Verizon Wireless thumbs its nose at the iPhone

Mitch wrote:
> I'd still like someone to explain to me how a cell phone can access a
> GPD system without separate circuitry for GPS and a satellite antenna.

Ask Sony, Sanyo, Nokia, or ... they all do it. Well, I don't
know exactly what you mean by "separate"

Though you're more likely to get an answer from the makers
of the Neo1973 -http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973
or from http://howstuffworks.com

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy

On Jul 5, 6:53 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> SpaceMarine <spacemar...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your mindlessly silly juvenile shit/lies flushed where it belongs>
>
> Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise


i see youve accepted your ignorance w/o actually acknowledging it.
bahahahah

sm

In article <050720072113594563%mitch@hawaii.rr>,
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:

> In article <znu-3E816A.02234906072007@individual.net>, ZnU
> <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > you act like a year's a long time- that's only half your
> > > contract.
> >
> > Sure, but most people won't kill their batteries every day. I
> > figure I'll get three years, by which time I'll probably want the
> > new model with GPS, 40 GB storage, 3G, and video conferencing
> > features.
>
> In one year, no one will want 3G networking. The industry runs on
> tricking you with buzzwords -- they'll be selling you the idea that
> 4G systems are necessary by then, even if they aren't much faster.

Probably.

> I think 40 GB storage is too much to hope for in any case.

Possibly. But flash prices are dropping ~65% a year these days.

> I'd still like someone to explain to me how a cell phone can access a
> GPD system without separate circuitry for GPS and a satellite
> antenna.

It can't. But GPS chips are pretty small and cheap these days.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

Mitch wrote:
> In article <468d8c43$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The real issue is if you have a lot of DRM protected M4P iTunes songs.
>> While removing the DRM isn't all that difficult, it's still beyond the
>> ability of many users.
> I wonder how many would really have trouble. It may not be obvious, but
> it's just three steps:
> select or make a playlist for those tracks (or just select them)
> make sure the import format is in what you want to end with.
> Choose Advanced>Convert to

We're talking about two different things here. While Rod is completely
wrong about re-ripping CDs, the issue is more about using the iTunes
songs you purchased on multiple machines running iTunes. This is the
only way you'll get the best sound (not that iTunes users or MP3 users
care all that much about sound quality in the first place).

To remove DRM you can use JHymn (but you need to use an older version of
iTunes), or MyFairTunes (which works with later versions of iTunes).

ed wrote:

>> 24 hours of audio per charge.
>
> only if you don't use the other features, eh?
>

In terms of time, the iPod audio feature is what's likely to be used for
the most time.

The issue is really not how long the battery will last, 300-400 charges
will last most users about two years, it's about the complexity and
expense of replacing the battery. Apple charges $79, plus another $29
for a loaner iPhone for the time it takes to get your own phone back. At
least until someone comes up with a kit to do it yourself, which is what
happened with the iPod.

The battery issue is annoying, but there are far more serious annoyances
with the iPhone than the battery.

In article <G8GdnTaGCf6ZZRHbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
Bill Kearney <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:
>"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
>news:468a4de9$0$8555
>> Edison invented the lightbulb- users of modern CFL tubes don't run
>> around denying that.
>
>Except Edison didn't invent the lightbulb. He just succeeding in brute
>force attempts to find a material that'd last long enough to be commercially
>viable.

Yeah, Edison didn't invent the lightbulb. He invented a lightbulb
which worked.

>Much like Windows being quit a bit more viable commercially than
>anything apple's come up with.

Troll, troll, troll your boat...
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

SpaceMarine <spacemarine@mailinator.com> wrote

<reams of your mindlessly silly juvenile shit/lies flushed where it belongs>

Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise

In article <468e8985$0$27187$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Mitch wrote:
> > In article <468d8c43$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The real issue is if you have a lot of DRM protected M4P iTunes songs.
> >> While removing the DRM isn't all that difficult, it's still beyond the
> >> ability of many users.
> > I wonder how many would really have trouble. It may not be obvious, but
> > it's just three steps:
> > select or make a playlist for those tracks (or just select them)
> > make sure the import format is in what you want to end with.
> > Choose Advanced>Convert to
>
> We're talking about two different things here. While Rod is completely
> wrong about re-ripping CDs, the issue is more about using the iTunes
> songs you purchased on multiple machines running iTunes. This is the
> only way you'll get the best sound (not that iTunes users or MP3 users
> care all that much about sound quality in the first place).
>
> To remove DRM you can use JHymn (but you need to use an older version of
> iTunes), or MyFairTunes (which works with later versions of iTunes).

I simply burn my iTunes songs to a CD, then either keep them archived,
or replace the DRM files by bringing them back in as AAC.
Too easy.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:468e8a6b$0$27187$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> ed wrote:
>
>>> 24 hours of audio per charge.
>>
>> only if you don't use the other features, eh?
>>
>
> In terms of time, the iPod audio feature is what's likely to be used for
> the most time.
>
> The issue is really not how long the battery will last, 300-400 charges
> will last most users about two years,

i don't know dude- i'm thinkin' a year to a year and a half- you're not
going to run the thing to it's dead before charging, 'cause you're not going
to want to be cauught batteryless (since you can't have a spare). so people
are going to charge it when it runs down half or so, no?

> it's about the complexity and expense of replacing the battery. Apple
> charges $79, plus another $29 for a loaner iPhone for the time it takes to
> get your own phone back. At least until someone comes up with a kit to do
> it yourself, which is what happened with the iPod.

i don't think the ipod requires desoldering the battery though, right?


<snip>

"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> > The issue is really not how long the battery will last, 300-400 charges
> > will last most users about two years,
>
> i don't know dude- i'm thinkin' a year to a year and a half- you're not
> going to run the thing to it's dead before charging, 'cause you're not going
> to want to be cauught batteryless (since you can't have a spare). so people
> are going to charge it when it runs down half or so, no?

there are PLENTY of external battery packs for iPods, the iPhone will be
no different.

> > it's about the complexity and expense of replacing the battery. Apple
> > charges $79, plus another $29 for a loaner iPhone for the time it takes to
> > get your own phone back. At least until someone comes up with a kit to do
> > it yourself, which is what happened with the iPod.
>
> i don't think the ipod requires desoldering the battery though, right?

???? why would that matter? just a couple of clips and you have a new
battery. the iPhone is no different than the iPod, it's a 4 minute job,
big deal.

In article <1NTji.25638$C96.2744@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net >,
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:468e8a6b$0$27187$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > ed wrote:
> >
> >>> 24 hours of audio per charge.
> >>
> >> only if you don't use the other features, eh?
> >>
> >
> > In terms of time, the iPod audio feature is what's likely to be used for
> > the most time.
> >
> > The issue is really not how long the battery will last, 300-400 charges
> > will last most users about two years,
>
> i don't know dude- i'm thinkin' a year to a year and a half- you're not
> going to run the thing to it's dead before charging, 'cause you're not going
> to want to be cauught batteryless (since you can't have a spare). so people
> are going to charge it when it runs down half or so, no?

But charging it up half way shouldn't result in as much wear on the
battery as charging up from empty, should it?

> > it's about the complexity and expense of replacing the battery. Apple
> > charges $79, plus another $29 for a loaner iPhone for the time it takes to
> > get your own phone back. At least until someone comes up with a kit to do
> > it yourself, which is what happened with the iPod.
>
> i don't think the ipod requires desoldering the battery though, right?

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

In article <3Rpji.9358$bO2.4319@trnddc05>, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> > I'd still like someone to explain to me how a cell phone can access a
> > GPD system without separate circuitry for GPS and a satellite antenna.
>
> Ask Sony, Sanyo, Nokia, or ... they all do it. Well, I don't
> know exactly what you mean by "separate"

Discrete. Specific enough to work for that function.
You can't use the GPS processor circuitry for the cell phone circuitry;
they are separate chips. It doesn't seem there is much in a GPS
receiver that is duplicated in a cell phone.
So where does all the stuff in a GPS unit fit into a (smaller already)
cell phone? The antenna is almost certainly different, and larger. The
circuits work differently. A GPS draws a lot more power more often.

What I'm wondering is if people are being told it is GPS they are
getting when the system merely uses cell towers to set the location?

> Though you're more likely to get an answer from the makers
> of the Neo1973 -http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973
> or from http://howstuffworks.com

How Stuff Works gave a good start, then gave up when it got to my part
of the question -- does it really use GPS satellites and calculations
to build the location?

In article <070720071658548665%mitch@hawaii.rr>,
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:

> In article <3Rpji.9358$bO2.4319@trnddc05>, Wes Groleau
> <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>
> What I'm wondering is if people are being told it is GPS they are
> getting when the system merely uses cell towers to set the location?

As of 2005, the government mandated GPS in the cell phones for 911
reasons.
http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gpcp.html

>
> > Though you're more likely to get an answer from the makers
> > of the Neo1973 -http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973
> > or from http://howstuffworks.com
>
> How Stuff Works gave a good start, then gave up when it got to my part
> of the question -- does it really use GPS satellites and calculations
> to build the location?

Most, although from my reading on google, seems as though some
companies might be using a triangulation method from the cell towers.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> Most, although from my reading on google, seems as though some
> companies might be using a triangulation method from the cell towers.

The documentation for my phone says that is
a backup whenever the GPS reception is poor.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------
I've been framed! ...
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

In article <_ZZji.326$z64.60@trnddc07>,
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman wrote:
> > Most, although from my reading on google, seems as though some
> > companies might be using a triangulation method from the cell towers.
>
> The documentation for my phone says that is
> a backup whenever the GPS reception is poor.

One of the articles I looked indicated that at least one of the
Cell Companies had decided to go with the cheaper triangulation. Having
said that, that was an article from around 2005 and market demands may
have required the addition of GPS chips in the interim. Wouldn't be the
first time the market overtook the regulators.

In article
<kurtullman-283B6A.00075808072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>
, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> As of 2005, the government mandated GPS in the cell phones for 911
> reasons.
> http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gpcp.html

But the government did NOT mandate GPS; it mandated a locating system
and its needed accuracy.
Simply giving a location is NOT GPS. It's the other way around;
sometimes the way to know the location is through GPS. Then it may be
given to E911 or whomever.

> > > Though you're more likely to get an answer from the makers
> > > of the Neo1973 -http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973
> > > or from http://howstuffworks.com
> >
> > How Stuff Works gave a good start, then gave up when it got to my part
> > of the question -- does it really use GPS satellites and calculations
> > to build the location?
>
> Most, although from my reading on google, seems as though some
> companies might be using a triangulation method from the cell towers.


Here's the reason for my question:
if these phones actually use GPS, and are therefore full GPS units, why
is anyone trying to sell GPS units?
Why aren't the cell makers building all GPS features into their
already-capable phones? (Note that giving directions is not a GPS
feature, but an application of GPS info.)
Why are all GPS devices larger (some by several times) than all cell
phones, when small size is just as useful to those?
Why aren't better GPS features appearing in cell phones?

I think the reason is that they don't have GPS at all, but a simpler
triangulation off cell antennas. That may be enough for E911, maybe
even for giving directions, but it doesn't give them the right to call
it GPS or take advantage of the popular assumption of GPS accuracy.
It's not a satellite system and it's not global and it doesn't deserve
the acronym or the reputation.

In article <468e8985$0$27187$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Mitch wrote:
> > In article <468d8c43$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The real issue is if you have a lot of DRM protected M4P iTunes songs.
> >> While removing the DRM isn't all that difficult, it's still beyond the
> >> ability of many users.
> > I wonder how many would really have trouble. It may not be obvious, but
> > it's just three steps:
> > select or make a playlist for those tracks (or just select them)
> > make sure the import format is in what you want to end with.
> > Choose Advanced>Convert to
>
> We're talking about two different things here. While Rod is completely
> wrong about re-ripping CDs, the issue is more about using the iTunes
> songs you purchased on multiple machines running iTunes. This is the
> only way you'll get the best sound (not that iTunes users or MP3 users
> care all that much about sound quality in the first place).
>
> To remove DRM you can use JHymn (but you need to use an older version of
> iTunes), or MyFairTunes (which works with later versions of iTunes).

No, you just convert them to uncompressed. You lose nothing, and there
is no DRM.
It does seem that the Windows experience includes assuming you need to
get more software for every task, though, doesn't it?

Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <3Rpji.9358$bO2.4319@trnddc05>, Wes Groleau
> <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>>> I'd still like someone to explain to me how a cell phone can access
>>> a GPD system without separate circuitry for GPS and a satellite
>>> antenna.
>>
>> Ask Sony, Sanyo, Nokia, or ... they all do it. Well, I don't
>> know exactly what you mean by "separate"
>
> Discrete. Specific enough to work for that function.
> You can't use the GPS processor circuitry for the cell phone
> circuitry; they are separate chips. It doesn't seem there is much in
> a GPS receiver that is duplicated in a cell phone.
> So where does all the stuff in a GPS unit fit into a (smaller already)
> cell phone? The antenna is almost certainly different, and larger. The
> circuits work differently. A GPS draws a lot more power more often.

> What I'm wondering is if people are being told it is GPS they are
> getting when the system merely uses cell towers to set the location?

Nope, its real GPS with the Nokia N95.

>> Though you're more likely to get an answer from the makers
>> of the Neo1973 -http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973
>> or from http://howstuffworks.com

> How Stuff Works gave a good start, then gave up when it
> got to my part of the question -- does it really use GPS
> satellites and calculations to build the location?

Yep. It even shows the number of satellites it can see, just like a satnav does too.

Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article
> <kurtullman-283B6A.00075808072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>
> , Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As of 2005, the government mandated GPS in the cell phones for 911
>> reasons.
>> http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gpcp.html
>
> But the government did NOT mandate GPS; it mandated a locating system
> and its needed accuracy.
> Simply giving a location is NOT GPS. It's the other way around;
> sometimes the way to know the location is through GPS. Then it may be
> given to E911 or whomever.
>
>>>> Though you're more likely to get an answer from the makers
>>>> of the Neo1973 -http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973
>>>> or from http://howstuffworks.com
>>>
>>> How Stuff Works gave a good start, then gave up when it got to my
>>> part of the question -- does it really use GPS satellites and
>>> calculations to build the location?
>>
>> Most, although from my reading on google, seems as though some
>> companies might be using a triangulation method from the cell towers.
>
>
> Here's the reason for my question:
> if these phones actually use GPS, and are therefore
> full GPS units, why is anyone trying to sell GPS units?

For the same reason that we see cellphones with built in media
players and cameras and separate media players and cameras too.

> Why aren't the cell makers building all GPS
> features into their already-capable phones?

Because app accessible GPS isnt the same as what satisfys the
legal requirement for location good enough for the 911 service etc.

> (Note that giving directions is not a GPS
> feature, but an application of GPS info.)
> Why are all GPS devices larger (some by several times)
> than all cell phones, when small size is just as useful to those?

Mainly because mapping needs a better screen than the smallest cellphone screens.

There are satnavs that are otherwise as small as cellphones.

> Why aren't better GPS features appearing in cell phones?

They are, most obviously with the Nokia N95 which has full routing just like a satnav.

> I think the reason is that they don't have GPS
> at all, but a simpler triangulation off cell antennas.

You're just plain wrong. If that was true, they wouldnt be able to show the
number of GPS satellites currently in view, and they can and do show that.

> That may be enough for E911, maybe even for giving directions,
> but it doesn't give them the right to call it GPS or take advantage
> of the popular assumption of GPS accuracy.

They have real GPS anyway.

> It's not a satellite system and it's not global and it
> doesn't deserve the acronym or the reputation.

Pity about the cellphones which have real app accessible
GPS and show the number of GPS satellites currently in view.

In article <5fbq64F3bc7e2U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What I'm wondering is if people are being told it is GPS they are
> > getting when the system merely uses cell towers to set the location?
>
> Nope, its real GPS with the Nokia N95.
That would figure; it should certainly be more visible and better
presented on a smart phone.

> >> Though you're more likely to get an answer from the makers
> >> of the Neo1973 -http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973
> >> or from http://howstuffworks.com
>
> > How Stuff Works gave a good start, then gave up when it
> > got to my part of the question -- does it really use GPS
> > satellites and calculations to build the location?
>
> Yep. It even shows the number of satellites it can see, just like a satnav does too.
Very nice. I hope they put in some of the other GPS features, but I've
never heard of one that invites map data.

In article <5fbqjnF3ad190U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Here's the reason for my question:
> > if these phones actually use GPS, and are therefore
> > full GPS units, why is anyone trying to sell GPS units?
>
> For the same reason that we see cellphones with built in media
> players and cameras and separate media players and cameras too.
Reasonable. But why wouldn't more cell makers try to build on that?

> > Why aren't the cell makers building all GPS
> > features into their already-capable phones?
>
> Because app accessible GPS isnt the same as what satisfys the
> legal requirement for location good enough for the 911 service etc.
That's strange, because I don't know how much you can lose of GPS
ability and still get a location.

> > (Note that giving directions is not a GPS
> > feature, but an application of GPS info.)
> > Why are all GPS devices larger (some by several times)
> > than all cell phones, when small size is just as useful to those?
>
> Mainly because mapping needs a better screen than the smallest cellphone
> screens.
You'd think so, conidering how much info a map has to offer. But some
GPS are very low-res, even with map viewing.

> There are satnavs that are otherwise as small as cellphones.
Yeah, probably. The ones I know aren't the most expensive, and the
smaller of the ones I know are arm-band units.

> > Why aren't better GPS features appearing in cell phones?
>
> They are, most obviously with the Nokia N95 which has full routing just like
> a satnav.
That's neat.

> > I think the reason is that they don't have GPS
> > at all, but a simpler triangulation off cell antennas.
>
> You're just plain wrong. If that was true, they wouldnt be able to show the
> number of GPS satellites currently in view, and they can and do show that.
But I'm still talking of the ones that don't, which seems to be almost
every cell phone.

> > That may be enough for E911, maybe even for giving directions,
> > but it doesn't give them the right to call it GPS or take advantage
> > of the popular assumption of GPS accuracy.
>
> They have real GPS anyway.
Right; my statement is about if they do NOT.

> > It's not a satellite system and it's not global and it
> > doesn't deserve the acronym or the reputation.
>
> Pity about the cellphones which have real app accessible
> GPS and show the number of GPS satellites currently in view.
Again, my statement was (very clearly, I thought) about the units which
do not. Isn't that nearly all of them?

Mitch wrote:
> But the government did NOT mandate GPS; it mandated a locating system
> and its needed accuracy.

Which apparently isn't needed. When my son loses his phone or himself,
I can use an online service to query the phone for its location.
It always includes an accuracy disclaimer, and displays the radius on
the map. Sometimes, it's "within 17 meters" but others--well, on one
occasion, if he had been choking, couldn't speak, and called 911,
the EMTs would have had to search twenty square miles of residential area.

> if these phones actually use GPS, and are therefore full GPS units, why
> is anyone trying to sell GPS units?

because they aren't "full" GPS units

> Why aren't the cell makers building all GPS features into their
> already-capable phones? (Note that giving directions is not a GPS
> feature, but an application of GPS info.)

Because some of us want a $50 cell PHONE, not a $500 do-everything.

--
Wes Groleau
----
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated
than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kurtullman-
3A5D15.01331808072007@customer-201-1....uninet.net.mx:

> In article <_ZZji.326$z64.60@trnddc07>,
> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> > Most, although from my reading on google, seems as though some
>> > companies might be using a triangulation method from the cell towers.
>>
>> The documentation for my phone says that is
>> a backup whenever the GPS reception is poor.
>
> One of the articles I looked indicated that at least one of the
> Cell Companies had decided to go with the cheaper triangulation. Having
> said that, that was an article from around 2005 and market demands may
> have required the addition of GPS chips in the interim. Wouldn't be the
> first time the market overtook the regulators.
>

CDMA and iDen carriers decided to use GPS technology to satisfy E911
regulations, while the GSM carriers went with tower triangulation.Of
course, once the GPS technology was in the CDMA phone, it became real easy
to sell third party apps that used the technology.

GSM carriers showeed little vision with their decision to go with
triangulation.

Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in news:070720072339520188%mitch@hawaii.rr:


>
>
> Here's the reason for my question:
> if these phones actually use GPS, and are therefore full GPS units, why
> is anyone trying to sell GPS units?

What makes you think that it is a full GPS unit? It's quite likely that
only partial GPA functionality is built into the phone.

> Why aren't the cell makers building all GPS features into their
> already-capable phones? (Note that giving directions is not a GPS
> feature, but an application of GPS info.)

See above- they may not be putting all of the technology into the phone.to
take advantage of all features.

> Why are all GPS devices larger (some by several times) than all cell
> phones, when small size is just as useful to those?

There are small GPS units available on the market.


> Why aren't better GPS features appearing in cell phones?

Maybe because it is a phone and not a GPS device as a primary function, and
building in additional functionality would increase the size of the phone.

>
> I think the reason is that they don't have GPS at all, but a simpler
> triangulation off cell antennas. That may be enough for E911, maybe
> even for giving directions, but it doesn't give them the right to call
> it GPS or take advantage of the popular assumption of GPS accuracy.
> It's not a satellite system and it's not global and it doesn't deserve
> the acronym or the reputation.
>

Now you are assuming facts not in evidence. My CDMA GPS- enabled phone is
just that- GPS enabled. How do I know? Simple- I've used the GPS app in
areas where network triangulation is not possible and still received
accurate positional data.

Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in
news:080720070151465036%mitch@hawaii.rr:


>>
>> You're just plain wrong. If that was true, they wouldnt be able to
>> show the number of GPS satellites currently in view, and they can and
>> do show that.
> But I'm still talking of the ones that don't, which seems to be almost
> every cell phone.
>

When you say almost every cell phone, do you mean every ATT cell phone or
every available cell-phone. I ask because ALL Verizon and Sprint phones
come with GPS and the abiltiy to use the apps mentioned above. The fact is
that almost every cellphone now comes with embedded GPS technology- it is
simply the GSM portfolio that lacks this functionality.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <070720071658548665%mitch@hawaii.rr>,
> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>> In article <3Rpji.9358$bO2.4319@trnddc05>, Wes Groleau
>> <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What I'm wondering is if people are being told it is GPS they are
>> getting when the system merely uses cell towers to set the location?
>
> As of 2005, the government mandated GPS in the cell phones for 911
> reasons.
> http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gpcp.html

No, they mandated a way to locate the phone. The GSM carriers use
triangulation, the CDMA carriers combine GPS and triangulation. Of
course the system the CDMA carriers use is much more accurate, and more
expensive. However the CDMA carriers can offer location based services
that the GSM carriers can't, due the increased accuracy.

I'm sure that the next generation of iPhones will add this feature,
along with HSDPA. If not, there are other products, similar to the
iPhone, that have these features already, but they don't have the
marketing muscle of Apple.

At 08 Jul 2007 08:56:25 -0500 Scott wrote:

> When you say almost every cell phone, do you mean every ATT cell phone
or
> every available cell-phone. I ask because ALL Verizon and Sprint
phones
> come with GPS and the abiltiy to use the apps mentioned above.

But the GPS functions are not user-accessable, are they? You need to
pony up the $10/month for nav service, correct? Sprint and Verizon
aren't going to let you dial up Google Maps and let you navigate for
"free" are they?



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

At 08 Jul 2007 08:41:12 -0500 Scott wrote:

> CDMA and iDen carriers decided to use GPS technology to satisfy E911
> regulations, while the GSM carriers went with tower triangulation.Of
> course, once the GPS technology was in the CDMA phone, it became real
easy
> to sell third party apps that used the technology.
>
> GSM carriers showeed little vision with their decision to go with
> triangulation.


Depends on your POV, I suppose- EVERY GSM handset ever built works with
the GSM tower locaation system. Sprint/Verizon had to force their
customer base to upgrade to GPS phones and now refuse to activate older
models in fear of breaking the 95%-enabled FCC requirement.

One of the advantages of GSM, at least in my opinion, is the ability of
the end user to choose any compatible equipment he wants, whether offered
by the carrier or not. AGPS added even more handset-chioce restrictions
to the already draconian US CDMA carriers.


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

At 07 Jul 2007 23:44:51 -1000 Mitch wrote:

> No, you just convert them to uncompressed. You lose nothing,

....until you recompress them for use on a different portable.

> and there
> is no DRM.
> It does seem that the Windows experience includes assuming you need to
> get more software for every task, though, doesn't it?

Even Windows Media Player can un-DRM a file by uncompressing/recompressing.
The previous poster was talking about an algorythmic way to remove DRM
without further reducing quality.



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

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 08 Jul 2007 08:56:25 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
>> When you say almost every cell phone, do you mean every ATT cell phone or
>> every available cell-phone. I ask because ALL Verizon and Sprint phones
>> come with GPS and the abiltiy to use the apps mentioned above.
>
> But the GPS functions are not user-accessable, are they? You need to
> pony up the $10/month for nav service, correct? Sprint and Verizon
> aren't going to let you dial up Google Maps and let you navigate for
> "free" are they?


And if they did I expect they'd restart your contract from zero if you've got
one.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com