At 12 Nov 2006 00:52:00 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Perhaps, but this is demonstrably untrue in suburban areas, where the
tower placement is to cover a geographic area, and the capacity is not
the issue.
>
> T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
address, and you can clearly see the gaps caused by insufficient towers
in many areas.

I was very impressed with the accuracy of T-Mo's maps. Cingular now has
a similar street-level map as well, which seems equally accurate,
including the large dead spot my house is in the center of! ;-)
>
> I don't think that anyone argues that 1900 MHz has as much range or as
much penetration as 800 MHz. Not even Navas would claim something like
that. The rule of thumb has always been 2x the distance, mathematically
it's more than 2x, but their are other factors (geologic features,
buildings, etc.) that make the increase in range less than ideal.
Ironically, neither major 800MHz carrier in Denver works at my house
(Cingular or Verizon) but T-Mo and Sprint and (as well as Nextel) do!

(I realize it's not a frequency thing, I just find it funny that the
nation's two largest carriers can't get a signal to my neighborhood but
everyone else does...)


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