Change in service quality.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 1:55pm (EDT+4)
noone@home.com (Larry) wrote:

>We've turned down the phone's power so far and
>eliminated all the external antenna connections,
>making the antennas more and more inefficient
>to make the glitzy girls happy until, even in flat country,
>the phones won't radiate a signal bigger than the
>noise from the sun more than a mile or two. In the
>mountains, you're lucky if it works 2 miles from the
>tower, ESPECIALLY on 1900 Mhz....

Wouldn't the shortness of an internal antenna better match the
wavelength of the *1900* MHz band, giving it *better* reception than the
800?

On 2008-06-23, Cinder Lane <Cinderlane@webtv.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 1:55pm (EDT+4)
> noone@home.com (Larry) wrote:
>
>>We've turned down the phone's power so far and
>>eliminated all the external antenna connections,
>>making the antennas more and more inefficient
>>to make the glitzy girls happy until, even in flat country,
>>the phones won't radiate a signal bigger than the
>>noise from the sun more than a mile or two. In the
>>mountains, you're lucky if it works 2 miles from the
>>tower, ESPECIALLY on 1900 Mhz....
>
> Wouldn't the shortness of an internal antenna better match the
> wavelength of the *1900* MHz band, giving it *better* reception than the
> 800?

This is true, though this is balanced by the fact that there's
no space constraint at the tower so the tower's antennas will
be better at 800 MHz even if the phone's antenna is better at 1900.
And 800 MHz signals go around things better than 1900 MHz, while
1900 MHz signals generally reflect more, so at 1900 MHz the phone's
performance will depend a lot more on being able to make constructive
use of reflected signals, something which CDMA is supposed to be good
at but which is a bit expensive in terms of processing and may be
less than perfect.

The end result may be that teeny tiny handsets with teeny tiny antennas
end up being equally bad at either frequency. If you try to fix this,
however, say by installing a car kit, 800 MHz will get better in a bigger
hurry than 1900 MHz.

Dennis Ferguson

"Redigoogle" <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a-15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 22, 3:59 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate your technical knowledge, Larry.
> Very informative and helpful.
>

PLEASE....... I see you are new here.

Larry's technical knowledge is actually quite good - with some limits.
Mainly, he understands good old analog signals and conventional transmissions.

But, it has been demonstrated repeatedly, he either doesn't understand digital,
specifically CDMA, or chooses to spout BS, just to be contrary - or an ass.

Please take Larry's posts with a LARGE grain of salt.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns9AC668ACEDE93noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
>
>
> 2 - In mountains, you'd need a cell or at least a repeater every time you
> can't see the tower, directly, to overcome that nasty multipath problem
> they don't ever want you to talk about.
>

How many times do we have to do the CDMA multipath dance?
You've been corrected quite a few times now - yet you keep spewing BS.

Remember RAKE receiver, etc, etc...?

(For the newb - CDMA phones use a special receiver that actually uses
multipath to augment reception - contrary to Larry's erroneous info.)

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns9AC666762F0E7noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a-
> 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> By "good reception" I mean "easy to hear caller", "no warbelling or
>> cutting out" usually means good "bars" indicated but not always, and
>> quality of incoming call does not vary with elevation of phone, or
>> indoors or outdoors. Anything less than all of those qualities all at
>> once is, in my opinion and experience, something less than "good"
>> reception. I don't experience "good reception" as a matter of
>> "perception". It either is or it isn't.
>>
>
> I'm sorry but they've turned off that system to increase profits. It was
> called AMPS and used analog FM radio technology, the same technology as
> your car radio's clear, ungarbled music stations...(except rap).
>
> Digital cellphones are never going to sound great. The sample rates are
> only 8 or 11 Khz to increase the number of users they can jam on a single
> channel in whatever digital scheme the company uses. The lovers will
> piss on me for talking AMPS, but just listen to any music on hold on a
> digital phone and it sounds like someone pissing in a paint can. Music
> on hold on an AMPS phone sounded just like it does on your wired
> landline...
>
> The warbelling and cutting out are caused by the codec crashing on bad
> data as multipath interference caused by your UHF signal bounces off
> buildings and other metal objects, even that jet landing overhead,
> sending the error correction scheme of the technology into overrun. On
> the old AMPS phone, it sounded like the signal faded when the reflected
> signal cancelled the direct signal, you moved a few inches and the direct
> signal to reflected signal ratio improved. On digital, it just
> dies....dropping the call if it can't recover quickly.
>
> Digital was never a good thing in marginal conditions. Wait until those
> car TV viewers find out ATSC, their new digital TV scheme, DOESN'T
> support a moving vehicle. It locks the picture as soon as you start
> moving and it never comes back until you stop and it can resync the
> data....even right by the megawatt transmitter tower!
>
BZZZZT - wrong again - more Larry's multipath BS....

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns9AC66705BA90Fnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a-
> 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Whatever signal is available at any locations (and it certainly varies
>> in strength judging from the number of bars shown) I presume that
>> individual phone models vary in their ability to "amplify" the signal
>> that is "received" through induction. Am I on the right track?
>>
>>
>
> As you move and see the bars changing, even though the phones are designed
> with a LOT of lag to keep you from seeing it, you are seeing the effects of
> multipath, signals coming from many directions to your phone. When the
> signals coming at you in different paths are in phase, the signal gets much
> stronger. When they are out of phase, they cancel each other. The direct
> signal is usually stronger so it doesn't cancel completely (unless there is
> no direct signal), so you see the bars go from full to 2 to 3 to full to 1
> moving only a few feet SLOWLY. If you move fast, the bar meter, purposely,
> doesn't follow the fading. They don't want you to see too much, especially
> if the news is bad....(c;
>
>

BZZZZT - wrong again - more Larry's multipath BS....

Please research RAKE receiver

Hint: CDMA uses multipath to enhance a signal - the exact opposite
of Larry's BS

Cinderlane@webtv.net (Cinder Lane) wrote in news:4818-486029BE-429
@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net:

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 1:55pm (EDT+4)
> noone@home.com (Larry) wrote:
>
>>We've turned down the phone's power so far and
>>eliminated all the external antenna connections,
>>making the antennas more and more inefficient
>>to make the glitzy girls happy until, even in flat country,
>>the phones won't radiate a signal bigger than the
>>noise from the sun more than a mile or two. In the
>>mountains, you're lucky if it works 2 miles from the
>>tower, ESPECIALLY on 1900 Mhz....
>
> Wouldn't the shortness of an internal antenna better match the
> wavelength of the *1900* MHz band, giving it *better* reception than
the
> 800?
>
>

No. Look where it is when you're using the phone! One side of it is
against the big dummy load your head makes absorbing all that energy the
greenies are constantly in panic about. The other side you have your
hand wrapped around, another dummy load just not as thick. Human meat
absorbs RF energy just as much as a hamburger in your microwave...turning
microwaves into heat very nicely at 800 or 1900 Mhz.....and NOT radiating
it into space, unattenuated!

If the antenna were EXTENDED above the top of your head and kept
VERTICALLY POLARIZED, not tilted back at a 45 degree angle like the phone
is when you're talking into it against your ear, THAT would radiate MUCH,
much better.

http://www.iridium.com/products/product.php?linx=0001
This one has a big, fold up antenna you extend over your head for
SATELLITE RANGE to the LEO birds. I bought it for $50 from a yacht owner
when it went dark at the Iridium bankruptcy, complete with all the
accessories, before the US Military saved the system. It's $1.50/min and
there's a prepaid plan so you don't have a monthly fee. I had it online
a couple of months while I was sailing offshore with friends. But the
idea is this antenna is why it goes so far to the birds....hundreds of
miles out of the atmosphere. I'm not sure how much power it runs when it
transmits. Talk Time is 3.2 hours on a charge, MUCH longer than I have
budget for...(c;