London bomber caught by his cellphone

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/international/europe/02cellphone.html>

Interesting story, but I wonder if the reporter got one point wrong.
Some new cellphones have a GPS chip to improve the position reporting
accuracy. But I thought that the GPS chip is passive. It receives and
decodes signals from the GPS satellites, but it does not broadcast back
to those satellites, as the article claims. The (refined) position
information is relayed back to the phone system through the normal
system of cellphone towers. Unless you have a satellite phone, of
course.

Is that right, or do these new phones actually talk to the GPS
satellites?

--
Julian Vrieslander
 

george

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2001
672
0
18,930
0
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Julian Vrieslander wrote:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/international/europe/02cellphone.html>
>
> Interesting story, but I wonder if the reporter got one point wrong.
> Some new cellphones have a GPS chip to improve the position reporting
> accuracy. But I thought that the GPS chip is passive. It receives and
> decodes signals from the GPS satellites, but it does not broadcast back
> to those satellites, as the article claims. The (refined) position
> information is relayed back to the phone system through the normal
> system of cellphone towers. Unless you have a satellite phone, of
> course.
>
> Is that right, or do these new phones actually talk to the GPS
> satellites?
>

The article is incorrect as you stated. GPS enabled phones receive
signals from the satellites and then send that information to/thru the
cell system.
 

Dave

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2003
548
0
18,930
0
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Not always, My phone has an option to turn the GPS unit to 911 only or have
it run constantly. The default is constant. So it is quite possible.

"Julian Vrieslander" <julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com> wrote in
message
news:julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART-B7FA6D.21241801082005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/international/europe/02cellphone.html>
>
> Interesting story, but I wonder if the reporter got one point wrong.
> Some new cellphones have a GPS chip to improve the position reporting
> accuracy. But I thought that the GPS chip is passive. It receives and
> decodes signals from the GPS satellites, but it does not broadcast back
> to those satellites, as the article claims. The (refined) position
> information is relayed back to the phone system through the normal
> system of cellphone towers. Unless you have a satellite phone, of
> course.
>
> Is that right, or do these new phones actually talk to the GPS
> satellites?
>
> --
> Julian Vrieslander
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:44:36 GMT, "Dave" <davepmer@insightbb.com>
wrote:

[Top posting corrected]

>
>"Julian Vrieslander" <julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com> wrote in
>message
>news:julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART-B7FA6D.21241801082005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/international/europe/02cellphone.html>
>>
>> Interesting story, but I wonder if the reporter got one point wrong.
>> Some new cellphones have a GPS chip to improve the position reporting
>> accuracy. But I thought that the GPS chip is passive. It receives and
>> decodes signals from the GPS satellites, but it does not broadcast back
>> to those satellites, as the article claims. The (refined) position
>> information is relayed back to the phone system through the normal
>> system of cellphone towers. Unless you have a satellite phone, of
>> course.
>>
>> Is that right, or do these new phones actually talk to the GPS
>> satellites?
>>
>
>Not always, My phone has an option to turn the GPS unit to 911 only or have
>it run constantly. The default is constant. So it is quite possible.
>

Even so, the damn thing isn't going to communicate with the system by
talking back to the *satellites*. Hell, the thing is doing good to
hit the tower on the next hill, and this reporter (whose story I
couldn't read without registering) expects her readers to believe it's
talking to a satellite 11,000 miles away. Utter nonsense. It works
as the OP speculated.
 

Frankster

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2004
62
0
18,580
0
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[bottom posting corrected]

For heavens sake. Talking to a satellite is just a figure of speech.
Obviously it means talking to a satellite via a cell antenna when used in
reference to a cell phone.

-Frank

"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:44tue1hbv3fpcil2q8v52piaft3eecqbqp@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:44:36 GMT, "Dave" <davepmer@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Top posting corrected]
>
>>
>>"Julian Vrieslander" <julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART-B7FA6D.21241801082005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/international/europe/02cellphone.html>
>>>
>>> Interesting story, but I wonder if the reporter got one point wrong.
>>> Some new cellphones have a GPS chip to improve the position reporting
>>> accuracy. But I thought that the GPS chip is passive. It receives and
>>> decodes signals from the GPS satellites, but it does not broadcast back
>>> to those satellites, as the article claims. The (refined) position
>>> information is relayed back to the phone system through the normal
>>> system of cellphone towers. Unless you have a satellite phone, of
>>> course.
>>>
>>> Is that right, or do these new phones actually talk to the GPS
>>> satellites?
>>>
>>
>>Not always, My phone has an option to turn the GPS unit to 911 only or
>>have
>>it run constantly. The default is constant. So it is quite possible.
>>
>
> Even so, the damn thing isn't going to communicate with the system by
> talking back to the *satellites*. Hell, the thing is doing good to
> hit the tower on the next hill, and this reporter (whose story I
> couldn't read without registering) expects her readers to believe it's
> talking to a satellite 11,000 miles away. Utter nonsense. It works
> as the OP speculated.
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:06:03 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
wrote:

>[bottom posting corrected]

Bitch all you want, it won't change accepted posting standards.

I find most offenders do it out of laziness (not wanting to properly
attribute and snip) and usually use some dumbed down software which
promotes this practice. Let's see:

>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527

Yep, I was right.

>For heavens sake. Talking to a satellite is just a figure of speech.
>Obviously it means talking to a satellite via a cell antenna when used in
>reference to a cell phone.

So in other words, I was 100% correct.
 

Frankster

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2004
62
0
18,580
0
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>>[bottom posting corrected]
>
> Bitch all you want, it won't change accepted posting standards.

Aw c'mon, "accepted posting standards"?

How 'bout, it won't change your "opinion" of what is acceptable to you.

No problem with you having an opinion and acting on it. But calling
attention to the fact that you believe you are "right" by saying that you
"corrected" someone is ridiculous. I personally prefer top posting in most
cases, but not all. This way the reader has the supporting text IF they
choose to read it. But they don't have to read it to get to the meat of the
answer. Also, I am realistic enough to understand that not everyone shares
my opinion on top posting. That's fine. Everyone is free to post as they
choose.

> I find most offenders do it out of laziness (not wanting to properly
> attribute and snip)

Your opinion is showing again.

> and usually use some dumbed down software which
> promotes this practice.

Yeah, you are a cut above the average newsgroup participant. I can see that
in your posts. You virtually brag about it ("[top post corrected]"), give me
a break!

> Yep, I was right.

I know for folks like yourself being "right" is all that matters.

> So in other words, I was 100% correct.

Again? Sheesh!

-Frank
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
700
0
18,930
0
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:44tue1hbv3fpcil2q8v52piaft3eecqbqp@4ax.com:

> talking to a satellite 11,000 miles away.

It's not. Any GPS receiver is ONLY a receiver. The overhead satellites
are only 200 miles away (LEO - low earth orbit) and in polar orbit, the
only way to cover the entire planet. The constellation is HUGE so you're
never out of range of at least 6 birds any place on the planet. They even
have spares it's so important.

You don't REALLY believe setting your little control panel to "911 only"
keeps government bureaucrats from turning it on for themselves by remote
control...do you?....(c;

--
Larry
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:47:24 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
>news:44tue1hbv3fpcil2q8v52piaft3eecqbqp@4ax.com:
>
>> talking to a satellite 11,000 miles away.
>
>It's not. Any GPS receiver is ONLY a receiver. The overhead satellites
>are only 200 miles away (LEO - low earth orbit) and in polar orbit, the
>only way to cover the entire planet. The constellation is HUGE so you're
>never out of range of at least 6 birds any place on the planet. They even
>have spares it's so important.

Oh, Larry. Acting the fool again, I see. Try MEO:

http://www.losangeles.af.mil/smc/pa/fact_sheets/gps_fs.htm

"Delta II expendable launch vehicles are used to launch the GPS
satellites from Cape Canaveral Air Station, Fla., into six circular
orbits of nearly 11,000 nautical miles."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011009-attack11.htm

"Lower, around 10,900 miles above the surface, are 24 satellites that
comprise the Global Positioning System, or GPS."

http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d303/

"In a lasting tribute that will circle 11,000 miles above the
planet..."

http://www.punaridge.org/doc/factoids/GPS/Default.htm

"GPS satellites orbit at about 20,000 km (12,000 miles) above the
surface of the Earth."

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite7.htm

"The GPS uses satellites at altitudes of 6,000 to 12,000 miles to
determine the exact location of the receiver."

http://www.quartix.net/schools/tutorial.htm

"And just where are they, these satellites?

They orbit around the Earth at a height of about 11,000 miles. They
are arranged in 6 different orbits, with 4 satellites in each orbit.
Each of the orbits is tilted at 55 degrees to the Equator."

http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.asp?SatID=14189

"GPS 8 - Information

Identification USSPACECOM Catalog No.: 14189
International Designation Code: 1983-072-A

Satellite Details
Orbit: 20,737 x 21,248 km"

http://www.morrisville.edu/academics/ag_natural%20resources/AgrScience/html/GPS_Technology.htm

"GPS is based on satellite ranging where we determine our position on
the earth by measuring our distance from a group of satellites, about
10,900 miles away from earth."

http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/

"The 24 satellites that make up the GPS space segment are orbiting the
earth about 12,000 miles above us."

I could go on and on and on, but I think you see the picture.

>You don't REALLY believe setting your little control panel to "911 only"
>keeps government bureaucrats from turning it on for themselves by remote
>control...do you?....(c;

My Kyo-3035 doesn't have that feature. If you had been paying
attention all these years you would have known that. Even if it did,
I never made such a statement, or anything remotely close, so your
point is moot. It's not even relevant to the topic posted by the OP.

You must be a masochist, Larry. You only come here to get caught in
your bullshit and distortions.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:50:32 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
wrote:

>>>[bottom posting corrected]
>>
>> Bitch all you want, it won't change accepted posting standards.
>
>Aw c'mon, "accepted posting standards"?
>
>How 'bout, it won't change your "opinion" of what is acceptable to you.

Then why did you abandon your top posting method in favor of
attribution for this post? You know why, because it makes the
conversation easier to follow.

>No problem with you having an opinion and acting on it. But calling
>attention to the fact that you believe you are "right" by saying that you
>"corrected" someone is ridiculous. I personally prefer top posting in most
>cases, but not all. This way the reader has the supporting text IF they
>choose to read it. But they don't have to read it to get to the meat of the
>answer. Also, I am realistic enough to understand that not everyone shares
>my opinion on top posting. That's fine. Everyone is free to post as they
>choose.

You must have though it was correct, too. See above.

>> I find most offenders do it out of laziness (not wanting to properly
>> attribute and snip)
>
>Your opinion is showing again.

A cursory look at the majority of top-posted replies in any newsgroup
will prove my statement to be correct.

>> and usually use some dumbed down software which
>> promotes this practice.
>
>Yeah, you are a cut above the average newsgroup participant. I can see that
>in your posts. You virtually brag about it ("[top post corrected]"), give me
>a break!

Glad to know I have a fan base hanging on my every post. Thank you
very much!

>> Yep, I was right.
>
>I know for folks like yourself being "right" is all that matters.

Yep.

"Truth has not special time of its own."
"The truth shall set you free."
"Three things cannot long be hidden; the sun, the moon, and the
truth."
"Money talks, bullshit walks."

Oh well, you get the idea.

>> So in other words, I was 100% correct.
>
>Again? Sheesh!

Is this all you can offer, Frank? I didn't see you disputing anything
relevant to the OP. You and Larry have your heads up each others
asses?
 

Frankster

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2004
62
0
18,580
0
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> Then why did you abandon your top posting method in favor of
> attribution for this post? You know why, because it makes the
> conversation easier to follow.

I choose how to reply for each and every post. Often I believe top posting
is best. Other times I don't. Simple as that. I'm not so naive as to
believe one method suites all cases. Additionally, I respect the right of
others to post as they wish. After all, it is the original poster that owns
the post. He can do as he wishes with it.

-Frank
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

WOW... I feel exactly as you do, as expressed below.

> I choose how to reply for each and every post. Often I believe top posting
> is best. Other times I don't. Simple as that. I'm not so naive as to
> believe one method suits all cases. Additionally, I respect the right of
> others to post as they wish. After all, it is the original poster that
> owns the post. He can do as he wishes with it.
>
> -Frank

"throwaway line to eliminate classification as "top posted".. LOL


--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:47:24 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
>news:44tue1hbv3fpcil2q8v52piaft3eecqbqp@4ax.com:
>
>> talking to a satellite 11,000 miles away.
>
>It's not. Any GPS receiver is ONLY a receiver. The overhead satellites

That is true.

>are only 200 miles away (LEO - low earth orbit) and in polar orbit, the

I really thought you were right about that, but the General's evidence to
the contrary is overwhelming.

>You don't REALLY believe setting your little control panel to "911 only"
>keeps government bureaucrats from turning it on for themselves by remote
>control...do you?....(c;

I will believe it until someone who has actual technical knowledge, rather
than paranoid delusions, tells me otherwise.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I am well versed in the classics." - Spock
"Then how come you don't know 'Row row row your boat?'" - Dr. McCoy
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Wireless Carriers 2
Similar threads
Texting to London

ASK THE COMMUNITY