On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:52:00 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4556e0b1$0$88672$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> It think the point John Navas may be making (or, perhaps,
>> misinterpreting!) is that in most metro areas this is largely irrelevant,
>> since so many "extra" towers are needed to support the capacity load that
>> the propagation loss caused by distance of each individual tower is
>> generally moot.
>
>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.
[sigh] Again:
Claiming that over and over doesn't make it any more true. What is
true is that you've never cited any real authorities to support your
wild contention that "1900 Mhz requires 4x to 5x the number of base
stations as 800 Mhz".
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/8f125ddd3224b9a1>
Do you have any? Or are you just making this up (like so many other
things)?
I see you've now dropped the "4x to 5x" claim. Apparently you now
realize how patently wrong that was.
Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.
It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range
for 1900, or a maximum of about 20% more towers along a flat rural
highway strip, or a maximum of 50% more towers in area coverage, and
then only when range is limited only by maximum power, which is
rarely the case in metro areas. Tower spacing is only near maximum
in flat rural areas (and current small handsets don't come close to
maximum power levels), so your claim about metro areas is patently
bogus.
>T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
>address, ...
Likewise Cingular. <http://onlinecare.cingular.com/coverageviewer/>
>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.
Again:
It's not that simple. While 1900 penetrates walls less well than
800/850, it does a better job of penetrating small openings (e.g.,
windows). Overall the difference is usually relatively small, with
800/850 better in some buildings, 1900 better in other buildings.
Authoritative articles support this. For a solid technical assessment
of the issues, see CS 294-7: Radio Propagation by Prof. Randy H. Katz,
CS Division, University of California, Berkeley
<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>. Those interested will
find that frequency isn't an issue in outdoor range, and is a relatively
minor issue in indoor penetration.
>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.
Nonsense. See above.
>> Obviously in rural areas the 800MHz carriers have an advantage where
>> capacity isn't an issue, and distance is the limiting factor.
>>
>> I remember in the late 80's a rural Nebraska cellular carrier (aptly
>> named "Nebraska Cellular") managed to provide excellent cellular service
>> along I-80 through almost the entire state with a minimal number of
>> towers thanks to 800MHz propagation and some VERY flat terrain!
>
>Yes, this is the big advantage of AMPS, at 800 MHz. The hope is that if
>AMPS ever gets turned off in those rural areas, that something will take
>its place, maybe something like Australia did with CDMA.
More nonsense. The advantage with AMPS was/is high-power "bag" phones,
which have more range than small micro-power handsets, but that's a
function of power, not of band (800/850 vs 1900) or technology (AMPS vs
digital).
>> Off topic, but interesting, one of their head honchos told me (back then)
>> that they made half of their total revenue from roamers (this was back
>> in the old $3/day + $1/minute roaming days) so highway coverage was more
>> important to them than covering the towns they serviced!
Yep.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>