| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. 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: 1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit 2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
Radium hath wroth:
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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day 2008. http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html I won't be sending you a valentine card. You're not my type. Are you also working on whale oil products and sealing wax? 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. Oh, you want music over your cell phone? Of course that means fewer users per MHz. Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate, compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number of users. So, your cell phone bill goes up about 5 times. Of course you don't mind because you'll have hi-fi oozing out of your phone. You might want to research variable rate codecs, such as EVRC. 1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16 bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with compression. 2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same. Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's no compression happening. At least you're consistent. You got everything wrong, again. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
Jeff,
He typed the message on his Commodore 64 with an Atari floppy drive! Jeff Liebermann wrote: Radium hath wroth: On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...696d6abf90c8ed 13?hl=en& how would u like to change the cell phone industry? Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day 2008. http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06...ice-to-end-aft er.html I won't be sending you a valentine card. You're not my type. Are you also working on whale oil products and sealing wax? 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. Oh, you want music over your cell phone? Of course that means fewer users per MHz. Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate, compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number of users. So, your cell phone bill goes up about 5 times. Of course you don't mind because you'll have hi-fi oozing out of your phone. You might want to research variable rate codecs, such as EVRC. 1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16 bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with compression. 2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same. Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's no compression happening. At least you're consistent. You got everything wrong, again. -- - |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. 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: 1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit 2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same. Darn: I was just getting used to your purposed long-wave cell phone. The approximately mile long antennas would drastically cut down on people trying to drive and talk at the same time, just think how many lives that could be saved. Oh well, I just wait for it to appear along with my Matel Hover board and "Mr Fusion" reactor for my Delorean. Ken |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks. Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"Radium" wrote in message ups.com... 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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. You are still a clueless idiot |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... Radium hath wroth: 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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day 2008. http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html I won't be sending you a valentine card. You're not my type. Are you also working on whale oil products and sealing wax? The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date. A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr service for a few years after that. 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. Oh, you want music over your cell phone? Of course that means fewer users per MHz. Very roughly, the current 8Kbits/sec encoding rate, compared to your 44Kbit/sec, will only handle about 1/5th the number of users. So, your cell phone bill goes up about 5 times. Of course you don't mind because you'll have hi-fi oozing out of your phone. You might want to research variable rate codecs, such as EVRC. 1. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit The encoding resolution is not changed by compression. If you encode something with 16 bit resolution, and compress it, you still have 16 bit data coming out. It's the data rate or thruput that changes with compression. 2. The sample-rate of the compressed and the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same. Not possible. If the rate in and rate out are identical, then there's no compression happening. At least you're consistent. You got everything wrong, again. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. As you've been told before, analog cell phones are going away. What part of "going away" are you too blazingly stupid to understand? 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. You are an idiot. snip remaining crap -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
On 7/19/07 7:56 AM, in article ,
" wrote: On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote: On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...6abf90c8ed13?h l=en& : how would u like to change the cell phone industry? Analog cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. As you've been told before, analog cell phones are going away. What part of "going away" are you too blazingly stupid to understand? 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. You are an idiot. snip remaining crap How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code for cell phone companies. How about telling the state of California to go to hell? If they want a change in National status there is a place to propose it. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
DTC hath wroth:
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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks. Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago. Who said they were gone? Fire up your scanner or service monitor on the old IMTS frequencies and you'll hear the idle tones or sometimes idle chatter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMTS_Frequencies There's still some IMTS phone systems running in "rural" areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Mobile_Telephone_Service Brings back fond memories of the "RCC wars" (radio common carrier). However, you're right. I really miss my Motorola T1234 mobile telephone and giant Secode control head. It really impressed the various ladyfriends in college. http://www.privateline.com/PCS/mobilephonepictures.htm Too bad (for Mr Radium) it was FM. I did work on an AM/SSB mobile telephone system in about 1974. I never saw it but as I vaguely recall, it operated on various HF frequencies in some part of Africa. Operation was similar to operator assisted MTS (mobile telephone service) but on HF. It was basically a phone patch hung on an HF base station. We were trying to add signaling so that users would not have to listen to the channel noise all day in order to receive a phone call. Our scheme sorta worked on SSB, but the tones drove those that didn't have muted receivers nuts, so it was eventually abandoned. I think the system was up until about 1990, when something blew up and the operator couldn't find parts or something. Of course, there's always the HF marine radio telephone service, which still operates on various HF frequencies with real live human operators. They're all currently using SSB, although that wasn't always the case. In the 1960's and 70's, almost everyone was using AM. I got a great name for Mr Radius's system. Reactionary Radio. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" wrote:
Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day 2008. http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date. A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr service for a few years after that. True. Analog will probably dribble along for quite a while. The only plans that I've heard or read are Verizon's. They're going to (or already have) change the PRL (preferred roaming list) to not include analog roaming. I know a local die hard who was informed in writing that analog will be "going away" in Feb 2008 and that they will not renew his contract for analog after that date. I haven't seen the actual letter so I don't know if there are any details such as the date they'll pull the plug on him. I had the same issue with Verizon and a non-GPS enabled cell phone, where they refused to renew the contract with the old phone. That means that all analog phones might be gone by the time the current contracts expire, which would a maximum of 2 years (probably much less). at&t will probably do the same thing. The only analog systems they still operate are the 800MHz TDMA systems they inherited from Dobson, Cell One, and others. You'll probably get a Valentine greeting card from at&t announcing the demise of analog. Incidentally, at&t discontinued its CDPD (cellular digital packet data) service in mid 2004. Verizon did the same a year later. Yet, I still am getting sync and carrier for CDPD on my Novatel(?) CDPD modem. As I mentioned in another thread, there are still IMTS tones on the air. I guess old services never seem to die completely. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:29:35 -0500, DTC
wrote: That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks. http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/slides/radio-mess.html The phone with half the buttons red and the rest white, is a G.E. "brick" phone. Not only did it look like a brick, but it also weighed about the same as one. Behind it, against the wall is an Audiovox TCT-100 "Tranportable" phone, another heavy weight. Just to the left of the Audiovox but halfway covered is the original Nextel handset. Someone is sure to ask why I have all that garbage. I sometimes give talks on the history of mobile phones and like to drag in the antiques. I drew the line on some of the old trunk mounted MTS, IMTS, and AMPS phones, as they're just too big and ugly to bring to meetings. Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:33:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote in : On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" wrote: Why bother? Analog cell phones are going away on Valentine's Day 2008. http://dialzero.blogspot.com/2007/06/analog-cellphone-service-to-end-after.html The FCC does not require that analog service be turned off. Only that carriers are not required to continue analog service past that date. A good number of rural areas will probably continue to use Analog cellualr service for a few years after that. True. Analog will probably dribble along for quite a while. ... I seriously doubt it. All the carrier people I know are chomping at the bit to turn it off, as noted in public statements. -- Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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. -- Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
|
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
DTC hath wroth: Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago. Who said they were gone? Fire up your scanner or service monitor on the old IMTS frequencies and you'll hear the idle tones or sometimes idle chatter. As far as I know, all the Southwestern Bell mobiles were given to local Motorola Sales and Service (MSS) shops. I never paid attention to the defunct MTS/IMTS channels, but all the RCC channels went over to paging. Brings back fond memories of the "RCC wars" (radio common carrier). In Texas, they were all pretty cooperative with reciprocal roaming. 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. However, you're right. I really miss my Motorola T1234 mobile telephone and giant Secode control head. It really impressed the various ladyfriends in college. The Secode was indeed much easier to program than the Motorola control head. I used the Secode head on my RCC radio and the Moto on my SWBell radio. In line with the Jackie Gleason and Michael Todd story of one-up- man-ship, I had both control heads mounted next to my 4WD shifter on my trucks. My local RCC would not mute the repeater when dialing 2805, so when my mobile answered the code, it ack'ed with a burst of 2805...which canceled out the four second 2805 ringing tail and my horn would only beep, so I had to disable that feature. To get access to a busy channel in Dallas, I'd drop into manual mode and listen to the channels for a conversation about to end, then let go of the chrome hookswitch arm and slam the roam button and the appropriate channel button - forcing it to roam in IMTS mode to the only free channel. 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 eventually upgraded to the all solid state Motos and smaller control heads. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:29:35 -0500, DTC
wrote in : 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 cell phones should stop using FM and should start using AM at whatever practical radio frequencies available. That idea was touted and attempted over twenty years ago. Back when cellphone handsets were better described as concrete blocks instead of bricks. Gosh...I miss my 70 watt Micors and darn near crystal clear audio on IMTS systems with 30 mile range. But that was thirty years ago. Spectral efficiency be damned as long as you get yours? ;) -- Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
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. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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. Where? Nowhere I've ever been. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
"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. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"John Navas" wrote in message ... 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. That is incorrect. The person that said 3khz is way closer than your wild guess. -- Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the?cell phone industry.
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Don Bowey wrote:
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. Exactly. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
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. The feds grabbed? Do you recall how the state's representatives become feds? |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
John Navas wrote:
Spectral efficiency be damned as long as you get yours? ;) Damned right |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
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. Ahhhhh...an answer by obsfucation! Without qualifying the signal levels at 10 KHz, his answer would be correct. According to AT&T's "Notes on the Network", the bandwidth is actually 400 Hz to 3,200 Hz where you have specific audio levels measured in decibels. This will it explain it on terms equatable to John's telecommunications skill set. http://communication.howstuffworks.com/telephone6.htm |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
"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. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecellphone industry.
On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article ,
"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. I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities as a citizen, but there it is.......... |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecellphone industry.
"Don Bowey" wrote in message ... On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article , "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. I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities as a citizen, but there it is.......... Actually being a citizen requires that you understand our form of government, which is a federal republic, with a federal government that has clearly defined powers. All other powers, are for the people and the states. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
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. the divine right of money & the golden rule : those with the gold make the rules ~ RHF . . .. . |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
"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 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
"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. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
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? |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
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. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
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 |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
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. |
A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com