|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > September 2005 > Will the New Orleans system be rebuilt as 1900 Mhz as before?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Will the New Orleans system be rebuilt as 1900 Mhz as before?
|
|
|
| New Orleans before the storm was 1900 Mhz, are the towers being put
back online as still 1900 Mhz towers there? Just curious....
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-09-22, 5:48 pm |
| The licenses that the carriers had before the hurricane are still the
same licenses that they have now. The carriers can only use the
frequencies they are licensed for.
zeno wrote:
> New Orleans before the storm was 1900 Mhz, are the towers being put
> back online as still 1900 Mhz towers there? Just curious....
| |
| Joseph 2005-09-22, 5:48 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:41:08 GMT, zeno <zeno333@mindspring.com> wrote:
>New Orleans before the storm was 1900 Mhz, are the towers being put
>back online as still 1900 Mhz towers there? Just curious....
Verizon can only use the spectrum that they have license to. If they
had cellular "800" spectrum previously that's what will be rebuilt.
If they had only PCS 1900 license that's what will be built. Only two
"cellular" providers are allowed in each market while there can be
many PCS providers. If Verizon wasn't one of the original cellular
providers they'd be relegated to using PCS.
- -
| |
| Diamond Dave 2005-09-22, 11:48 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:41:08 GMT, zeno <zeno333@mindspring.com> wrote:
>New Orleans before the storm was 1900 Mhz, are the towers being put
>back online as still 1900 Mhz towers there? Just curious....
Nope. Cingular (formerly BellSouth Mobility) owns the "A" 800 MHz side
license, Alltel (who bought out Radiofone) owns the "B" side.
Unless VZW buys out the company or license for either one, they're
stuck in the 1900 MHz band.
Dave
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-09-22, 11:48 pm |
| In my opinion it is good that they are not stuck in the 800 MHz band.
Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:41:08 GMT, zeno <zeno333@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Nope. Cingular (formerly BellSouth Mobility) owns the "A" 800 MHz side
> license, Alltel (who bought out Radiofone) owns the "B" side.
>
> Unless VZW buys out the company or license for either one, they're
> stuck in the 1900 MHz band.
>
> Dave
>
| |
| Richard Ness 2005-09-22, 11:48 pm |
| May I ask why you say that?
Basic physics tells us that the lower the frequency
the better, at least for wireless communications.
Propagation properties, penetration, etc, etc...
1900 works - 800 just works better.
"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:y1JYe.1967$zQ3.573@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In my opinion it is good that they are not stuck in the 800 MHz band.
>
>
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-09-23, 5:48 pm |
| Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> In my opinion it is good that they are not stuck in the 800 MHz band.
Yes, and your opinion has been incorrect many, many times.
Regardless, the network is only as good as its deployment. You can get
a great network built out on 1900Mhz, it just takes greater effort and a
greater presence in the form of cell sites.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Joseph 2005-09-23, 5:48 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:16:03 -0400, Isaiah Beard
< sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote:
>Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>
>
>Yes, and your opinion has been incorrect many, many times.
>
>Regardless, the network is only as good as its deployment. You can get
>a great network built out on 1900Mhz, it just takes greater effort and a
>greater presence in the form of cell sites.
Opinion has nothing to do with it. Verizon does not hold 800 Mhz
licenses in every area they serve. If they are not one of the
cellular providers in an area (A or B license) they will not get 800.
It's as simple as that.
- -
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-09-24, 2:48 am |
| ya, right. And at one time there were people who thought anything
above 200 meters was useless too. It does not work better always in all
categories. Add to that difference in the width of the channels, power
requirements, etc.
Richard Ness wrote:
> May I ask why you say that?
> Basic physics tells us that the lower the frequency
> the better, at least for wireless communications.
> Propagation properties, penetration, etc, etc...
>
> 1900 works - 800 just works better.
>
> "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:y1JYe.1967$zQ3.573@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-09-24, 2:48 am |
| My opinion and yours have been incorrect many times, especially in the
minds of those whose opinions differ from ours.
Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yes, and your opinion has been incorrect many, many times.
>
> Regardless, the network is only as good as its deployment. You can get
> a great network built out on 1900Mhz, it just takes greater effort and a
> greater presence in the form of cell sites.
>
>
| |
|
| Is that why my CDMA phone works in the elevator at work
and no one's GSM phone does? All the carriers servicing
this area have their antennas at the same site.
-Quick
Jerome Zelinske wrote:[color=darkred
]
> ya, right. And at one time there were people who thought
> anything above 200 meters was useless too. It does not
> work better always in all categories. Add to that
> difference in the width of the channels, power
> requirements, etc.
>
>
> Richard Ness wrote:
| |
| Diamond Dave 2005-09-24, 5:48 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:51:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
<richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>1900 works - 800 just works better.
I'd rather use 800 MHz band systems.
Signals travel greater distances at lower frequencies. To have the
same coverage at 1900 MHz as a system would have at 800 MHz, the tower
spacing or signal power would need to be increased by more than twice
as much.
Simply put - 800 MHz is a better choice. 1900 MHz is good in a pinch,
but I wouldn't build an entire infrastructure around it (like Sprint
and T-Mobile have done)
Dave
| |
| Joseph 2005-09-24, 5:48 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:56:25 GMT, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Is that why my CDMA phone works in the elevator at work
>and no one's GSM phone does? All the carriers servicing
>this area have their antennas at the same site.
Are the other carriers 800 or 1900 Mhz. Both CDMA and GSM use
cellular and PCS frequencies. PCS (1900 Mhz) will not do as well as
cellular (800/850 Mhz) inside buildings. And don't assume that all
the carriers servicing an area have their antennas at the same site.
It's often not the case. Unless you know for certain that a cell is
co-located you cannot be sure. Cell sites look very similar.
- -
| |
| Joseph 2005-09-24, 5:48 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:19:27 -0400, Diamond Dave
<dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Simply put - 800 MHz is a better choice. 1900 MHz is good in a pinch,
>but I wouldn't build an entire infrastructure around it (like Sprint
>and T-Mobile have done)
Sprint and T-Mobile didn't have any choice in the matter. There are
only two cellular mobile license holders in each market where there
are multiple PCS license holders. Unless Sprint and T-Mobile buy a
cellular licensee they'll never have cellular frequencies. cingular
and Verizon come from original cellular companies (Southwestern
Bell/Bell South for cingular) and Verizon (Airtouch, Bell Atlantic
Mobility, NYNEX Mobility, Pacific Bell Cellular (not PCS), US West
Cellular, etc. for Verizon.)
- -
| |
| clifto 2005-09-24, 5:48 pm |
| Richard Ness wrote:
> "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote...
>
> May I ask why you say that?
> Basic physics tells us that the lower the frequency
> the better, at least for wireless communications.
> Propagation properties, penetration, etc, etc...
So why is it my cell phone can pick up the flea-power cell sites well
in places where I can't hear 50,000 watt stations below 1610 KHz, or
see video from a 100,000 watt station on 55.25 MHz?
Why is it that the world changed from 450 MHz pagers that didn't work
well to 800 MHz pagers that worked nearly everywhere? (That is, after
they went from 150 MHz pagers that worked even worse, to the 450 MHz
pagers.)
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
| |
| Richard Ness 2005-09-24, 5:48 pm |
| Given everything being equal, 800 works better than 1900 for wireless comms.
I've worked on both and speak from experience. You have to build a higher
concentration of sites to provide parity with 1900. Gee, I wonder why???
You can argue 'till you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fundamental
laws of physics.
I'm not saying that 1900 doesn't work. Just that in order to provide a certain level
of service, it takes more effort with 1900 then 800, because 800 propagation
is better suited for the application in question - period!!
Buh bye now...
"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:oC4Ze.3214$0m6.2615@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ya, right. And at one time there were people who thought anything above 200 meters was useless too. It does not work
> better always in all categories. Add to that difference in the width of the channels, power requirements, etc.
| |
| Richard Ness 2005-09-24, 5:48 pm |
| You have to compare apples to apples....
In your examples, it is highly probable that there are multiple
other factors not being considered. Such as multiple vs
single transmitters. Proximity to the transmitter. Line of sight
factors. Inverse square rule, etc, etc, etc...
Example 1 below: you have a site close to you (closer anyway) than
the broadcast tower. You have MANY transmitters (closer) vs ONE farther.
Or, the RAKE filters in your CDMA phone are compensating for the
multipath that is adversely effecting your TV signal. There are a multitude
of reasons why a cell will work and other RF signals would be problematic.
As I said, "all things being equal" - 800 propagates better than
1900. In the real world, it is probable that all things are NOT equal...
Like ALL of your examples below.
"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message news:647g03-uu.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>
> So why is it my cell phone can pick up the flea-power cell sites well
> in places where I can't hear 50,000 watt stations below 1610 KHz, or
> see video from a 100,000 watt station on 55.25 MHz?
>
> Why is it that the world changed from 450 MHz pagers that didn't work
> well to 800 MHz pagers that worked nearly everywhere? (That is, after
> they went from 150 MHz pagers that worked even worse, to the 450 MHz
> pagers.)
>
> --
> If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
> my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
| |
| clifto 2005-09-24, 5:48 pm |
| Richard Ness wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message news:647g03-uu.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>
> As I said, "all things being equal" - 800 propagates better than
> 1900.
I'll agree with that, though not for the reason you originally stated
(the lower the freq the better the prop).
> In the real world, it is probable that all things are NOT equal...
> Like ALL of your examples below.
Actually, I'm a few dozen miles away from Sears Tower, and the 800 MHz
paging transmitters there are much stronger than any of the television
stations (some exceeding a million watts ERP!) which are, naturally,
on lower frequencies. Equal path, equal antenna heights, and everything
else is unequal in favor of the TV transmitters... but the 800 MHz
stuff does better.
800 *does* propagate better than 1900, or for that matter 150 or 450.
I couldn't tell you why; it's an empirical observation from experience.
But the fact that it does better than frequencies both higher AND lower
disproves your theory.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
| |
| Quick 2005-09-24, 11:48 pm |
| clifto wrote:
>
> I couldn't tell you why; it's an [personal] empirical observation...
> But the fact...
> disproves your theory...
You're more of an artist than a scientist right?
-Quick
| |
| clifto 2005-09-24, 11:48 pm |
| Quick wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>
> You're more of an artist than a scientist right?
Oh, hell no. I'm just not up on current propagation theory; haven't
often used what knowledge I had. Maybe you could explain it to me.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
| |
| Quick 2005-09-24, 11:48 pm |
| clifto wrote:
> Quick wrote:
>
> Oh, hell no. I'm just not up on current propagation
> theory; haven't often used what knowledge I had. Maybe
> you could explain it to me.
Well, I was referring to your proof of your conclusion.
But since you asked...
Look at a high frequency sine wave. The up and down
parts are almost verticle. When that encounters a wall or solid
object it just sort of squashes together.
Now look at a low frequency sine wave. It's much straighter.
When that encounters a wall or solid object it just sort
of snakes right through it.
hope that helps,
-Quick
| |
| Richard Ness 2005-09-24, 11:48 pm |
| "Theory" - nope sorry - try fact.
I CAN tell you why, BTW....
It is what I was taught in multiple physics classes, proven in RF labs - and
what also was a question I remember well on a certain test I took a few years
ago now - commonly referred to as a 'General"
"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message news:bsjg03-ec1.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> 800 *does* propagate better than 1900, or for that matter 150 or 450.
> I couldn't tell you why; it's an empirical observation from experience.
> But the fact that it does better than frequencies both higher AND lower
> disproves your theory.
>
> --
| |
| David S 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:10:26 -0700, "Richard Ness"
<richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation
of life, the universe, and everything:
>I'm not saying that 1900 doesn't work. Just that in order to provide a certain level
>of service, it takes more effort with 1900 then 800, because 800 propagation
>is better suited for the application in question - period!!
Until you have so many users in an area that you have to add towers just
for the extra capacity.
--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
| |
| David S 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:15:00 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:19:27 -0400, Diamond Dave
><dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sprint and T-Mobile didn't have any choice in the matter. There are
>only two cellular mobile license holders in each market where there
>are multiple PCS license holders. Unless Sprint and T-Mobile buy a
>cellular licensee they'll never have cellular frequencies. cingular
>and Verizon come from original cellular companies
Which brings up the question of why Cingular is selling off its original
800 system to T-Mo and moving all of its customers to the AT&T 1900 system.
--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Perhaps you are aware of Russian epic 'Cinderella.' If shoe fits, wear
it." - Cmdr. Pavel Chekov
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| David S wrote:
> Which brings up the question of why Cingular is selling off its original
> 800 system to T-Mo and moving all of its customers to the AT&T 1900 system.
Because it allows them to dissolve a longstanding roaming agreement in
New York city, where Cingular now has an 800Mhz license (in the old AT&T
blue system). It also makes them look good regulators, as Cingualr had
to promise to divest itself of several licenses in certain markets.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| clifto wrote:
> So why is it my cell phone can pick up the flea-power cell sites well
> in places where I can't hear 50,000 watt stations below 1610 KHz, or
> see video from a 100,000 watt station on 55.25 MHz?
Because there are other factors at play. You're comparing a CDMA spread
spectrum signal sent in quadrature to a an AM analog signal, and an NTSC
AM analog video signal. The transmitters for both must have a massive
ERP for just that reason. AM is VERY prone to interference an
attenuation. Quad digital spectrum is less so.
Also, promixmity is an issue. It's very liekly that 50kw station is
much farther away than the 500watt cell site, and distance can
dramatically alter reception.
> Why is it that the world changed from 450 MHz pagers that didn't work
> well to 800 MHz pagers that worked nearly everywhere? (That is, after
> they went from 150 MHz pagers that worked even worse, to the 450 MHz
> pagers.)
You're still not making an apples to apples comparison. You're
comparing a 300 baud POCSAG paging signal (or maybe even analog
multitone) to a 900Mhz (not 800) signal sent via reFLEX. Again,
different air interfaces make a huge difference.
And FWIW, there ARE south american countries deploying CDMA at 450Mhz,
and it works quite well for them.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| And since there is a practical limit in how many antenna sites you can
put in per square mile, cellular will get overloaded sooner.
David S wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:10:26 -0700, "Richard Ness"
> <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation
> of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>
>
>
> Until you have so many users in an area that you have to add towers just
> for the extra capacity.
>
| |
| Joseph 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:08:24 GMT, David S
< dwstreeter@spamisnau
ghty.att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:15:00 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> chose
>to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>
>Which brings up the question of why Cingular is selling off its original
>800 system to T-Mo and moving all of its customers to the AT&T 1900 system.
Where did you ever hear that cingular was selling off their 800 Mhz
system? They sold the *PCS* network in California and Nevada to
T-Mobile and are in a multi-year process of transitioning people from
their legacy 1900 PCS network in those areas to the former AT&T
Wireless network the so called "blue" network. Where you got the idea
that cingular is selling off their 800 Mhz system I haven't a clue.
That would be just plain silly since an 800 Mhz system is much more
valuable spectrum-wise than a PCS 1900 system.
- -
| |
| David S 2005-09-27, 2:48 am |
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:08:46 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:08:24 GMT, David S
>< dwstreeter@spamisnau
ghty.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Where did you ever hear that cingular was selling off their 800 Mhz
>system? They sold the *PCS* network in California and Nevada to
>T-Mobile and are in a multi-year process of transitioning people from
>their legacy 1900 PCS network in those areas to the former AT&T
>Wireless network the so called "blue" network. Where you got the idea
>that cingular is selling off their 800 Mhz system I haven't a clue.
Numerous posts in this group have stated that Cingular is selling its old
network to T-Mo and moving its customers to the AT&T system.
>That would be just plain silly since an 800 Mhz system is much more
>valuable spectrum-wise than a PCS 1900 system.
Yeah, I think it's silly too. That's why I asked.
--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Greece, like many foreign nations, uses the Mystery Bus System, developed
as a security measure to guard against the danger that some American
tourist, somehow, will have a clue what is going on." - Dave Barry
|
|
|
|
|