Prev: Two zero for a copy, come back
Next: Three - cheap international calls ... ??
From: tony sayer on 24 May 2010 15:30
In article <6padnZelW4OXymTWnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
<nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> scribeth thus
>
>"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.
>
>

Where was this as we had mobiles from System 3 ISTR to the present day
and it always seemed Voda had the edge on it in the Cambridgeshire area
FWIW...

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

--
Tony Sayer




From: tony sayer on 24 May 2010 15:33
In article <mcdlv5tjhpvddkmmd5ti2h2j2kuh1dfn02(a)4ax.com>, Peter Parry
<peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> scribeth thus
>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:stmgv5thojb1ufq5qscdmb
>88gv6kogcvhf(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.

Of course that doesn't apply to uPVC then;?..
--
Tony Sayer



From: JL on 25 May 2010 14:31
On 24 May, 20:28, tony sayer <t...(a)bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >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

I can see exactly where the sites are using the Sitefinder website.
As it happens the nearest two masts are Orange ones, but the O2 signal
is still better indoors.
From: Peter Parry on 25 May 2010 18:26
On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:31:59 -0700 (PDT), JL
<newsaccount(a)mail2web.com> wrote:


>I can see exactly where the sites are using the Sitefinder website.
>As it happens the nearest two masts are Orange ones, but the O2 signal
>is still better indoors.

What is nearest and where the aerials are pointing are often two
different things. Base stations are not omnidirectional. The nearest
base station to here can't be picked up at all because its aerials
point down a dual carriageway.
From: tony sayer on 26 May 2010 16:00
In article <dfafae8c-a8f6-4e2d-87ff-5ddaeb9f077e(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroup
s.com>, JL <newsaccount(a)mail2web.com> scribeth thus
>On 24 May, 20:28, tony sayer <t...(a)bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >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
>
>I can see exactly where the sites are using the Sitefinder website.
>As it happens the nearest two masts are Orange ones, but the O2 signal
>is still better indoors.

So the masts are the same height, same radiation pattern, and same
ERP?..
--
Tony Sayer



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