On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

Analog cell phones are going away.

True.

Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

Analog cell phones are going away.

True.

Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

..8 GHz is not in the -region- of 3 GHz.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

It certainly is within about 20%.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

It certainly is within about 20%.

No radio engineer would agree.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

It certainly is within about 20%.

No radio engineer would agree.

That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

hath wroth:

John Navas wrote:
No radio engineer would agree.

I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I
agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz.

That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

Baloney. See:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf
Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount
of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar,
military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and
others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services.

What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?

There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's
plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by
trying to trivialize your mistake.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558