reliability of cell phone service

[Guest]

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

I'll toss in my two cents worth. Cell phone coverage is iffy anyway
becuause its radio. A cellphone system is complex enough with the
radio component through in.

I would never ever consider my cell phone reliable.
1)you have to have a tower.
2)you have to have power to the tower. (most towers dont have backup
generators or batteries. Here in NC, whenever we have power outage, the
cingular cell phone serive goes down)
3)you must have a t1 line out of the tower.

The most reliable comunications I have is my 20 meter cw rig. yes
remeber cw?? It is 5 watts and I can run it for days on a battery and
talk all around the world.

in the reliablity range heres how my list of reliable from most to least
1)wired Pots phones
2)Satelite telephones
4)2 meter/70 cm ham rigs
5)hw ham rigs
6)cell phones

So be carefule what you purchase a cell phone for.

Remember, that even in a well covered area there are dead spots, dead
repeaters, etc.

A cell phone is a convience, not a necessity.

Chip

 

[Guest]

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

How far can you communicate with handheld 2 meter rigs? Is 70cm
different than 2 meter?

Can you communicate over, say, 350 miles with a handheld 2 meter
radio?

Dan



On Sat, 01 May 2004 14:45:06 -0400, Ralph Blach
<rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> wrote:

>I'll toss in my two cents worth. Cell phone coverage is iffy anyway
>becuause its radio. A cellphone system is complex enough with the
>radio component through in.
>
>I would never ever consider my cell phone reliable.
>1)you have to have a tower.
>2)you have to have power to the tower. (most towers dont have backup
>generators or batteries. Here in NC, whenever we have power outage, the
>cingular cell phone serive goes down)
>3)you must have a t1 line out of the tower.
>
>The most reliable comunications I have is my 20 meter cw rig. yes
>remeber cw?? It is 5 watts and I can run it for days on a battery and
>talk all around the world.
>
>in the reliablity range heres how my list of reliable from most to least
>1)wired Pots phones
>2)Satelite telephones
>4)2 meter/70 cm ham rigs
>5)hw ham rigs
>6)cell phones
>
>So be carefule what you purchase a cell phone for.
>
>Remember, that even in a well covered area there are dead spots, dead
>repeaters, etc.
>
>A cell phone is a convience, not a necessity.
>
>Chip

 

[Guest]

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

> Can you communicate over, say, 350 miles with a handheld 2 meter
> radio?
>
> Dan
Ummmmmm, dunno- let's see-

How about world wide?

is that far enough?

 

[Jer]

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

Ralph Blach wrote:
> I'll toss in my two cents worth. Cell phone coverage is iffy anyway
> becuause its radio. A cellphone system is complex enough with the
> radio component through in.
>
> I would never ever consider my cell phone reliable.
> 1)you have to have a tower.

Or a building, a bridge, a billboard sign, a church steeple,


> 2)you have to have power to the tower. (most towers dont have backup
> generators or batteries. Here in NC, whenever we have power outage, the
> cingular cell phone serive goes down)

Actually, I have to disagree - virtually all cell sites have batteries,
and the typical design minimum is two hours without commercial AC - but
you're right on the other part, most don't have generators.

Another thing to keep in mind is no cellular carrier owns the power
lines, the telco lines, and I'm trying to think of one that still owns
their own towers. Point being that unless the ownership of all this is
under one roof, reliablilty will always be a variable.

> 3)you must have a t1 line out of the tower.

Most sites have at least two or more depending on capacity requirements.




--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

 

[Guest]

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

Ralph Blach <rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> wrote in message news:<1097s1j1btet116@corp.supernews.com>...
> I'll toss in my two cents worth. Cell phone coverage is iffy anyway
> becuause its radio. A cellphone system is complex enough with the
> radio component through in.
>
> I would never ever consider my cell phone reliable.

What kind of reliabilty do you need? My cellphone works (from my
house) at least 99% of the time. Close enough for rock 'n roll, as
they say. In addition I have a prepaid account with a different cell
company for use when traveling in rural areas- giving me redundancy.

Cellular is generally reliable enough for those wishing to dump wired
service. While more reliable, even POTS can go down. Mine did about
a month ago. I had to have Qwest forward my home calls to my
"unreable" cell for the 24-hours I was without landline service.

(Ironically, since moving to Denver last July, my landline service has
been down twice for a total of about 36 hours. My cell service has
been down once for about four hours!)

> 1)you have to have a tower.

....with landline you have to have a continuous wire connection to the
switching office. Say what you want about radio waves, but they can't
"break" like wire can.

> 2)you have to have power to the tower. (most towers dont have backup
> generators or batteries.

Maybe not in the sticks, but in the three metro areas I've lived in
since owning cellular phones, I've never lost cellular service in a
blackout- even a prolonged (36-hour) one caused by a Kansas City ice
storm two years ago.

> The most reliable comunications I have is my 20 meter cw rig. yes
> remeber cw?? It is 5 watts and I can run it for days on a battery and
> talk all around the world.

For that to work, you need someone at the other end who still
remembers CW! ;-)

> in the reliablity range heres how my list of reliable from most to least
> 1)wired Pots phones
> 2)Satelite telephones
> 4)2 meter/70 cm ham rigs
> 5)hw ham rigs
> 6)cell phones

You're defining "reliable" how? If my kid was choking, 911 on the
cell is far more likely to get me immediate help than a morse code SOS
to a guy in Oslo, Norway!

> So be carefule what you purchase a cell phone for.

Yeah. Next time my car breaks down I'll wish I had my 35-mile RJ-11
cord with me...

> Remember, that even in a well covered area there are dead spots, dead
> repeaters, etc.

Absolutely. But even my T-Mobile phone, which only covers 25% of the
land area in the US, offers far more reliability than not carrying a
cellphone!

> A cell phone is a convience, not a necessity.

My wife thought so to, until she called me from I-70 about two miles
from the nearest exit when a dead alternator caused the car to run on
battery power only until it was so depleted it couldn't generate
enough juice to spark the plugs and keep the car running. I didn't
need convincing cellphones were necessities, of course. My first
cellphone, an old Nokia "brick", saved my bacon when my VW bug slid
into a ditch in a 0-degree Nebraska blizzard about three miles west of
Fremont. (I'll wager many folks on this NG have much better
emergency/safety stories than mine, but these are all I've got,
thankfully.)

A landline phone isn't a "necessity" either by the strictest
"food/shelter/clothing" definitions. While I enjoy the convenience
and safety of having both wired and wireless phones, if I had to
choose only one, it'd be the wireless, no question.

 

[Guest]

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

>
> What kind of reliabilty do you need? My cellphone works (from my
> house) at least 99% of the time. Close enough for rock 'n roll, as
> they say. In addition I have a prepaid account with a different cell
> company for use when traveling in rural areas- giving me redundancy.
>
> Cellular is generally reliable enough for those wishing to dump wired
> service.

That's what we did. Over the past several years, our cellular service has
been 100% reliable at home, and at least 90% reliable on the road. Compare
that to POTS which is 0% reliable on the road, and I fail to understand why
100% of phone users have NOT ditched their landline YET. -Dave

 

[user]

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

RE/
>Compare
>that to POTS which is 0% reliable on the road, and I fail to understand why
>100% of phone users have NOT ditched their landline YET.

Per another thread: I can answer the phone in the rec room, they yell upstairs
to my wife to pick up the phone - plus we have the option of both being in on
the conversation.

Also, at least where I am (Southeastern Penna) cell phone performance is iffy.
My Cingular phone's voice quality and chances of having a signal have definately
diminished over the past couple years....

Finally, in my experience, cell phone voice quality has never on a par with land
lines. Regardless of free minutes, given the opportunity I always switch to
land line for extended conversations - it's easier on me and the people on the
other end are usually grateful....
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Guest]

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

>
> Finally, in my experience, cell phone voice quality has never on a par
with land
> lines. Regardless of free minutes, given the opportunity I always switch
to
> land line for extended conversations - it's easier on me and the people on
the
> other end are usually grateful....
> --

You need to get a decent handset then. I might suggest you try something
(anything) Nokia, and specifically avoid Motorola, although the T720 isn't
too bad for voice quality. But any Nokia will beat it. -Dave

 

[Rob]

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

> 3)you must have a t1 line out of the tower.

Negative, many sites in and around major metro's is back-hauled via
microwave, making things cheaper and providing longer uptimes. This was not
the case, say 2 years ago, but microwave is far less succeptable to natural
disasters, or other inclamate conditions that may occur along a T1 causeway.

RJ


>
> The most reliable comunications I have is my 20 meter cw rig. yes
> remeber cw?? It is 5 watts and I can run it for days on a battery and
> talk all around the world.
>
> in the reliablity range heres how my list of reliable from most to least
> 1)wired Pots phones
> 2)Satelite telephones
> 4)2 meter/70 cm ham rigs
> 5)hw ham rigs
> 6)cell phones
>
> So be carefule what you purchase a cell phone for.
>
> Remember, that even in a well covered area there are dead spots, dead
> repeaters, etc.
>
> A cell phone is a convience, not a necessity.
>
> Chip
>

 

[Guest]

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

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:<2nba909vr2r61ihupcatktoqlo44eb5use@4ax.com>...
> RE/
> >Compare
> > I fail to understand why
> >100% of phone users have NOT ditched their landline YET.
>
> Per another thread: I can answer the phone in the rec room, they yell upstairs
> to my wife to pick up the phone - plus we have the option of both being in on
> the conversation.

As I answered in that thread, plenty of relatively inexpensive
solutions exist to interface your home phone(s) to a cell phone.

> Also, at least where I am (Southeastern Penna) cell phone performance is iffy.
> My Cingular phone's voice quality and chances of having a signal have definately
> diminished over the past couple years....

Based on your list of phones, you have (had?) Cingular's TDMA service.
The sound quality of GSM, IMHO, is much closer to landline than
either TDMA or the CDMA used by Verizon, Alltel or Sprint .

> Finally, in my experience, cell phone voice quality has never on a par with land
> lines.

Not since they went digital, anyway! The analog FM audio used by
older cellphones sounded a lot better. Again, in these digital days I
find GSM to sound the most natural.

> Regardless of free minutes, given the opportunity I always switch to
> land line for extended conversations - it's easier on me and the people on the
> other end are usually grateful....

Yeah, it takes a certain type of customer to get away with dumping
their landline, IMHO, my brother-in-law did it- he and his wife both
work crazy hours, have different sets of friends, and do pretty well
with only wireless.

 

[user]

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

RE/
>But any Nokia will beat it.

Nokia is all I've ever had.

Currently a 7180. Before that 6161i. Before that, 6120A.

None that bad...it's just that land line is sooooo much better.

I think part of it is ergonomics - placement of the microphone/earpiece.
Another factor, I think, is the lack of feedback. On a land line phone there
seems to be a little of your speaking voice in the earpiece. I've always
suspected that the lack of that on cell phones is part of the reason people talk
so loudly on them in public.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Guest]

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

Nokia? I haven't had much luck with Nokia. My Nokia 8290 did not have very
good reception and earpiece. I love the size and the tri-band (world phone)
feature of the Nokia 6100 but the reception is not that great.

I find that phones with external antenna have much better reception.

I now use a Motorola V60 in the car because it does not pickup road
background road noise so the person I'm talking to does not know I'm
driving.
Otherwise, I use a Samsung X427 when walking around because it's small and
fits nicely and unobtrusively in my pocket.


"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message
news:c73c09$hhqfa$1@ID-233294.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Finally, in my experience, cell phone voice quality has never on a par
> with land
> > lines. Regardless of free minutes, given the opportunity I always
switch
> to
> > land line for extended conversations - it's easier on me and the people
on
> the
> > other end are usually grateful....
> > --
>
> You need to get a decent handset then. I might suggest you try something
> (anything) Nokia, and specifically avoid Motorola, although the T720 isn't
> too bad for voice quality. But any Nokia will beat it. -Dave
>
>

 

[Joseph]

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

On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:40:05 GMT, "Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Nokia? I haven't had much luck with Nokia.

Well, if you don't know you should know that for every person that
says that Nokia is bad someone will say that Ericsson or Motorola is
bad. Luckily for you there's a choice so you don't have to take Nokia
you can take Motorola, Siemens, LG or any number of manufacturers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

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

I agree with you Todd.

If people would start dumping their land lines en-masse, then the mobile
phone base would grow. Services and features would improve greatly and
prices would decrease.

Why pay for two services when you only use one? The only reason I still
have my landline (lowest cost basic measured rate) is because I'm required
to do so for DSL. If 3G wireless can provide me with fast Internet access,
I would dump wireline completely.


"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
news:de37a2e0.0405022051.3202b5ef@posting.google.com...
> "(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:<2nba909vr2r61ihupcatktoqlo44eb5use@4ax.com>...
> > RE/
> > >Compare
> > > I fail to understand why
> > >100% of phone users have NOT ditched their landline YET.
> >
> > Per another thread: I can answer the phone in the rec room, they yell
upstairs
> > to my wife to pick up the phone - plus we have the option of both being
in on
> > the conversation.
>
> As I answered in that thread, plenty of relatively inexpensive
> solutions exist to interface your home phone(s) to a cell phone.
>
> > Also, at least where I am (Southeastern Penna) cell phone performance is
iffy.
> > My Cingular phone's voice quality and chances of having a signal have
definately
> > diminished over the past couple years....
>
> Based on your list of phones, you have (had?) Cingular's TDMA service.
> The sound quality of GSM, IMHO, is much closer to landline than
> either TDMA or the CDMA used by Verizon, Alltel or Sprint .
>
> > Finally, in my experience, cell phone voice quality has never on a par
with land
> > lines.
>
> Not since they went digital, anyway! The analog FM audio used by
> older cellphones sounded a lot better. Again, in these digital days I
> find GSM to sound the most natural.
>
> > Regardless of free minutes, given the opportunity I always switch to
> > land line for extended conversations - it's easier on me and the people
on the
> > other end are usually grateful....
>
> Yeah, it takes a certain type of customer to get away with dumping
> their landline, IMHO, my brother-in-law did it- he and his wife both
> work crazy hours, have different sets of friends, and do pretty well
> with only wireless.

 

[Guest]

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

Joseph,

I think you're right. But I think that was last year's info.
IMHO, Nokia lost it's edge. I hope they regain it. Thanks to competition,
every manufacturer has to keep on innovating. That's the way it should be.


"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
news:mlpb90lskaq2s1rhomsl7uhi579t15akva@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:40:05 GMT, "Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Nokia? I haven't had much luck with Nokia.
>
> Well, if you don't know you should know that for every person that
> says that Nokia is bad someone will say that Ericsson or Motorola is
> bad. Luckily for you there's a choice so you don't have to take Nokia
> you can take Motorola, Siemens, LG or any number of manufacturers.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Joseph]

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

On Mon, 03 May 2004 17:00:12 GMT, "Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Joseph,
>
>I think you're right. But I think that was last year's info.

I don't have a clue what you mean that is is "last year's info."

>IMHO, Nokia lost it's edge. I hope they regain it. Thanks to competition,
>every manufacturer has to keep on innovating. That's the way it should be.
>
>
>"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
>news:mlpb90lskaq2s1rhomsl7uhi579t15akva@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:40:05 GMT, "Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Nokia? I haven't had much luck with Nokia.
>>
>> Well, if you don't know you should know that for every person that
>> says that Nokia is bad someone will say that Ericsson or Motorola is
>> bad. Luckily for you there's a choice so you don't have to take Nokia
>> you can take Motorola, Siemens, LG or any number of manufacturers.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

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

"Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<0Zklc.4819$Zw7.2210@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...

> If people would start dumping their land lines en-masse, then the mobile
> phone base would grow. Services and features would improve greatly and
> prices would decrease.

I disagree there. Wireless has gotten about as big as it can get in
terms of raw users. Most landline customers already have mobile
phones, so chucking the wired phone won't significantly increase the
number of wireless users, though they might use a few more minutes!

Competition between wireless companies spurs the value in costs and
quality of servive. Wireline defections wouldn't improve service or
pricing of wireless- if anything it might further overcrowd overloaded
metro systems.

> Why pay for two services when you only use one?

Phone companiesave figured that out, and have started createtively
bundling wired and wireless services with discounts and extra
features.

> The only reason I still
> have my landline (lowest cost basic measured rate) is because I'm required
> to do so for DSL.

I like the quality of landline audio, and the compatibility with
analog fax and modems.

As long as pricing is reasonable, I'm happier with both wired and
wireless. They aren't mutually exclusive!

> If 3G wireless can provide me with fast Internet access,
> I would dump wireline completely.

If they do, it'll be more expensive. Wired has quite a bandwidth
advantage! Verizon gets $80/month for Express, and it's less than
half the speed of DSL. Regardless of technology used, do you really
think any wireless company has the bandwidth to offer you a few
hundred kbps and an unlimited data bucket for the less than $50/month
cable or DSL costs?

 

[Guest]

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

I guess I should have been more specific,

Here in NC, when ever we have a weather event, Ice storm, hurican, or
Tornado the cell phone system system goes down fast.

I lost cell phone service the otherday because a power event, cut power
to tower.

During these times, when one really needs phone service, I find the
ham radio, land lines and ameteur radios seem to be more reliable.

During the other times, I will agree, my cingular coverage is solid,
but during the others, Land lines and Ham Radios seem to be better.

Now I will agree that ham radios cannot do most of the things easily
that cell phone does, but going the my local repeater its coverge
is very nice.

Chip

Ralph Blach wrote:
> I'll toss in my two cents worth. Cell phone coverage is iffy anyway
> becuause its radio. A cellphone system is complex enough with the
> radio component through in.
>
> I would never ever consider my cell phone reliable.
> 1)you have to have a tower.
> 2)you have to have power to the tower. (most towers dont have backup
> generators or batteries. Here in NC, whenever we have power outage, the
> cingular cell phone serive goes down)
> 3)you must have a t1 line out of the tower.
>
> The most reliable comunications I have is my 20 meter cw rig. yes
> remeber cw?? It is 5 watts and I can run it for days on a battery and
> talk all around the world.
>
> in the reliablity range heres how my list of reliable from most to least
> 1)wired Pots phones
> 2)Satelite telephones
> 4)2 meter/70 cm ham rigs
> 5)hw ham rigs
> 6)cell phones
>
> So be carefule what you purchase a cell phone for.
>
> Remember, that even in a well covered area there are dead spots, dead
> repeaters, etc.
>
> A cell phone is a convience, not a necessity.
>
> Chip
>

 

[Guest]

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

> >
> >I think you're right. But I think that was last year's info.
>

By that I meant that most people's comments about their phones are
reflective of previous years' models. This year's crop of phones is
different and won't be reflected in customer satisfaction surveys until
next year.

I don't dispute that Nokia had good customer ratings but I believe that the
trend is changing in favor of the competitors (mostly Samsung and Motorola).
Just my humble opinion.

 

[Joseph]

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

On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:54:03 GMT, "Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote:

>I don't dispute that Nokia had good customer ratings but I believe that the
>trend is changing in favor of the competitors (mostly Samsung and Motorola).
>Just my humble opinion.

Nokia may be slipping, but the second place Motorola is around 16%
with Nokia in the mid 30% of market share.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply