A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
Page 3 - 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.
> 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".
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:spd4d39jcfqoeubml2ssc4pniml8kelgu4@4ax.com...
>>> 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".
>>
>
> POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
> can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
> uses a DC line.
>
POTS lines that are on pair gain systems are, indeed, coded in the same
manner as is the message network. It has nothing to do with the phone, and
is transparent to the user. They may, however, not be coded to a full 64
kbit/s.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
On 8/26/07 9:21 PM, in article
DjsAi.465232$p47.314297@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:spd4d39jcfqoeubml2ssc4pniml8kelgu4@4ax.com...
>>>> 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".
>>>
>>
>> POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
>> can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
>> uses a DC line.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> In the US, the telephone network has been digital since 1962. At the
> time of the conversion, there was a decision made to keep the instrument
> and the interface familiar to the user, so there is no conversion in the
> deskset, and the 'last mile' from the CO is still analogue with battery
> voltage as it always has been. But behind that interface, the network is
> digital.
>
> Now, that 'last mile' analogue circuit can be VERY poor. In my area,
> a v.92 modem will only pass 14.4. While only a mile up the road, I was
> getting 53k+ on the same v.92 modem.
>
> When the network was converted from analogue to digital, there were
> complaints that voices no longer sounded right and that some people
> didn't sound like themselves. The complaints reached suce a pitch that
> AT&T launched a PR campaign in which TV spots attempted to explain the
> change in the audio at the instrument. As was the style of the times,
> they didn't really explain anything, certainly nothing as technical as
> digital audio, but instead, they described, through narrative and
> animation, how a person speaking into a telephone would connect to the
> central hub, where a voice that was similar to the speaker's voice was
> selected, and sent on to the far end. That's why someone didn't sound
> like themeselves.
>
> No one bought it, of course, what with AT&T's reputation, by that
> point...but it was a hilarious exercise in TelCo spin.
>
> And paved the way for the explanation of 'Tru-Voice' 30 years later.
>
> Yes, POTS lines are encoded. At the CO. The only thing POTS about a
> POTS line is what sits on your desk, and a length of copper to the network.
>
You ignored pair-gain multiplexing in the Exchange Plant, which uses the
same codecs as are used in the message network.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
Don Bowey wrote:
> On 8/26/07 9:21 PM, in article
> DjsAi.465232$p47.314297@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:spd4d39jcfqoeubml2ssc4pniml8kelgu4@4ax.com...
>>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>> POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
>>> can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
>>> uses a DC line.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> In the US, the telephone network has been digital since 1962. At the
>> time of the conversion, there was a decision made to keep the instrument
>> and the interface familiar to the user, so there is no conversion in the
>> deskset, and the 'last mile' from the CO is still analogue with battery
>> voltage as it always has been. But behind that interface, the network is
>> digital.
>>
>> Now, that 'last mile' analogue circuit can be VERY poor. In my area,
>> a v.92 modem will only pass 14.4. While only a mile up the road, I was
>> getting 53k+ on the same v.92 modem.
>>
>> When the network was converted from analogue to digital, there were
>> complaints that voices no longer sounded right and that some people
>> didn't sound like themselves. The complaints reached suce a pitch that
>> AT&T launched a PR campaign in which TV spots attempted to explain the
>> change in the audio at the instrument. As was the style of the times,
>> they didn't really explain anything, certainly nothing as technical as
>> digital audio, but instead, they described, through narrative and
>> animation, how a person speaking into a telephone would connect to the
>> central hub, where a voice that was similar to the speaker's voice was
>> selected, and sent on to the far end. That's why someone didn't sound
>> like themeselves.
>>
>> No one bought it, of course, what with AT&T's reputation, by that
>> point...but it was a hilarious exercise in TelCo spin.
>>
>> And paved the way for the explanation of 'Tru-Voice' 30 years later.
>>
>> Yes, POTS lines are encoded. At the CO. The only thing POTS about a
>> POTS line is what sits on your desk, and a length of copper to the network.
>>
>
> You ignored pair-gain multiplexing in the Exchange Plant, which uses the
> same codecs as are used in the message network.
>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
In article <C2F7A083.75061%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/26/07 7:15 PM, in article 0uc4d3dsknukqndksdgqltqrge7oumrp7a@4ax.com,
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Suggest you kiss my ass.
I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross post.
> In article <C2F7A083.75061%dbowey@comcast.net>,
> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/07 7:15 PM, in article 0uc4d3dsknukqndksdgqltqrge7oumrp7a@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Suggest you kiss my ass.
>
> I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross post.
>
> < Plonk >
Idiot. The reply goes to whatever distribution was set on the posted
message. Plonk yourself, Troll.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Sep 1, 10:48 am, Telamon
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <C2F7A083.75061%dbo...@comcast.net>,
> Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/26/07 7:15 PM, in article 0uc4d3dsknukqndksdgqltqrge7oumr...@4ax.com,
> > "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,
> > >>>> 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.
>
> > Suggest you kiss my ass.
>
- I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross
post.
-
- < Plonk >
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
Telamon - Was 'that' an Oops ? ;-}
{ I suggest you pay attention to the
news groups to which you cross post.}
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry. 
Linear Mode
