"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 19, 8:44 pm, "Dana" wrote:
"Don Bowey" wrote in message

...





On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article
,
"Dana" wrote:

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote
in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Brilliant stupid canned comment.

California has a government.

The US has a government.

I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives
than
have
California start pushing at the state level.

States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
republic,
hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.

Naïve point of view.

Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
federal republic.

The feds grabbed?

Yep, common knowledge

Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?

It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
destroys the purpose of the Senate.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep - The US Senators should be 'appointed' by the
King of the State {Oops Governor} cause their should
represent the Big {Money} People.

And you think that the representatives and senators now publicly elected
represent the people. Come on, why do you think there are so many lobbyists
in D.C.

the divine right of money & the golden rule :
those with the gold make the rules ~ RHF

DTC hath wroth:

Brings back fond memories of the "RCC wars" (radio common carrier).

In Texas, they were all pretty cooperative with reciprocal roaming.

In California, specifically the Orange County area near Smog Angeles,
the RCC's were perptually suing each other. About 5 years ago, I got
an invite to do a deposition on a running case that started in about
1970. The original parties are dead or gone, but the new business
owners have picked up the torch.

Rates
in the '70s were typically $40 a month which included mobile radio rental
and unlimited minutes and free roaming. Denton Texas with the two
universities had like 300 users in the early/mid '70s. When the rates
jumped from $20 to $50 per month (on *TWO* VHF channels), it dropped to
like fifteen users.

L.A. had a 3 year waiting list for VHF channels. My license was from
Nevada.

The Secode was indeed much easier to program than the Motorola control
head.

Program? I just had a Secode control head in my car connected to an
ordinary G.E. Progress Line on the shop channels. I was just trying
to impress the ladies, not talk to anyone on the phone. If I needed
to make a phone call, I would use one of the ham systems. I
eventually replaced the Prog Line with a T1234 mobile phone using the
same control head.

Of
course I would never whistle off the connect tone of an incoming call meant
for another user and grab the channel when it went back to idle.

I had two pieces of brass pipe tuned to 1500 and 2805 for the purpose.
Incidentally, my senior project in kollege was designing an all solid
state Secode Selector. The original Secode model 70 or 90 selector
was a mechanical marvel and a nightmare to fix.

I eventually upgraded to the all solid state Motos and smaller control heads.

That would probably be a Motorola Pulsar. The T1234 was solid state,
but with one pair of crystals per channel.

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:28 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Yeah, right - I mean ,who needs insider trading rules from govt
interfering with commerce, dratted FCC saying who can and can't use
bandwidth etc etc...

*sigh*.
--
Mark McIntyre

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

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

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

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

POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.

On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

Audio WHAT? Read what more carefully? Are you attempting to say the audio
bandwidth of a message network channel is greater than about 3 kHz?

Brenda Ann wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:
The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
Actually more like 10 KHz.
If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

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

POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.





I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.

Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz, and
14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
POTS digital dialup systems out now.

It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.

BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.

When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.

Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.

It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
WFMT, but less limiting.

ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
dollars.

Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
the end of a long ride.

On Aug 16, 10:29 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
It's easier, more cost effective and
requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
much easier on the broadcaster.

Wasn't there a rumor a couple years back that the phone companies are
slowly discontinuing ISDN service? Or is that only for residential
services as opposed to radio stations?

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

Stephanie Weil wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:29 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
It's easier, more cost effective and
requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
much easier on the broadcaster.

Wasn't there a rumor a couple years back that the phone companies are
slowly discontinuing ISDN service? Or is that only for residential
services as opposed to radio stations?

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA




They don't want to do ISDN internet services, anymore. But I'm using
ISDN as a studio-studio link. So far, no one has suggested to me that
it's not going to continue.

On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
, "D Peter Maus"
wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey wrote
in :

On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:
The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.
Actually more like 10 KHz.
If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.
Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.

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

POTS phone lines are very limited. IIRC from my work with those systems,
about 300-3600 Hz. Strictly human voice range, not meant for hi-fi. Special
lines are still available for hi-fi use as audio STL's.





I engineered a remote in Chicago a number of years ago, and the
client wouldn't spring for ISDN, or equalized lines. ATT provided a POTS
line and we got 8k analog audio out of it. Then again, we were next to
an ATT store. Similar performance was observed at my condo in Heather
Ridge. Here at the house, not two miles away, I'm lucky to hit 14.4
modem speeds, and 3k audio on a good day with my POTS line.

Guaranteed performance, you're right, is only 300 to 3600Hz,

I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
a POTS line.

and
14.4k modem speed. But real performance varies from company to company,
CO to CO, line to line. And surprisingly good audio and high modem
speeds, are possible with POTS technology. The instruments, themselves,
are bandwidth limited. But the lines are often, but not always, much
wider than the instrument. That's why, when addressing the phone with a
hybrid, or repeating coil, directly, I have always been able to get
passable audio on a POTS line. With AM audio bandwidth limited anyway, I
could usually exceed the stations audio performance from the field and
you couldn't tell we weren't using high performance lines. But that
experience hasn't been limited to AM. I've been able, when lines were
clean enough, to hit FM stations with audio wide enough, that the losses
were ignorable. Hardly negligible, but certainly ignorable. And in at
least two cases, better audio than was possible with Comrex, or with the
POTS digital dialup systems out now.

It just depends on who's providing the line, and how it's routed.

BTW, equalized lines are being phased out. They're still available,
but carriers are moving to make them prohibitively expensive to install
and maintain, anymore, and carrier noise, which was never a problem
before, is becoming a problem now. It's easier, more cost effective and
requires less installer activity to drop in an ISDN line for broadcast.
So carriers are really pushing that. Not that they're making it that
much easier on the broadcaster. When I put in my ISDN link here at the
house, I very nearly had to wire it for them.

When the Florians owned WNIB, Bill got tired of all the carrier
noise, and administrative crap that went along with his equalized
studio-transmitter lines, and had ATT install a second set of control
loops for his remote transmitter control. Control loops are copper,
unequalized, and are designed to carry control voltages, down to DC and
control databus output. They're basically just twisted pair. And
dramatically less cost than broadcast lines.

Bill got his own equalizers and set up his own equalized lines on the
extra control loops and put his studio-transmitter audio there.

It was the sweetest sounding audio on the dial. Right up there with
WFMT, but less limiting.

ATT threw a fit. Control loops are NOT for carrying program audio.
Bill fought them on it. And never did return to ATT broadcast lines. He
and Sonja eventually sold out to Bonneville for nearly a half a billion
dollars.

AT&T didn't sell local channels. What Telco are you calling AT&T?



Sometimes the bear gets you, sometimes bear steaks are so tasty at
the end of a long ride.