Cell Phone Tech - GSM 850 or 900?

Author

GSM 850 or 900?

DaveC

2005-08-25, 5:48 pm

Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So, must decide
between offerings of tri-band phones.

So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.

I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
Europe and/or Asia.

What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?

I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good secondary
coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)

Thanks,
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

DaveC

2005-08-25, 5:48 pm

EGSM covers a little wider spectrum than GSM, right? I presume that EGSM 900
phones and GSM 900 phones are compatible with both types of services (EGSM
and GSM). Is this right?

Thanks,
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

2005-08-25, 5:48 pm

In article <0001HW. BF33385F00C10ED5F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net>, DaveC wrote:
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So, must decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)

850 is the old TDMA A&T Wireless network. Sold to some one (Cingular)?
AFIK covers almost all of the U.S.

900 is the standard for most of the world outside of the US and Canada.
Except for these and two exceptions (I think Brazil and an eastern
European country) every other country that has a GSM network has a
900 mHz one, usually the older and more expensive.

1800 is the alternate band for 900 mHz. Usually the newer, cheaper
GSM networks are here, but coverage is "spotty" (less range
than 900 mHz) in some places.

Some companies have both 900 and 1800 GSM networks, for example, Orange
Israel, but their 1800 network does not have the coverage of their
900 network.

1900 was the PCS (personal communication services) band in the U.S.
Some operators were TDMA, some were GSM, there were a few
TDMA and analog networks. (used for modems). GSM covers
about 90% of the population, but you may find it does not work
in your area.

A friend who used to live in Baltimore had 1900mHz GSM, and it did not
work at his home (inside and outside).

Asia has various non compatible GSM networks, e.g. Japan and Korea,
other countries, have GSM 900/1800.

Motorola has a nice triband (900/1800/1900) phone, the C380, which my wife
has. I've seen it for sale on the internet from a U.S. dealer for less
than $110.

Another option is to get an 850/1900 phone for the U.S. and buy a cheap
900/1800 for the rest of the world.

What ever you get, you will need a 230 volt charger and a set of plugs.
The most common is two thin round pins, which is now the E.U. standard
(but lots of places still have the old ones). Unless you are making a
quick airport tour, you can generaly buy an adaptor when you get there
at any hardware store and often in a supermarket.

Another possibility is to get a light bulb adaptor. One the screws into
a table lamp and gives you an outlet. While many places have "oddball"
light bulbs, almost everywhere has gone to the same size and thread as
the U.S.

I have a device that goes into a lamp socket and provides my with
another lamp socket on top and two E.U. type sockets on the sides.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.

Joseph

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:57:03 -0700, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.
>
>I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
>Europe and/or Asia.
>
>What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
>these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
>I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
>choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
>have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good secondary
>coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
>used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)

It is as simple if you're choosing between two different tri-bands.
If you are going to spend the majority of your time in the US 850/1900
will be of more benefit to you especially if you're with cingular. If
you're with T-Mobile 1900 should be just fine for you.

900 and 1800 are really what you need for ideal coverage in Europe
unless you are using prepaid with 1800 only carriers (of which there
are several in most countries.) If you're planning on using your
domestic service with cingular or T-Mobile and you do not have 1800
you will be limited as to which networks you can use. Likewise if you
do not have 900 you will be limited to the networks you can use as
well. If you're not going to opt for a quad band phone you'll have to
make the decision which is more imporant for you to have 850/1800/1900
or 900/1800/1900.
- -

Joseph

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:57:03 -0700, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
>ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

This evidently is your standard response to all your postings!

- -

Joseph

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:06:01 +0000 (UTC), gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey
S. Mendelson) wrote:

>Asia has various non compatible GSM networks, e.g. Japan and Korea,
>other countries, have GSM 900/1800.

Make that Japan and (South) Korea do not have *any* GSM networks.

- -

Mike Schumann

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

I am personally not buying a new GSM phone that does not have GSM 850. In
rural america, this is going to be important.

In about 6 months, I suspect that you won't see any more tri-band GSM
phones. Everything will be quad band. In the mean time, both the Motorola
V188 and V330 are quad band and are quite inexpensive if you buy them from
T-Mobile. (Note: I didn't like the V330; I'm holding out for Nokia's new
quad band phone coming out at the end of the year).

Mike Schumann

"DaveC" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW. BF33385F00C10ED5F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net...
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So, must
> decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good
> secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> me@privacy.net
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>

Joseph

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:06:01 +0000 (UTC), gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey
S. Mendelson) wrote:

>What ever you get, you will need a 230 volt charger and a set of plugs.
>The most common is two thin round pins, which is now the E.U. standard
>(but lots of places still have the old ones). Unless you are making a
>quick airport tour, you can generaly buy an adaptor when you get there
>at any hardware store and often in a supermarket.

Anytime you get a "world" triband phone you'll get a charger that
works 115-230 V. You may need plug adapters e.g. to convert from
North American flat blade to European/Middle East round pin or \ /
blade plug adapters for AU and NZ.

>Another possibility is to get a light bulb adaptor. One the screws into
>a table lamp and gives you an outlet. While many places have "oddball"
>light bulbs, almost everywhere has gone to the same size and thread as
>the U.S.

Do realise though that even though the screw threads may be the same
the bulbs are definitely not compatible. A bulb that's meant for 120V
when inserted into a 230V socket will do a loud "poof" if you apply
current to it. A 230V bulb put into a 120V socket will work but
weakly at half the strength were it used in a socket with proper
voltage.

- -

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

In article < joisg15net3jf69g9k65
q26lc45u4k7tuh@4ax.com>, Joseph wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:06:01 +0000 (UTC), gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey
> S. Mendelson) wrote:

> Do realise though that even though the screw threads may be the same
> the bulbs are definitely not compatible. A bulb that's meant for 120V
> when inserted into a 230V socket will do a loud "poof" if you apply
> current to it. A 230V bulb put into a 120V socket will work but
> weakly at half the strength were it used in a socket with proper
> voltage.

Of course, :-)

My point was not to bring a light bulb, I had assumed that he would unscrew
the bulb, insert the adaptor and put the original bulb back in. The idea
was to then use the socket to plug in his charger. That way he only needed
one adaptor.

A long time ago (about 20 years), I stayed in a hotel in Paris that had
absolutely NO outlets. It had lamps and a built in hair dryer.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.

DaveC

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

Thus spake Joseph:

>
> This evidently is your standard response to all your postings!

That's why it's called a "signature" (c:
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

Simon Templar

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

DaveC wrote:
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So, must decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)
>
> Thanks,

Here in Australia we have 900 and 1800 GSM. You will normally only find
1800 GSM in city areas and the way the networks are configured
apparently you must first log in at 900 GSM before you will be handed to
1800 GSM if the network so chooses.

--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cl...LIENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/
Domain Hosting http://www.GizNet.com/

DevilsPGD

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

In message <0001HW. BF33A42F00DA53E4F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net> DaveC
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>That's why it's called a "signature" (c:
>--
>Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
>ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

Which is fine, except that your question could have been answered on
Google. I know, because I did the research myself, and ultimately, it's
a personal decision.

You need to decide what is more important, coverage in the US or
coverage overseas, and make your phone purchases appropriately.

Alternatively, there ARE some quad-mode phones that aren't too hideously
priced.

--
The cigarette does the smoking, you're just the sucker.

DaveC

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

Thus spake Simon Templar:

> Here in Australia we have 900 and 1800 GSM. You will normally only find
> 1800 GSM in city areas and the way the networks are configured
> apparently you must first log in at 900 GSM before you will be handed to
> 1800 GSM if the network so chooses.

Thanks, Saint! One more continent's GSM knowledge in my pocket.
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

DaveC

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

Thus spake DevilsPGD:

> In message <0001HW. BF33A42F00DA53E4F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net> DaveC
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:

[color=darkred]
> Which is fine, except that your question could have been answered on
> Google.

Googling isn't a quantitative issue, it's a qualitative one. When Googling
from ignorance (searching using terminology one is not familiar with),
invariably my results will be less productive than someone who Goggles with
more familiarity with the subject because he/she can choose search terms more
intelligently. Indeed, two people of equal levels of experience will turn up
different results due to many factors including chance.

If news group readers want to point me to specific Google results they've
found, I encourage that. But to respond just say "Go Google it" is less than
helpful.

And another question is: how much time does one want to spend Googling before
one says to oneself "Surely someone else has asked this question"? That's
when I turn to usenet.

If someone reads my query and says "He can find that by Googling", fine. I
say don't respond. But for him or her to respond just to say that they don't
think I've Googled is a waste of both our time.

> You need to decide what is more important, coverage in the US or
> coverage overseas, and make your phone purchases appropriately.

This is what I could not find a definitive answer to. It *is* an either/or
decision then? What one local cell phone store told me is that a 1900 phone
will give me fine coverage here in N. Cal. And what I've gathered from
Googling (c: and usenet is that Europe and Asia GSM needs a phone with both
900 *and* 1800. So, I'm leaning toward those 3 bands.

> Alternatively, there ARE some quad-mode phones that aren't too hideously
> priced.

The few I've found (via a brief Google (c: ) start at $600. I'll look more.

Thanks for your comments.
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

matt weber

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:33:08 -0700, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>EGSM covers a little wider spectrum than GSM, right? I presume that EGSM 900
>phones and GSM 900 phones are compatible with both types of services (EGSM
>and GSM). Is this right?
EGSM tacks 10Mhz worth of channels (50) onto the system. an EGSM phone
will work just fine with a GSM system, a GSM phone in theory will
work on an EGSM system provided the system is not near capacity. I.E.
if on a handoff, the only channels available in the next cells are in
the EGSM part of the spectrum, the call will be dropped.

Consequently most EGSM 900 operators try to keep the BTS in the basic
GSM part of the band. However I am not aware of any phones made in the
past 5 years that don't support EGSM.
>
>Thanks,

DaveC

2005-08-25, 11:48 pm

Thus spake matt weber:

> Consequently most EGSM 900 operators try to keep the BTS in the basic
> GSM part of the band. However I am not aware of any phones made in the
> past 5 years that don't support EGSM.

Thanks, Matt. Helpful info, indeed.
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

Donald Newcomb

2005-08-26, 5:48 am

"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:68isg1pam1dj3js
0nrfsge33gd4778juqg@
4ax.com...
> well. If you're not going to opt for a quad band phone you'll have to
> make the decision which is more imporant for you to have 850/1800/1900
> or 900/1800/1900.

IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get a
850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
service to consider that a vaible option.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

DaveC

2005-08-26, 5:48 am

Thus spake Donald Newcomb:

> IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get a
> 850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
> purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
> travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
> service to consider that a vaible option.

Your advice rings of that from someone well travelled with wisdom to impart.
I'll take it to heart.

But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US where
you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without service?
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

Simon Templar

2005-08-26, 5:48 am

DaveC wrote:
> Thus spake Donald Newcomb:
>
>
>
>
> Your advice rings of that from someone well travelled with wisdom to impart.
> I'll take it to heart.
>
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without service?

It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
Global System for Mobiles! :(

--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cl...LIENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/
Domain Hosting http://www.GizNet.com/

Miguel Cruz

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without service?

The only phone I've used in the US was a 900/1800/1900, so I can't really
compare, but...

With a Cingular SIM card, I could not get a signal in many parts of
Georgetown, DC (a very densely-populated area which I am sure has a lot of
cell phone users), even standing outdoors on the sidewalk.

Also had trouble inside buildings in Phoenix sometimes.

My phone has 8 bars for signal quality; it was rare anywhere in the US
outside of Los Angeles that I had all 8 bars showing - usually 3 or 4 (but
the phone worked in those cases). By contrast, in Asia and Europe, even in
small Indonesian towns and the like, it is rare that I do NOT have all 8
bars showing.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

Donald Newcomb

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

"DaveC" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW. BF34156600F4DCE4F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net...
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US
where

> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without
service?

Yes, this is a big problem, today; but they only came out with GSM-850 a
couple of years ago. My solution has always been to have two phones. My wife
has an account with an old-line cellular company that has been using TDMA
and we have always had coverage everywhere in the US & Canada with her
phone. I've also had a TDMA prepaid that gave me the coverage GSM 1900
didn't. What's more, is that my US GSM carrier is T-Mobile, which has always
been only 1900 MHz and only recently got some 850 MHz roaming agreements.
This is sort of like being an Orange customer in UK or Metror customer in
Ireland. Since GSM 1900 was the first, and for many years, only form of GSM,
the companies that employed it tried to build continuous coverage over those
areas they covered.

Contrast this with the countries which either have no GSM-1800 or only use
it for spot augmentation of GSM-900 or only have GSM-1800 in cities. In the
Netherlands it doesn't matter; the 900 and 1800 coverage maps are the same
but in Norway it could be a big deal and in most of Africa you will be flat
out of luck without 900.

Yes, I am looking for a good deal on an unlocked Quad-band phone (with BT,
Java & EDGE, if you please) but I certainly wouldn't take an 850/1800/1900
phone as a substitute.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Donald Newcomb

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

"Simon Templar" <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in message
news:430ecbcb$1_3@ne
ws.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
> Global System for Mobiles! :(

This debate got off the boat with Noah.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Donald Newcomb

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrndgrucb.b4d.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
> 850 is the old TDMA A&T Wireless network. Sold to some one (Cingular)?
> AFIK covers almost all of the U.S.

Actually the original gaggle of companies that formed Cingular had quite a
bit of 850 MHz cellular coverage. BellSouth DCS and PacBell were GSM-1900.
AFAIR, the rest were TDMA 850 & 1900. (e.g BellSouth everywhere but the
Carolinas). ATTWS just added more of each to the mix.

> 1900 was the PCS (personal communication services) band in the U.S.
> Some operators were TDMA, some were GSM, there were a few
> TDMA and analog networks. (used for modems). GSM covers
> about 90% of the population, but you may find it does not work
> in your area.

I believe that there was never any analog on 1900 MHz. The FCC required that
the service be digital-only. Analog was only at 850 MHz.

> Asia has various non compatible GSM networks, e.g. Japan and Korea,
> other countries, have GSM 900/1800.

Since I am confused by this statement, I will assume others might be too.
Japan and South Korea have no GSM. They do have WCDMA-2100, which one might
be able to roam, given a compatible WCDMA-2100 phone. Japan's WCDMA networks
are well developed. Apparently, S. Korea's are only in operation around
Seoul and have only recently been opened to roaming. If this interests you
take a look at some of the GSM 900/1800/1900+WCDMA-2100 phones for sale on
TigerDirect.com

> Another option is to get an 850/1900 phone for the U.S. and buy a cheap
> 900/1800 for the rest of the world.

Yes, but in the US it's as cheap and easy to buy an unlocked tri-band, so
you won't have to carry two phones (one to the airport and the other for the
rest of the trip.)

> What ever you get, you will need a 230 volt charger and a set of plugs.
> The most common is two thin round pins, which is now the E.U. standard
> (but lots of places still have the old ones). Unless you are making a
> quick airport tour, you can generaly buy an adaptor when you get there
> at any hardware store and often in a supermarket.

But just keep your eyes open and you will probably be able to pick up an
adapter kit at a cut-rate some place like Tuesday Morning or Big Lotts.
Also, even if your charger has the standard European two round pins, carry a
round-pin adapter. The reason is that in some places you may find that all
the plugs are recessed into round holes. Your charger may, or may not, fit
into the recess (most newer ones do) and you may need a way to extend its
reach.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Joseph

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:37:03 -0700, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Thus spake Joseph:
>
>
>That's why it's called a "signature" (c:

I guess since there's no law against anyone from making an XXX out of
themselves it makes sense. At least you can do it with every message
and you won't even have to work at it!
- -

Earl F. Parrish

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

"DaveC" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW. BF33385F00C10ED5F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net...
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So,
> must decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900
> frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be
> traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of
> coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA
> coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900".
> Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good
> secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and
> which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> me@privacy.net
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>

The NEC 525 phone is quad-band. Look for them on eBay for under
$100.00. Most are designed for the former ATTWS but can be unlocked
with software.

--
Earl F. Parrish

Simon Templar

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "Simon Templar" <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in message
> news:430ecbcb$1_3@ne
ws.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>
>
>
> This debate got off the boat with Noah.

I realise it is an old debate. :)

The fact remains that 850 GSM is an oddball allocation that only works
in the US and as such has created a problem for worldwide roaming,
whether you are a visitor to the US or taking a US phone overseas.

Whatever the cause or reason it is still a shame. :(

--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cl...LIENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/
Domain Hosting http://www.GizNet.com/

Mike Schumann

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

Northern Wisc and MN, you need 850 GSM if you are a T-Mobile Customer and
want to roam on Dobson. If you don't have 850 GSM, you are out of luck.
This covers a pretty big area.

Mike Schumann

"DaveC" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW. BF34156600F4DCE4F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net...
> Thus spake Donald Newcomb:
>
>
> Your advice rings of that from someone well travelled with wisdom to
> impart.
> I'll take it to heart.
>
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US
> where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without
> service?
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> me@privacy.net
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>

Mike Schumann

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

T-Mobile sells the Motorola V188 for $50 and the V330 for $0. Both are quad
band GSM.

Mike Schumann

"DaveC" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW. BF33C39100E1AEE6F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net...
> Thus spake DevilsPGD:
>
>
>
>
> Googling isn't a quantitative issue, it's a qualitative one. When Googling
> from ignorance (searching using terminology one is not familiar with),
> invariably my results will be less productive than someone who Goggles
> with
> more familiarity with the subject because he/she can choose search terms
> more
> intelligently. Indeed, two people of equal levels of experience will turn
> up
> different results due to many factors including chance.
>
> If news group readers want to point me to specific Google results they've
> found, I encourage that. But to respond just say "Go Google it" is less
> than
> helpful.
>
> And another question is: how much time does one want to spend Googling
> before
> one says to oneself "Surely someone else has asked this question"? That's
> when I turn to usenet.
>
> If someone reads my query and says "He can find that by Googling", fine. I
> say don't respond. But for him or her to respond just to say that they
> don't
> think I've Googled is a waste of both our time.
>
>
> This is what I could not find a definitive answer to. It *is* an either/or
> decision then? What one local cell phone store told me is that a 1900
> phone
> will give me fine coverage here in N. Cal. And what I've gathered from
> Googling (c: and usenet is that Europe and Asia GSM needs a phone with
> both
> 900 *and* 1800. So, I'm leaning toward those 3 bands.
>
>
> The few I've found (via a brief Google (c: ) start at $600. I'll look
> more.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> me@privacy.net
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>

Joseph

2005-08-26, 11:48 pm

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:33:33 +1000, Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net>
wrote:

>The fact remains that 850 GSM is an oddball allocation that only works
>in the US and as such has created a problem for worldwide roaming,
>whether you are a visitor to the US or taking a US phone overseas.

GSM @ 900 was put in place without considering that cellular was at
800 Mhz for most all installations of AMPS and not just in the USA and
Canada.

To blame the US for not following what was *originally* going to be
only a European standard and when the European GSM forces decided on
900 Mhz when that spectrum in the US could not or would not be easily
moved. You can make the same arguments about TV standards where North
Americans chose to use NTSC at 550 scanning lines at 60 Hz while the
majority of Europe went with PAL with 650 scanning lines at 50 Hz and
even that wasn't universal. The French (to be obstinate?) use SECAM
as well as the former Soviet Union and its satellite connected
countries (GDR, Poland, etc.) You can ask why the UK, Ireland, Hong
Kong and other places decided that driving on the left and having
right hand drive was better way to go. People can debate about caller
pays versus called party pays. If people want to debate it good on
'em. However, it's *not* going to change the way things are. The US
is going to continue to use mobile at 850/800 and 1900. We're going
to have called party pays. We're going to continue to use NTSC and
our HDTV system is going to be incompatible with Europe. We're going
to continue to use 120 V. line current at 60 Hz. We're going to
continue to drive to the right and have left hand drive. Is our way
of doing things better or worse than what they do in Europe? Who
really cares. It's not going to change. Just resign yourself that
things *are* different and they're likely to remain that way for the
foreseeable future. Is it arrogance or just that we're different?
Maybe some of both. It just is!

And 850 is not used just in the US!
- -

DevilsPGD

2005-08-27, 2:48 am

In message <0001HW. BF33C39100E1AEE6F040
75B0@news.readfreenews.net> DaveC
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>The few I've found (via a brief Google (c: ) start at $600. I'll look more.

I'm not sure what other requirements you have, or where you're located,
but in Canada a Motorola V220 is only $319.99CDN from Rogers, no
contract, or $29.99 on a 3 year contract.

With local tax, that's about $287USD, plus add $20 for shipping to the
US, $25 for unlocking (okay, you can do better, but $25 can be had
without much trouble), and you're looking at under $350USD for a quad
mode phone.

You can probably do better if you go to the carrier you're looking at,
although that may not always be the case.

--
Give a man a fire, he'll be warm for a while.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Michael Pronay

2005-08-27, 5:48 am

Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

[color=darkred]
> GSM @ 900 was put in place without considering that cellular was
> at 800 Mhz for most all installations of AMPS and not just in
> the USA and Canada.
>
> To blame the US for not following what was *originally* going to
> be only a European standard and when the European GSM forces
> decided on 900 Mhz when that spectrum in the US could not or
> would not be easily moved.

Nobody is to blame at all.

It was quite clear right from the beginning that no universal
frequency band would be available around the globe. What we call
"roaming" today, right from the beginning was conceived as the
possibility to take your SIM and put it into another phone when
travelling from Europe to North America (or vice versa) without
further hassle: This is itself being already much, much more than
could have been imagined previously.

M.

Donald Newcomb

2005-08-27, 5:48 pm

"Michael Pronay" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96BF603CDAE0
0pronaygmxat@pronay.com...
> It was quite clear right from the beginning that no universal
> frequency band would be available around the globe. What we call
> "roaming" today, right from the beginning was conceived as the
> possibility to take your SIM and put it into another phone when
> travelling from Europe to North America (or vice versa) without
> further hassle: This is itself being already much, much more than
> could have been imagined previously.

I'm really reluctant to stick my oar in this topic yet again, but here goes.
Everyone who was born before the 1980s should be able to remember when 99%
of mobile phones were things bolted into vehicles. When GSM was developed,
the SIM card was something you slid into the handset of what ever mobile
phone was mounted in the car you were riding in. It was only important to
have the same frequencies used in countries you might drive your car to.
That was then and this is now, and that's why we have this debate.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

2005-08-27, 5:48 pm

In article < Xns96BF603CDAE00pron
aygmxat@pronay.com>, Michael Pronay wrote:

> It was quite clear right from the beginning that no universal
> frequency band would be available around the globe. What we call
> "roaming" today, right from the beginning was conceived as the
> possibility to take your SIM and put it into another phone when
> travelling from Europe to North America (or vice versa) without
> further hassle: This is itself being already much, much more than
> could have been imagined previously.

Actually it was intended for country to country roaming. At the time
GSM was devised it was illegal to import a cell phone from one European
country to another.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

2005-08-27, 5:48 pm

In article <430f1acd_4@news1.prserv.net>, Donald Newcomb wrote:

> Actually the original gaggle of companies that formed Cingular had quite a
> bit of 850 MHz cellular coverage. BellSouth DCS and PacBell were GSM-1900.
> AFAIR, the rest were TDMA 850 & 1900. (e.g BellSouth everywhere but the
> Carolinas). ATTWS just added more of each to the mix.

Thanks for the correction. I left the U.S. before the merger.

> I believe that there was never any analog on 1900 MHz. The FCC required that
> the service be digital-only. Analog was only at 850 MHz.

Some of the TDMA systems also supported analog and customers were told
to switch their phones into analog mode when their (plug in) modems failed.
It was a hot topic on this group in the late '90s.

>

That was a typo. I should have said non compatible WITH GSM networks.
[color=darkred]
> Yes, but in the US it's as cheap and easy to buy an unlocked tri-band, so
> you won't have to carry two phones (one to the airport and the other for the
> rest of the trip.)

Depends upon what you mean by cheap, A used 900/1800 phone is about $20
here.

> But just keep your eyes open and you will probably be able to pick up an
> adapter kit at a cut-rate some place like Tuesday Morning or Big Lotts.
> Also, even if your charger has the standard European two round pins, carry a
> round-pin adapter. The reason is that in some places you may find that all
> the plugs are recessed into round holes. Your charger may, or may not, fit
> into the recess (most newer ones do) and you may need a way to extend its
> reach.

Yes, I've seen those here in hotels for TV sets. Israel is kind of odd
for these things, it uses a three pin plug that looks like the Australian
one but the top pins are twisted the other way and are shorter and wider.

Any outlet made in the last 10 or so years has the top two (hot and neutral)
set up to take the Israeli plugs and the two narrow pin European one. Since
the E.U. unification into three round pins, the newer outlets take them
too.

And we've always been 230 volts. That way both the old UK (240 volt) and
European (220 volt) devices would work.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.

Michael Pronay

2005-08-27, 11:48 pm

"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

> I'm really reluctant to stick my oar in this topic yet again,
> but here goes. Everyone who was born before the 1980s should be
> able to remember when 99% of mobile phones were things bolted
> into vehicles. When GSM was developed, the SIM card was
> something you slid into the handset of what ever mobile phone
> was mounted in the car you were riding in.

Sorry, I don't know where you live, but over here (AT, DE, CH, FR,
IT) the first mobile phones have not been GSM at at all. The first
two mobile phone generations were for cars. The third was still
analog and had already widespread mobile handsets. The fourth
generation (GSM) was already totally mobile and not stuck to cars.

M.

Donald Newcomb

2005-08-27, 11:48 pm

"Michael Pronay" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96BFEB193170
2pronaygmxat@pronay.com...
> "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:
> Sorry, I don't know where you live, but over here (AT, DE, CH, FR,
> IT) the first mobile phones have not been GSM at at all. The first
> two mobile phone generations were for cars. The third was still
> analog and had already widespread mobile handsets. The fourth
> generation (GSM) was already totally mobile and not stuck to cars.

GSM was first developed in the mid 1980s. I think the first network went
live in '92 in Finland. The first SIM cards were all the size of a credit
card. As an afterthought they created the postage-stamp sized card to fit in
the ever shrinking handsets. All of these things ware running in parallel.
The IDEA of GSM was to be able to move that credit-card sized SIM from phone
to phone, as needed. In practice, it turned out easier to carry the phone
with you.

In any case, I can recall asking, almost 10 (maybe 8) years ago on some of
these Usenet groups, why people thought it was important to have a
dual-band (900/1900) phone (remember the Bosch World 918?). After all, I had
a Nokia 2110 and a 2190, when I went overseas I carried both phones but just
one charger and battery. Swapping phones as needed gave me global coverage.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

DevilsPGD

2005-08-27, 11:48 pm

In message < Xns96BFEB1931702pron
aygmxat@pronay.com> Michael Pronay
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:
>
>
>Sorry, I don't know where you live, but over here (AT, DE, CH, FR,
>IT) the first mobile phones have not been GSM at at all. The first
>two mobile phone generations were for cars. The third was still
>analog and had already widespread mobile handsets. The fourth
>generation (GSM) was already totally mobile and not stuck to cars.

Sure, but that's unrelated to what GSM was developed for initially.

--
Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts
-- Jeff Foxworthy

Michael Pronay

2005-08-29, 5:48 am

Message-ID: < Xns96C15D030EE47pron
aygmxat@pronay.com>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: pronay@pronay.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.at
Organization: chello.at
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:08:37 +0200
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.113.206.185 (84.113.206.185)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:08:37 +0200
X-Trace: 937fa4312b475f1d46b1
c07447
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular:179472 alt.cellular-phone-tech:70722 alt.cellular.gsm:138589

"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.NOT.net> wrote:

> In any case, I can recall asking, almost 10 (maybe 8) years ago
> on some of these Usenet groups, why people thought it was
> important to have a dual-band (900/1900) phone (remember the
> Bosch World 918?). After all, I had a Nokia 2110 and a 2190,
> when I went overseas I carried both phones but just one charger
> and battery. Swapping phones as needed gave me global coverage.

More or less my words ... ;-)

M.

LinkBot