On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:13:55 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
<45592681$0$34518$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dennis Ferguson wrote:

>> In any case, if you want to persist in arguing that 850 MHz provides
>> a 2x distance advantage over 1900 MHz, you can't just quote the path loss
>> and stop. You've also got to explain why the antenna gains at
>> both frequencies would need to be identical, and my understanding of
>> the problem leads me to believe you'll have some trouble doing this.
>
>This is certainly true. Since there really isn't any 'path loss' one has
>to know a lot about the system in order to measure it. However, this has
>been measured extensively over real paths and is the source of COST231,
>Lee and other models which do in fact show considerable frequency
>dependent attenuation in non-LOS environments.

The key words there are "non-LOS". In such cases, differences vary
considerably from location to location, and no frequency generalization
is truly valid; i.e., there are cases where 1900 will work better than
850 and vice versa. As in some many other things, it all depends.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>