Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / April 2006
Real techie question about GSM freqs.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mike Ross - 24 Apr 2006 17:55 GMT I like the very early Motorola 'brick' GSM phones, like the 3200, 2500 - this kind of thing:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=9126815358
I have a few. I actually use them - they're great when I'm in the Highlands - the extra power really does help the range. Unfortunately I spend most of the year in the USA. GSM came much later to the USA, and AFAIK these big old beasts were never sold here.
What's the prospects of changing the frequency - actually getting in with a soldering iron and changing oscillators or whatever - on one of these to US frequencies? Or is there more to it - not just a frequency change but software too, different signalling protocols or something?
Or can someone tell me I'm wrong and there *were* 'brick' GSM phones sold in the USA?
Cheers
Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
Saurabh - 25 Apr 2006 11:18 GMT Hi Mike,
In general, the GSM cellular phones support three bands GSM 900, 1800, and 1900.
GSM (Global System for Mobile)-900 DCS (Digital Codeless Standard)-1800 PCS (Personal Communication Services)-1900
GSM Frequency Domain Primary GSM (890 to 915 uplink and 935 to 960 downlink) Extended GSM (880 to 890 uplink and 925 to 935 downlink) DCS-1800 (1710 to 1785 uplink and 1805 to 1880 downlink) PCS-1900 (1850 to 1910 uplink and 1930 to 1990 downlink)
In handset the software has mechanism to adopt the serving environment. Mean it can work on 900, 1800, 1900. This tri-band phone provides facility to roam all over that world without changing the cellular phone.
Aloha, Saurabh
Taylor - 25 Apr 2006 11:45 GMT > Hi Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Aloha, > Saurabh would presume you mean quad-band technology?
Saurabh - 25 Apr 2006 13:12 GMT Hi Taylor, I think you misguide to see the EGSM and PGSM both. But it both are GSM 900 only. Just for knowledge check the following bands too.
1. GSM 450 Band: For GSM 450, the system is required to operate in the following band: 450.4 MHz to 457.6 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 460.4 MHz to 467.6 MHz base transmit, mobile receive.
2. GSM 480 Band: For GSM 480, the system is required to operate in the following band: 478.8 MHz to 486 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 488.8 MHz to 496 MHz base transmit, mobile receive.
3. GSM 850 Band: For GSM 850, the system is required to operate in the following band: 824 MHz to 849 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 869 MHz to 894 MHz: base transmit, mobile receive.
4. Standard or primary GSM 900 Band, P-GSM: For Standard GSM 900 band, the system is required to operate in the following frequency band: 890 MHz to 915 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 935 MHz to 960 MHz: base transmit, mobile receive.
5. Extended GSM 900 Band, E-GSM (includes Standard GSM 900 band): For Extended GSM 900 band, the system is required to operate in the following frequency band: 880 MHz to 915 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 925 MHz to 960 MHz: base transmit, mobile receive.
6. Railways GSM 900 Band, R-GSM (includes Standard and Extended GSM 900 Band): For Railways GSM 900 band, the system is required to operate in the following frequency band: 876 MHz to 915 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 921 MHz to 960 MHz: base transmit, mobile receive.
7. DCS 1 800 Band: For DCS 1 800, the system is required to operate in the following band: 1710 MHz to 1 785 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 1805 MHz to 1 880 MHz: base transmit, mobile receive.
8. PCS 1 900 Band: For PCS 1 900, the system is required to operate in the following band: 1850 MHz to 1 910 MHz: mobile transmit, base receive; 1930 MHz to 1 990 MHz base transmit, mobile receive.
Feel free to ask.
Aloha, Saurabh
deadmail@burnt.org.uk - 25 Apr 2006 16:49 GMT "Saurabh" <saurabh.be.etc@gmail.com> wrote in message <1145967123.698142.51240@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>Hi Taylor, <snip>
What is the point of your posts?
You're using outdated terminology and clearly have very little idea about anything.
John Navas - 27 Apr 2006 00:42 GMT >I like the very early Motorola 'brick' GSM phones, like the 3200, 2500 >- this kind of thing: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >these to US frequencies? Or is there more to it - not just a frequency >change but software too, different signalling protocols or something? It's neither legal nor practical to do that.
>Or can someone tell me I'm wrong and there *were* 'brick' GSM phones >sold in the USA? Why not simply use a current phone with a booster amp?
 Signature Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Mike Ross - 27 Apr 2006 01:22 GMT >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >It's neither legal nor practical to do that. I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't know if it was or wasn't, that's why I asked the question. I had hoped it would be practical - I have a Pogo which was modified to work on American frequencies. But why should it be illegal?
>>Or can someone tell me I'm wrong and there *were* 'brick' GSM phones >>sold in the USA? > >Why not simply use a current phone with a booster amp? Nostalgia.
Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
John Navas - 27 Apr 2006 01:58 GMT >>>What's the prospects of changing the frequency - actually getting in >>>with a soldering iron and changing oscillators or whatever - on one of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >be practical - I have a Pogo which was modified to work on American >frequencies. But why should it be illegal? FCC regulations.
 Signature Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
andy - 27 Apr 2006 02:24 GMT you might be able to spend thousands on getting design approval from Motorola for your proposed changes, then submit it for testing and type approval and so on, so don't give up hope yet
BruceR - 27 Apr 2006 04:36 GMT In the US the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not allow modifications to transmitters without testing and approval. While doing a one off wouldn't require that you go through ALL the hoops, there would be enough to make it more expensive and inconvenient than the nostalgia would likely be worth.
> I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't know if it > was or wasn't, that's why I asked the question. I had hoped it would > be practical - I have a Pogo which was modified to work on American > frequencies. But why should it be illegal? > > Mike Mike Ross - 27 Apr 2006 12:19 GMT >> I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't know if it >> was or wasn't, that's why I asked the question. I had hoped it would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >would be enough to make it more expensive and inconvenient than the >nostalgia would likely be worth. Ahhh ok - I'd planned to do the work in the UK anyway so FCC wouldn't be involved. Certainly when I had the Pogo modified it was done in the UK, the hardware work was very simple - one chip was changed - and I took it to the USA and used it, no FCC involvement.
Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
John Navas - 27 Apr 2006 16:18 GMT >Ahhh ok - I'd planned to do the work in the UK anyway so FCC wouldn't >be involved. Certainly when I had the Pogo modified it was done in the >UK, the hardware work was very simple - one chip was changed - and I >took it to the USA and used it, no FCC involvement. Gee, thanks.
 Signature Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
BruceR - 27 Apr 2006 21:11 GMT You could likely do the same thing if you can source the parts. While it's illegal to use ANY transmitter in the US that doesn't have FCC approval and generates more than 100mw, you would "get away with it" as long as the device didn't cause any problems. The FCC finds it far more profitable and entertaining to concern itself with millisecond glimpses of nipples than milliwatts of radiated cellphone power.
>>> I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't know if it >>> was or wasn't, that's why I asked the question. I had hoped it would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Mike clifto - 28 Apr 2006 04:52 GMT > While > it's illegal to use ANY transmitter in the US that doesn't have FCC > approval and generates more than 100mw, except equipment used in the Amateur Radio Service,
> you would "get away with it" as > long as the device didn't cause any problems.
 Signature All relevant people are pertinent. All rude people are impertinent. Therefore, no rude people are relevant. -- Solomon W. Golomb
Ivor Jones - 28 Apr 2006 02:16 GMT [snip]
> Ahhh ok - I'd planned to do the work in the UK anyway so > FCC wouldn't be involved. Certainly when I had the Pogo > modified it was done in the UK, the hardware work was > very simple - one chip was changed - and I took it to the > USA and used it, no FCC involvement. It's irrelevant where you *modify* a transmitter, it's very relevant where you *use* it.
Only licensed radio amateurs are allowed to tinker with transmitting equipment without submitting it for type approval, and even then only when it operates on licensed amateur bands.
Ivor
Mike Ross - 28 Apr 2006 18:42 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >equipment without submitting it for type approval, and even then only when >it operates on licensed amateur bands. Interesting. The Pogo was modified by the manufacturer so that was probably OK, but the Motorola I would do myself.
My background is computing, not communications... the concept of requiring a 'license to hack' is foreign and offensive to me!
Thanks to all those who have replied.
Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
BruceR - 28 Apr 2006 21:26 GMT > My background is computing, not communications... the concept of > requiring a 'license to hack' is foreign and offensive to me! > > Thanks to all those who have replied. > > Mike The reason for it is that someone who dosen't know what they're doing could very well cause disruption and interference to others users. Hacking your own computer or toaster won't affect others but hacking RF transmitters could cause serious disruption to critical communications. If you DO know what you're doing, then getting the license should be no problem.
Ivor Jones - 30 Apr 2006 18:46 GMT > > My background is computing, not communications... the > > concept of requiring a 'license to hack' is foreign and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > communications. If you DO know what you're doing, then > getting the license should be no problem. He still wouldn't be allowed a licence (license in the US) to use non-type-approved equipment outside of amateur bands though.
Ivor
matt weber - 27 Apr 2006 21:02 GMT >>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >be practical - I have a Pogo which was modified to work on American >frequencies. But why should it be illegal? Because current FCC regulations prohibit anyone other than those specically authorized from modifying mobile phones. It violates the type acceptance. It also prevents cloning of AMPS phones.
>>>Or can someone tell me I'm wrong and there *were* 'brick' GSM phones >>>sold in the USA? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Mike Ivor Jones - 28 Apr 2006 02:13 GMT [snip]
> I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't > know if it was or wasn't, that's why I asked the > question. I had hoped it would be practical - I have a > Pogo which was modified to work on American frequencies. > But why should it be illegal? Because messing with radio transmitters unless you are authorised to do so is illegal. In the UK it comes under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. In the US the FCC have similar legislation in place, but I don't know offhand what it's called. It's why you need to take an exam to hold a radio amateur licence.
Ivor
matt weber - 28 Apr 2006 20:44 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Ivor Virtually all FCC authority comes from the Communications Act of 1934. It has been amended a few times, but that's where it all came from in the first place. As a result most Transmitter operations are controlled by Part `15 of the FCC regulations.
|
|
|