Prev: Two zero for a copy, come back
Next: Three - cheap international calls ... ??
From: R. Mark Clayton on 23 May 2010 07:22

"tony sayer" <tony(a)bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vtIoFBDhgD+LFwRc(a)bancom.co.uk...
> In article <VaednfjU7-xtvmXWnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> scribeth thus
>>
>>"JL" <newsaccount(a)mail2web.com> wrote in message
>>news:6d35e878-77eb-4b2c-9df9-37add150f68a(a)v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

SNIP

>>
>>1G8Hz was for GSM. Orange and T-Mobile only run on this. Better
>>directionality.
>>
>
> Beg to differ some Voda bases use that band in built up areas...

And O2, however [what I said was] Orange and T-Mobile only run [GSM] on this
[band].

As later entrants in the early 90's Orange and Mercury / 121 were only
allocated space on the 1800 band, something they still bridle about, even
though they did not pay to set up the infrastructure.

My nearest macro cell has O2 (who built it and were first) on the top with
900, 1800 and 2100, with T-Mobile and 3 lower down on 2100 only.



From: Graham. on 23 May 2010 08:38


"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message news:stmgv5thojb1ufq5qscdmb88gv6kogcvhf(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:36:00 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
> <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>2G1Hz is UMTS. You need a 3G phone. Also provides O2 mobile broadband.
>>
>>1G8Hz was for GSM.
>
> GSM was 900 MHz. 1800 MHz was "PCN" (Personal Communications Network)
> until renamed the more sensible GSM1800 as it was GSM in all respects
> other than the frequency. You now have GSM900 and GSM1800, identical
> in all but carrier frequency.
>
>>Orange and T-Mobile only run on this. Better directionality.
>
> There is little intrinsic difference between the two frequencies
> except that 1800MHz tends to be easier to set up to have a shorter
> range - quite useful when you need a lot of base stations in an urban
> area where congestion is more of a problem that range.
>
>>900Mhz was for the original TACS / ETACS analog systems, which Voda and O2
>>have replaced with GSM.
>
> Both Vodafone and O2 also use 1800MHz and have done for some years. In
> particular pico cells are often on 1800MHz.
>
>>Better range, better over rough terrain and inside
>>buildings.
>
> Actually very little difference in it. Up to the GSM absolute limit
> of 35km range both work more or less equally well. If double time
> slots are used in very sparsely populated areas (as in Australia) to
> go beyond 35km limit 900MHz has some advantages. I don't think this
> is used anywhere in the UK.
>
> Building coverage in particular, whilst obviously frequency dependent
> in individual cases, shows little or no overall difference between 900
> and 1800MHz.

Anecdotal evidence, and my own experience would tend to suggest that
900Mhz superiour penetration into buildings is a significant factor.

My firm are migrating from Vodaphone to T-Mobile. Madness.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%


From: Peter Parry on 23 May 2010 08:50
On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:38:56 +0100, "Graham." <me(a)privacy.net> wrote:


>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message news:stmgv5thojb1ufq5qscdmb88gv6kogcvhf(a)4ax.com...

>> Building coverage in particular, whilst obviously frequency dependent
>> in individual cases, shows little or no overall difference between 900
>> and 1800MHz.
>
>Anecdotal evidence, and my own experience would tend to suggest that
>900Mhz superiour penetration into buildings is a significant factor.

Anecdote is never a substitute for evidence. It is certainly true to
say that in almost any situation for a given building both frequencies
will have different in-building characteristics assuming only a single
base station in the same location for both. However in that situation
it isn't true to say that in all or even most circumstances 900MHz is
superior to 1800MHz. They are approximately the same in terms of
overall performance (and somewhere I have the study done by someone I
think at Bristol University to test just that). In reality, with more
than one base station and lots of reflections all you can say is that
a building will differ between networks in the signal strength within
it but that's all. In many urban environments the higher
concentration of 1800MHz base stations actually means the chances of
getting an 1800MHz signal are often better than 900MHz.
From: JL on 23 May 2010 11:01
On 23 May, 15:28, Peter <occassionally-confu...(a)nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:38:56 +0100, "Graham." <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Peter Parry" <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in messagenews:stmgv5thojb1ufq5qscdmb88gv6kogcvhf(a)4ax.com...
>
> >>> Building coverage in particular, whilst obviously frequency dependent
> >>> in individual cases, shows little or no overall difference between 900
> >>> and 1800MHz.
>
> >>Anecdotal evidence, and my own experience would tend to suggest that
> >>900Mhz superiour penetration into buildings is a significant factor.
>
> >Anecdote is never a substitute for evidence.  It is certainly true to
> >say that in almost any situation for a given building both frequencies
> >will have different in-building characteristics assuming only a single
> >base station in the same location for both.  However in that situation
> >it isn't true to say that in all or even most circumstances 900MHz is
> >superior to 1800MHz.  They are approximately the same in terms of
> >overall performance (and somewhere I have the study done by someone I
> >think at Bristol University to test just that).  In reality, with more
> >than one base station and lots of reflections all you can say is that
> >a building will differ between networks in the signal strength within
> >it but that's all.  In many urban environments the higher
> >concentration of 1800MHz base stations actually means the chances of
> >getting an 1800MHz signal are often better than 900MHz.
>
> It may be that lots of people (myself included) think that 900MHz is
> better because Voda have used it since Day 1, and Voda have the best
> coverage, not just UK but also around Europe, plus the best performing
> network (for roaming data), plus being the only networking supporting
> VPNs and fax on PAYG (though TM finally support PPTP and fax now,
> though fax barely works because GSM fax needs a really solid signal)
> plus the highest # of roaming agreements (try going to Albania and see
> whether your non-Voda phone will work *at all*).
>
> Against this, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for Orange being
> called that because of their "zero range" ;) ;) I was on orange for
> about 5 years and certainly found their signal level poor compared to
> Voda before and after.
>
> I hate Voda customer service script monkeys (and my phone is now on
> TM, as is my laptop for data, because they do the "best" EU bundles at
> £10/50MB/30 days) but technically Voda have historically had the best
> performing product. With TM and Orange merger this may change totally,
> of course.

Personally found Vodafone and O2 better indoors but Orange not too far
behind. Voda and O2 have some unusual gaps in coverage where Orange
works well though.

Any ideas how this Orange T-Mobile roaming will work? E.g. on an
Orange phone would the signal drop completely and the phone then
register on T-Mobile? If this is the case call handover between the
networks would not be possible?...or am I wrong?
From: R. Mark Clayton on 23 May 2010 12:26

"Peter" <occassionally-confused(a)nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0jeiv5hnsnbkng79k4nhqq4gprtg6l165b(a)4ax.com...
>
> Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>
>>On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:38:56 +0100, "Graham." <me(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:stmgv5thojb1ufq5qscdmb88gv6kogcvhf(a)4ax.com...
>>
>>>> Building coverage in particular, whilst obviously frequency dependent
>>>> in individual cases, shows little or no overall difference between 900
>>>> and 1800MHz.
>>>
>>>Anecdotal evidence, and my own experience would tend to suggest that
>>>900Mhz superiour penetration into buildings is a significant factor.
>>
SNIP
>
> It may be that lots of people (myself included) think that 900MHz is
> better because Voda have used it since Day 1, and Voda have the best
> coverage, not just UK but also around Europe,

On day one (well actually day 457* when I got what was probably the first
true portable phone in the UK) Vodafone were vastly inferior to BT Cellnet
(now O2) for the following reasons: -

1. BTC had central omni-directional aerials. This meant that for a portable
with one tenth the power (-3dB) it was far more likely that the cell would
successfully receive the up channel than on Vodafone that used directional
aerials ranging over three cells (so the distance to a user could be twice
as much and the received power a quarter). The other direction was less of
a problem as the base station could go up to ~25W, whilst the user was
limited to ~1W (now 0.6W)

2. BTC supported voice activated transmit. Whilst this was to save
batteries, Vodaphone would drop the call if it lost signal from the user
(e.g. as a train went through a cutting). This was so bad I switched to BTC
after just over a year although Voda slamming off peak charges up 67% was
the last straw - they lost 23 years of good business by trying to rip me off
for a few pence - stupid.

The situation persisted pretty much until the GSM era.




* Technofone in late March 1986 - now in the Science and Industry Museum.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Two zero for a copy, come back
Next: Three - cheap international calls ... ??