Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / October 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

29th Floor Reception Question

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
andrew smith - 22 Oct 2003 16:32 GMT
My company just switched corporate apartments in Jersey City.  Although
there is a tremendous amount of coverage in the area, reception is terrible
in the new building.

Last apartment was on 4th floor in wood frame building, more "inland".

New apartment is on 29th floor in steel structure with water on two sides.
Apartment faces water.

Considering my limited knowledge of the technical details of transmission,
these questions might be completely ignorant, but...

Does it matter that we're significantly higher now?

Does it matter that there's likely a building (the rest of the apartment
building) between us and the towers?

Is there a viable solution to the reception problems?  Some sort of high
gain antenna to "redirect" any signal internally?

Thanks!

a.
Steve Punter - 22 Oct 2003 17:25 GMT
Height is your enemy. Below is a copy of the information found on my web
page in the FAQ concerning this issue. I've copied it to save having to
rewrite everything in this reply:

Most people experience very poor service when using phones in tall buildings
(like apartments and office towers). There usually isn't too much of an
issue below the 10th floor, but above that elevation it is rare that you
will get decent service on any provider. The problem is different for CDMA
phones and for TDMA/GSM/iDEN phones, but the end result is identical.

Let's start with TDMA/GSM/iDEN phones, and see why being up high is such a
problem. All of these technologies work on the principle of channel reuse,
which means that any given channel is reused as frequently as possible
throughout a geographic area. However, the closer these sites of the same
channel are, the greater the chance that interference will occur. We call
this co-channel interference because the problem comes from an unwanted
signal on the same channel. Network engineers are very cognizant of
co-channel problems, and so they tune their networks so that sites working
on the same sets of channels don't carry far enough to cause interference to
one another.

Once you go up in a building however, you are getting above all of the
geographic and manmade obstacles that limit the range of a site. Once you
are up high enough you can potentially receive signals from every single
site in the city. You pick up 5 or 6 sites on the same channel, and the
level of interference may even get high enough that little or none of the
desired signal can be picked out from the mess.

With CDMA the problem of co-channel interference isn't a direct issue, since
CDMA is one huge co-channel network. All phones and all sites work at the
same frequencies. Individual users are selected from this hodge-podge of
signals based on their encoding (thus the term CODE Division Multiple
Access). At first glance it would seem that CDMA would be immune to such
problems. However, CDMA cannot support an infinite number of calls on the
same frequency. As the number of calls increases, so the overall background
noise goes up, until it reaches a point where none of the signals can be
discerned.

This type of interference in CDMA is known as channel pollution, and moving
up in a building simply exposes your phone to more and more of the sites in
the city. The more sites you get exposed to, the higher the pollution level,
and thus the greater the damage to the audio.

For both CDMA and TDMA/GSM/iDEN phones however, there is one way that a
phone can work in a tall building. It must be close to a site, which would
then provide a dominant signal that can rise above any possible interference
from distant (and much weaker) sites. However, this close site would need to
be at approximately the same elevation as you were. If it is too high above
you, or too far below you, the signal strength of that site will be
insufficient to be dominant. An indoor repeater would certainly serve this
purpose, and some office buildings may indeed employ indoor repeaters to
provide good coverage, even at high elevations.

Signature

Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites

Josh III - 22 Oct 2003 19:24 GMT
I have often wondered how does the cellphone system in aircraft work? Do
they use the same cellular towers as the rest of us?

Josh III
Upstate South Carolina
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tracfoneusers

> Height is your enemy. Below is a copy of the information found on my web
> page in the FAQ concerning this issue. I've copied it to save having to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
><snip
Steve Punter - 22 Oct 2003 22:34 GMT
>I have often wondered how does the cellphone system in aircraft work?
>Do they use the same cellular towers as the rest of us?

More often than not they don't. However, when flying over relatively
unpopulated areas the sites are few and far between. Because of this the
level of co-channel interference is relatively low. I know from trying to
use a cell phone in a private plane over Toronto (no more than about 5000
feet up) that getting the phone to connect is very difficult. Once out in
the rural areas however, it gets a lot easier.
Signature

Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites

CharlesH - 23 Oct 2003 00:53 GMT
>>I have often wondered how does the cellphone system in aircraft work?
>>Do they use the same cellular towers as the rest of us?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>feet up) that getting the phone to connect is very difficult. Once out in
>the rural areas however, it gets a lot easier.

I think the OP was refering to the "Airphones" installed in aircraft. They
use an entirely different system. It is "cellular" in the sense that there
are multiple antennas each serving their vicinity, but the "cells" are on
the order of hundreds of miles across, due to the line of sight from
35,000 feet.
Keith Graham - 23 Oct 2003 21:24 GMT
Different systems all together. The fact that Verizon now 'owns' AirFone is immaterial. The systems grew up totally independently. AirFone only recently went digital....

------------------------
 From: Josh III <lipizzan@Xhotmail.com>
 Subject: Re: 29th Floor Reception Question
 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:24:43 -0400
 Location: news://news.east.earthlink.net/alt.cellular/bn6i10$toeu0$1@ID-204582.news.uni-berlin.de
 To: "alt.cellular" <@news:alt.cellular@news.east.earthlink.net>

I have often wondered how does the cellphone system in aircraft work? Do
they use the same cellular towers as the rest of us?

Josh III
Upstate South Carolina
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tracfoneusers

> Height is your enemy. Below is a copy of the information found on my web
> page in the FAQ concerning this issue. I've copied it to save having to
> rewrite everything in this reply:
>
> Most people experience very poor service when using phones in tall
buildings
> (like apartments and office towers). There usually isn't too much of an
> issue below the 10th floor, but above that elevation it is rare that you
> will get decent service on any provider. The problem is different for CDMA
> phones and for TDMA/GSM/iDEN phones, but the end result is identical.
>
><snip
andrew smith - 22 Oct 2003 21:48 GMT
> Height is your enemy. Below is a copy of the information found on my web
> page in the FAQ concerning this issue. I've copied it to save having to
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> purpose, and some office buildings may indeed employ indoor repeaters to
> provide good coverage, even at high elevations.

Steve,

Thank you very much for that explanation.

a.
Frosty the Snowman - 26 Oct 2003 14:30 GMT
> My company just switched corporate apartments in Jersey City.  Although
> there is a tremendous amount of coverage in the area, reception is terrible
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> a.

My UK Triband T200 worked fine on top of the CN Tower in Toronto
Steve Punter - 26 Oct 2003 17:51 GMT
>My UK Triband T200 worked fine on top of the CN Tower in Toronto

A number of the Toronto providers have REPEATERS in the CN Tower to provide
service.
Signature

Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites

James Knott - 26 Oct 2003 19:26 GMT
> My UK Triband T200 worked fine on top of the CN Tower in Toronto

You were probably connecting to a cell site in England.  ;-)

Signature

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.

Frosty the Snowman - 27 Oct 2003 06:36 GMT
> > My UK Triband T200 worked fine on top of the CN Tower in Toronto
>
> You were probably connecting to a cell site in England.  ;-)

The CN tower is not that high !!!
James Knott - 27 Oct 2003 12:39 GMT
>> > My UK Triband T200 worked fine on top of the CN Tower in Toronto
>>
>> You were probably connecting to a cell site in England.  ;-)
>
> The CN tower is not that high !!!

Yes I know.  Just having a bit of fun.  Years ago, I used to have to do some
work on occasion up there on the microwave level.

Signature

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.

Frosty the Snowman - 27 Oct 2003 12:47 GMT
> >> > My UK Triband T200 worked fine on top of the CN Tower in Toronto
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Yes I know.  Just having a bit of fun.  Years ago, I used to have to do some
> work on occasion up there on the microwave level.

I was in Canada in June, I have to say that Rogers were the only network
that allowed me to send and receive SMS from my UK Virgin SIM, and
seemed to have the best coverage too, Ontario & Toronto.
James Knott - 28 Oct 2003 01:16 GMT
>> Yes I know.  Just having a bit of fun.  Years ago, I used to have to do
>> some work on occasion up there on the microwave level.
>
> I was in Canada in June, I have to say that Rogers were the only network
> that allowed me to send and receive SMS from my UK Virgin SIM, and
> seemed to have the best coverage too, Ontario & Toronto.

The company I used to work for, was at one time partly owned by Rogers.
I also get my cell phone, cable modem and TV from Rogers.

Signature

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.

John S. - 27 Oct 2003 02:39 GMT
>> Does it matter that we're significantly higher now?

Yes, mobile phone systems are primarily designed to catch the traffic in the
street. MOST rooftop mounted antennas have a "down tilt" to optimize this
design. And most rooftop antennas are going to be on much shorter buildings.

>> Does it matter that there's likely a building (the rest of the apartment
>> building) between us and the towers?

Yes. As with all radio transmission there are things that attenuate the signal.
You don't say but if you are using the PCS frequencies with your service
(1900MHz) this attenuation is even greater.

>> Is there a viable solution to the reception problems?  Some sort of high
>> gain antenna to "redirect" any signal internally?

Not really. However, if your phone has an external antenna jack (the 6100/5100
and the 6300 series Nokia's do) then it might be a cinsideration. However, the
addition of an external antenna might not help the penetration of the rest of
the building.

How do you know the cellular towers are on the other side of the building from
you? What cellular company are you with?

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
 
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.