Don't forget to feed the kitties!
http://www.rumormillnews.com/DONOR_PAGE.htm
: Just so we understand the science of it properly let's examine
: a few facts a little more closely.
Too bad you don't understand antennas as they are used in the cell sites. If you did, you would not have posted this. Resistance is uninformed....
: 1. Sprint has had nationwide cell phone coverage for years
: based first on transmital to a cell tower, then to
: satellite, then to local cell towers. So has Cingular...
Wrong again. Sprint in many of its coverage areas goes directly from the cell tower to land line. Only out in the boonies is it MICROWAVED to another cell site and then to a land line. I worked for Sprint twice. The second time was with the group putting up cell phone sites in Orange County, California. I KNOW what I am talking about. Resistance is STILL uninformed....
: 2. Cell towers normally cover a range of twenty five miles
: line of sight. Depending on the coverage area -
: urban/rural, etc - the coverage may be thicker in some
: areas than others, and auto- switching from one cell tower
: to another is a technology we have been using in the
: ambulance business since well before 2001 and has been on
: the consumer market for at least that long also, otherwise
: you could not travel fron New York to Philadelphia without
: dropping calls every time you crossed from one cell tower
: to another, which does not occur.
Wrong again. Line of sight is line of sight - period. Coverage of cell sites has to do with line of site to the DIRECTIONAL antenna. Obstructions to line of site cause problems for the RF engineers. (An example is the size of the leaves on a Eucalyptus tree is close to the wave length that Sprint was using and the trees in a park they were trying to cover was just dead zone.) The ANTENNAS at a cell site are ALL directional - that is why you see several of them to give 360 degree coverage. And they are pointed OUT not UP!!! The DIRECTIONAL antennas cannot see the airplane ABOVE them. Yes, the cell phone in the airplane can look down and see the cell site, but the CELL SITE is NOT looking UP to see the airplane. Resistance is not informed on this either!!!
: 3. At five hundred miles an hour it will take an airliner
: approximately 3.25 minutes to cross a cell. More than
: enough time to establish the roam and handshake and to then
: hand the call off to the next cell.
Since you think that a cell site has a 25 mile radius, how did you arrive at the 3.25 minutes number? Your math makes no sense at all. At 500 mph, 25 miles would be covered in 3 minutes. However, since the cell site doesn't see the plane, it wouldn't matter at all. Yes, there is a "handshake" involved. But it doesn't work like you say - and besides, all of those cell sites would be "seeing" the plane IF they were looking UP (which they aren't) so which cell site would the plane be talking to??? All cell sites in line of sight of the plane would be trying to handshake. Resistance is totally illogical!!!! IF things worked like you say, then ALL of the cell sites that could be seen from the airplane at 35,000 feet would be trying to handshake with the cell phone in the plane. Now do you REALLY think that is what went on???
: 4. The problems people have with cell phones in rural areas
: are based on the line of sight interference from
: georaphical obstructions and not the difficulties with
: distance. 2 - 5 watts is more than enough power to transmit
: reliably twenty-five miles - actually it will even reliably
: reach to a sattelite parked in geosynchronous orbit at more
: than 150 miles above the planet- and an aircraft would have
: a direct line of sight to any cell within that range.
This has nothing to do with anything we were talking about above. The satellites in geosynchronous orbit are not operating on the cell phone frequencies. Look at the band plan - you can probably find it at the FCC website. Or ask knowledgable ham radio operators who have their own sats to play with....
: 5. The technology that I believe Qualcom is working on is not
: Cell-to-sattelite - that has been around for years - but
: rather Cell-to-sattelite that will not interfere with the
: fly-by-wire radio frequencies of the aircraft, since that
: is the reason cell phone calls are discouraged and
: sometimes banned on airline flights. The cell transmissions
: can interfere with the aircraft controls and instruments.
At this point, I am not going to take anything you say on this subject to have any basis in reality. Resistance is so out of touch with logic as to be worthless.
: 6. Finally, it is far more likely that the tests these sites
: have conducted can pin the unreliability far more on the
: position of the cell phone in the aircraft relative to the
: radiofrequency absorbable materials of the aircraft than to
: the distance off the ground. Aluminum will aborb UHF RF as
: will most metals, so to make a cell phone transmit reliably
: from an aircraft might well mean being in a position that
: puts the cell phone antenna itself more directly in line
: with the plexiglass windows. I would be willing to wager
: that the people who conducted these tests did not control
: for these factors before publishing their results. Still,
: it would be interesting to know for sure... perhaps they
: ought to publish the whole study and not just its results
: so we could know...
They have solved this problem to the point of giving coverage not only in buildings but also in elevators. Sprint had this figured out several years ago....
: This smoking gun is a backfire...
: Resistance is Informed,
You couldn't pass a test for a novice ham license. I know. I am an Extra class ham who has tested over 4,000 individuals from age 6 to 92. You don't know what you are talking about. I do.
WhiteRaven
: Nine of Eleven
Now go feed the kitties a little more, OK?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/DONOR_PAGE.htm
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
