A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
Radium
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c8ed13?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.
Jeff Liebermann
>On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c8ed13?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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
®©®@®©®.®©®
He typed the message on his Commodore 64 with an Atari floppy drive!
--
-
K Isham
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
DTC
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c8ed13?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.
Dana
"Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184824404.4...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c8ed13?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
Dana
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:122u931qe1hnvcvp6...@4ax.com...
> Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
>>On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c8ed13?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.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c8ed13?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.
karlkr...@sbcglobal.net
How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.
Don Bowey
"karlkr...@sbcglobal.net" <karlkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
Jeff Liebermann
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
>> 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 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Jeff Liebermann
<no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> 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.
--
John Navas
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<falv93l0usf0nf7k1...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raf...@yahoo.com> 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>
John Navas
<psuu93dip5jkf4fk1...@4ax.com>:
>How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
>for cell phone companies.
Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.
John Navas
<tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
Actually more like 10 KHz.
DTC
> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> 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.
John Navas
Spectral efficiency be damned as long as you get yours? ;)
Don Bowey
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkr...@sbcglobal.net wrote in
> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk1...@4ax.com>:
>
>> 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.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
> >In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> 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.
Don Bowey
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:33:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
> <falv93l0usf0nf7k1...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raf...@yahoo.com> 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.
On the other hand, in many smaller communities, analog may need to be
retained until digital capability is ready to take up the business.
AT&T originally gave us notice that our analog service would be terminated
on a certain date, and then modified their statement to say the analog
turn-off would be spread over a long time. They did warn that people who
retained their analog service would have roaming problems as the larger
markets where digital is available will not retain analog capability after
Fall of this year.
Don Bowey
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> 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.
Dana
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:falv93l0usf0nf7k1...@4ax.com...
True enough, Up here in Southwestern Alaska, I am maintaining an old Novatel
that was branded up to Nortel amps system. We run an old MTX DMS 100 switch
along with these 8 Amps cell sites. We are looking at a CDMA system from
Lemko.
Dana
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:iisv93tv67hl9ahtl...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:33:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
> <falv93l0usf0nf7k1...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400, "Dana" <raf...@yahoo.com> 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.
He said dribble, and that would be true for rural areas, as there is no big
push to change much out in the rural areas.
Dana
"Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbo...@comcast.net...
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.
>
Dana
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>>In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> 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.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Exactly.
Don Bowey
"Dana" <raf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Naïve point of view. The feds grabbed? Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?
DTC
> Spectral efficiency be damned as long as you get yours? ;)
Damned right
DTC
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> 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
Dana
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.
>
Don Bowey
"Dana" <raf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities as
a citizen, but there it is..........
Dana
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.
>
RHF
> "Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article a1f3c$46a0170b$944e306e$5...@STARBAND.NET,
> > "Dana" <raff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:C2C55D1A.700AD%dbo...@comcast.net...
> >>> On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
> >>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote in
> >>>> <psuu93dip5jkf4fk12jq01oo3j4f3bc...@4ax.com>:
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
>
>
>
> - 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
.
.
. .
Dana
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1184914185.0...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
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.
Jeff Liebermann
>> 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.
Mark McIntyre
Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, karlkr...@sbcglobal.net wrote in
><psuu93dip5jkf4fk1...@4ax.com>:
>
>>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
John Navas
in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
Audio. Suggest you read more carefully.
RHF
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>
> >>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> 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:
>
> - Show quoted text -
DOH ! Suggest that you not Reply and
Re-Cross-Post to Rec.Radio.Shortwave.
.
.
. .
Brenda Ann
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.
Don Bowey
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3...@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>> <tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>
>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> 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?
D Peter Maus
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.
Stephanie Weil
> 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
D Peter Maus
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.
Don Bowey
hbZwi.433778$p47.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
<DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I can't think of even one US Telco that would (or could) guarantee that for
a POTS line.
AT&T didn't sell local channels. What Telco are you calling AT&T?
D Peter Maus
ATT does. So does Verizon. And GTE,...at least before they became
Sprint. If you don't meet those figures, you can complain. They'll move
on it. It's part of the tariff structure. I spent a number of years at
working with Telcos on just this matter.
RHF
> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt5...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> > in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
> >>"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >>> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>
> >>>>> 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
? "STL's" ?
D Peter Maus
Studio to Transmitter Link.
John Navas
in <C2E9E58F.73A63%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
>hbZwi.433778$p47.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
><DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> 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.
Check the spec.
John Navas
in <C2E9A4C7.739F3%dbo...@comcast.net>:
No. Suggest you read more carefully.
John Navas
wrote in <ZeKdnXSDCIaYqFnb...@giganews.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:0cq7c3def3f3rdpt5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>>On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3...@4ax.com,
>>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>> <tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> 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.
>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.
POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".
RHF
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2E9A4C7.739F3%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> >> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
> >>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >>>> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>
> >>>>>> 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?
>
> No. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read More... Doh!
C a r e f u l l y . . . D O H !
Brenda Ann
>>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.
>
> POTS lines are encoded at 64 Kbps, which is why V.90 modems work, and
> which is sufficient for decent audio, albeit not "hi-fi".
>
POTS lines are not encoded at all. Hence "Plain Old Telephone Service" which
can be used with any telephone (ain't no decoders in a WE 500 deskset) that
uses a DC line.
RHF
> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
POTS de PANS . . . DOH !
D Peter Maus
In the US, the telephone network has been digital since 1962. At the
time of the conversion, there was a decision made to keep the instrument
and the interface familiar to the user, so there is no conversion in the
deskset, and the 'last mile' from the CO is still analogue with battery
voltage as it always has been. But behind that interface, the network is
digital.
Now, that 'last mile' analogue circuit can be VERY poor. In my area,
a v.92 modem will only pass 14.4. While only a mile up the road, I was
getting 53k+ on the same v.92 modem.
When the network was converted from analogue to digital, there were
complaints that voices no longer sounded right and that some people
didn't sound like themselves. The complaints reached suce a pitch that
AT&T launched a PR campaign in which TV spots attempted to explain the
change in the audio at the instrument. As was the style of the times,
they didn't really explain anything, certainly nothing as technical as
digital audio, but instead, they described, through narrative and
animation, how a person speaking into a telephone would connect to the
central hub, where a voice that was similar to the speaker's voice was
selected, and sent on to the far end. That's why someone didn't sound
like themeselves.
No one bought it, of course, what with AT&T's reputation, by that
point...but it was a hilarious exercise in TelCo spin.
And paved the way for the explanation of 'Tru-Voice' 30 years later.
Yes, POTS lines are encoded. At the CO. The only thing POTS about a
POTS line is what sits on your desk, and a length of copper to the network.
Don Bowey
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:29:19 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2E9E58F.73A63%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
>> On 8/16/07 7:29 AM, in article
>> hbZwi.433778$p47.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
>> <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Check the spec.
Sure. Whose spec?
Ever notice the D4 bank filter cutoff frequencies? How about loaded cable
rolloff?
Don Bowey
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> in <C2E9A4C7.739F3%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
>> On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article 0cq7c3def3f3rdpt5...@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article 1mtv93ticddur8rq3...@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>>>>> <tp94n4-...@mail.specsol.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluc...@gmail.com> 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?
>
> No. Suggest you read more carefully.
Suggest you kiss my ass.
Don Bowey
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Having said that, you have said nothing useful.
Don Bowey
UvCdncJlyIko1U_b...@giganews.com, "Brenda Ann"
<bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
POTS lines that are on pair gain systems are, indeed, coded in the same
manner as is the message network. It has nothing to do with the phone, and
is transparent to the user. They may, however, not be coded to a full 64
kbit/s.
Don Bowey
DjsAi.465232$p47.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
<DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You ignored pair-gain multiplexing in the Exchange Plant, which uses the
same codecs as are used in the message network.
D Peter Maus
Um.....no, actually, I didn't.
Don Bowey
7XBAi.56423$ax1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "D Peter Maus"
<DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> At the CO.
How about the one at the pair-gain terminal that you forgot?
Telamon
"Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:spd4d39jcfqoeubml...@4ax.com...
< Snip >
John Navas is a notorious Troll in many news groups. Please do not
respond to him in re.radio.shortwave.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross post.
< Plonk >
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Don Bowey
telamon_spamshield-B...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
Idiot. The reply goes to whatever distribution was set on the posted
message. Plonk yourself, Troll.
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <UvCdncJlyIko1U_bnZ2dnUVZ_u6rn...@giganews.com>,
> "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
>
> > "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:spd4d39jcfqoeubml...@4ax.com...
>
> < Snip >
>
- John Navas is a notorious Troll in many news groups.
- Please do not respond to him in re.radio.shortwave.
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
Telamon - Was 'that' an Oops ? ;-}
{Please do not respond to him in re.radio.shortwave.}
DOH ! - Oops It Was For Me Too ! :o) ~ RHF
.
.
. .
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <C2F7A083.75061%dbo...@comcast.net>,
> Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:55 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > in <C2E9A4C7.739F3%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
> > >> On 8/15/07 11:07 PM, in article
> > >> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:58 -0700, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote
> > >>> in <C2C5616E.700B1%dbo...@comcast.net>:
>
> > >>>> On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article
> > >>>> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> > >>>>> <tp94n4-17l....@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>
> > >>>>>>> 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?
>
> > > No. Suggest you read more carefully.
>
> > Suggest you kiss my ass.
>
- I suggest you pay attention to the news groups to which you cross
post.
-
- < Plonk >
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
Telamon - Was 'that' an Oops ? ;-}
{ I suggest you pay attention to the
news groups to which you cross post.}
sci.electronics.basics, rec.radio.shortwave,
rec.radio.amateur.antenna, alt.cellular.cingular,
alt.internet.wireless
DOH ! - Oops It Was For Me Too ! :o) ~ RHF
.
plink, plink, plink,
.
Plank. Plank. Plank.
.
P L O N K ! - P L O N K ! - P L O N K !
.
plonk me if i haven't plonked myself again . . .
.
.
. .