Explain PCS
Eaton J. Blumenstein
Thx
e
John S.
cellular service at 1900MHz. It has nothing at all to do with the technology
(CDMA/TDMA/AMPS/GSM).
I know of no AMPS systems at that frequency though!
>what is PCS anyways? What does it do over (on top of) Digital?
>
John S.
Sprint PCS (since May 1997) - 3 phones
AT&T WS (since June 1986) - 1 phone
Cingular (since April 1984) - 2 phones
Voicestream (since December 2001) - 2 phones (also on MTN Mobile in Africa)
Elchacal
the 1900 Mhz the "PCS" band. Marketing grabbed the
opportunity to come up with a "new" feature, i.e., mode.
A dual "mode" would be analog/digital 800 Mhz. A "tri-
mode would be 800 Mhz analog/digital and the third
mode would be 1900 Mhz cellular which they called the
PCS mode. However, PCS in a way was a package of
services such as voice-mail, messaging between phones,
and a few other which are still offered by some 800 Mhz
carriers as "PCS" services. It's not a "clear alternative,"
it's just 1900 Mhz digital. As far as digital goes, it's
great for data, conserving spectrum, battery power
saving but stinks for voice. But, analog uses too much
spectrum, more power and no digital data services. If a
carrier started offering analog only service across the
country they might put some of the others out of business.
For voice, that is. The foregoing my Opinions only.
Cheers
"Eaton J. Blumenstein" <nospam....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uk8393l...@corp.supernews.com...
dr_rags
Do anything you can to differentiate your offerings, even if it is
inconsequential.
Fictional scenario, an engineers' perspective of marketing (Sorry buddies, I
couldn't help myself :) )
Engineering: We are doing the same thing as CellularX
Management: Then why did we have to lobby the FCC for new licensing at
1900Mhz?
Marketing: New license? Do they have a name? PCS? Cool those guys at X are
providing cellular we are providing PCS. So we are NOT doing the same thing.
Engineering: It's just a different frequency.
Marketing: Shhh! Don't tell anyone that... PCS is newer therefore it has to
better than CellularX.
Engineering: Whatever, just leave me out of it. Just make sure you sell
enough to pay my salary.
"Elchacal" <gat...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:ai1n7p$10ljji$1...@ID-128558.news.dfncis.de...
dr_rags
Or at least correct me if I am wrong...
* 800Mhz (Cellular frequency) -
Pro: Better building penetration
Con: Requires greater power to propagate longer distances.
* 1900Mhz (PCS frequency)
Pro: Less power for longer distances compared to 800Mhz.
Con: Worse building penetration.
I guess in a properly designed network, the frequency being used should be
inconsequential to the end user.
"John S." <sexyex...@aol.comspamfree> wrote in message
news:20020728113245...@mb-cu.aol.com...
John S.
Your penetration statements are correct, your power statements are incorrect.
They are backwards.
RF Propogation - think of it this way, for a given power output, the lower the
frequency, the further the distance. The higher the frequency, the more line of
sight the signal is. AM Radio for instance can cover the country on 50,000
watts. FM radio signals need much higher transmitter wattage to cover a city.
Keep in mind that the 1900MHz band that is being used for PCS used to be the
industrial microwave band that Utilities, Oil Companies, and Railroads used for
their communications.
Essentially for exactly the same cellular coverage (square miles) you need more
towers for 1900MHz. 800MHz will penetrate buildings better to some extent.
>John, would care to explain the propagation characteristics of 800 vs 1900?
>Or at least correct me if I am wrong...
>
>* 800Mhz (Cellular frequency) -
> Pro: Better building penetration
> Con: Requires greater power to propagate longer distances.
>
>* 1900Mhz (PCS frequency)
> Pro: Less power for longer distances compared to 800Mhz.
> Con: Worse building penetration.
>
>I guess in a properly designed network, the frequency being used should be
>inconsequential to the end user.
John S.