 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / April 2006Fliptop Mobiles and 3G
My daughter and son-in-law signed up with Three (3) for a $30 a month capped plan on 3G. the plan also includes an LG fliptop phone. I was having a play with one of the phones today and in particular the internet bit. They're down visiting, so they're out of the 3G area, but auto-roams with Telstra. The browsing bit looks impressive, albeit a bit slow. I think that it's faster when they're on a 3G network. However, they're not overly rapt in the phones. My s-i-l's phone occasionally has to be reset as it has locked up. I don't think that my daughter's has been any problems yet. The buttons are a tad small, though. I'm wondering - what would be the phone to get in the flip-phone range? Nokia, Motorola, what? Also, I wonder when Telstra or whoever will start rolling out 3G services to take over the CDMA network outside of the cities. In particular I'm interested in Victoria.  Signature"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." > I'm wondering - what would be the phone to get in the flip-phone range? > Nokia, Motorola, what? Do you want low-end or high-end? What features do you want? Camera? MP3 Player? Internet? >My daughter and son-in-law signed up with Three (3) for a $30 a month >capped plan on 3G. the plan also includes an LG fliptop phone. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >daughter's has been any problems yet. The buttons are a tad small, >though. Welcome to 3's world.. >I'm wondering - what would be the phone to get in the flip-phone range? >Nokia, Motorola, what? > >Also, I wonder when Telstra or whoever will start rolling out 3G >services to take over the CDMA network outside of the cities. In >particular I'm interested in Victoria. Several years. Not handsets yet. Voda and Optus are rolling it out now, albeit the Telstra one will be incompatible with current handsets. > Several years. Not handsets yet. Voda and Optus are rolling it out > now, albeit the Telstra one will be incompatible with current > handsets. Why would Telstra be rolling out anything other than bog standard UMTS 3G? What would <insert standard> give Telstra that UMTS doesnt? >> Several years. Not handsets yet. Voda and Optus are rolling it out >> now, albeit the Telstra one will be incompatible with current >> handsets. >Why would Telstra be rolling out anything other than bog standard UMTS 3G? >What would <insert standard> give Telstra that UMTS doesnt? Telstra is rolling out an 3g 850mhz network. Don't ask me why.... Maybe there are advantages, other than marketing. The current 3g network is 2100mhz and handsets are plentiful. It's allowed as part of the standard, but no one has done it yet. Telstra are doing it on their own. > Telstra is rolling out an 3g 850mhz network. Don't ask me > why.... It's to give coverage equivalent to the current CDMA. 850 mHz has superior characteristics to 2100 in this respect. John > A User wrote >> Telstra is rolling out an 3g 850mhz network. Don't ask me why.... > It's to give coverage equivalent to the current CDMA. Nope, its because they have those frequencys already. > 850 mHz has superior characteristics to 2100 in this respect. That aint the reason they are doing that terminal stupidity. > > A User wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope, its because they have those frequencys already. Crap. If that was the case, they would just turn off CDMA and put a 2100mhz 3G service on each base station Then you would have holes of coverage because the 850mhz is better for propogation in those areas > > 850 mHz has superior characteristics to 2100 in this respect. > > That aint the reason they are doing that terminal stupidity. Its the ONLY reason they are doing it > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> A User wrote >>>> Telstra is rolling out an 3g 850mhz network. Don't ask me why.... >>> It's to give coverage equivalent to the current CDMA. >> Nope, its because they have those frequencys already. > Crap. No need to obsess about what you deal with every day, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > If that was the case, they would just turn off CDMA > and put a 2100mhz 3G service on each base station Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > Then you would have holes of coverage because > the 850mhz is better for propogation in those areas Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >>> 850 mHz has superior characteristics to 2100 in this respect. >> That aint the reason they are doing that terminal stupidity. > Its the ONLY reason they are doing it Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >> Telstra is rolling out an 3g 850mhz network. Don't ask me >> why.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >John That has nothing to do with propagation at that frequency, GSM is based on a 35km cell size. I believe 3G is is based on WCDMA? I might be wrong. > That has nothing to do with propagation at that frequency, GSM > is based on a 35km cell size. I believe 3G is is based on > WCDMA? I might be wrong. Because it "bends" better around topographic features, the choice of a lower frequency for rural areas has a lot to do with propagation over longer distances. Cingular (US) and Telstra seem to be pushing for 850 mHz to become a UMTS 3G standard. I'm not sure what your point about GSM is. John >> That has nothing to do with propagation at that frequency, GSM >> is based on a 35km cell size. I believe 3G is is based on >> WCDMA? I might be wrong. > Because it "bends" better around topographic features, the > choice of a lower frequency for rural areas has a lot to do > with propagation over longer distances. Its MUCH more complicated than that. > Cingular (US) and Telstra seem to be pushing > for 850 mHz to become a UMTS 3G standard. More fool them. >> That has nothing to do with propagation at that frequency, GSM >> is based on a 35km cell size. I believe 3G is is based on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Telstra seem to be pushing for 850 mHz to become a UMTS 3G >standard. Tell me your reference for it to "bend". Is there a physics text book you could refer to? What is the techincal term? You thinking tropospehric scatter may be? I don't think the propogation is significantly different. >I'm not sure what your point about GSM is. >John > Tell me your reference for it to "bend". Is there a physics > text book you could refer to? What is the techincal term? You > thinking tropospehric scatter may be? I don't think the > propogation is significantly different. "Diffraction" is the technical term for what I was refering to. It's a basic, undisputed principle of wave mechanics. An 850 mHz signal can track the earth's curvature better than a 2100 mHz one can. Google references include: http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U2.htm http://web.haystack.mit.edu/pcr/spaceweather/webpagephysicsofwaves.html John > A User wrote >>> A User wrote >>>> That has nothing to do with propagation at that frequency, >>>> GSM is based on a 35km cell size. I believe 3G is is >>>> based on WCDMA? I might be wrong. >>> Because it "bends" better around topographic features, the >>> choice of a lower frequency for rural areas has a lot to do with >>> propagation over longer distances. Cingular (US) and Telstra >>> seem to be pushing for 850 mHz to become a UMTS 3G standard. >> Tell me your reference for it to "bend". Is there a physics >> text book you could refer to? What is the techincal term? >> You thinking tropospehric scatter may be? I don't think >> the propogation is significantly different. > "Diffraction" is the technical term for what I was refering to. > It's a basic, undisputed principle of wave mechanics. An 850 > mHz signal can track the earth's curvature better than a 2100 > mHz one can. That aint what mobile range is about. > Google references include: > http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U2.htm What it does say about earth curvature aint relevant to the two bands being discussed. > http://web.haystack.mit.edu/pcr/spaceweather/webpagephysicsofwaves.html Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. >> Google references include: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What it does say about earth curvature aint > relevant to the two bands being discussed. In most places, the curvature is lumpy. Diffraction makes a difference. John >>> Google references include: >>> http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > John The effect is commonly known as knife edge refraction > John Henderson wrote >>> John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote >>>> Google references include: >>>> http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm >>> Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. >>>> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U2.htm >>> What it does say about earth curvature aint >>> relevant to the two bands being discussed. >> In most places, the curvature is lumpy. Diffraction makes a difference. > The effect is commonly known as knife edge refraction Pity you get f.ck all of that with mobile phones. Essentially because few mobile phones can see just one base. >> John Henderson wrote > >>> John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Essentially because few mobile phones can see just one base. SO prove me wrong w.nker. if not knife edge refraction what is it known as ? > Rod Speed wrote >>> John Henderson wrote >>>>> John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote >>>>>> Google references include: >>>>>> http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm >>>>> Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. >>>>>> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U2.htm >>>>> What it does say about earth curvature aint >>>>> relevant to the two bands being discussed. >>>> In most places, the curvature is lumpy. Diffraction makes a >>>> difference. >>> The effect is commonly known as knife edge refraction >> Pity you get f.ck all of that with mobile phones. >> Essentially because few mobile phones can see just one base. > SO prove me wrong Just did. > if not knife edge refraction what is it known as ? There is no effect like that with mobile phones, like I said. >> Rod Speed wrote >>>> John Henderson wrote [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > There is no effect like that with mobile phones, like I said. there is with vhf/uhf . we all now thats a fact >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> John Henderson wrote [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> There is no effect like that with mobile phones, like I said. > there is with vhf/uhf . we all now thats a fact Do we? Maybe you should be on the VHF/UHF newsgroup instead of this one > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> John Henderson wrote >>>>>>> John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote >>>>>>>> Google references include: >>>>>>>> http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm >>>>>>> Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. >>>>>>>> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U2.htm >>>>>>> What it does say about earth curvature aint >>>>>>> relevant to the two bands being discussed. >>>>>> In most places, the curvature is lumpy. Diffraction makes a >>>>>> difference. >>>>> The effect is commonly known as knife edge refraction >>>> Pity you get f.ck all of that with mobile phones. >>>> Essentially because few mobile phones can see just one base. >>> SO prove me wrong >> Just did. >>> if not knife edge refraction what is it known as ? >> There is no effect like that with mobile phones, like I said. > there is with vhf/uhf . NOT WITH MOBILES BECAUSE THEY CAN USUALLY SEE MORE THAN ONE BASE AT A TIME AND THERE ARE FEW THINGS ANYTHING LIKE ANY KNIFE EDGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT ANYWAY. > we all now thats a fact You wouldnt know a fact if it bit you on your lard arse, child. >>>> if not knife edge refraction what is it known as ? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > THAN ONE BASE AT A TIME AND THERE ARE FEW THINGS > ANYTHING LIKE ANY KNIFE EDGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT ANYWAY. Knife edge refraction is a physical fact , whether on not connected when transmitting the rf from the phone being subject to natural laws will obey them (thats called physics), knife edge refraction along with std line of sight deviation occurs in all freznel zones , you cant deny this without proving your have no idea about rf ( thats the stuff the phone puts out to connect) >> we all now thats a fact > Rod Speed wrote >>>>> if not knife edge refraction what is it known as ? >>>> There is no effect like that with mobile phones, like I said. >>> there is with vhf/uhf . >> NOT WITH MOBILES BECAUSE THEY CAN USUALLY SEE MORE >> THAN ONE BASE AT A TIME AND THERE ARE FEW THINGS >> ANYTHING LIKE ANY KNIFE EDGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT ANYWAY. > Knife edge refraction is a physical fact , Pathetic, really. > whether on not connected when transmitting the rf from the phone being > subject to natural laws will obey them (thats called physics), Pathetic, really. > knife edge refraction along with std line of sight deviation occurs in > all freznel zones , Pity there are f.ck all knife edges around with mobile phones. > you cant deny this without proving your have no idea about rf ( thats the > stuff the phone puts out to connect) Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >> Rod Speed wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. well it is patently obvious roddles has not one iota of a clue about rf >>> Rod Speed wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> > well it is patently obvious roddles has not one iota of a clue about rf Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. Its always been patently obvious that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about the basics with mobile systems. > >> Rod Speed wrote > >>>> John Henderson wrote [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > there is with vhf/uhf . we all now thats a fact And VHF/UHF is nothing like CDMA >> The effect is commonly known as knife edge refraction > > Pity you get f.ck all of that with mobile phones. > > Essentially because few mobile phones can see just one base. In the poor coverage areas that matter to this discussion, it's quite common to be serviced by a single cell. John > Rod Speed wrote >>> The effect is commonly known as knife edge refraction >> Pity you get f.ck all of that with mobile phones. >> Essentially because few mobile phones can see just one base. > In the poor coverage areas that matter to this discussion, > it's quite common to be serviced by a single cell. Bloody uncommon, actually. And in those there isnt normally any 'knife edge' involved anyway. >>> What it does say about earth curvature aint >>> relevant to the two bands being discussed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> John > The effect is commonly known as knife edge refraction It must be very common, wtf are you on about? > Rod Speed wrote >>> Google references include: >>> http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm >> Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. >>> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U2.htm >> What it does say about earth curvature aint >> relevant to the two bands being discussed. > In most places, the curvature is lumpy. Nothing like your original silly claim. > Diffraction makes a difference. In reality it doesnt with mobile phones. >> In most places, the curvature is lumpy. > > Nothing like your original silly claim. Well, if you say so. >> Diffraction makes a difference. > > In reality it doesnt with mobile phones. ?... the theory of radio propagation informs us that free space losses, diffraction losses and absorption losses are all expected to increase with frequency, and hence to be more pronounced in the PCS (1900 MHz) band than in the Cellular (850 MHz) band. These theoretical predictions have been confirmed by empirical studies in a variety of real world environments." http://tinyurl.com/r7tzh John >>> In most places, the curvature is lumpy. >> Nothing like your original silly claim. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John Freznal Zone :) > John Henderson wrote >>> John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote >>>> In most places, the curvature is lumpy. >>> Nothing like your original silly claim. >> Well, if you say so. >>>> Diffraction makes a difference. >>> In reality it doesnt with mobile phones. >> ?... the theory of radio propagation informs us that free space >> losses, diffraction losses and absorption losses are all >> expected to increase with frequency, and hence to be more >> pronounced in the PCS (1900 MHz) band than in the Cellular (850 >> MHz) band. These theoretical predictions have been confirmed by >> empirical studies in a variety of real world environments." >> http://tinyurl.com/r7tzh > Freznal Zone :) Pity that's essentially irrelevant to mobile phone range BECAUSE THEY CAN USUALLY SEE MORE THAN ONE BASE. And its the Fresnel Zone anyway. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> A User wrote >>>>>>> Because it "bends" better around topographic features, the >>>>>>> choice of a lower frequency for rural areas has a lot to do with >>>>>>> propagation over longer distances. Cingular (US) and Telstra >>>>>>> seem to be pushing for 850 mHz to become a UMTS 3G standard. >>>>>> Tell me your reference for it to "bend". Is there a physics >>>>>> text book you could refer to? What is the techincal term? >>>>>> You thinking tropospehric scatter may be? I don't think >>>>>> the propogation is significantly different. >>>>> "Diffraction" is the technical term for what I was refering to. >>>>> It's a basic, undisputed principle of wave mechanics. An 850 >>>>> mHz signal can track the earth's curvature better than a 2100 >>>>> mHz one can. >>>> That aint what mobile range is about. >>>>> Google references include: >>>>> http://www.elprotech.com/elpro/2_4GHz.htm >>>> Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. >>>>> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U2.htm >>>> What it does say about earth curvature aint >>>> relevant to the two bands being discussed. >>>>> http://web.haystack.mit.edu/pcr/spaceweather/webpagephysicsofwaves.html >>>> Doesnt say anything about earth curvature. >>> In most places, the curvature is lumpy. >> Nothing like your original silly claim. > Well, if you say so. It obviously isnt. >>> Diffraction makes a difference. >> In reality it doesnt with mobile phones. > ?... the theory of radio propagation informs us that > free space losses, diffraction losses and absorption > losses are all expected to increase with frequency, Irrelevant to your silly claims about CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. > and hence to be more pronounced in the PCS (1900 MHz) band than > in the Cellular (850 MHz) band. These theoretical predictions have been > confirmed by empirical studies in a variety of real world environments." Irrelevant to your silly claims about CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. > http://tinyurl.com/r7tzh > Irrelevant to your silly claims about CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. I never said that 850 MHz would follow the curvature. I said and meant that it could _better_ track the curvature than the higher fequency. John > Rod Speed wrote >> Irrelevant to your silly claims about CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. > I never said that 850 MHz would follow the curvature. > I said and meant that it could _better_ track the > curvature than the higher fequency. Pity the curvature of the earth is completely irrelevant with mobile. >> Irrelevant to your silly claims about CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John What him become abuse because its lost . > John Henderson wrote >>> Irrelevant to your silly claims about CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. >> I never said that 850 MHz would follow the curvature. I said and meant >> that it could _better_ track the curvature than the higher fequency. > What him become abuse because its lost . Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > > Several years. Not handsets yet. Voda and Optus are rolling it out > > now, albeit the Telstra one will be incompatible with current > > handsets. > Why would Telstra be rolling out anything other than bog standard UMTS 3G? > What would <insert standard> give Telstra that UMTS doesnt? Its bog standard, just on the 850mhz band (when CDMA is replaced) the 2100mhz 3G is bog standard > Welcome to 3's world.. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > now, albeit the Telstra one will be incompatible with current > handsets. Not exactly. Only for those that are in an 850 3G area, not a 2100 3G area |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.