🚀 go-pugleaf

does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over the
horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
handset?

"Zeldus" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...
>
> Hello !
>
> I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or
Australia...
> GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European market
> and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty smaller
> than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted here
> (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).
>
> For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
adequat
> cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
get
> much better coverage in remote places...
>
> So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> opposite ??
>
> Zeldus
>
>

"Zeldus" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...
>
> Hello !
>
> I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or
Australia...
> GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European market
> and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty smaller
> than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted here
> (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).
>
> For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
adequat
> cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
get
> much better coverage in remote places...
>
> So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> opposite ??

    Simple, because the US does, I know that sounds bad but sometimes it's
just wiser to follow the US's lead. Aside from this the 70km limit of GSM
isn't that bad, at 70km most phones won't be able to reach the cell site
anymore since you are past the radio horizon. TTYL

At the frequencies of IS-95 the radio horizon is a hard limit, the signals
will not go past it. TTYL

"GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote in message
news:cCJC6.11861$W7.63061@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over
the
> horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
> handset?
>
> "Zeldus" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> > Hello !
> >
> > I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or
> Australia...
> > GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European
market
> > and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty
smaller
> > than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted
here
> > (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).
> >
> > For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
> adequat
> > cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> > special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> > problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> > correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
> get
> > much better coverage in remote places...
> >
> > So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> > opposite ??
> >
> > Zeldus
> >
> >
>

In article <CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net>,
	"Zeldus" <no@email.com> writes:

> [snip]
> I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they get
> much better coverage in remote places...
> 

CDMA does perform better when the cells have to be far apart, but
the Australians also had a situation where they needed to upgrade
a whole load of 800 Mhz AMPS spectrum to something with a future.
Today, CDMA is probably the most viable option for doing this.
There isn't any GSM at 800 Mhz (yet) so if you have 800 Mhz bandwidth
on your hands, you have to pick D-AMPS, CDMA or iDEN.

> So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> opposite ??
> 

Canada has AMPS, D-AMPS, CDMA and iDEN networks running - as well
as a GSM one.  My feeling is that GSM is the way to go, but many
dissagree.  It is still possible CDMA could take over - but not
likely.

Eventually 3G will come out and we'll all be on a (non-Qualcom)
CDMA air interface anyway.

============================================================
Gardner Buchanan                         <gbuchana@home.com>
Ottawa, ON             FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.

It was Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:08:54 +0200, and "Zeldus"
  <no@email.com> wrote in alt.cellular:
| For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM
| is not the most adequat cell system because of it's
| cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with special
| configuration).

I would not consider that a limit.  I remember getting AMPS
service from a tower 70km away back in 1991.  The nearest
tower to home at the time.  Nothing to call home about.

The 35km (21mi) spacing is about right for a maximum on
AMPS/CDMA.  Most rural sites are closer than that.  The
original layout from the late 80's had rural cells at an
about 25km (15mi) spacing.  SPACING not cell size.  The
cell only had to reach just over 12km (7.5mi) in the
direction of the next cell.  Current spacings for AMPS/
CDMA are 8km (5mi) or less in rural situations.

| I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of problems
| of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to
| build a correct network with so little size GSM cells).
| Now they have CDMA, they get much better coverage in
| remote places...

I would be suprised if Australia is pushing to 70km (45mi).
Perhaps by using extremely tall towers in reasonably flat
terrain.  I certainly wouldn't want to rely on a tower that
far away, but then any service is better than no service.
(Perhaps with GSM/TDMA distant phones were not making their
 time slots.  CDMA doesn't have that problem.)

| So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population)
| is doing the opposite ??

Chalk it up to personal preference.  There is always someone
in a board room who has bought in on a particular technology
and cannot be persuaded to look at anything else.

I also question what you mean by "Canada".  Are you saying
that the Canadian Government is requiring GSM and forbidding
others or that a particular carrier has chosen GSM?

JL

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote
:
>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over the
>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
>handset?

Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
Not sure how or why though, sorry.

-DF

--
De-spam my e-mail address to reply via e-mail

Yeah is there coverage in Nunavit?

Probally need a satellite phone there. Or a clunky 3 watt analog phone.

Evan
---
prepaidguide@bigfoot.com




"Imogen" <Imogen@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:160420011707053640%Imogen@nowhere.com...
> In article
> <CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net>,
> Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
adequat
> > cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> > special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> > problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> > correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
get
> > much better coverage in remote places...
> >
> > So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> > opposite ??
> >
>
> It's a big country, but over 90% of the smallish population live within
> a fairly concentrated area, within 100 miles of the US border.  The GSM
> coverage probably follows that thin strip.  I doubt you get great
> coverage in the Yukon or Nunavit.
>
> Imogen

GrantB <grant@spice.girls> wrote in message
news:cCJC6.11861$W7.63061@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell?

There is no nice tidy number. Much better than GSM tho.

> Is it over the horizon?

Thats not a meaningful concept.

> If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a handset?

Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote in message news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...

> I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or Australia...
> GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European market
> and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty smaller
> than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted
> here (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).

> For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is
> not the most adequat cell system because of it's cell size
> limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with special configuration).

Yes, its got its downsides. Got some advantages
too, most obviously with the use of sims.

> I remember Australia moved to CDMA

It didnt. It ADDED CDMA to GSM so we have
both now. GSM wont be replaced by CDMA.

> because of problems of coverage in remote places with GSM

Not 'remote places', just places with lower population
densitys. Particularly outside major towns.

Its often forgotten that Australia is one of the most urbanised
countrys on earth, the bulk of the population is concentrated
in such a way that GSM does that bulk of the population fine.

> (impossible to build a correct network with so little size GSM cells).

Not impossible, just impractical.

> Now they have CDMA, they get much better coverage in remote places...

See above on 'remote places'

> So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for
> size/population) is doing the opposite ??

You've mangled that as badly as you have your
comments about whats happened in Australia.

"Imogen" <Imogen@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:160420011707053640%Imogen@nowhere.com...
> In article
> <CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net>,
> Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
adequat
> > cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> > special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> > problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> > correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
get
> > much better coverage in remote places...
> >
> > So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> > opposite ??
> >
>
> It's a big country, but over 90% of the smallish population live within
> a fairly concentrated area, within 100 miles of the US border.  The GSM
> coverage probably follows that thin strip.  I doubt you get great
> coverage in the Yukon or Nunavit.
>
> Imogen

How will I contact Sergeant Preston

"reader" <reader@nite.net> wrote in message
news:3adb9916$0$25509$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Imogen" <Imogen@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:160420011707053640%Imogen@nowhere.com...
> > In article
> > <CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net>,
> > Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
> adequat
> > > cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> > > special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> > > problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> > > correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
> get
> > > much better coverage in remote places...
> > >
> > > So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> > > opposite ??
> > >
> >
> > It's a big country, but over 90% of the smallish population live within
> > a fairly concentrated area, within 100 miles of the US border.  The GSM
> > coverage probably follows that thin strip.  I doubt you get great
> > coverage in the Yukon or Nunavit.
> >
> > Imogen
>
> How will I contact Sergeant Preston

Carrier mooses.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> posted
in alt.cellular:

>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over the
>horizon?

800 MHz?  Hardly.

>What is the power requirement for a handset?

The handset power is LIMITED, not required.
-- 
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:08 GMT, felstead1@spamless.optushome.com.au
(David Felstead) posted in alt.cellular:

>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote

>>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over the
>>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
>>handset?

>Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
>Not sure how or why though, sorry.

Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough, the
range is 12,500 miles.
-- 
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:14:56 +1000, "reader" <reader@nite.net> posted
in alt.cellular:

>How will I contact Sergeant Preston

Huskyphone.
-- 
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:06:47 +0930, "Horace Wachope"
<horrywachope@hotmail.com> posted in alt.cellular:

>Carrier mooses.

The plural of moose is meese.  The plural of meese is meeses.
-- 
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

Microwave transmissions can only go slightly past the horizon, as a
result of refraction.


GrantB wrote:
> 
> does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over the
> horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
> handset?
> 
> "Zeldus" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> > Hello !
> >
> > I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or
> Australia...
> > GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European market
> > and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty smaller
> > than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted here
> > (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).
> >
> > For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
> adequat
> > cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> > special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> > problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> > correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
> get
> > much better coverage in remote places...
> >
> > So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> > opposite ??
> >
> > Zeldus
> >
> >

-- 
Replies sent via e-mail to this address will be promptly ignored.
To reply, replace everything to the left of "@" with "james.knott".


"Al Klein" <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
news:8v8ndtgs395egi7tbktc9lirmofruuuc9s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:08 GMT, felstead1@spamless.optushome.com.au
> (David Felstead) posted in alt.cellular:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote
>
> >>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over
the
> >>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
> >>handset?
>
> >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
> >Not sure how or why though, sorry.
>
> Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough, the
> range is 12,500 miles.

    I hope you're kidding there. TTYL

"Horace Wachope" <horrywachope@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3adb9da1$0$25474$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> "reader" <reader@nite.net> wrote in message
> news:3adb9916$0$25509$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Imogen" <Imogen@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:160420011707053640%Imogen@nowhere.com...
> > > In article
> > > <CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net>,
> > > Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
> > adequat
> > > > cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms
with
> > > > special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because
of
> > > > problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build
a
> > > > correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA,
they
> > get
> > > > much better coverage in remote places...
> > > >
> > > > So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing
the
> > > > opposite ??
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's a big country, but over 90% of the smallish population live
within
> > > a fairly concentrated area, within 100 miles of the US border.  The
GSM
> > > coverage probably follows that thin strip.  I doubt you get great
> > > coverage in the Yukon or Nunavit.
> > >
> > > Imogen
> >
> > How will I contact Sergeant Preston
>
> Carrier mooses.

    I thought they were extinct?? :) TTYL

David Felstead wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote
> :
> >does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over the
> >horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
> >handset?
> 
> Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
> Not sure how or why though, sorry.

That's using their "booster cell", regular CDMA coverage is around 1/2
that. GSM can support up to 70km (double the normal 35km) but you half
the capacity of the cell. Here in NZ we have quite a few of these on
high spots in remote places and for marine coverage.

Range isn't the big issue when you only have a phone with a TX power
typically between .6 and 2W, it's only under ideal circumstances such as
over water or flat terrain that a phone would ever be able to reach a
cellsite 70km away, 35km is even asking a lot.

I heard that CDMA's voice bandwidth is not as good as GSM.  but I am not
sure though.
The other reason maybe that you have more choice of network and most
importantly more choices of phones.
What is the lightest phone in north america? probably 8290 I guess.  tell me
if I am wrong.
one more reason maybe the SMS. it's free even you are in US
(cityfone/simpro)!

"Zeldus" <no@email.com> ���g��l��
news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...
>
> Hello !
>
> I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or
Australia...
> GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European market
> and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty smaller
> than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted here
> (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).
>
> For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
adequat
> cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
get
> much better coverage in remote places...
>
> So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> opposite ??
>
> Zeldus
>
>

because canada is smart and realize the advantages of data transfer and
extra services on the gsm network
Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...
>
> Hello !
>
> I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or
Australia...
> GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European market
> and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty smaller
> than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted here
> (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).
>
> For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
adequat
> cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
get
> much better coverage in remote places...
>
> So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> opposite ??
>
> Zeldus
>
>

<angus> wrote in message
news:3adc03b0$0$25508$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> because canada is smart and realize the advantages of data transfer and
> extra services on the gsm network


Do you have a learning disorder of some sort?

Nick.



> Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> > Hello !
> >
> > I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or
> Australia...
> > GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European
market
> > and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty
smaller
> > than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted
here
> > (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).
> >
> > For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM is not the most
> adequat
> > cell system because of it's cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with
> > special configuration). I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> > problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> > correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they
> get
> > much better coverage in remote places...
> >
> > So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> > opposite ??
> >
> > Zeldus
> >
> >
>
>

Wrong way around. CDMA typically has about 3  times the capacity of
GSM for the same amount of bandwidth, more when using fixed wireless
terminals to connect to the network. Better voice quality too, and
none of that annoying electronic noise like using your GSM phone near
powered up speakers... Doesn't happen on CDMA

Also has other nifty stuff like background noice cancellation, and
soft handoffs between cells (one phone call can use two or more
different cells, helps with travelling between cells) as opposed to
hard handoffs with GSM (make before a break), fewer call dropouts.

Better technology, not nearly as good implementation (I hate the
handsets, no international roaming to speak of, and the carriers here
for some reason don't care too much for SMS)

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:51:54 GMT, "gcgube" <calcalcal@doramail.com>
wrote:

>I heard that CDMA's voice bandwidth is not as good as GSM.  but I am not
>sure though.

Ear to ear dog shit?

<angus> wrote in message
news:3adc03b0$0$25508$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> because canada is smart and realize the advantages of data transfer and
> extra services on the gsm network

Steve Biddle wrote:
> Range isn't the big issue when you only have a phone with a TX power
> typically between .6 and 2W, it's only under ideal circumstances such as
> over water or flat terrain that a phone would ever be able to reach a
> cellsite 70km away, 35km is even asking a lot.

However, there are many regions in central australia where a hill/mountain is
the sole "bump" for a very wide area. You'll often find the remaining
microwave towers on those hills. So there are quite a few places where line of
sight of over 35 km is quite possible.

But I agree that in very flat or worse, ondulating terrain, the range would be
quite limited.

angus wrote:
> 
> because canada is smart and realize the advantages of data transfer and
> extra services on the gsm network

Considering that FIDO was the last to officially make its data services
available to customers (even though it was first in implementing it), the
above statement is not true.  Not only did FIDO suander its technological lead
over the others, but it allowed the others to appear to be first with various technologies.

Not only that, while Microcell was smart in separating its network from the
service allowing many services to use the same network, it made valiant
attempts to prevent SMS based services to work properly on its network
(remember Martin Renter's service ?). And now that it has finally implemented
its own equivalent (years later) it is useless due to the poor web site and
problems with it. (Any news as to when sending email from a fidopro phone will
again use the nickname in the from field instead of some "random" 4 digit code ?

he isn't, ever hear of globalstar?

M

repatch wrote:
> 
> "Al Klein" <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> news:8v8ndtgs395egi7tbktc9lirmofruuuc9s@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:08 GMT, felstead1@spamless.optushome.com.au
> > (David Felstead) posted in alt.cellular:
> >
> > >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote
> >
> > >>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it over
> the
> > >>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement for a
> > >>handset?
> >
> > >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
> > >Not sure how or why though, sorry.
> >
> > Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough, the
> > range is 12,500 miles.
> 
>     I hope you're kidding there. TTYL

Yes I have, but not many people consider that to be a traditional PCS
network. And even with that you won't go 12500 miles alone the Earth, that's
into space. TTYL

"Helen & Mark Lade" <hm.lade@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ADC52D0.E535FD80@sympatico.ca...
> he isn't, ever hear of globalstar?
>
> M
>
> repatch wrote:
> >
> > "Al Klein" <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> > news:8v8ndtgs395egi7tbktc9lirmofruuuc9s@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:08 GMT, felstead1@spamless.optushome.com.au
> > > (David Felstead) posted in alt.cellular:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote
> > >
> > > >>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it
over
> > the
> > > >>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement
for a
> > > >>handset?
> > >
> > > >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
> > > >Not sure how or why though, sorry.
> > >
> > > Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough, the
> > > range is 12,500 miles.
> >
> >     I hope you're kidding there. TTYL

the concept being, get a tower tall enough, and CDMA will get you
anywhere the tower can see.... Globalstar uses IS-95 for its satellite
up and downlink....

M

repatch wrote:
> 
> Yes I have, but not many people consider that to be a traditional PCS
> network. And even with that you won't go 12500 miles alone the Earth, that's
> into space. TTYL
> 
> "Helen & Mark Lade" <hm.lade@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ADC52D0.E535FD80@sympatico.ca...
> > he isn't, ever hear of globalstar?
> >
> > M
> >
> > repatch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Al Klein" <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> > > news:8v8ndtgs395egi7tbktc9lirmofruuuc9s@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:08 GMT, felstead1@spamless.optushome.com.au
> > > > (David Felstead) posted in alt.cellular:
> > > >
> > > > >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls> wrote
> > > >
> > > > >>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is it
> over
> > > the
> > > > >>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power requirement
> for a
> > > > >>handset?
> > > >
> > > > >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
> > > > >Not sure how or why though, sorry.
> > > >
> > > > Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough, the
> > > > range is 12,500 miles.
> > >
> > >     I hope you're kidding there. TTYL

I didn't know that, nevertheless you are talking about an extreme situation
which most will not encounter.

"Mark L. Lade" <hm.ladeNOSPAM@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ADCAC1A.52926FB7@sympatico.ca...
> the concept being, get a tower tall enough, and CDMA will get you
> anywhere the tower can see.... Globalstar uses IS-95 for its satellite
> up and downlink....
>
> M
>
> repatch wrote:
> >
> > Yes I have, but not many people consider that to be a traditional PCS
> > network. And even with that you won't go 12500 miles alone the Earth,
that's
> > into space. TTYL
> >
> > "Helen & Mark Lade" <hm.lade@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3ADC52D0.E535FD80@sympatico.ca...
> > > he isn't, ever hear of globalstar?
> > >
> > > M
> > >
> > > repatch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Al Klein" <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> > > > news:8v8ndtgs395egi7tbktc9lirmofruuuc9s@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:08 GMT,
felstead1@spamless.optushome.com.au
> > > > > (David Felstead) posted in alt.cellular:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls>
wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > >>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is
it
> > over
> > > > the
> > > > > >>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power
requirement
> > for a
> > > > > >>handset?
> > > > >
> > > > > >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each
cell.
> > > > > >Not sure how or why though, sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough,
the
> > > > > range is 12,500 miles.
> > > >
> > > >     I hope you're kidding there. TTYL

yes... but he did mention extreme distances...

until the cost comes down to 20 cents a min I ain't using no satellite
phone on my multi-million dollar mega-yacht... :-)


M

repatch wrote:
> 
> I didn't know that, nevertheless you are talking about an extreme situation
> which most will not encounter.
> 
> "Mark L. Lade" <hm.ladeNOSPAM@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ADCAC1A.52926FB7@sympatico.ca...
> > the concept being, get a tower tall enough, and CDMA will get you
> > anywhere the tower can see.... Globalstar uses IS-95 for its satellite
> > up and downlink....
> >
> > M
> >
> > repatch wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes I have, but not many people consider that to be a traditional PCS
> > > network. And even with that you won't go 12500 miles alone the Earth,
> that's
> > > into space. TTYL
> > >
> > > "Helen & Mark Lade" <hm.lade@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3ADC52D0.E535FD80@sympatico.ca...
> > > > he isn't, ever hear of globalstar?
> > > >
> > > > M
> > > >
> > > > repatch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Al Klein" <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8v8ndtgs395egi7tbktc9lirmofruuuc9s@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:08 GMT,
> felstead1@spamless.optushome.com.au
> > > > > > (David Felstead) posted in alt.cellular:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:37:12 GMT, "GrantB" <grant@spice.girls>
> wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>does anyone know the real coverage capability of a CDMA cell? Is
> it
> > > over
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>horizon? If so, what is the latency? What is the power
> requirement
> > > for a
> > > > > > >>handset?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each
> cell.
> > > > > > >Not sure how or why though, sorry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough,
> the
> > > > > > range is 12,500 miles.
> > > > >
> > > > >     I hope you're kidding there. TTYL

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:40:45 GMT, "repatch" <repatch@my-deja.com>
posted in alt.cellular:

>I didn't know that, nevertheless you are talking about an extreme situation
>which most will not encounter.

It's not but it's the limiting factor.  Nothing can have a
line-of-sight distance of greater than 6,250 miles in each direction
on this planet.
-- 
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:14:37 GMT, "repatch" <repatch@my-deja.com>
posted in alt.cellular:

>> >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
>> >Not sure how or why though, sorry.

>> Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough, the
>> range is 12,500 miles.

>    I hope you're kidding there. TTYL

No.  A 'cell' in space sees a hemisphere with a radius (from the point
directly under the cell) of 12,500 miles.  That's the coverage of a
satellite phone 'cell'.
-- 
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

Actually, it will be somewhat less, depending on altitude.  Only
something at a very great distance from the earth can see an entire
hemisphere.  Hence the need for multiple satellites for Irridium and
Globalstar.  Even geosync sats see only a bit more than 1/3 of the
earth.


Al Klein wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:14:37 GMT, "repatch" <repatch@my-deja.com>
> posted in alt.cellular:
> 
> >> >Telstra was flogging a magic figure of 'up to 120km' from each cell.
> >> >Not sure how or why though, sorry.
> 
> >> Depends on the height of the cell.  If the cell is high enough, the
> >> range is 12,500 miles.
> 
> >    I hope you're kidding there. TTYL
> 
> No.  A 'cell' in space sees a hemisphere with a radius (from the point
> directly under the cell) of 12,500 miles.  That's the coverage of a
> satellite phone 'cell'.
> --
> Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

-- 
Replies sent via e-mail to this address will be promptly ignored.
To reply, replace everything to the left of "@" with "james.knott".


"James Knott" <the.lights.are.on.but.no.one.is@home.com> wrote in message
news:3ADD7EAE.F97EE62@home.com...
> Actually, it will be somewhat less, depending on altitude.  Only
> something at a very great distance from the earth can see an entire
> hemisphere.  Hence the need for multiple satellites for Irridium and
> Globalstar.  Even geosync sats see only a bit more than 1/3 of the
> earth.

The practical coverage limit is more or less like what you said, because at
the fringe areas of the hemisphere the satellite is likely obscured by
terrain features and buildings.

> Al Klein wrote:

> > No.  A 'cell' in space sees a hemisphere with a radius (from the point
> > directly under the cell) of 12,500 miles.  That's the coverage of a
> > satellite phone 'cell'.

The technology does exist to partition the entire visible area into smaller
cells, so all those nice things in cellular systems like frequency reuse can
be applied.  I don't think any existing satellite phone system has a cell
nearly that big.

if you had enough money to buy a multi-million dollar boat you wouldn't
be worried about phone charges...


In article <3ADCE805.3BECF74D@sympatico.ca>, "Mark L. Lade"
<hm.ladeNOSPAM@sympatico.ca> wrote:


> yes... but he did mention extreme distances...  until the cost comes
> down to 20 cents a min I ain't using no satellite phone on my
> multi-million dollar mega-yacht... :-)   M




-- 
Paul Dragicevich -- paul_AT_albemuth_DOT_net
May you live in uninteresting times.
		-- Chinese proverb

you'd be too busy worrying about the price of fuel.

"Paul Dragicevich" <paul_AT_albemuth_DOT_net@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:3ae02d02_5@news01.one.net.au...
> if you had enough money to buy a multi-million dollar boat you wouldn't
> be worried about phone charges...
>
>
> In article <3ADCE805.3BECF74D@sympatico.ca>, "Mark L. Lade"
> <hm.ladeNOSPAM@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > yes... but he did mention extreme distances...  until the cost comes
> > down to 20 cents a min I ain't using no satellite phone on my
> > multi-million dollar mega-yacht... :-)   M
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Dragicevich -- paul_AT_albemuth_DOT_net
> May you live in uninteresting times.
> -- Chinese proverb