing PREVENTS the GPS systems in those
    phones from being used for LBS- look at Wherify, for example- they're a
    Cingular reseller that puts a "real" GPS chip in a GSM "kiddle phone" so
    parents can track location (sort of a prepaid version of Disney Mobile's
    tracking service.) It's an overpriced service, IMHO, but it's an example
    of how a 3rd-party can leverage LBS over cellular instead of only the
    carrier.

    > It's true that some of the GPS chip-equipped CDMA phones can run other
    > GPS applications, but there are also GSM phones with that capability.


    Again, building in a "real" non-carrier assisted GPS (like the Nokia N95)
    allows for third parties to develop LBS apps and bypass or undercut the
    carrier's (so far) virtual monopoly on LBS. I wouldn't be surprised to
    see 3rd-party LBS software written for N95s shortly. You wouldn't even
    need a monthly subscription to a carrier-based service if a 3rd-party
    sold software for the N95 that reported position via SMS or GPRS every x
    minutes and a desktop/server app processing that data at the employer's
    location. The 3rd party opportunities are endless with an "open" system
    like Nokia's and impossible with a closed system like Qualcomm's.

    > It's in LBS services that require a high-degree of accuracy that the
    > CDMA carriers have an advantage.


    Agreed. My point was that if there was (or is) a large market for LBS,
    phone manufactures would've exploited it outside of the carrier's system
    (vehicle-mounted LBS units already exist that record data internally for
    upload to a PC back at "base" or transmit via cellular- this is, obviously,

    a niche market that GPS-enabled phones now compete with.)

    > Personally I'm of the opinion that it's really unethical to watch every
    > move your employees make, but others argue that since you're paying
    > them, you have the right to track their every move. Obviously the
    > users of LBS and the service providers have the latter opinion.



    I agree with you completely, but like with drug-testing, it's another
    place the market can decide- if you don't want to be tracked, (or tested)
    get a job with an employer that doesn't track or test.


    > You'll get no argument from me that it sucks that you can't use you're
    > older phones on CDMA networks. Actually you can use them on some MVNO
    > networks, such as PagePlus.


    Yes- since they represent an infinitesmal number of customers compared to
    Verizon's retail biz, they exist in the 5% of customers the Feds allow
    Verizon to have using non-E911 handsets.

    >I also despise what companies like Verizon do by defeaturing handsets
    > to turn off functionality that the manufacturer included. There are no
    > saints here.


    Agreed. That is certainly an area where GSM IS "years behind CDMA."
    ;-)




  • 04-30-2007, 07:20 PM
    Scott
    SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:463693e4$0$27221
    [email protected]:

    > Scott wrote:
    >
    >>> Yet rather than kill-file Navas like most of us, you respond to his
    >>> fabrications.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> And if he didn't, many unsuspecting readers would believe Johhny's
    >> fabrications as truth.

    >
    > There isn't some vast group of readers that automatically believe
    > anything that these Usenet trolls make up.
    >
    > Just how many unsuspecting readers out there don't understand that their
    > exists a group of Usenet posters like Navas whose sole mission in life
    > is to shill, to be as obnoxious as possible in the process, and to never
    > provide citations for anything.


    You better check the archives- he's sucked in more than his fair share and
    on subjects that could cause heartburn for anyone taking his "advice".

    The number of readers is not important- one believing his crap is too many.

    >
    >> Putting your head in the sand like an ostrich is not the solution.

    >
    > Ignoring trolls _is_ actually a good solution. Eventually the rolls get
    > tired of not evoking a response and go away. It worked with Jim, and it
    > can work with John.
    >


    But you don't ignore him, which was a point I made in the last post that
    you conveniently cut out. Again- you have no room to criticize anyone, as
    you reply to his posts more often than most here, albeit in response to a
    response.

    >
    > [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
    > posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
    > and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
    > Wireless Service.]
    >


    And give this up- you are the only one crossposting and it makes some
    threads unreadable. Obviously, nobody is interested at this time to switch
    groups. The time to do this would be when the Cingular name actually
    disappears.
  • 04-30-2007, 07:16 PM
    John Navas
    On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:12:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Just how many unsuspecting readers out there don't understand that their
    >exists a group of Usenet posters like Navas whose sole mission in life
    >is to shill, to be as obnoxious as possible in the process, and to never
    >provide citations for anything.


    Pot ... kettle ... black.

    In fact I post numerous citations, whereas you post almost none.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

    "A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
    "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
    than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
  • 04-30-2007, 07:12 PM
    SMS
    Scott wrote:

    >> Yet rather than kill-file Navas like most of us, you respond to his
    >> fabrications.
    >>

    >
    >
    > And if he didn't, many unsuspecting readers would believe Johhny's
    > fabrications as truth.


    There isn't some vast group of readers that automatically believe
    anything that these Usenet trolls make up.

    Just how many unsuspecting readers out there don't understand that their
    exists a group of Usenet posters like Navas whose sole mission in life
    is to shill, to be as obnoxious as possible in the process, and to never
    provide citations for anything.

    > Putting your head in the sand like an ostrich is not the solution.


    Ignoring trolls _is_ actually a good solution. Eventually the rolls get
    tired of not evoking a response and go away. It worked with Jim, and it
    can work with John.


    [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
    posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
    and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
    Wireless Service.]
  • 04-30-2007, 03:51 PM
    John Navas
    On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:34:04 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    >
    >> I didn't suggest any level of accuracy and reliability other than it
    >> is at least as good as U-TDOA. Good luck proving otherwise.

    >
    >Someone had better tell the sales people trying to sell LBS systems
    >based on U-TDOA about Navas's claims. The big selling point of the
    >Snaptrack based LBS systems is the much higher accuracy, while the
    >U_TDOA systems are being sold solely on lower cost.


    SnapTrack is actually quite a bit less accurate than U-TDOA when a GPS
    fix isn't available (as is often the case; e.g., in urban canyons, under
    tree cover, indoors, etc.) because it relies on relatively crude
    Enhanced Cell-ID.

    --
    Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
  • 04-30-2007, 03:34 PM
    SMS
    Dennis Ferguson wrote:

    > I didn't suggest any level of accuracy and reliability other than it
    > is at least as good as U-TDOA. Good luck proving otherwise.


    Someone had better tell the sales people trying to sell LBS systems
    based on U-TDOA about Navas's claims. The big selling point of the
    Snaptrack based LBS systems is the much higher accuracy, while the
    U_TDOA systems are being sold solely on lower cost.

    You also have all those European carriers needlessly implementing hybrid
    systems because they foolishly failed to consult with the self-appointed
    expert on everything. They could have saved a lot of money if only
    someone had told them that U-TDOA could provide sufficiently accurate
    positioning for their LBS applications, without the need for more
    expensive handsets, and without the need for all the infrastructure.

    I can think of one big advantage of the U-TDOA LBS systems, they'd cause
    less union opposition due to their lower accuracy. The union workers
    that are being tracked with the Snaptrack system are not happy about it.


    [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
    posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
    and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
    Wireless Service.]
  • 04-30-2007, 03:14 PM
    John Navas
    On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:08:39 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Todd Allcock wrote:
    >
    >> Plus, nothing has prevented integration of GPS chips in GSM phones.

    >
    >You're comparing apples and oranges.


    That's what you're doing.

    >The advantage of the Snaptrack system is that it's a hybrid system for
    >locating the phone.


    The advantage of U-TDOA is that it's a system that works with _any_
    phone.

    >It's in LBS services that require a high-degree of accuracy that the
    >CDMA carriers have an advantage. ...


    There isn't actually a meaningful difference in LBS.

    --
    Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
  • 04-30-2007, 02:35 PM
    John Navas
    On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:15:23 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Companies that need to implement location based services are flocking to
    >the CDMA carriers because the GSM carriers (at least in the U.S.) have
    >not yet implemented Snaptrack (or similar systems).


    Proof? Or another of your fantasies?

    --
    Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
  • 04-30-2007, 01:08 PM
    SMS
    Todd Allcock wrote:

    > Plus, nothing has prevented integration of GPS chips in GSM phones.


    You're comparing apples and oranges.

    The advantage of the Snaptrack system is that it's a hybrid system for
    locating the phone.

    The GPS applications you can run on a PDA phone are unrelated to LBS or
    E-911. It's true that some of the GPS chip-equipped CDMA phones can run
    other GPS applications, but there are also GSM phones with that capability.

    It's in LBS services that require a high-degree of accuracy that the
    CDMA carriers have an advantage. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's
    really unethical to watch every move your employees make, but others
    argue that since you're paying them, you have the right to track their
    every move. Obviously the users of LBS and the service providers have
    the latter opinion.

    You'll get no argument from me that it sucks that you can't use you're
    older phones on CDMA networks. Actually you can use them on some MVNO
    networks, such as PagePlus. I also despise what companies like Verizon
    do by defeaturing handsets to turn off functionality that the
    manufacturer included. There are no saints here.
  • 04-29-2007, 06:15 PM
    SMS
    Dennis Ferguson wrote:

    > Have you seen any A-GPS in use in cell phones other than Qualcomm's?
    > The SnapTrack Wireless Assisted GPS(TM) is actually a hybrid which takes
    > TOA measurements from both available GPS satellites and from all the
    > towers it can hear, and reports all these to the network. In the case
    > where it can't hear any GPS satellites it continues to work but makes
    > do with tower-based data alone like the Cingular system (I hope you aren't
    > defining "working like Cingular" as "not working"). If it can also
    > measure GPS satellite TOAs it works even better.
    >
    > Dennis Ferguson


    Yes, Verizon is using Snaptrack and the accuracy is very very good, and
    the hybrid design ensures that it works indoors as well. I only know one
    company that's using location based services, but it's very large, and
    they chose Verizon based mainly on their need for accurate positioning.
    They've been getting accuracy to about 15 meters. The TDOA system used
    by Cingular has much poorer accuracy. Cingular has promised that they
    will be implementing a more accurate system in the future, not later
    than the end of 2008.

    Companies that need to implement location based services are flocking to
    the CDMA carriers because the GSM carriers (at least in the U.S.) have
    not yet implemented Snaptrack (or similar systems).



    [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
    posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
    and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
    Wireless Service.]
  • 04-29-2007, 09:21 AM
    John Navas
    On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:24:22 -0700, Evan Platt
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:13:22 -0700, "al" <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>I read an article concerning the accurancy in determining a 911 caller's
    >>location. Two systems were compared, a "network based" system (ATT
    >>Cingular) and a "satellite GPS" system (Verizon Sprint).
    >>It seems that the satellite GPS system could pinpoint the caller more
    >>frequently than the network system. If I understand the ATT system, the
    >>call must be picked up by 2 or 3 cell phone towers and the location is then
    >>calculated by trianguation. Chances of contacting 2 or 3 towers in some
    >>areas is remote. The Satellite GPS system may be hindered in some
    >>metropolitan areas because it is harder to see sufficient GPS satellites.

    >
    >Yep, that about sums it up.


    Actually not.

    >Triangulation requires at least 3. The more, the merrier.


    AT&T/Cingular E911 positioning is actually done by U-TDOA. I suggest
    you read up on it in order to avoid making more inaccurate statements.
    See links in the Cingular FAQ below.

    >And satellite, if GPS, is accurate to I believe 3 meters.


    The A-GPS (Assisted GPS) used in cell phones isn't that accurate, and
    doesn't work at all in many locations, including many urban areas, under
    tree cover, indoors, etc. Again, you clearly need to read up on the
    technology in order to avoid making inaccurate statements.

    --
    Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
  • 04-29-2007, 09:15 AM
    John Navas
    On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:09:37 -0600, Todd Allcock
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >At 28 Apr 2007 20:12:10 -0700 SMS wrote:


    >> As usual, GSM lags CDMA by a few years.

    >
    >That's quite unfair.


    It's also dead wrong, like the rest of his anti-GSM mantra, endlessly
    trolled in GSM newsgroups. He's obviously got way too much free time.


    --
    Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
  • 04-29-2007, 12:09 AM
    Todd Allcock
    At 28 Apr 2007 20:12:10 -0700 SMS wrote:
    > The problem is that even with 3 towers, the network based system isn't
    > accurate to a sufficient level for many location-based services.



    So? The E911 "location" mandate was for safety- not delivery-truck
    tracking. It's
    accurate enough for it's intended purpose.

    > See "http://eetimes.eu/wireless/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193200680"
    >
    > "ABI said it sees 2007 as the year the GSM carriers will issue requests
    > for qualifications and vendor selection and IC integration for the
    > handset OEMs will take place. By the end of 2008, a quarter of all 3G
    > handsets will have GPS ICs included, and the average selling price of
    > a GPS chipset will have dropped to $2.70, ABI said."
    >
    > As usual, GSM lags CDMA by a few years.


    That's quite unfair. First, the advantage of tower locatation-based
    positioning is that works with any phone registered on the network. I
    can be tracked when dialing 911 on my six year-old Nokia 8290 just as
    easily and as accurately as I can on my current PPC phone. GSM customers
    never have to hear "I'm sorry- we can't let you use your perfectly good
    old phone on our network because it isn't E911 compatible."

    Plus, nothing has prevented integration of GPS chips in GSM phones.
    Unlike with CDMA, GSM has let the marketplace decide if higher-accuracy
    GPS was desired by customers, AND because of this, the carrier doesn't
    have to be involved in the services- 3rd party companies can develop
    tracking software because the GPS chips in GSM handsets "belong" to the
    phone's owner- not the carrier! Can you pull your location out of your
    GPS-enabled CDMA phone? No, but Verizon can, and then sell your phone's
    own data back to you!

    An HP 6515 owner, for example, can pull up his or her lat/long by
    him/herself, and any number of 3rd-party Windows Mobile applications can
    be written to read that info from the GPS and text it or upload it to
    whoever without paying Cingular anything except the cost of the data
    transfer.

    Verizon or Sprint, on the other hand, wouldn't dare allow a "real" user
    accessible GPS module to be built into a phone- that $10/month nav
    software or $30/month tracking software subscription would be threatened.

    GSM is certainly a few years "behind" CDMA in some aspects- like finding
    new ways to milk a customer's wallet on a monthly basis for hardware
    already built into the phone. Unfortunately, with the increased handset
    crippling we're beginning to see from GSM carriers as well, it seems
    they're trying to catch up, sadly.


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  • 04-28-2007, 09:12 PM
    SMS
    al wrote:
    > I read an article concerning the accurancy in determining a 911 caller's
    > location. Two systems were compared, a "network based" system (ATT
    > Cingular) and a "satellite GPS" system (Verizon Sprint).
    > It seems that the satellite GPS system could pinpoint the caller more
    > frequently than the network system. If I understand the ATT system, the
    > call must be picked up by 2 or 3 cell phone towers and the location is then
    > calculated by trianguation. Chances of contacting 2 or 3 towers in some
    > areas is remote.


    The problem is that even with 3 towers, the network based system isn't
    accurate to a sufficient level for many location-based services.

    See "http://eetimes.eu/wireless/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193200680"

    "ABI said it sees 2007 as the year the GSM carriers will issue requests
    for qualifications and vendor selection and IC integration for the
    handset OEMs will take place. By the end of 2008, a quarter of all 3G
    handsets will have GPS ICs included, and the average selling price of a
    GPS chipset will have dropped to $2.70, ABI said."

    As usual, GSM lags CDMA by a few years.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •