A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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.
> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
whatever practical radio frequencies available.
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:
1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
at least 16-bit
2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
the audio must be the same.
>Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
>whatever practical radio frequencies available.
Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
2008.
<http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html>
I won't be sending you a valentine card. You're not my type.
Are you also working on whale oil products and sealing wax?
>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.
Oh, you want music over your cell phone? Of course that means fewer
users per MHz. Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate,
compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number
of users. So, your cell phone bill goes up about 5 times. Of course
you don't mind because you'll have hi-fi oozing out of your phone. You
might want to research variable rate codecs, such as EVRC.
>1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
>at least 16-bit
The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode
something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16
bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with
compression.
>2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
>the audio must be the same.
Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's
no compression happening.
At least you're consistent. You got everything wrong, again.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
Jeff,
He typed the message on his Commodore 64 with an Atari floppy drive!
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
> >On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...696d6abf90c8ed
> >13?hl=en&
> >> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
> >Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
> >whatever practical radio frequencies available.
>
> Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
> 2008.
> <http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06...ice-to-end-aft
> er.html> I won't be sending you a valentine card. You're not my type.
> Are you also working on whale oil products and sealing wax?
>
> >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.
>
> Oh, you want music over your cell phone? Of course that means fewer
> users per MHz. Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate,
> compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number
> of users. So, your cell phone bill goes up about 5 times. Of course
> you don't mind because you'll have hi-fi oozing out of your phone. You
> might want to research variable rate codecs, such as EVRC.
>
> >1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
> >at least 16-bit
>
> The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode
> something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16
> bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with
> compression.
>
> >2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
> >the audio must be the same.
>
> Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's
> no compression happening.
>
> At least you're consistent. You got everything wrong, again.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
Radium wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
> :
>
>> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
>
> 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:
>
> 1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
> at least 16-bit
>
> 2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
> the audio must be the same.
>
Darn:
I was just getting used to your purposed long-wave cell phone.
The approximately mile long antennas would drastically cut down on
people trying to drive and talk at the same time, just think how many
lives that could be saved.
Oh well, I just wait for it to appear along with my Matel Hover board
and "Mr Fusion" reactor for my Delorean.
Ken
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
Radium wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
> :
>
>> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when
cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks.
Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS
systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184824404.424117.289400@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
> :
>
>> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:122u931qe1hnvcvp6t6dvbfm5v18sia2br@4ax.com...
> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
>>On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
>>> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
>>Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
>>whatever practical radio frequencies available.
>
> Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
> 2008.
> <http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html>
> I won't be sending you a valentine card. You're not my type.
> Are you also working on whale oil products and sealing wax?
The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that
carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date.
A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr
service for a few years after that.
>
>>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.
>
> Oh, you want music over your cell phone? Of course that means fewer
> users per MHz. Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate,
> compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number
> of users. So, your cell phone bill goes up about 5 times. Of course
> you don't mind because you'll have hi-fi oozing out of your phone. You
> might want to research variable rate codecs, such as EVRC.
>
>>1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
>>at least 16-bit
>
> The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode
> something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16
> bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with
> compression.
>
>>2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of
>>the audio must be the same.
>
> Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's
> no compression happening.
>
> At least you're consistent. You got everything wrong, again.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> > how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
As you've been told before, analog cell phones are going away.
What part of "going away" are you too blazingly stupid to understand?
> 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.
>In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
>> :
>
>> > how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
>> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
>> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
>
>As you've been told before, analog cell phones are going away.
>
>What part of "going away" are you too blazingly stupid to understand?
>
>> 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.
>
>You are an idiot.
>
><snip remaining crap>
How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...6abf90c8ed13?h
>>> l=en&
>>> :
>>
>>>> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>>
>>> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
>>> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
>>
>> As you've been told before, analog cell phones are going away.
>>
>> What part of "going away" are you too blazingly stupid to understand?
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>>
>> <snip remaining crap>
>
>
> How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
> for cell phone companies.
How about telling the state of California to go to hell?
If they want a change in National status there is a place to propose it.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> hath wroth:
>Radium wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
>>> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>>
>> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
>> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
>That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when
>cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks.
>
>Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS
>systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago.
Who said they were gone? Fire up your scanner or service monitor on
the old IMTS frequencies and you'll hear the idle tones or sometimes
idle chatter.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMTS_Frequencies>
There's still some IMTS phone systems running in "rural" areas.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Mobile_Telephone_Service>
Brings back fond memories of the "RCC wars" (radio common carrier).
However, you're right. I really miss my Motorola T1234 mobile
telephone and giant Secode control head. It really impressed the
various ladyfriends in college.
<http://www.privateline.com/PCS/mobilephonepictures.htm>
Too bad (for Mr Radium) it was FM.
I did work on an AM/SSB mobile telephone system in about 1974. I
never saw it but as I vaguely recall, it operated on various HF
frequencies in some part of Africa. Operation was similar to operator
assisted MTS (mobile telephone service) but on HF. It was basically a
phone patch hung on an HF base station. We were trying to add
signaling so that users would not have to listen to the channel noise
all day in order to receive a phone call. Our scheme sorta worked on
SSB, but the tones drove those that didn't have muted receivers nuts,
so it was eventually abandoned. I think the system was up until about
1990, when something blew up and the operator couldn't find parts or
something.
Of course, there's always the HF marine radio telephone service, which
still operates on various HF frequencies with real live human
operators. They're all currently using SSB, although that wasn't
always the case. In the 1960's and 70's, almost everyone was using
AM.
I got a great name for Mr Radius's system. Reactionary Radio.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
>> 2008.
>> <http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html>
>The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that
>carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date.
>A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr
>service for a few years after that.
True. Analog will probably dribble along for quite a while. The only
plans that I've heard or read are Verizon's. They're going to (or
already have) change the PRL (preferred roaming list) to not include
analog roaming. I know a local die hard who was informed in writing
that analog will be "going away" in Feb 2008 and that they will not
renew his contract for analog after that date. I haven't seen the
actual letter so I don't know if there are any details such as the
date they'll pull the plug on him. I had the same issue with Verizon
and a non-GPS enabled cell phone, where they refused to renew the
contract with the old phone. That means that all analog phones might
be gone by the time the current contracts expire, which would a
maximum of 2 years (probably much less).
at&t will probably do the same thing. The only analog systems they
still operate are the 800MHz TDMA systems they inherited from Dobson,
Cell One, and others. You'll probably get a Valentine greeting card
from at&t announcing the demise of analog.
Incidentally, at&t discontinued its CDPD (cellular digital packet
data) service in mid 2004. Verizon did the same a year later. Yet, I
still am getting sync and carrier for CDPD on my Novatel(?) CDPD
modem. As I mentioned in another thread, there are still IMTS tones
on the air. I guess old services never seem to die completely.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:29:35 -0500, DTC
<no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
>That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when
>cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/slides/radio-mess.html>
The phone with half the buttons red and the rest white, is a G.E.
"brick" phone. Not only did it look like a brick, but it also weighed
about the same as one. Behind it, against the wall is an Audiovox
TCT-100 "Tranportable" phone, another heavy weight. Just to the left
of the Audiovox but halfway covered is the original Nextel handset.
Someone is sure to ask why I have all that garbage. I sometimes give
talks on the history of mobile phones and like to drag in the
antiques. I drew the line on some of the old trunk mounted MTS, IMTS,
and AMPS phones, as they're just too big and ugly to bring to
meetings.
>Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS
>systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:33:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<falv93l0usf0nf7k1kf43psdefcnqp1otd@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
>>> 2008.
>>> <http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html>
>
>>The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that
>>carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date.
>>A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr
>>service for a few years after that.
>
>True. Analog will probably dribble along for quite a while. ...
I seriously doubt it. All the carrier people I know are chomping at the
bit to turn it off, as noted in public statements.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>> 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.
--
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 cellphone industry.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> hath wroth:
>> Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS
>> systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago.
>
> Who said they were gone? Fire up your scanner or service monitor on
> the old IMTS frequencies and you'll hear the idle tones or sometimes
> idle chatter.
As far as I know, all the Southwestern Bell mobiles were given to local
Motorola Sales and Service (MSS) shops. I never paid attention to the
defunct MTS/IMTS channels, but all the RCC channels went over to paging.
> Brings back fond memories of the "RCC wars" (radio common carrier).
In Texas, they were all pretty cooperative with reciprocal roaming. 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 $50 per month (on *TWO* VHF channels), it dropped to
like fifteen users.
> However, you're right. I really miss my Motorola T1234 mobile
> telephone and giant Secode control head. It really impressed the
> various ladyfriends in college.
The Secode was indeed much easier to program than the Motorola control
head. I used the Secode head on my RCC radio and the Moto on my SWBell
radio. In line with the Jackie Gleason and Michael Todd story of one-up-
man-ship, I had both control heads mounted next to my 4WD shifter on my
trucks. My local RCC would not mute the repeater when dialing 2805, so when
my mobile answered the code, it ack'ed with a burst of 2805...which
canceled out the four second 2805 ringing tail and my horn would only beep,
so I had to disable that feature.
To get access to a busy channel in Dallas, I'd drop into manual mode and
listen to the channels for a conversation about to end, then let go of the
chrome hookswitch arm and slam the roam button and the appropriate channel
button - forcing it to roam in IMTS mode to the only free channel. Of
course I would never whistle off the connect tone of an incoming call meant
for another user and grab the channel when it went back to idle.
I eventually upgraded to the all solid state Motos and smaller control heads.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:29:35 -0500, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <xQIni.11818$rL1.6496@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >:
>Radium wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
>> :
>>
>>> how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>>
>> Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at
>> whatever practical radio frequencies available.
>
>That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when
>cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks.
>
>Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS
>systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago.
Spectral efficiency be damned as long as you get yours? ;)
--
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 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.
>
> 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.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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>:
> >> 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.
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:33:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
> <falv93l0usf0nf7k1kf43psdefcnqp1otd@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
>>>> 2008.
>>>> <http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06...e-to-end-after
>>>> .html>
>>
>>> The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that
>>> carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date.
>>> A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr
>>> service for a few years after that.
>>
>> True. Analog will probably dribble along for quite a while. ...
>
> I seriously doubt it. All the carrier people I know are chomping at the
> bit to turn it off, as noted in public statements.
On the other hand, in many smaller communities, analog may need to be
retained until digital capability is ready to take up the business.
AT&T originally gave us notice that our analog service would be terminated
on a certain date, and then modified their statement to say the analog
turn-off would be spread over a long time. They did warn that people who
retained their analog service would have roaming problems as the larger
markets where digital is available will not retain analog capability after
Fall of this year.
> 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.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:falv93l0usf0nf7k1kf43psdefcnqp1otd@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
>>> 2008.
>>> <http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html>
>
>>The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that
>>carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date.
>>A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr
>>service for a few years after that.
>
> True. Analog will probably dribble along for quite a while. The only
> plans that I've heard or read are Verizon's. They're going to (or
> already have) change the PRL (preferred roaming list) to not include
> analog roaming. I know a local die hard who was informed in writing
> that analog will be "going away" in Feb 2008 and that they will not
> renew his contract for analog after that date. I haven't seen the
> actual letter so I don't know if there are any details such as the
> date they'll pull the plug on him. I had the same issue with Verizon
> and a non-GPS enabled cell phone, where they refused to renew the
> contract with the old phone. That means that all analog phones might
> be gone by the time the current contracts expire, which would a
> maximum of 2 years (probably much less).
>
> at&t will probably do the same thing. The only analog systems they
> still operate are the 800MHz TDMA systems they inherited from Dobson,
> Cell One, and others. You'll probably get a Valentine greeting card
> from at&t announcing the demise of analog.
>
> Incidentally, at&t discontinued its CDPD (cellular digital packet
> data) service in mid 2004. Verizon did the same a year later. Yet, I
> still am getting sync and carrier for CDPD on my Novatel(?) CDPD
> modem. As I mentioned in another thread, there are still IMTS tones
> on the air. I guess old services never seem to die completely.
True enough, Up here in Southwestern Alaska, I am maintaining an old Novatel
that was branded up to Nortel amps system. We run an old MTX DMS 100 switch
along with these 8 Amps cell sites. We are looking at a CDMA system from
Lemko.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:iisv93tv67hl9ahtl308baj9q248hi8muq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:33:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
> <falv93l0usf0nf7k1kf43psdefcnqp1otd@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day
>>>> 2008.
>>>> <http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html>
>>
>>>The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that
>>>carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date.
>>>A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog
>>>cellualr
>>>service for a few years after that.
>>
>>True. Analog will probably dribble along for quite a while. ...
>
> I seriously doubt it. All the carrier people I know are chomping at the
> bit to turn it off, as noted in public statements.
He said dribble, and that would be true for rural areas, as there is no big
push to change much out in the rural areas.
>
> --
> 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.
"mr.b" <mist@b.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.20.00.23.39.587837@b.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:28 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>> Really bad idea. The market works better without government
>> interference.
>
> oh horseshit...look around you GOP boy
I tend not to agree with Navas, but here he is correct.
As for him being a GOP boy, I figured he was on the left side of the
political spectrum. He tends to act like a liberal.
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
"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.
>
Re: A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1mtv93ticddur8rq3tghsra57n9508mci0@4ax.com...
> 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.
That is incorrect. The person that said 3khz is way closer than your wild
guess.
>
> --
> 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.
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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.
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry. 
Linear Mode
