Prev: Two zero for a copy, come back
Next: Three - cheap international calls ... ??
From: Petert on 23 May 2010 13:35
On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:38:56 +0100, "Graham." <me(a)privacy.net> wrote:


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

Mine is moving from Voda to Orange - I'm aware of the reason, but not
so sure it's not going to end in tears
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)
From: Petert on 23 May 2010 13:37
On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:28:44 +0100, Peter
<occassionally-confused(a)nospam.co.uk> wrote:


>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.

I've always found the Voda cust service fine, although I strongly
suspect that as my phone is on a corporate account I'm only ever
answered by someone in a UK call centre who does exactly wht he/she
has said they would
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)
From: Steve Terry on 24 May 2010 03:07
"JL" <newsaccount(a)mail2web.com> wrote in message
news:e6aeb085-164d-4090-a501-7d643fec9b9c(a)r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
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...
>
>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.
>
>
These days i use an Orange 3g contract Sim in a 3g Nokia 6120c
which gives me coverage of Oranges 3g and fall back onto 2g.

Orange don't always co-site both kinds of cells or if they do
3g and 2g aerials may cover different areas.

If you are going to use Orange, don't limit yourself to only
Oranges 2g network.

Steve Terry
--
Welcome Sign-up Bonus of �1 when you signup free at:
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/G4WWK


From: chunkyoldcortina on 24 May 2010 12:05
Graham. wrote:
> "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.

This halfs the capacity of the cell though!

>>
>> 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.

900MHz needs bigger "openings" (windows, doors, glass walls) in those
buildings to get in, as the wavelength is longer.

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

1800MHz may suffer greater attenuation in solid objects than 900Mhz, however
as even 900MHz doesn't do well when presented with a solid object the
practical difference is negligible. See what happens to the strength of your
UHF TV signal when a tree is in the way, and that is at an even lower
frequency than 900MHz.
From: Peter Parry on 24 May 2010 13:25
On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:05:51 +0100, chunkyoldcortina
<chunky(a)example.com> wrote:

>Graham. wrote:
>> "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"


>This halfs the capacity of the cell though!

Of course, that is why it is only used where range is most important
and cells very lightly loaded.

>>> 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.
>
>900MHz needs bigger "openings" (windows, doors, glass walls) in those
>buildings to get in, as the wavelength is longer.

Unless you have a building with lots of windows less than 12in square
there isn't much practical difference. Windows are interesting as
they not merely let in the signal but can also act as multiple slot
aerials thus giving very unpredictable effects.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Two zero for a copy, come back
Next: Three - cheap international calls ... ??