THe winner with the fewest dropped calls is.....

Don Udel (ETC) wrote:

> BellSouth and AT&T for two. Of course those may be "tiny locals" in your
> world.

GTE used to do it as well. I presume that now that Verizon has the GTE
locals that they do the same thing.

I remember when I worked for GTE, one of the employees, very dedicated
apparently, came in with his vacation pictures. He had driven across the
U.S. and Canada in his RV, and had taken pictures of the outdoor mounted
GTE Lenkurt transmission equipment along the route. I worked for the
division that made digital switches, transmission equipment and digital
radios. It was quite an operation in San Carlos, we even made our own
transformers, inductors, and capacitors. Alas, with deregulation we lost
our captive GTE operating company customers, and that was the end of that.

DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
> Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"

LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
"agree to disagree" schtick.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45ef42ae$0$27203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>DTC wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>
>> Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"
>
>LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
>entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
>to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
>"agree to disagree" schtick.

Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations (instead
of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested in wasting
more time on a silly pissing content. Have a nice day.

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

SMS wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>
>> Am I going to have to look for my prized "Notes on the Network" and scan
>> the pages that say that?
>>
>> You have heard of that book, right?
>
> Delivering telephone directories is his concept of "working in the
> industry."

ROFL...ok, that brought some brightness to my day and a laugh.

DTC wrote:
> Am I going to have to look for my prized "Notes on the Network" and scan
> the pages that say that?
>
> You have heard of that book, right?

Hint...it was a baby blue one and a half inch thick book with AT&T on the
cover.

Considered by hackers twenty plus years ago to be a very valuable resource.

SMS wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>
>> Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"
>
> LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
> entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
> to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
> "agree to disagree" schtick.

Or obfuscate the thread such that no one can tell just what the hell is
being argued.

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45ef42ae$0$27203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> DTC wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>> Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"
>> LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
>> entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
>> to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
>> "agree to disagree" schtick.
>
> Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations (instead
> of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested in wasting
> more time on a silly pissing content.

Stop it, yer killing me!

Shall we start on your "authoritative citation" in which you quoted
yourself proving you experienced Extended GSM?

"I'm just not interested" is a variation of a phrase often heard on a
playground, as in "I'm taking my marbles and going home."

On 2007-03-08, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45ef42ae$0$27203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>DTC wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>>
>>> Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"
>>
>>LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
>>entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
>>to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
>>"agree to disagree" schtick.
>
> Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations (instead
> of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested in wasting
> more time on a silly pissing content. Have a nice day.

I would have been way more impressed if you'd come up with, say, this one:

http://www.rysavy.com/Articles/GSM_v...city_71802.pdf

The reason the digital services can support a much larger number of calls
in a given area than AMPS is that they can reuse the frequencies on
much more closely-spaced towers than AMPS can; apparently they can
even reuse the frequencies in different sectors on the same tower. To
avoid interference with AMPS, towers on the same frequencies have to be
spaced far enough apart that they can't hear each other's FM, but the
digital modes can deal with a significant amount of interference without
this effecting the user. More than this, apparently GSM has gone to variable
rate codecs and power control, like CDMA, to reduce interference, and
can also adaptively run at half-rate with two users sharing a time slot,
getting up to 16 calls in a 200 kHz channel.

None of this matters in rural areas where there is just as much
spectrum but way fewer people who need to be served in it, but now
I can see why they might want to dump AMPS in urban areas as soon
as possible since the difference in total system capacity is quite
large: about 16x AMPS according to page 14 above.

There'd be no pissing if you would produce information which actually
supported your assertion.

Dennis Ferguson

DTC wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>> Am I going to have to look for my prized "Notes on the Network" and scan
>> the pages that say that?
>>
>> You have heard of that book, right?
>
> Hint...it was a baby blue one and a half inch thick book with AT&T on
> the cover.
>
> Considered by hackers twenty plus years ago to be a very valuable resource.

Are you talking about the Blue Book, aka as the Bell System Technical
Journal from Bell Labs? It was where the MF signaling tones were first
disclosed, which led to all the phreaking with the Blue Boxes. An
Esquire article on phreaking revealed this little secret, and Oui
magazine also had them.

Ramparts (now Mother Jones), had an article on building a Black Box,
which was very simple, it was just a resistor, a capacitor, and a
pushbutton switch. It let you receive long distance calls at no cost to
the caller because it made it seem as if the called party never picked up.

Good article at
"http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/the_merry_pranksters_of_microcomputing.php"
with a great picture of Jobs and Wozniak.

DTC wrote:

> Shall we start on your "authoritative citation" in which you quoted
> yourself proving you experienced Extended GSM?

You mean you can't create a fictional account of something that never
happened then turn around and cite your own story as proof? Ronald
Reagan used to do this all the time. He loved the fictional anecdote.

SMS wrote:
> Are you talking about the Blue Book, aka as the Bell System Technical
> Journal from Bell Labs?

That's the one!

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:rumuu2tmctfc0nvvmmrfr4rmlljtvqolfp@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45ef42ae$0$27203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>DTC wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>>
>>> Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my
>>> statement"
>>
>>LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
>>entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
>>to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
>>"agree to disagree" schtick.
>
> Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations
> (instead of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested
> in wasting more time on a silly pissing content. Have a nice day.
>

You haven't posted anything authoritative in years. Copying a google link
and hoping that it is the answer doesn't qualify.

The numbers in the MindWireless report are percentages. It is also
interesting that legacy AT&T wireless outpaced legacy Cingular.

"Karl" <karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jbntt2tjmp735jujl66pgs97t2f9m5m7u9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:44:25 -0600, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>>...not Cingular:
>>
>>http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44
>>
>>"Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) - With all major wireless carriers
>>claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
>>provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the
>>scale.
>>Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
>>January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>>Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
>>calls,
>>nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
>>reliable network. "
>>
>>
>>Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
>>report?
>
>
> Absolute numbers is not the number anyone cares about, it's percentage
> of calls. T-Mobile advertises fewest dropped calls in Houston, and
> having the fewest customers, and therefore the fewest calls they may
> well be correct.
>