Prev: NEWS: Motorola Buys Full-Page Slam Ad Against Apple
Next: NEWS: UK privacy watchdog clears Google Wi-Fi slurp
From: News on 30 Jul 2010 08:39
George wrote:
> On 7/29/2010 10:48 PM, John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:19:05 -0700, in
>> <2q4456h5erv7jfegqt0154vtb0uqblfh7g(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
>> <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In message<nj3456praioq3mlij37c4bcst6i8n0d6i3(a)4ax.com> John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:13 -0700, in
>>>> <1fj3565k3evc6jje3ij8shhfkftbgp6et6(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
>>>> <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message<3t2356h5420lsqfvhe1h5cp12nnqt9vk59(a)4ax.com> John Navas
>>>>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in
>>>>>> <4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>>>> <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kaye wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the
>>>>>>>> antennas are
>>>>>>>> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are
>>>>>>>> proud of the
>>>>>>>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of
>>>>>>>> buildings makes
>>>>>>>> them really really ugly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop
>>>>>>> antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the
>>>>>>> equipment
>>>>>>> (not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They
>>>>>>> refused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T)
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before
>>>>>>> neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the
>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>> of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal
>>>>> and
>>>>> a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures
>>>>> equally?
>>>>
>>>> Read the cited references.
>>>
>>> You didn't cite any...
>>
>> I did. Do keep up. Otherwise, "Google is your friend".
>>
> I believe you declared "it is a myth"...


Would that Navas was in fact a myth...
From: Eric Weaver on 30 Jul 2010 10:46
On 07/30/2010 04:17 AM, David Kaye wrote:
> mark<markr(a)mbrnet.com> wrote:
>
>> I think maybe you and everybody should move out of San Francisco. They
>> are charging 3 bucks to go through the financial distist now. They
>> want money and are coming up with fees and taxes that I have never
>> heard anybody trying.
>
> I'd like to see SF's population drop by 200,000 (back to the 1960s size) and
> give the rest of us some breathing room. Maybe y'all should strap your
> suitcases to Higdon's car when he heads to Utah to retire.
>

Since when is Tonopah in Utah?

From: jcdill on 30 Jul 2010 12:03
David Kaye wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Cell phones aren't all that dependable.
>> I've been in the middle of nowhere many times with no cell signal.
>> If you really care about safety, then you'll carry a PLB or sat phone.
>> You might as well argue for gas stations every 5 miles in rural areas.
>
> Unless things have changed, next month at this time 50,000 people will be
> gathered together with no cell service. I speak, of course, of Burning Man
> near Gerlach Nevada.

There was cell service AND WiFi internet signal at Black Rock City in
2009. I expect the same will be true again this year. There has also
been a VoIP-over-802.11-over-microwave payphone (free, no coins
required) at BRC every year since 2004.

<http://portfolio.jcdill.com/Art/Burning-Man-2004/9804154_29ULW/4/665673686_3KQ2F#665680891_549PR>

In years past when there wasn't any cell service, they had ham service
to connect to public safety services (fire, police, etc.) for emergencies.

jc
From: Jonz on 30 Jul 2010 15:29
On 7/30/2010 4:17 AM, David Kaye wrote:
> mark<markr(a)mbrnet.com> wrote:
>
>> I think maybe you and everybody should move out of San Francisco. They
>> are charging 3 bucks to go through the financial distist now. They
>> want money and are coming up with fees and taxes that I have never
>> heard anybody trying.
>
> I'd like to see SF's population drop by 200,000 (back to the 1960s size) and
> give the rest of us some breathing room. Maybe y'all should strap your
> suitcases to Higdon's car when he heads to Utah to retire.
>
David, you always did have trouble with reality.

In 1960 San Francisco had a population of 740,316, virtually unchanged
from today.

You have to go back to 1920 to get the population you are dreaming
about. In 1920 San Francisco had a population of 506,676.

All of this from:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab19.txt

Perhaps you should be the one strap your suitcase to Higdon's car.

Jonz
From: Dennis Ferguson on 30 Jul 2010 15:54
On 2010-07-30, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In message <daf4565na6ianj22krurgusdul3vq881s9(a)4ax.com> John Navas
><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:19:05 -0700, in
>><2q4456h5erv7jfegqt0154vtb0uqblfh7g(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
>><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <nj3456praioq3mlij37c4bcst6i8n0d6i3(a)4ax.com> John Navas
>>><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>>>>>There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal and
>>>>>a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures
>>>>>equally?
>>>>
>>>>Read the cited references.
>>>
>>>You didn't cite any...
>>
>>I did. Do keep up. Otherwise, "Google is your friend".
>
> In other words, you don't know, can't answer, have no cites, and want me
> to do the research to prove it?

I can help. Frequency matters somewhat for indoor penetration, but no
one quite knows how. If you look at, say, this paper

http://www.realwireless.biz/publications/papers/ICAP%20pdfs/142.pdf

you'll find this

Some residential radio penetration studies at 912MHz, 1920MHz and
5990MHz have shown that penetration loss increases as the frequency
increases [21]. In contrast to this it has been also reported that
penetration loss decreases with increasing frequency. These
measurements were contacted at 35MHz and 150MHz [24], 441MHz,
900MHz and 1400MHz [14][25] 880MHz and 1922MHz [13], 900MHz,
1800MHz and 2300MHz [18].

That is, some studies find that penetration loss increases with
increasing frequency (i.e. lower is better) while even more studies
find that penetration loss decreases with increasing frequency
(i.e. higher is better). The older textbooks I have all take
the latter view (i.e. higher frequencies penetrate better), though
newer textbooks tend to equivocate. In either case, however,
the penetration losses at 850 and 1900 MHz aren't real different,
and the simple models tend to assume that frequency doesn't matter.

While this seems to surprise people it really shouldn't. There
are always two possible reasons why one phone loses signal inside
and another doesn't: the building penetration losses could be
different, or the building penetration losses could be the same
but the signal levels outside the building, before the losses,
are different. I think the latter is the more usual reason.

It is the case, however, that outdoor propagation is effected by
frequency, which I think the first assertion above was also
denying. If outdoor propagation were independent of frequency
like indoor propagation is assumed to be then, like indoor
propagation models, there would be no frequency-dependent terms
in outdoor propagation models, e.g. Hata and COST Hata here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hata_Model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COST_Hata_model

but there clearly are. The fact that one PowerPoint
presentation neglected to mention this doesn't mean the
dependencies don't exist.

Dennis Ferguson
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: NEWS: Motorola Buys Full-Page Slam Ad Against Apple
Next: NEWS: UK privacy watchdog clears Google Wi-Fi slurp