Prev: Two zero for a copy, come back
Next: Three - cheap international calls ... ??
From: Petert on 24 May 2010 15:01
On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:11:11 +0100, "Steve Terry" <gfourwwk(a)tesco.net>
wrote:

>"Petert" <peter.thomas8899(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:tppiv5hfk15ed1n7kq3hq83rt2ps5oihv3(a)4ax.com...
>> 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
>>
>>
>Make sure they are Orange 3g phones


I think we'll be keeping our Voda Nokia's - in my case a 6300
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)
From: tony sayer on 24 May 2010 15:25
>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.

Regardless of terrain?...

> 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.

--
Tony Sayer


From: tony sayer on 24 May 2010 15:26
In article <htb7l3$o3o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Graham.
<me(a)privacy.net> scribeth thus
>
>
>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message news:stmgv5thojb1ufq5qscdmb88g
>v6kogcvhf(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.

Good old British management eh;?...

>

--
Tony Sayer

From: tony sayer on 24 May 2010 15:28
>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.
>

How can you ascertain that when you don't know where and how many base
station's are in use in the area?.

Seems rather unscientific...

--
Tony Sayer

From: tony sayer on 24 May 2010 15:32
In article <hte84v$o8r$1(a)south.jnrs.ja.net>, chunkyoldcortina
<chunky(a)example.com> scribeth thus
>Graham. wrote:
>> "Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message news:stmgv5thojb1ufq5qscdmb8
>8gv6kogcvhf(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.

Not -that- much lower for Band V and a differing problem /effect usually
absorption rather then reflection which is a major mode of indoor
propagation...


--
Tony Sayer

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