On Sat, 10 May 2008 03:43:11 +0000, Michael wrote:

> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4823c1e1$0$11203$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> This will be interesting to watch.
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/technology/
story/0,25642,23665246-5014239,00.html
>>
>> Given my experiences over the past weekend with Optus v NextG rural
>> coverage, I'll be keen to see what Optus will have to offer us
>> "bushies" and at what cost.
>>
>> If Optus' claims that 900 Mhz is the way to go versus Telstra's 850Mhz,
>> maybe it will end up providing better coverage.
>
> The lower the frequency for UMTS, the better the spread of coverage.

That's not true over such a low range of frequencies. The frequencies in
question are all line of sight. And they're all capable of reaching the
limit of the GSM timing advance range.

> However, the higher, the better the inbuilding penetration

Wrong. The higher the frequency, the worse the penetration through
concrete etc.