Jimbo.... wrote:
> what a cool idea 3G on 900Mhz..........
>
>
When I was first taught about frequencies I was always told that the
higher the frequency, the shorter distance it could travel, so for
example, the old orange adverts that used to say they had twice as many
masts as Vodfafone and O2, but they were 1800mhz, so surely they'd need
twice as many?
> When I was first taught about frequencies I was always told that the
> higher the frequency, the shorter distance it could travel, so for
> example, the old orange adverts that used to say they had twice as many
> masts as Vodfafone and O2, but they were 1800mhz, so surely they'd need
> twice as many?
very true 1800Mhz is piss ......
>
> 3G is on what, 2100? So they must need even more.
>
> This is, of course, if I'm not talking balony
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:46:42 +0100, xCx <xcx@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>When I was first taught about frequencies I was always told that the
>higher the frequency, the shorter distance it could travel, ...
>This is, of course, if I'm not talking balony
That's more-or-less true at VHF and above, but not (necessarily) at
lower frequencies. A signal at 15 MHz (say) in one of the short-wave
broadcast bands can easily travel around the world whereas a signal at
1.5 MHz in the medium-wave band won't. Although once you get right
down to the low Khz frequencies, signals will again travel vast
distances and are used to communicate with submerged submarines.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:25:31 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:46:42 +0100, xCx <xcx@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>When I was first taught about frequencies I was always told that the
>>higher the frequency, the shorter distance it could travel, ...
>
>>This is, of course, if I'm not talking balony
>
>That's more-or-less true at VHF and above, but not (necessarily) at
>lower frequencies. A signal at 15 MHz (say) in one of the short-wave
>broadcast bands can easily travel around the world whereas a signal at
>1.5 MHz in the medium-wave band won't. Although once you get right
>down to the low Khz frequencies, signals will again travel vast
>distances and are used to communicate with submerged submarines.
>
>I'm sure you wanted to know that :-)
>
>Mike.
With the caveat, of course, that some frequencies will travel further
due to skip via the ionosphere. In the early days of radio the short
waves were given to amateur radio opertors because it was thought that
they were useless due to the short ground wave travel. However, due to
'skip' radio amateurs found that they could communicate over long
distances.
> In the early days of radio the short
> waves were given to amateur radio opertors because it was thought that
> they were useless due to the short ground wave travel. However, due to
> 'skip' radio amateurs found that they could communicate over long
> distances.
>
In article <6bqm5iF3db9agU2@mid.individual.net>, xcx@bigfoot.com says...
> When I was first taught about frequencies I was always told that the
> higher the frequency, the shorter distance it could travel, so for
> example, the old orange adverts that used to say they had twice as many
> masts as Vodfafone and O2, but they were 1800mhz, so surely they'd need
> twice as many?
> When I was first taught about frequencies I was always told that the
> higher the frequency, the shorter distance it could travel, so for
> example, the old orange adverts that used to say they had twice as many
> masts as Vodfafone and O2, but they were 1800mhz, so surely they'd need
> twice as many?
It's not just about how far the signal propagates. In some cases [eg in
towns and cities] you don't want a large cell size, as that would mean
using a larger slice of the spectrum to service a given number of
subscribers.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
22:08:38 up 21:49, 2 users, load average: 0.30, 0.29, 0.22
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data
"Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22c37fe7906526a89896c7@news.cnntp.org...
> In article <6bqm5iF3db9agU2@mid.individual.net>, xcx@bigfoot.com says...
>> When I was first taught about frequencies I was always told that the
>> higher the frequency, the shorter distance it could travel, so for
>> example, the old orange adverts that used to say they had twice as many
>> masts as Vodfafone and O2, but they were 1800mhz, so surely they'd need
>> twice as many?
>
> 6 times as many.
> Regards
> Jon
>
That depends on many variables especially height, but with such a small
country
distance isn't a major factor for any UK GSM network, capacity is.
So with 3 times the bandwidth at 1800MHz and much shorter reuse distances
the 1800MHz GSM networks have far more capacity than the 900MHz ones.
The maximum operational distance with normal GSM time slots is around
25 miles on any frequency anyway.
> That depends on many variables especially height, but with such a small
> country
> distance isn't a major factor for any UK GSM network, capacity is.
>
"Jimbo...." <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MQm6k.52571$Ek2.23823@newsfe17.ams2...
>
>> That depends on many variables especially height, but with such a small
>> country distance isn't a major factor for any UK GSM network, capacity
>> is.
>
> except in scotland .......
Even 1800MHz BTS can cover the theoretical 25mile GSM limit
if you stick it up high enough.
I've used Orange UK in Calais, it's BTS back in Dover
Cool Idea ...... 
Linear Mode
