The 850 MHz vs. 1900 MHz debate is like comparing apples & oranges.

Shorter wavelengths tend to fare better (read: penetrate into tunnels and
buildings) better than longer wavelengths. This is because the aperture size
determines how low it will admit RF to pass. Thus, a larger aperture will
allow lower frequencies to pass than a smaller opening. The "penetration"
also consists of signal bounce, allowing it penetrate deeper. Keep in mind
there are limits. A longer bounce path increases the possibility of
interference from a co-inciding signal bounce. Also, RF needs a clear path
so don't expect flawless performance in an all-metal elevator.

Another upshot of 1900: it can carry higher data transfer rates than 850.
The downshot is shorter wavelengths have more "path loss", so a 1900 MHz
signal needs a lot more power to go the same distance as an 850 MHz RF
source. This is a major source of coverage headaches for the carriers that
used 1900 MHz-only.

Summary: all factors equal (especially power levels at the point of entry),
1900 will cover the interior of a building better. In real life this doesn't
always happen, which is one reason why the cell sites sometimes signal the
telephone to drop down to 850MHz if the 1900MHz doesn't have a good RF path.

This information came from years of testing before it was released to the
public.

Jer wrote in message ...
...>An 800 signal will penetrate better than a 1900
...