 |
 | 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 / General / GSM / January 2005GSM Frequencies
I understand that GSM network can now work on frequencies: - 800 MHz - 900 MHz - 1800 MHz - 1900 MHz I also read that few years ago, there was only one frequency (900 MHz) and the second one (1800 MHz) was add because there was a problem of two many users in the small area. But what I wanna know is: why particulary this frequencies - why not 750 MHz or 950 MHz ?? Do they have some special characteristics? Or it's just because they were free? Maybe it has something to do with our mobiles?  Signaturepozdrawiam serdecznie (greetings) Lukasz K. > I understand that GSM network can now work on frequencies: > - 800 MHz > - 900 MHz > - 1800 MHz > - 1900 MHz There is also GSM 400 > I also read that few years ago, there was only one frequency (900 MHz) and > the second one (1800 MHz) was add because there was a problem of two many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do they have some special characteristics? > Or it's just because they were free? Bingo. Or current users were easily vacated. >I understand that GSM network can now work on frequencies: >- 800 MHz [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >or 950 MHz ?? >Do they have some special characteristics? The 800 Mhz band was originall allocated in much of the world for AMPS (analog service). 900 and 1800Mhz are in use for GSM in most of the world outside North America, because there was spectrum available there. That same space is NOT available in North America because it had already been allocated to other service, but space was available at 1900Mhz, which became the PCS band. 800 Mhz GSM is re-use of the original AMPS space by GSM. In most of the world, the 800 Mhz band has been taken off the air, and the spectrum re-sold to other uses. Available spectrum space is not exactly a national secret. The current allocation in all areas are part of the ITU proceedings. So any one who says the American should have gone with the world standard at 900 Mhz simply doesn't understand that when the Europeans decided to go at 900 Mhz, that space was already allocated an in use in the USA.... >Or it's just because they were free? >Maybe it has something to do with our mobiles? > Available spectrum space is not exactly a national secret. The current > allocation in all areas are part of the ITU proceedings. So any one > who says the American should have gone with the world standard at 900 > Mhz simply doesn't understand that when the Europeans decided to go at > 900 Mhz, that space was already allocated an in use in the USA.... I think most, if not all other countries decided it was better to re-allocate the 900 MHz spectrum for compatibility with the rest of the real word. I reckon that it would have been a smart move for the US to have done the same, even if it took them 5 or 10 years to move existing users. The concept of world-wide compatibility for telecommunications does have merit and could have *HUGE* savings by not having to produce different handsets for different markets! Signature73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 The views stated by me are my own and have nothing to do with any organisation I belong to, so the prick that tried to slander me can get f.cked because it didn't work! >I think most, if not all other countries decided it was better to >re-allocate the 900 MHz spectrum for compatibility with the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >merit and could have *HUGE* savings by not having to produce different >handsets for different markets! It's great to be playing Monday morning quarterback about what "might" have or "could have" been. The frequencies are what they are and it's highly unlikely that they will change. It does absolutely no good to moan that we're different, we're arrogant or whatever else you want to say about it. You might as well pee into the wind for all the good it will do to whine about it as some have. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>I think most, if not all other countries decided it was better to >>re-allocate the 900 MHz spectrum for compatibility with the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >say about it. You might as well pee into the wind for all the good it >will do to whine about it as some have. A significant part of the problem with 900 Mhz in the USA is there are several pieces of spectrum in the 900 Mhz band used in Europe that are 'open' season, like the 2.4 Ghz area used for Wi-Fi. When you have spectrum that is used in residences, and is not subject to licensing or registration it is almost impossible to relocate it, because there is no way to communicate with the users. The secondary problem is that in the USA, there is this constitutional problem called the taking provisions. Basically if you want to move an existing licensed users, somebody is going to have to pick up the tab to change the equipment. Bottom line is relocation of services in 900 Mhz band used by the Europeans was not a practical solution in the USA. To many users, and too many of them were unlicensed, but permitted uses. > I reckon that it would have been a smart move for the US to have done > the same, even if it took them 5 or 10 years to move existing users. The > concept of world-wide compatibility for telecommunications does have > merit and could have *HUGE* savings by not having to produce different > handsets for different markets! You never know what might happen in the future. It may happen that the US vacates 900/1800/2100 for use, and Europe/Asia vacate 800/1900. In the unlikeliness that it does happen, all equipment and specifications have been standardized and tested, which would allow for rapid deployment. >I understand that GSM network can now work on frequencies: >- 800 MHz [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >But what I wanna know is: why particulary this frequencies - why not 750 MHz >or 950 MHz ?? Well, first of all when they say 800 or 850 or 900, 1800 or 1900 they aren't talking about specifically those frequencies. The frequencies are *around* those frequencies. 800 and "850" are the same i.e. they use the same send and receive frequencies. For reasons still illusive they decided when they were going to run GSM on "cellular" frequencies that they'd call it 850 when the fact is that 800 and 850 are the same frequency used for "cellular" mobile communications. It's also why so called "850" is not compatible with devices rated for 900 Mhz. >Do they have some special characteristics? >Or it's just because they were free? What frequencies are used for mobile communications has to do with what is permitted to use and what "spectrum" is available in an area. 900 and 1800 is not used in the US (and probably Canada) because those frequency ranges were in use for other services (military etc.) Cellular "800" is only available to two companies within one market area. Usually one of them is a CDMA operator such as Verizon and the other is usually a TDMA/GSM operator such as cingular or AT&T Wireless. This information I'm relating relates mostly to the US though the bit about 900 and 1800 is what relates to mobile service outside North America. >Maybe it has something to do with our mobiles? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
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
|
©2009 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.