In article <slrneskkob.a6.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, dcferguson@pacbell.net says...
> > That's assuming there are towers with nothing but AMPS. If there is any
> > digital on the tower at all then all those costs must exist anyway. Are
> > there any such towers--most likely both digital and analog are there but
> > the analog is either further up the tower or is cranked up powerwise or
> > both to support a few callers at greater range than digital reaches. To
> > reach the same area as analog with digital would take more towers.
>
> No, I don't think the last bit is correct. AMPS had greater reach when
> everyone had 1 or 2 or 3 Watt RF output phones, and had an antenna mounted
> on the roof or the trunk when they used a phone in the car. Now we all have
> 200 mW or 300 mW RF output handsets, and expect to be able to shove the handset
> to our ears inside cars and have it work. You can't buy high power phones
> any more. There's little you can do at the tower to make up for the fact
>
>
But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
in those areas. In that case the only way to get digital (ok ANY low
power) handsets to work is to build out more towers.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
"Jud Hardcastle" <I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
> still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
> in those areas. In that case the only way to get digital (ok ANY low
> power) handsets to work is to build out more towers.
Yep, that's the link I posted from the FCC said. Seems farmers are using
bag phones (for the higher power) to transmit status information from
irrigation pivots. Maybe smaller companies would buy the AMPS footprint
from larger carriers. What are crumbs to large carriers might make a good
business for smaller regional carriers. If that happens, then AMPS would
continue to be available.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:07:15 -0500, "Don Udel \(ETC\)"
<donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in <eqfhrl02fhd@enews2.newsguy.com>:
>
>"Jud Hardcastle" <I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
>> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
>> still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
>> in those areas. In that case the only way to get digital (ok ANY low
>> power) handsets to work is to build out more towers.
>
>Yep, that's the link I posted from the FCC said. Seems farmers are using
>bag phones (for the higher power) to transmit status information from
>irrigation pivots. Maybe smaller companies would buy the AMPS footprint
>from larger carriers. What are crumbs to large carriers might make a good
>business for smaller regional carriers. If that happens, then AMPS would
>continue to be available.
The problems are that (1) the spectrum is too valuable for low usage and
(2) there's not enough of such usage to justify the cost of maintaining
AMPS. These farmers can greatly increase the range of digital with a
number of options, such as high gain antennas -- a 13 dBi Yagi (about
$60) has about 4x the range of a typical handset antenna.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
Good points.
I would also point out, that even though a high-power AMPS bag phone
would provide better AMPS coverage than a tri-mode CDMA/AMPS phone,
there are still a great many places where the tri-mode phone provides
AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage at all.
I can go about three miles from my house, in a suburban part of Silicon
Valley, up into the surrounding hills, and have no GSM or CDMA coverage,
but good AMPS coverage. In the Sierras, there are a lot of AMPS-only
coverage areas, even with a tri-mode handset.
> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/doc...37&id=cellular
"Will there be “new” unserved area where digital service does not
duplicate analog service?"
Duh. Since there are currently vast areas where digital service doesn't
duplicate analog service, it's obvious that this will occur.
The FCC should allow AMPS to be turned off in areas with digital
service, and forbid it from being turned off in areas with no digital
service.
Perhaps there is enough of a public interest issue that the government
should do something similar to what they did with the REA, and help fund
digital coverage in rural areas.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:50:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cb54ef$0$68951$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
>> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
>> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
>> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
>> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
>> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
>
>Good points.
>
>I would also point out, that even though a high-power AMPS bag phone
>would provide better AMPS coverage than a tri-mode CDMA/AMPS phone,
>there are still a great many places where the tri-mode phone provides
>AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage at all.
>
>I can go about three miles from my house, in a suburban part of Silicon
>Valley, up into the surrounding hills, and have no GSM or CDMA coverage,
>but good AMPS coverage.
There are actually relatively few places in the San Francisco Bay Area
with only AMPS coverage. The number of such places continues to decline
as digital coverage increases, and there are now many places with
digital but no AMPS coverage, including parts of those same hills near
your house.
>In the Sierras, there are a lot of AMPS-only
>coverage areas, even with a tri-mode handset.
There are some AMPS-only places, but only off the major highways, which
now have very good digital coverage.
Regardless, the issue will soon be moot, because AMPS will almost
certainly go away rapidly when the FCC mandate sunsets in about a year.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
> still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
> in those areas.
They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question
may still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not
work in those areas.
They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
SMS wrote:
> Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
>> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question
>> may still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not
>> work in those areas.
>
> They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
> still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
> where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
>
>
>
> [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
> posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
> and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
> Wireless Service.]
Oops...
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:10:16 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cb597d$0$68951$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
>> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
>> still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
>> in those areas.
>
>They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
>still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
>where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
Depends on what you mean by "vast" areas. Yes, there are areas with
AMPS coverage but no digital coverage, but fewer and fewer with each
passing month, and AMPS will probably go away rapidly when the FCC
mandate sunsets in about a year. Digital coverage of non-remote areas
is now quite good.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:08:34 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cb5918$0$68951$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
>> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
>> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
>> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
>> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
>> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
>>
>> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/doc...37&id=cellular
>
>"Will there be “new” unserved area where digital service does not
>duplicate analog service?"
>
>Duh. Since there are currently vast areas where digital service doesn't
>duplicate analog service, it's obvious that this will occur.
That's by no means obvious -- in fact carriers are rapidly building out
and converting to digital as a precursor to shutting down their AMPS
networks once the FCC mandate expires (in about a year).
>The FCC should allow AMPS to be turned off in areas with digital
>service, and forbid it from being turned off in areas with no digital
>service.
That kind of continued regulation would be a very bad and unwarranted
idea -- the FCC should continue getting out of the way and letting the
market decide. If there is sufficient market for AMPS, then it will
survive; otherwise it deserves to die. Digital coverage will
undoubtedly be expanded to satisfy whatever actual market demand exists.
>Perhaps there is enough of a public interest issue that the government
>should do something similar to what they did with the REA, and help fund
>digital coverage in rural areas.
A truly horrible idea.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "Jud Hardcastle" <I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
>> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
>> still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
>> in those areas. In that case the only way to get digital (ok ANY low
>> power) handsets to work is to build out more towers.
>
> Yep, that's the link I posted from the FCC said. Seems farmers are using
> bag phones (for the higher power) to transmit status information from
> irrigation pivots. Maybe smaller companies would buy the AMPS footprint
> from larger carriers. What are crumbs to large carriers might make a good
> business for smaller regional carriers. If that happens, then AMPS would
> continue to be available.
This isn't just about what's best for the carrier's business model. They
purchased their spectrum from the government with the express
understanding of the AMPS requirement. It's entirely reasonable to turn
off AMPS where digital coverage is available, and entirely unreasonable
to turn it off where there is no other coverage. Unfortunately, it takes
a lot more CDMA towers, and a helluva lot more GSM towers, to cover the
same area as AMPS, even without high-power bag phones.
Since there is a compelling public interest in this issue, it would make
sense for the government to help fund digital coverage in rural areas,
just as they did with electricity (REA), and the USF (universal service
fee) helps fund rural wireline service. There is no way that any rural
carrier can afford to duplicate their analog coverage with digital coverage.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
newscnms29uj5s8j752adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@4ax.com...
>
> That kind of continued regulation would be a very bad and unwarranted
> idea -- the FCC should continue getting out of the way and letting the
> market decide. If there is sufficient market for AMPS, then it will
> survive; otherwise it deserves to die.
Thank God they don't build highways the way you advocate cellular coverage.
Tinman wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> newscnms29uj5s8j752adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@4ax.com...
>> That kind of continued regulation would be a very bad and unwarranted
>> idea -- the FCC should continue getting out of the way and letting the
>> market decide. If there is sufficient market for AMPS, then it will
>> survive; otherwise it deserves to die.
>
> Thank God they don't build highways the way you advocate cellular coverage.
LOL, many of the places where I've had AMPS as the only coverage are
also areas where the roads would never have been built without the
government being involved.
Most of us benefit by funding infrastructure improvements of roads and
utilities, even if the benefit is indirect.
On 2007-02-08, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps there is enough of a public interest issue that the government
> should do something similar to what they did with the REA, and help fund
> digital coverage in rural areas.
You should be careful what you wish for, if the experience with rural
landline subsidies are anything to go by:
I'm not opposed to the idea, since I really like to find cell phone
coverage in deep rural areas and I'm a bit worried it will disappear,
but somehow what government subsidies for phone companies seem to mostly
end up doing is making the phone companies richer by paying them to
do stuff they'd do anyway.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:55:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cb63fd$0$68998$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>> Yep, that's the link I posted from the FCC said. Seems farmers are using
>> bag phones (for the higher power) to transmit status information from
>> irrigation pivots. Maybe smaller companies would buy the AMPS footprint
>> from larger carriers. What are crumbs to large carriers might make a good
>> business for smaller regional carriers. If that happens, then AMPS would
>> continue to be available.
>
>This isn't just about what's best for the carrier's business model.
Actually it is. That's what market-based spectrum licensing is all
about.
>They
>purchased their spectrum from the government with the express
>understanding of the AMPS requirement.
And the sunset thereof in 2008, originally announced in 2000 and ordered
in 2002. The seven year warning and five year transition periods were
more than enough to take care of any real issues.
>It's entirely reasonable to turn
>off AMPS where digital coverage is available, and entirely unreasonable
>to turn it off where there is no other coverage.
In your opinion. I disagree. Likewise the FCC and major carriers. Now
the market will decide. If there is sufficient market demand to justify
keeping AMPS alive, then it will survive; otherwise it deserves to die.
>Unfortunately, it takes
>a lot more CDMA towers, and a helluva lot more GSM towers, to cover the
>same area as AMPS, even without high-power bag phones.
The range of digital is actually comparable to AMPS given comparable
mobile devices (e.g., handsets).
>Since there is a compelling public interest in this issue, it would make
>sense for the government to help fund digital coverage in rural areas,
>just as they did with electricity (REA), and the USF (universal service
>fee) helps fund rural wireline service. There is no way that any rural
>carrier can afford to duplicate their analog coverage with digital coverage.
The FCC has already found there to be no compelling public interest or
any other good reason to continue interference in the market.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:09:44 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<5317bqF1r40stU1@mid.individual.net>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>newscnms29uj5s8j752adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> That kind of continued regulation would be a very bad and unwarranted
>> idea -- the FCC should continue getting out of the way and letting the
>> market decide. If there is sufficient market for AMPS, then it will
>> survive; otherwise it deserves to die.
>
>Thank God they don't build highways the way you advocate cellular coverage.
Private toll highways actually make a great deal of sense.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:19:38 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cb69bf$0$68980$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Tinman wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> newscnms29uj5s8j752adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@4ax.com...
>>> That kind of continued regulation would be a very bad and unwarranted
>>> idea -- the FCC should continue getting out of the way and letting the
>>> market decide. If there is sufficient market for AMPS, then it will
>>> survive; otherwise it deserves to die.
>>
>> Thank God they don't build highways the way you advocate cellular coverage.
>
>LOL, many of the places where I've had AMPS as the only coverage are
>also areas where the roads would never have been built without the
>government being involved.
Bad analogy -- roads are single shared physical infrastructure.
>Most of us benefit by funding infrastructure improvements of roads and
>utilities, even if the benefit is indirect.
The problem is the inevitable inefficiency that results when the
government meddles in the market.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-02-08, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps there is enough of a public interest issue that the government
>> should do something similar to what they did with the REA, and help fund
>> digital coverage in rural areas.
>
> You should be careful what you wish for, if the experience with rural
> landline subsidies are anything to go by:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news88056298.html
"AP) -- Cellular subscribers are paying hundreds of millions of dollars
each year to subsidize landline telephone service, enriching big
telecommunications companies while providing little or no benefit to
cell phone users."
Yeah, those millions of dollars should be going into expanding the
wireless network into areas that wireless users travel through.
> I'm not opposed to the idea, since I really like to find cell phone
> coverage in deep rural areas and I'm a bit worried it will disappear,
> but somehow what government subsidies for phone companies seem to mostly
> end up doing is making the phone companies richer by paying them to
> do stuff they'd do anyway.
The problem is that they're not doing it anyway. Do you think that
Cingular or Verizon cares if there is any coverage off the major
roadways, where the usage is very low? They aren't going to spend money
on rural coverage.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:42:55 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cb6f35$0$69002$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to the idea, since I really like to find cell phone
>> coverage in deep rural areas and I'm a bit worried it will disappear,
>> but somehow what government subsidies for phone companies seem to mostly
>> end up doing is making the phone companies richer by paying them to
>> do stuff they'd do anyway.
>
>The problem is that they're not doing it anyway.
Mostly because the government is still interfering.
>Do you think that
>Cingular or Verizon cares if there is any coverage off the major
>roadways, where the usage is very low?
Of course they do. These are functions of market demand and service
positioning.
>They aren't going to spend money
>on rural coverage.
They already do.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 2007-02-08, Don Udel (ETC) <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
> "Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> There's no shortage of spectrum in rural areas, digital service would
>> improve (though probably not entirely fix) the coverage situation with
>> low power handsets, and modern electronics would help with maintenance
>> costs. The fact that they've not made this investment in some places
>> should suggest that the business prospects may not be that rosy.
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/doc...37&id=cellular
I wonder where they get the analog bag phones from? I went looking
for them at the Motorola site and couldn't find any; I don't think
they make them any more unless I missed it. Google didn't come up
with anything either, which makes me think they might not be able to
do this forever.
What I did find on the Motorola site, however, was this:
A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
(though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:33:39 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnesn5pj.6t.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-02-08, Don Udel (ETC) <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>> "Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> There's no shortage of spectrum in rural areas, digital service would
>>> improve (though probably not entirely fix) the coverage situation with
>>> low power handsets, and modern electronics would help with maintenance
>>> costs. The fact that they've not made this investment in some places
>>> should suggest that the business prospects may not be that rosy.
>>>
>>> Dennis Ferguson
>>
>> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
>> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
>> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
>> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
>> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
>> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
>>
>> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/doc...37&id=cellular
>
>I wonder where they get the analog bag phones from? I went looking
>for them at the Motorola site and couldn't find any; I don't think
>they make them any more unless I missed it. Google didn't come up
>with anything either, which makes me think they might not be able to
>do this forever.
>
>What I did find on the Motorola site, however, was this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yzd5vw
>
>A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
>(though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
>would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
>to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
>only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
That's the M900 GSM phone, available in both fixed car and bag versions.
There's also the M800 CDMA phone, with the same two versions.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 2007-02-08, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>>What I did find on the Motorola site, however, was this:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yzd5vw
>>
>>A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
>>(though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
>>would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
>>to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
>>only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
>
> That's the M900 GSM phone, available in both fixed car and bag versions.
> There's also the M800 CDMA phone, with the same two versions.
Ah, that one also answers the question of where one might get a high
power AMPS phone these days. Very neat.
> A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
> (though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
> would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
> to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
> only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
Cool. It's only $500!
Actually it would not match the range of a 3W AMPS phone, due to hard
distance limit of GSM.
GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
CDMA is limited to about 62Km (39 Miles). Analog is limited by line of
sight and phone power.
*One person in the United States believes that extended range GSM is
currently in use on the Pacific Coast.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:36:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cbc21b$0$68994$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
>> (though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
>> would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
>> to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
>> only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
>
>Cool. It's only $500!
>
>Actually it would not match the range of a 3W AMPS phone, due to hard
>distance limit of GSM.
That depends.
>GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
>station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
>antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
Extended Range GSM is capable of much longer range.
>CDMA is limited to about 62Km (39 Miles).
Actually longer.
>Analog is limited by line of
>sight and phone power.
Which typically makes it no better than GSM or CDMA.
Bottom line is that a high power GSM or CDMA phone will work as well as
or better than a high power AMPS phone under most field conditions.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:hlgns2h064gotr4t0lavnlre7ebi85ghj0@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:36:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45cbc21b$0$68994$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>> A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
>>> (though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
>>> would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were
>>> prepared to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a
>>> replacement. I'm only worried about the places where they've not
>>> bothered with digital...
>>
>>Cool. It's only $500!
>>
>>Actually it would not match the range of a 3W AMPS phone, due to hard
>>distance limit of GSM.
>
> That depends.
On what? There is no GSM deployment in rural America that has the range of
a 3W AMPS phone
>
>>GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
>>station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
>>antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
>
> Extended Range GSM is capable of much longer range.
>
Why talk about that vaporware again? It has not been deployed in any
American market.
Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
>>> station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
>>> antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
>> Extended Range GSM is capable of much longer range.
>>
>
> Why talk about that vaporware again? It has not been deployed in any
> American market.
Very true....the only thing we got from Navas was a link showing it does
exist on paper, but no credible information that it is actually deployed in
the U.S. market in spite of repeated attempts to ask for credible
information). We did get a anecdotal reference from John where he talked
to a friend that said something about it (but as John has often pointed out
for us, anecdotal information is meaningless).
On 2007-02-09, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
>> (though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
>> would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
>> to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
>> only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
>
> Cool. It's only $500!
That's why I don't think I'd get it past my wife.
> Actually it would not match the range of a 3W AMPS phone, due to hard
> distance limit of GSM.
>
> GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
> station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
> antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
>
> CDMA is limited to about 62Km (39 Miles). Analog is limited by line of
> sight and phone power.
Actually the CDMA limit isn't a big deal, as I understand it, since you
can fix it at the tower alone. I think the number comes from a specification
of the maximum delay the tower needs to search to find PRN code alignment with
a handset, and as such is an arbitrary value. If you think your tower
might talk to things that are further away than 62 km you can just make
that tower search out to longer delays. The GSM thing is harder, it would
need to be fixed at both the tower and the handsets. I wouldn't presume
that AMPS is entirely free of some similar limit; while the FM part is no
problem, AMPS handsets do need to talk to a TDMA digital control channel to
set up calls and keep them up and, while my memory of the details is dim,
it isn't clear to me why this wouldn't have an equivalent of GSM's problem.
This is kind of beside the point since neither a high-power GSM nor a
CDMA handset is likely to do much good talking to a normal tower. If
the base station radio designer thinks all handset radios transmit at
200 mW then there's no use having the base station transmit much more
than 200 mW back at the handsets; if the tower can hear the handset at
that power then the handset will hear the tower. You need base stationss
to match the handsets. Since Motorola sells the high power handsets it's
a good bet they also sell high power digital base station radios to match
the handset capability, and there's no reason they wouldn't design both
ends so that they operate at the limits of the power and modulation
available. I still think either digital mode will get out further than
analog in the end.
So all that's required is the deployment of a bunch of new stuff
and everything will be fine with digital phones. We're back around
to the original point: is there enough use in rural areas to support
any of this?
> This is kind of beside the point since neither a high-power GSM nor a
> CDMA handset is likely to do much good talking to a normal tower. If
> the base station radio designer thinks all handset radios transmit at
> 200 mW then there's no use having the base station transmit much more
> than 200 mW back at the handsets; if the tower can hear the handset at
> that power then the handset will hear the tower. You need base stationss
> to match the handsets.
Well it's a virtual certainty that every AMPS tower also has CDMA or GSM
on it, plus there's a lot of towers that are CDMA or GSM only.
The very fact that it many locations a GSM or CDMA phone can't get a
digital signal, but an AMPS-capable phone can make and receive calls,
means that AMPS has some advantage even with low power handsets. There
are vast areas in California, including some in the San Francisco Bay
Area counties, where AMPS is the only service you can pick up with a
regular low power tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handset, and where there is no GSM
coverage at all.
> So all that's required is the deployment of a bunch of new stuff
> and everything will be fine with digital phones. We're back around
> to the original point: is there enough use in rural areas to support
> any of this?
Look at the mess in Australia. They put in CDMA to cover the outback,
instead of AMPS, since GSM didn't have the range. Then they decided that
they'll do W-CDMA in the outback and try to do one nationwide network,
GSM for urban voice, W-CDMA for urban data, and rural voice. The CDMA
sites in the outback could reach 120km in all directions. Presumably
W-CDMA will be just as good. Eventually everything will be one version
of CDMA or another, and even the voice in urban areas will be carried
over the W-CDMA network.
All this rigmarole when the European carriers would have loved to go to
CDMA in the first place, but their governments wouldn't let them.
>> CDMA is limited to about 62Km (39 Miles). Analog is limited by line of
>> sight and phone power.
>
>Actually the CDMA limit isn't a big deal, as I understand it, since you
>can fix it at the tower alone. I think the number comes from a specification
>of the maximum delay the tower needs to search to find PRN code alignment with
>a handset, and as such is an arbitrary value. If you think your tower
>might talk to things that are further away than 62 km you can just make
>that tower search out to longer delays.
Essentially correct -- CDMA can easily be made to work over much longer
distances given sufficient tower height for line of sight transmission.
>The GSM thing is harder, it would
>need to be fixed at both the tower and the handsets.
Not correct -- Extended Range GSM (which combines adjacent time slots)
is easily implemented entirely at the tower, and again is capable of
much longer distances than standard GSM given sufficient tower height.
>I wouldn't presume
>that AMPS is entirely free of some similar limit; while the FM part is no
>problem, AMPS handsets do need to talk to a TDMA digital control channel to
>set up calls and keep them up and, while my memory of the details is dim,
>it isn't clear to me why this wouldn't have an equivalent of GSM's problem.
Not correct -- AMPS control (paging and access) uses MEFSK with a
continuous stream of bits -- there is no TDMA timing issue.
>This is kind of beside the point since neither a high-power GSM nor a
>CDMA handset is likely to do much good talking to a normal tower. If
>the base station radio designer thinks all handset radios transmit at
>200 mW then there's no use having the base station transmit much more
>than 200 mW back at the handsets; if the tower can hear the handset at
>that power then the handset will hear the tower. You need base stationss
>to match the handsets. Since Motorola sells the high power handsets it's
>a good bet they also sell high power digital base station radios to match
>the handset capability, and there's no reason they wouldn't design both
>ends so that they operate at the limits of the power and modulation
>available. I still think either digital mode will get out further than
>analog in the end.
Essentially correct.
>So all that's required is the deployment of a bunch of new stuff
>and everything will be fine with digital phones.
Not much new stuff, actually.
>We're back around
>to the original point: is there enough use in rural areas to support
>any of this?
With the FCC out of the way, the market will decide, as it should.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Cingular ATT merger. Better coverage? 
cnms29uj5s8j752adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
