Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > US Networks > alt.cellular.attws
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2010, 08:57 PM
Brad Allen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

" It's embarrassing that in Apple's home city the iPhone can't be used
" in large areas.

That's well-deserved embarrassment. Apple should have gone with
Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint, and never AT&T. I don't bleed for them.
They can fester in their embarrasment forever, for all I care. All
their locked-up nonsense can go to hell.

Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2010, 09:52 PM
Brad Allen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

In article <4CD61664.7030402@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
" On 11/6/2010 7:26 PM, SMS wrote:
" > [...]
" > It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and
" > hills. With GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's
" > challenging to cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the
" > area in question but Verizon has no iPhone.
"
" If you're curious where the towers are located, visit:
"
" <http://sfocellsites.com/mappageA.htm>
"
" and wait until all the pushpins are drawn.

According to this site, I have two T-Mobile sites within 2,000ft of my
home, and one AT&T site within 1,500ft. Another observation is that
everywhere there's an AT&T site, there's a T-Mobile site, and there's
a lot of T-Mobile sites that don't have corresponding AT&T sites.
It's kinda like AT&T just sort of stopped investing in towers, when
T-Mobile just kept trying to get good coverage. This is consistent
with my experience with both carriers' respective quality, and with
most people that I know as well.

Add to this that T-Mobile recently upgraded their network from
better-than-AT&T's to the next generation (about 4x the speed as
before), and things are golden. I'm getting consistent 3923kbps
inbound, 1316kbps outbound, and 96ms pings with my Nexus One (by
Google, aka HTC Passion), and newer model phones with the right
hardware and software should go even faster since they can take
advantage of even faster speeds.

Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 03:01 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 11/13/2010 1:57 PM, Brad Allen wrote:
> " It's embarrassing that in Apple's home city the iPhone can't be used
> " in large areas.
>
> That's well-deserved embarrassment. Apple should have gone with
> Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint, and never AT&T.


T-Mobile coverage is even worse than AT&T in the Bay Area, so going with
T-Mobile would not have helped Apple.

Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 05:48 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 13 Nov 2010 22:52:18 GMT, in
<4cdf16a2$0$1645$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, qm@sonic.net (Brad Allen)
wrote:

>In article <4CD61664.7030402@thadlabs.com>,
>Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>" On 11/6/2010 7:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>" > [...]
>" > It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and
>" > hills. With GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's
>" > challenging to cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the
>" > area in question but Verizon has no iPhone.


GSM works just as well as CDMA in hilly terrain.
Likewise UMTS, which both AT&T and T-Mobile use.

>Add to this that T-Mobile recently upgraded their network from
>better-than-AT&T's to the next generation (about 4x the speed as
>before), and things are golden. I'm getting consistent 3923kbps
>inbound, 1316kbps outbound, and 96ms pings with my Nexus One (by
>Google, aka HTC Passion), and newer model phones with the right
>hardware and software should go even faster since they can take
>advantage of even faster speeds.


Likewise with my own Nexus One on T-Mobile.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 05:48 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:01:22 -0800, in
<4cdf5f13$0$22103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 11/13/2010 1:57 PM, Brad Allen wrote:
>> " It's embarrassing that in Apple's home city the iPhone can't be used
>> " in large areas.
>>
>> That's well-deserved embarrassment. Apple should have gone with
>> Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint, and never AT&T.

>
>T-Mobile coverage is even worse than AT&T in the Bay Area, so going with
>T-Mobile would not have helped Apple.


Simply not true, as you might know if you had any real experience.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 06:08 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:00:28 -0700, in
<4cd186c0$0$22143$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 02/11/10 8:30 PM, poldy wrote:
>
>> $2 million homes by 85?

>
>Definitely. All teardown/rebuilds of small Monta Vista area homes.
>
>> Usually there is good signal on the big roads and freeways. Good on De
>> Anza, good on 280 and good on Foothill Expressway.

>
>That's true, but in the Monta Vista area the coverage is very poor for
>all carriers except Verizon.


Simply not true.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 06:26 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 13 Nov 2010 21:52:38 GMT, in
<4cdf08a6$0$1645$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, qm@sonic.net (Brad Allen)
wrote:

>All comparisons aside (AT&T sucks so who cares, Verizon is better and
>this is yet another example, 10 years for T-Mobile (which I have and
>is also superior to AT&T) is more than 2 years for AT&T, etc.), this
>whole anti-cell tower crap should be retilted. Now that we know
>microwaves are bad but to much less extent than the wackadoos claim,


Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age:
An Insider's Alarming Discoveries about Cancer and Genetic Damage
by Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram
ISBN 078670960X

Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette
by Robert C. Kane
ISBN 0533136733

Cell Phones and The Dark Deception:
Find Out What You're Not Being Told...And Why
by Carleigh Cooper
ISBN 0578003414

>we should change the law to make the onus of power for pro-vs-anti
>citing to favor citing parties more, i.e., make it easier to place
>antennas. ...


FCC has already done that, including a "shot clock" rule:
<http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/policy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221900353>

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 06:28 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:35:22 -0800, in
<4cd79a1d$0$22099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 11/7/2010 8:54 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> In the guy's blog he mentions that AT&T is rather secretive about its
>> new tower locations ("AT&T data is only partially updated these last few
>> years, so some areas are current and some may be missing a few new cell
>> sites. It's hard to keep up with AT&T because, unlike T-Mobile, they
>> are not so proud of their new coverage and therefore keep their new
>> sites secret"), and his map proves it... AT&T has significantly upgraded
>> its capabilities along Skyline and the coastal areas but that doesn't
>> show on the map.

>
>And ironically, T-Mobile has significantly _degraded_ their capabilities
>along Skyline and the coastal areas by removing AT&T roaming
>capabilities. ...


No evidence of that other than your unsupported claims.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 06:31 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:09:57 -0800, in
<4cd9d46c$0$22091$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 09/11/10 1:09 PM, dold@16.usenet.us.com wrote:
>> It seems that the inverse is true, that AT&T doesn't roam onto T-Mobile,
>> either.

>
>Yes, the inverse is also true, but there are very few areas where
>T-Mobile has coverage but AT&T doesn't.


Proof? Or must we simply take your guess at face value?

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 07:27 PM
Fred
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

Thad wrote:

> I'm getting consistent 3923kbps
>inbound,


Hmm...where did I leave that damned calculator?

3923kbps/8=490KB/sec divided into 5GB/month = 10204 seconds or 2.83 hours
for $60/month.

31 days in November, so that's 30 days, 21 hours, 10 minutes and 12
seconds with NO SERVICE if they just chop it off after this wonderful
speed burst.

Kinda makes all this speed a moot point after 2 hours, 49 minutes, 48
seconds of "heaven on sellular", doe'n it?

Another way to look is 31 days = 2,678,400 seconds X 490KB/sec =
1,312.416GB/month at full speed, divided by 5GB = 262.48 Five GB pieces X
$60/piece = $15,748.80 per month to go full speed all month on a
5GB/month cap.

That's kinda pricey, ain't it?

The free hotel or restaurant wifi will go full speed one to 10 times
faster than this all month for free....my point exactly.

$15,748.80 will buy a LOT of food and some really great beverages at the
free wifi places! You could be stuffed and drunk continuously for what
this data is costing you and have money left over!



Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 07:50 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:27:29 +0000, in
<Xns9E309D45ED54Enobodyherenet@74.209.131.13>, Fred <nobody@here.net>
wrote:

>Thad wrote:
>
>> I'm getting consistent 3923kbps
>>inbound,

>
>Hmm...where did I leave that damned calculator?
>
>3923kbps/8=490KB/sec divided into 5GB/month = 10204 seconds or 2.83 hours
>for $60/month.


Actually just $20/month over my voice plan.

>31 days in November, so that's 30 days, 21 hours, 10 minutes and 12
>seconds with NO SERVICE if they just chop it off after this wonderful
>speed burst.


I never use anything like 5 GB/month, and that's not a hard cap, just
some throttling.

>Kinda makes all this speed a moot point after 2 hours, 49 minutes, 48
>seconds of "heaven on sellular", doe'n it?


No.

>Another way to look is 31 days = 2,678,400 seconds X 490KB/sec =
>1,312.416GB/month at full speed, divided by 5GB = 262.48 Five GB pieces X
>$60/piece = $15,748.80 per month to go full speed all month on a
>5GB/month cap.
>
>That's kinda pricey, ain't it?


No. Just $20/month for unlimited data.

>The free hotel or restaurant wifi will go full speed one to 10 times
>faster than this all month for free....my point exactly.


Except you've got to sit there the entire time; speeds are frequently
crappy, much slower than my cellular data; service is often unreliable
(completely down in my local Starbucks the past few days); lots of
places without free Wi-Fi; etc, etc. Doesn't look like a terribly
attractive alternative to cellular data to me, but as always, YMMV.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 08:17 PM
Fred
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:q9i0e6pci7p3ve3klbrv524eamef3c31d4@4ax.com:

>>The free hotel or restaurant wifi will go full speed one to 10 times
>>faster than this all month for free....my point exactly.

>
> Except you've got to sit there the entire time; speeds are frequently
> crappy, much slower than my cellular data; service is often unreliable
> (completely down in my local Starbucks the past few days); lots of
> places without free Wi-Fi; etc, etc. Doesn't look like a terribly
> attractive alternative to cellular data to me, but as always, YMMV.
>


Maybe this is true in Californicate, but not in Charleston. That WAS
true when I had the ****** little 20mw wifi radio into its embedded
crappy antenna behind the LCD panel in all that radio noise the netbook
makes....BUT, the new 2 watt beast stuck to the window next to my table
sure put a stop to it! Wifi at Waffle House from the hotels hundreds of
yards away, now run as fast as is delivered at most homes by DSL or
cable. All videos/TV/radio/games/etc., run at FULL SPEED without the
sellphone crap balking and jerky nonsense running out of data.

I've got to "sit there the entire time", anyway, because I cannot afford
a chauffeur to drive the Smart car underway. This lame excuse to justify
sellular data expenses is crazy. You shouldn't be using data underway.

As to your last observation, sitting in my fav Waffle House with the
boys, I used to have spotty service from Red Roof Inn across the street
on the netbook...just 2 connections on the display. Last night, we
counted 37 wifi hotspots with the Alfa adapter and its REAL 5.5dbi
antenna stuck to the window above our heads on USB. Of those, there were
16 I could choose from that were accessible and working, with 8 I'd call
very good connections to choose from. If Starbucks were down, I'd simply
connect to something across the parking lot at one of the other
establishments with free wifi, NOT an option on your smartphone or
laptop's little 20mw peanut whistle with a piece of PC board trace for an
antenna behind the display in all that noise. John, it's simply amazing
what it can see AND COMMUNICATE WITH using all this RF power!

Spend $32 and give it a try if you have a USB port its driver software
can be installed on. It's a giant step ahead for wifi connectivity.

(PS - Ramada Inn's password is "guest".

Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 08:34 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:17:47 +0000, in
<Xns9E30A5CCF4EFDnobodyherenet@74.209.131.13>, Fred <nobody@here.net>
wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:q9i0e6pci7p3ve3klbrv524eamef3c31d4@4ax.com :
>
>>>The free hotel or restaurant wifi will go full speed one to 10 times
>>>faster than this all month for free....my point exactly.

>>
>> Except you've got to sit there the entire time; speeds are frequently
>> crappy, much slower than my cellular data; service is often unreliable
>> (completely down in my local Starbucks the past few days); lots of
>> places without free Wi-Fi; etc, etc. Doesn't look like a terribly
>> attractive alternative to cellular data to me, but as always, YMMV.


>I've got to "sit there the entire time", anyway, because I cannot afford
>a chauffeur to drive the Smart car underway. This lame excuse to justify
>sellular data expenses is crazy. You shouldn't be using data underway.


Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.

>As to your last observation, sitting in my fav Waffle House with the
>boys, I used to have spotty service from Red Roof Inn across the street
>on the netbook...just 2 connections on the display. Last night, we
>counted 37 wifi hotspots with the Alfa adapter and its REAL 5.5dbi
>antenna stuck to the window above our heads on USB. Of those, there were
>16 I could choose from that were accessible and working, with 8 I'd call
>very good connections to choose from. If Starbucks were down, I'd simply
>connect to something across the parking lot at one of the other
>establishments with free wifi, NOT an option on your smartphone or
>laptop's little 20mw peanut whistle with a piece of PC board trace for an
>antenna behind the display in all that noise. John, it's simply amazing
>what it can see AND COMMUNICATE WITH using all this RF power!
>
>Spend $32 and give it a try if you have a USB port its driver software
>can be installed on. It's a giant step ahead for wifi connectivity.


No thanks. My current Wi-Fi works just fine, and my smartphone works in
lots of places where Wi-Fi doesn't. You must spend way more time just
sitting around than I do.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 08:36 PM
nospam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

In article <82l0e6poor0fgh2o76cg04jfcj1im775l0@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.


and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?

Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Thad Floryan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 11/14/2010 12:27 PM, Fred wrote:
> Thad wrote:
>
>> I'm getting consistent 3923kbps
>> inbound,


No, I did not write that; please verify your attributions
next time.

My Internet connection is via Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 and my
cellphone, on AT&T, is used only as a phone and works fine
in that regards.

Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 09:14 PM
Jeff Liebermann
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:17:47 +0000, Fred <nobody@here.net> wrote:

>BUT, the new 2 watt beast stuck to the window next to my table
>sure put a stop to it!

(...)
>Last night, we
>counted 37 wifi hotspots with the Alfa adapter and its REAL 5.5dbi
>antenna stuck to the window above our heads on USB.


http://www.alfa.com.tw

>John, it's simply amazing
>what it can see AND COMMUNICATE WITH using all this RF power!

(...)
>Spend $32 and give it a try if you have a USB port its driver software
>can be installed on. It's a giant step ahead for wifi connectivity.


Ummm... please tell me how transmitting 2 watts at your end is going
to improve your receive sensitivity?

If the access point is transmitting the usual 50-100 milliwatts of RF,
you're only going to hear it just so far away. Cranking up your xmit
power beyond the usual 50-100 milliwatts of RF is only going to create
a larger area where you are the primary source of interference.

Also, you can usually "see" a much larger number of access points than
you can actually connect and use. Netstumbler and other active or
passive wi-fi packet sniffers only need to hear one broadcast packet
from the access point to show it on the shopping list. However, to
connect and use the access point, far more packets need to be shoveled
in both directions before anything useful happens. If there are any
local sources of interference, such as other AP's on the same
channels, it's likely that the AP can be heard, but is not useable.

Also, your logic doesn't scale well. If you were on top of a tall
building, overlooking a big city, you'll probably "see" hundreds of
access points. (I had to do this a few years ago to demonstrate to a
programmist that his wonderful connection manager would crash badly
when confronted with hundreds of AP's). So, out of hundreds of AP's,
how many of them are useful? Probably none, because at that altitude,
the interference level and base line noise level is so high, that
you'll hear very few packets that are not stepped on by some other
radio. Incidentally, the noise level on the spectrum analyzer display
was truely impressive (and depressing). Simply hearing more access
points is more a function of your location, than of anything involving
RF.

You can do far better with a directional antenna, than your 5.5dBi
omni antenna. Also, the FCC maximum xmit power is 1 watt into a 6dBi
antenna, but you already knew that you were operating illegally.
Suggesting high power illegal operation as part of a national business
plan for portable internet connectivity isn't going to be very popular
with the stockholders or the FCC.




--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 09:19 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 11/7/2010 8:54 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> In the guy's blog he mentions that AT&T is rather secretive about its
> new tower locations ("AT&T data is only partially updated these last few
> years, so some areas are current and some may be missing a few new cell
> sites. It's hard to keep up with AT&T because, unlike T-Mobile, they
> are not so proud of their new coverage and therefore keep their new
> sites secret"), and his map proves it... AT&T has significantly upgraded
> its capabilities along Skyline and the coastal areas but that doesn't
> show on the map.


They have, and they just are taking too long to update their maps.

It's rather amusing to see AT&T always touting its coverage in its
advertising, then you see them at a hearing on adding a new tower, and
they have to put up detailed maps of the areas with no coverage to show
why the new tower is so necessary.

<http://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=53188> shows the
before and after coverage, and most of the "poor" goes away, and a lot
of the "acceptable" changes to "good." To be fair, this is a difficult
area to cover and T-Mobile and Sprint also have lousy coverage in this
area. It's the worst kept secret in Cupertino that if you need coverage
in the western area of the city where there are a bunch of hills and
valleys that you have to use Verizon.

I'd love to see a tower to fix the Monta Vista coverage issues, but by
the same token they really should not be putting it smack dab against a
residential neighborhood, even disguised as a tree.

Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 09:38 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:19:01 -0800, in
<4ce06051$0$22108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 11/7/2010 8:54 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> In the guy's blog he mentions that AT&T is rather secretive about its
>> new tower locations ("AT&T data is only partially updated these last few
>> years, so some areas are current and some may be missing a few new cell
>> sites. It's hard to keep up with AT&T because, unlike T-Mobile, they
>> are not so proud of their new coverage and therefore keep their new
>> sites secret"), and his map proves it... AT&T has significantly upgraded
>> its capabilities along Skyline and the coastal areas but that doesn't
>> show on the map.

>
>They have, and they just are taking too long to update their maps.
>
>It's rather amusing to see AT&T always touting its coverage in its
>advertising, then you see them at a hearing on adding a new tower, and
>they have to put up detailed maps of the areas with no coverage to show
>why the new tower is so necessary.
>
><http://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=53188> shows the
>before and after coverage, and most of the "poor" goes away, and a lot
>of the "acceptable" changes to "good." To be fair, this is a difficult
>area to cover and T-Mobile and Sprint also have lousy coverage in this
>area. It's the worst kept secret in Cupertino that if you need coverage
>in the western area of the city where there are a bunch of hills and
>valleys that you have to use Verizon.


Simply not true.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 10:21 PM
tlvp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:27:29 -0500, Fred <nobody@here.net> wrote:

> Thad wrote:
>
>> I'm getting consistent 3923kbps
>> inbound,

>
> Hmm...where did I leave that damned calculator?
>
> 3923kbps/8=490KB/sec divided into 5GB/month = 10204 seconds or 2.83 hours
> for $60/month.
>
> 31 days in November, ...


Actually, only 30, but who's counting? :-)

> ... so that's 30 days, 21 hours, 10 minutes and 12
> seconds with NO SERVICE if they just chop it off after this wonderful
> speed burst.
>
> Kinda makes all this speed a moot point after 2 hours, 49 minutes, 48
> seconds of "heaven on sellular", doe'n it?
>
> Another way to look is 31 days = 2,678,400 seconds X 490KB/sec =
> 1,312.416GB/month at full speed, divided by 5GB = 262.48 Five GB pieces X
> $60/piece = $15,748.80 per month to go full speed all month on a
> 5GB/month cap.
>
> That's kinda pricey, ain't it?
>
> The free hotel or restaurant wifi will go full speed one to 10 times
> faster than this all month for free....my point exactly.
>
> $15,748.80 will buy a LOT of food and some really great beverages at the
> free wifi places! You could be stuffed and drunk continuously for what
> this data is costing you and have money left over!


Here's to that :-) -- Cheers! -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2010, 10:50 PM
Roy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 11/14/2010 1:17 PM, Fred wrote:
> John Navas<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:q9i0e6pci7p3ve3klbrv524eamef3c31d4@4ax.com:
>
>>> The free hotel or restaurant wifi will go full speed one to 10 times
>>> faster than this all month for free....my point exactly.

>>
>> Except you've got to sit there the entire time; speeds are frequently
>> crappy, much slower than my cellular data; service is often unreliable
>> (completely down in my local Starbucks the past few days); lots of
>> places without free Wi-Fi; etc, etc. Doesn't look like a terribly
>> attractive alternative to cellular data to me, but as always, YMMV.
>>

>
> Maybe this is true in Californicate, but not in Charleston. That WAS
> true when I had the ****** little 20mw wifi radio into its embedded
> crappy antenna behind the LCD panel in all that radio noise the netbook
> makes....BUT, the new 2 watt beast stuck to the window next to my table
> sure put a stop to it! Wifi at Waffle House from the hotels hundreds of
> yards away, now run as fast as is delivered at most homes by DSL or
> cable. All videos/TV/radio/games/etc., run at FULL SPEED without the
> sellphone crap balking and jerky nonsense running out of data.
>
> I've got to "sit there the entire time", anyway, because I cannot afford
> a chauffeur to drive the Smart car underway. This lame excuse to justify
> sellular data expenses is crazy. You shouldn't be using data underway.
>
> As to your last observation, sitting in my fav Waffle House with the
> boys, I used to have spotty service from Red Roof Inn across the street
> on the netbook...just 2 connections on the display. Last night, we
> counted 37 wifi hotspots with the Alfa adapter and its REAL 5.5dbi
> antenna stuck to the window above our heads on USB. Of those, there were
> 16 I could choose from that were accessible and working, with 8 I'd call
> very good connections to choose from. If Starbucks were down, I'd simply
> connect to something across the parking lot at one of the other
> establishments with free wifi, NOT an option on your smartphone or
> laptop's little 20mw peanut whistle with a piece of PC board trace for an
> antenna behind the display in all that noise. John, it's simply amazing
> what it can see AND COMMUNICATE WITH using all this RF power!
>
> Spend $32 and give it a try if you have a USB port its driver software
> can be installed on. It's a giant step ahead for wifi connectivity.
>
> (PS - Ramada Inn's password is "guest".


I believe the power limit on 2.4 Ghz under Part 15 is 1 watt into a
omnidirectional antenna and less for directional antennas


http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/w...15.html#15.247


Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 12:06 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 11/14/2010 1:17 PM, Fred wrote:

> Maybe this is true in Californicate, but not in Charleston. That WAS
> true when I had the ****** little 20mw wifi radio into its embedded
> crappy antenna behind the LCD panel in all that radio noise the netbook
> makes....


Even with my netbook's built-in wi-fi, it's pretty rare for me to be
somewhere stationary without Wi-Fi. I was at the ARM Tech conference
last week and while inside the exhibit hall it was pay Wi-Fi, they had
an area with free Wi-Fi upstairs. Every coffee house, most non-fancy
restaurants, libraries, parks, airports, and businesses all have Wi-Fi
available. When I'm at a customer site they will always have a guest
network available.

For the times there is no Wi-Fi there is 3G or 4G data, but for most
people there is no need to be using multiple GB of wireless data, they
just do it because it's less trouble than bothering with Wi-Fi. I use 3G
data, but not a tremendous amount because I only use it when there is no
Wi-Fi and when I have a real need to check e-mail or do something. I'm
not streaming Pandora or downloading movies. It's just being frugal.

If I commuted by train I might want a lot of 3G data though some trains
and buses are also offering Wi-Fi. A while back I was waiting for a ride
at San Francisco Airport (which now has free Wi-Fi but didn't then) and
I was picking up Wi-Fi from my ISP (Sonic.net) and was surprised about
it, and later found out it was because the Santa Rosa Airporter bus was
parked nearby and it has free Wi-Fi.

I've been at hotels in areas where there is no 2G or 3G service, but
they still have Wi-Fi though it's often not all that fast because it's
satellite based.

Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 01:07 AM
Travis James
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On 11/14/10 1:36 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<82l0e6poor0fgh2o76cg04jfcj1im775l0@4ax.com >, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
>> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
>> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
>> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.

>
> and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?


I would seriously doubt it unless he's driving for UPS or something. How
much cumulative bandwidth do you think an hour of Pandora over 3g consumes?

I use my Verizon Mifi with my iPod Touch doing the same things as those
mentioned by JN. Plus I do some computing time too because not every
lunch spot I visit has wifi, plus my Mifi is more secure.

Having had the Mifi for about 9 months, I broke 2 gig in a month one
time and that was a week at a hotel where I didn't want or need to pay
their daily internet rate. I downloaded some cartoons from iTunes for
the kids that contributed to most of the usage.

Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 01:26 AM
nospam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

In article <ibq4kb$fa7$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Travis James
<travis.james@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
> >> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
> >> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
> >> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.

> >
> > and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?

>
> I would seriously doubt it unless he's driving for UPS or something. How
> much cumulative bandwidth do you think an hour of Pandora over 3g consumes?


assuming a 128k stream, that's almost 1 meg per minute. at that rate,
it would only take around 80 hours of streaming to hit 5 gig, assuming
no other usage at all. that's less than 3 hours a day in a month, and
that's not that hard to do. add in other usage, including the
navigation he mentioned and especially if any of the podcasts include
video, and hitting 5 gig is very realistic.

Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 02:38 AM
Fred
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:141120101636047820%
nospam@nospam.invalid:

> In article <82l0e6poor0fgh2o76cg04jfcj1im775l0@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
>> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
>> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
>> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.

>
> and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?
>


John is always full of miracles.....(c;]


Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 02:41 AM
Fred
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

Travis James <travis.james@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ibq4kb$fa7$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> On 11/14/10 1:36 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<82l0e6poor0fgh2o76cg04jfcj1im775l0@4ax.com >, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet
>>> radio, or podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at
>>> the same time. I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can
>>> only compete when I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.

>>
>> and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?

>
> I would seriously doubt it unless he's driving for UPS or something.
> How much cumulative bandwidth do you think an hour of Pandora over 3g
> consumes?
>
> I use my Verizon Mifi with my iPod Touch doing the same things as
> those mentioned by JN. Plus I do some computing time too because not
> every lunch spot I visit has wifi, plus my Mifi is more secure.
>
> Having had the Mifi for about 9 months, I broke 2 gig in a month one
> time and that was a week at a hotel where I didn't want or need to pay
> their daily internet rate. I downloaded some cartoons from iTunes for
> the kids that contributed to most of the usage.
>


alt.binaries.movies.divx

alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(your fav genre)

It never ceases to amaze me how many posters to these sellphone/Apple
groups have no idea how to use binaries off newsgroups for unlimited
entertainment at no cost....


Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 02:45 AM
Fred
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:8km0e65uglnse2p3nbmaq3g88ie95jkgeh@4ax.com:

> Ummm... please tell me how transmitting 2 watts at your end is going
> to improve your receive sensitivity?
>
>


It's not. The 5.5dbi colinear antenna AWAY from the noisy computer chips
in the laptop DOES. There were 39 hotspots on the list tonight. What the
2 watts, FCC limits to 4W ERP, 5DBi = 3DBd = 4W ERP, DOES do is to make you
HEARD above the din of competing 20 mw ****** laptops with a piece of pc
board with a trace on it for an "ntenna".

You must see it to believe it, I suppose, so it's only $32 to try it for
yourself....if your box has a USB port to plug it into.


Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 02:48 AM
Fred
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in news:QbWdncBbG-
ch6H3RnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet:

> I believe the power limit on 2.4 Ghz under Part 15 is 1 watt into a
> omnidirectional antenna and less for directional antennas
>
>


4W ERP....

The FCC labels are on both the box and the device, as required by law. The
company is in Arizona that's selling them here. Report them to the FCC and
see if they get ticketed or you get sued.


Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 02:51 AM
Fred
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in news:4CE05E4C.6090601
@thadlabs.com:

> My Internet connection is via Comcast DOCSIS 3.0


My heartfelt condolences go out to you on your 250GB/month hobbled up ****
Comcrap internet service.

......a former Comcrap slave.


Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 03:10 AM
nospam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

In article <Xns9E30E662146AFnobodyherenet@74.209.131.13>, Fred
<nobody@here.net> wrote:

> > In article <82l0e6poor0fgh2o76cg04jfcj1im775l0@4ax.com>, John Navas
> > <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
> >> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
> >> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
> >> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.

> >
> > and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?

>
> John is always full of miracles.....(c;]


not the word i'd use.

Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2010, 03:13 AM
Jeff Liebermann
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:45:57 +0000, Fred <nobody@here.net> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
>news:8km0e65uglnse2p3nbmaq3g88ie95jkgeh@4ax.com :
>
>> Ummm... please tell me how transmitting 2 watts at your end is going
>> to improve your receive sensitivity?


>It's not.


OK. Thanks for ignoring all the stuff on how your 2 watt trashmitter
is creating more interference than necessary.

>The 5.5dbi colinear antenna AWAY from the noisy computer chips
>in the laptop DOES.


Digital noise does have an effect on receiver sensitivity. I have no
idea which netbook you own, but my Acer Aspire one shows no indication
of deteriorated sensitivity due to noise. In the distant past,
dealing with such internal noise issues was my daytime (consulting).
If your theory is correct, you should be able to wave your 5.5dBi omni
antenna near your unspecified model laptop, and pickup sufficient
noise to trash a connection. Have you tried this?

>There were 39 hotspots on the list tonight.


I'm not impressed. I've seen hundreds. All that proves is that you
live in an area that's infested with too many radios. Incidentally,
I've seen access points that have as many at 10 SSID's running. Look
for duplicated MAC addresses.

>What the
>2 watts, FCC limits to 4W ERP, 5DBi = 3DBd = 4W ERP, DOES do is to make you
>HEARD above the din of competing 20 mw ****** laptops with a piece of pc
>board with a trace on it for an "ntenna".


FCC Part 15 specifies 1 watt maximum. It's not horribly clear whether
that's measured at the radio or the antenna, but the current
interpretation is that the transmitter cannot belch more than 1 watt,
no matter how lossy the coax or exotic the omni antenna. Rules for
directional and beam steering antennas are different. Your 2 watt
transmitter is not legal no matter what antenna is used.

>You must see it to believe it, I suppose, so it's only $32 to try it for
>yourself....if your box has a USB port to plug it into.


I've seen it. I've been personally involved in identifying and
removing several 2.4Ghz running too much power, with overkill
amplifiers, and with monster antennas. What characterizes all of them
is that none of the owners have bothered to even try using their
system with the transmitters set at lower power. After a suitable
demonstration that it works equally well at 100 milliwatts as at 10
watts, the amplifier usually disappears.

Apparently you didn't understand what I was explaining. Your range is
determined by the lowest power transmitter. If your transmitter could
output 1000 watts, your useful range would be limited by the transmit
power of the access point you are trying to use, which is not going to
change no matter what you do. The best improvements can be made with
antennas. If you understand that, I'll explain why your omni antenna
sucks and why you should switch to a directional antenna.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Reply With Quote
Reply


« Why the sudden flood of posts here? | FAQ for AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular Wireless) »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Droid Pushes Verizon's Net Retail Additions Way Past AT&T SMS alt.cellular.verizon 0 01-28-2010 04:00 PM
Google gives free locator based on cell tower Thurman alt.cellular.attws 13 12-01-2007 03:09 PM
Where to buy accessories? clifto alt.cellular.verizon 11 10-11-2007 01:22 AM
Cell tower repair tech Ponjohn alt.cellular.verizon 2 10-30-2006 12:41 AM
Cell Tower Question rubdel@gmail.com alt.internet.wireless 2 10-20-2005 11:32 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:52 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45