A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
Page 2 - A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.. Discuss A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry., on Wireless Forums.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article a1f3c$46a0170b$944e306e$5664@STARBAND.NET,
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbowey@comcast.net...
>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article aktv931m1ptv25uvtv0ihgd35hqoek4v0l@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bcjh7@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>>> for cell phone companies.
>>>
>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>>> interference.
>>
>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>>
>> California has a government.
>>
>> The US has a government.
>>
>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
>> have
>> California start pushing at the state level.
>
> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal republic,
> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>>
>
>
Naïve point of view. The feds grabbed? Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>> also apply:
>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>
> Actually more like 10 KHz.
Ahhhhh...an answer by obsfucation! Without qualifying the signal levels at
10 KHz, his answer would be correct.
According to AT&T's "Notes on the Network", the bandwidth is actually 400
Hz to 3,200 Hz where you have specific audio levels measured in decibels.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2C57170.700F8%dbowey@comcast.net...
> On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article a1f3c$46a0170b$944e306e$5664@STARBAND.NET,
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbowey@comcast.net...
>>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
>>> aktv931m1ptv25uvtv0ihgd35hqoek4v0l@4ax.com,
>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>>> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bcjh7@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>>>> for cell phone companies.
>>>>
>>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>>>> interference.
>>>
>>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>>>
>>> California has a government.
>>>
>>> The US has a government.
>>>
>>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
>>> have
>>> California start pushing at the state level.
>>
>> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
>> republic,
>> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Naïve point of view.
Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
federal republic.
> The feds grabbed?
Yep, common knowledge
> Do you recall how the state's
> representatives become feds?
It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecellphone industry.
On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article 7c061$46a02fab$944e306e$14881@STARBAND.NET,
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C2C57170.700F8%dbowey@comcast.net...
>> On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article a1f3c$46a0170b$944e306e$5664@STARBAND.NET,
>> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbowey@comcast.net...
>>>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
>>>> aktv931m1ptv25uvtv0ihgd35hqoek4v0l@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>>>> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bcjh7@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>>>>> for cell phone companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>>>>> interference.
>>>>
>>>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>>>>
>>>> California has a government.
>>>>
>>>> The US has a government.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
>>>> have
>>>> California start pushing at the state level.
>>>
>>> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
>>> republic,
>>> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Naïve point of view.
>
> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
> federal republic.
>
>> The feds grabbed?
>
> Yep, common knowledge
>
>> Do you recall how the state's
>> representatives become feds?
>
> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>>
>
>
I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities as
a citizen, but there it is..........
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecellphone industry.
"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2C58661.70110%dbowey@comcast.net...
> On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article 7c061$46a02fab$944e306e$14881@STARBAND.NET,
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:C2C57170.700F8%dbowey@comcast.net...
>>> On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article
>>> a1f3c$46a0170b$944e306e$5664@STARBAND.NET,
>>> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbowey@comcast.net...
>>>>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
>>>>> aktv931m1ptv25uvtv0ihgd35hqoek4v0l@4ax.com,
>>>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bcjh7@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>>>>>> for cell phone companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>>>>>> interference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> California has a government.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US has a government.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives
>>>>> than
>>>>> have
>>>>> California start pushing at the state level.
>>>>
>>>> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
>>>> republic,
>>>> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Naïve point of view.
>>
>> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
>> federal republic.
>>
>>> The feds grabbed?
>>
>> Yep, common knowledge
>>
>>> Do you recall how the state's
>>> representatives become feds?
>>
>> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
>> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities
> as
> a citizen, but there it is..........
Actually being a citizen requires that you understand our form of
government, which is a federal republic, with a federal government that has
clearly defined powers. All other powers, are for the people and the states.
>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
On Jul 19, 8:44 pm, "Dana" <raff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:C2C57170.700F8%dbowey@comcast.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article a1f3c$46a0170b$944e306e$5...@STARBAND.NET,
> > "Dana" <raff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbowey@comcast.net...
> >>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
> >>> aktv931m1ptv25uvtv0ihgd35hqoek4...@4ax.com,
> >>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrotein
> >>>> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bc...@4ax.com>:
>
> >>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
> >>>>> for cell phone companies.
>
> >>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
> >>>> interference.
>
> >>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>
> >>> California has a government.
>
> >>> The US has a government.
>
> >>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
> >>> have
> >>> California start pushing at the state level.
>
> >> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
> >> republic,
> >> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>
> > Naïve point of view.
>
> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
> federal republic.
>
> > The feds grabbed?
>
> Yep, common knowledge
>
> > Do you recall how the state's
> > representatives become feds?
>
> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep - The US Senators should be 'appointed' by the
King of the State {Oops Governor} cause their should
represent the Big {Money} People.
the divine right of money & the golden rule :
those with the gold make the rules ~ RHF
.
.
.. .
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
"RHF" <rhf-newsgroups@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1184914185.054123.283210@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
On Jul 19, 8:44 pm, "Dana" <raff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:C2C57170.700F8%dbowey@comcast.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article
> > a1f3c$46a0170b$944e306e$5...@STARBAND.NET,
> > "Dana" <raff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbowey@comcast.net...
> >>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
> >>> aktv931m1ptv25uvtv0ihgd35hqoek4...@4ax.com,
> >>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote
> >>>> in
> >>>> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bc...@4ax.com>:
>
> >>>>> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
> >>>>> for cell phone companies.
>
> >>>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
> >>>> interference.
>
> >>> Brilliant stupid canned comment.
>
> >>> California has a government.
>
> >>> The US has a government.
>
> >>> I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives
> >>> than
> >>> have
> >>> California start pushing at the state level.
>
> >> States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
> >> republic,
> >> hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.
>
> > Naïve point of view.
>
> Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
> federal republic.
>
> > The feds grabbed?
>
> Yep, common knowledge
>
> > Do you recall how the state's
> > representatives become feds?
>
> It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
> destroys the purpose of the Senate.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep - The US Senators should be 'appointed' by the
King of the State {Oops Governor} cause their should
represent the Big {Money} People.
And you think that the representatives and senators now publicly elected
represent the people. Come on, why do you think there are so many lobbyists
in D.C.
the divine right of money & the golden rule :
those with the gold make the rules ~ RHF
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> hath wroth:
>> Brings back fond memories of the "RCC wars" (radio common carrier).
>
>In Texas, they were all pretty cooperative with reciprocal roaming.
In California, specifically the Orange County area near Smog Angeles,
the RCC's were perptually suing each other. About 5 years ago, I got
an invite to do a deposition on a running case that started in about
1970. The original parties are dead or gone, but the new business
owners have picked up the torch.
>Rates
>in the '70s were typically $40 a month which included mobile radio rental
>and unlimited minutes and free roaming. Denton Texas with the two
>universities had like 300 users in the early/mid '70s. When the rates
>jumped from $20 to $50 per month (on *TWO* VHF channels), it dropped to
>like fifteen users.
L.A. had a 3 year waiting list for VHF channels. My license was from
Nevada.
>The Secode was indeed much easier to program than the Motorola control
>head.
Program? I just had a Secode control head in my car connected to an
ordinary G.E. Progress Line on the shop channels. I was just trying
to impress the ladies, not talk to anyone on the phone. If I needed
to make a phone call, I would use one of the ham systems. I
eventually replaced the Prog Line with a T1234 mobile phone using the
same control head.
>Of
>course I would never whistle off the connect tone of an incoming call meant
>for another user and grab the channel when it went back to idle.
I had two pieces of brass pipe tuned to 1500 and 2805 for the purpose.
Incidentally, my senior project in kollege was designing an all solid
state Secode Selector. The original Secode model 70 or 90 selector
was a mechanical marvel and a nightmare to fix.
>I eventually upgraded to the all solid state Motos and smaller control heads.
That would probably be a Motorola Pulsar. The T1234 was solid state,
but with one pair of crystals per channel.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:28 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
><psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bcjh7@4ax.com>:
>
>>How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>>for cell phone companies.
>
>Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>interference.
Yeah, right - I mean ,who needs insider trading rules from govt
interfering with commerce, dratted FCC saying who can and can't use
bandwidth etc etc...
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>
>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>> also apply:
>>>
>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>
>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>
>If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Aug 15, 11:07 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508m...@4ax.com,
> >"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>
> >>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
> >>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
> >>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
> >>>> also apply:
>
> >>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>
> >> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>
> >If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
> >including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
DOH ! Suggest that you not Reply and
Re-Cross-Post to Rec.Radio.Shortwave.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>
>>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>
>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>> also apply:
>>>>
>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>
>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>
>>If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>
>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>
>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>> also apply:
>>>>
>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>
>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>
>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
Brenda Ann wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>>
>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
>
>
I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.
Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz, and
14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
POTS digital dialup systems out now.
It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.
BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.
When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.
Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.
It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
WFMT, but less limiting.
ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
dollars.
Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
the end of a long ride.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Aug 16, 10:29 am, D Peter Maus <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It's easier, more cost effective and
> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
> much easier on the broadcaster.
Wasn't there a rumor a couple years back that the phone companies are
slowly discontinuing ISDN service? Or is that only for residential
services as opposed to radio stations?
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
Stephanie Weil wrote:
> On Aug 16, 10:29 am, D Peter Maus <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> It's easier, more cost effective and
>> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
>> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
>> much easier on the broadcaster.
>
> Wasn't there a rumor a couple years back that the phone companies are
> slowly discontinuing ISDN service? Or is that only for residential
> services as opposed to radio stations?
>
> Stephanie Weil
> New York City, USA
>
>
They don't want to do ISDN internet services, anymore. But I'm using
ISDN as a studio-studio link. So far, no one has suggested to me that
it's not going to continue.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
hbZwi.433778$p47.239378@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
<DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Brenda Ann wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
>>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
>> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
>> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
> client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
> line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
> an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
> Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
> modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.
>
> Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz,
I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
a POTS line.
> and
> 14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
> CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
> speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
> are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
> wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
> hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
> passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
> could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
> you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
> experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
> clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
> were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
> least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
> POTS digital dialup systems out now.
>
> It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.
>
> BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
> but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
> and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
> before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
> much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
> house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.
>
> When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
> noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
> studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
> loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
> unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
> control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
> dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.
>
> Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
> extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.
>
> It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
> WFMT, but less limiting.
>
> ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
> Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
> and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
> dollars.
AT&T didn't sell local channels. What Telco are you calling AT&T?
>
> Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
> the end of a long ride.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
Don Bowey wrote:
> On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
> hbZwi.433778$p47.239378@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
> <DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Brenda Ann wrote:
>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>>>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>>>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>>>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
>>> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
>>> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
>> client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
>> line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
>> an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
>> Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
>> modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.
>>
>> Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz,
>
> I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
> a POTS line.
>
ATT does. So does Verizon. And GTE,...at least before they became
Sprint. If you don't meet those figures, you can complain. They'll move
on it. It's part of the tariff structure. I spent a number of years at
working with Telcos on just this matter.
>> and
>> 14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
>> CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
>> speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
>> are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
>> wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
>> hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
>> passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
>> could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
>> you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
>> experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
>> clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
>> were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
>> least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
>> POTS digital dialup systems out now.
>>
>> It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.
>>
>> BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
>> but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
>> and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
>> before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
>> requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
>> So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
>> much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
>> house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.
>>
>> When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
>> noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
>> studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
>> loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
>> unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
>> control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
>> dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.
>>
>> Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
>> extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.
>>
>> It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
>> WFMT, but less limiting.
>>
>> ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
>> Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
>> and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
>> dollars.
>
> AT&T didn't sell local channels. What Telco are you calling AT&T?
>
>
>> Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
>> the end of a long ride.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Aug 16, 4:29 am, "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> > in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
> >>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508m...@4ax.com,
> >>"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >>> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>
> >>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
> >>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
> >>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
> >>>>> also apply:
>
> >>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>
> >>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>
> >>If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
> >>including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>
> > Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> > --
> > Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
RHF wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:29 am, "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508m...@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>>> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>>> --
>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>> POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
>> about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
>> lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's
>
> ? "STL's" ?
>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:29:19 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
in <C2E9E58F.73A63%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
>hbZwi.433778$p47.239378@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
><DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz,
>
>I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
>a POTS line.
Check the spec.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
in <C2E9A4C7.739F3%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article 0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com,
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>>
>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>>
>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>>
>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>>
>>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>> including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>>
>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
>Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
>bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?
No. Suggest you read more carefully.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:29:12 +0900, "Brenda Ann" <brendad@shinbiro.com>
wrote in <ZeKdnXSDCIaYqFnbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekbk28@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbowey@comcast.net>:
>>
>>>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com,
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>> <tp94n4-17l.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
>>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
>>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
>>>>>> also apply:
>>>>>
>>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>>>>
>>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>>>
>>>If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
>>>including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
>>
>> Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
>POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
>about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
>lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.
POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Aug 26, 7:15 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2E9A4C7.739F3%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article 0cq7c3def3f3rdpt56urvgf6c3ntekb...@4ax.com,
> >"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> >> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
> >>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508m...@4ax.com,
> >>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >>>> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>
> >>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
> >>>>>> start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
> >>>>>> a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
> >>>>>> also apply:
>
> >>>>> The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
>
> >>>> Actually more like 10 KHz.
>
> >>> If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
> >>> inc
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry. 