| John Navas 2008-01-22, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:56:40 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
wrote in
<ada9305d-daf2-4398-a8bd- df6968c66537@l1g2000
hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jan 22, 2:25_pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>I imagine it is more related to the frequencies they each use. Some
>lower frequencies are more effective at covering a given area. When
>you ge up into the microwave region things get iffy beyond line of
>sight.
Cellular is line of sight. While the lower frequency can penetrate
walls a bit better, the higher frequency can penetrate openings
(windows) a bit better. In general there isn't much real difference in
frequency. What matters much more is that low frequency carriers got
started earlier in time, and thus tend to have better tower locations
than those carriers which came along later and ran into more organized
opposition.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
|