IOW, you didn't understand anything about cellphone technology. What I
figured so further explanation is wasted.

Bottom line is, I have a cellphone that works to over 60 km off the
coast of a huge and sparsely populated continent. You have one that
doesn't even work off the coast of NYC - assuming you actually ever get
more than 100m from the dock, which is doubtful.

PDW

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:17:58 +1100, Peter Wiley
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:27:41 +1100, Peter Wiley
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:46:36 GMT, "Overproof"
wrote:


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Now where on the East or West Coast of the Continental US is there an
area
without cellular service??

Whole sections of the LIS are without service or have poor service.
I've
switched phones 3 times to attain better signals. Verizon is
currently
the
best. It works 75% of the time.

My sympathies on having to endure such 3rd world service in a country
that
lays claim to such global power. There is no area along the coast of
Nova
Scotia that does not have cellular service. You must truly live in a
poverty
stricken location when cellular service is so spotty as to be
unavailable
regardless of the fact that you are within line of sight of heavily
populated areas.

CM


???

Cell service is land based, and for reasons that are obvious to those
with
any
understanding, cell towers are generally placed inland at a point where
they
often reach just far enough to serve those on shore. The only reason
there
is
service in the LIS at all is because the signal sometimes manages to
take
advantage of the clear line of site.

You must have truly, truly ****ty cellphone technology. I have a pocket
sized CDMA cellphone and I can get signal some 30 nautical miles south
of Tasmania without problems. Next bit of land is the Antarctic
continent.


It has very little or nothing to do with the technology, and everything to
do
with location. We live in an area of high population density, and most of
that
population objects to cell towers that are higher than surrounding trees,
hills
or buildings. We have lots of towers, but none have much range
individually.
Then again, that was the whole concept behind cellular phones, now, wasn't
it?
Lots of low power cells that hand off as you pass from one to the next.

As I said, you must have truly ****ty technology. A non-exhaustive
recap of cell phones. First out here there was analog (AMPS). Very good
range, 100 kilometers or more with the proper antenna, big cells, wide
spacing. Ideal for a big country, not so good in the cities as the
number of users climbed. Next generation, GSM digital. Programmable
range, high cell density, low power, ideal for dense metropolises,
useless for long range as the number of base stations is ridiculously
high and therefore far too expensive to install. Complementary
technology, CDMA, not quite as good a range as the old AMPS but a lot
better data rate. Works in parallel with a GSM system.

We have GSM and CDMA giving us the best of both worlds. Sounds like
your cellphone providers don't bother with CDMA. Therefore you have a
system with no range and think that's normal for cellphones. It's only
normal for providors who either can't or won't provide better tech.

Still what can you expect from a country where you have to have roaming
agreements if you go interstate? My cellphone works anywhere in
Australia that's in range of a base station. Considering we've got
something like 80% of the land area of North America and less than 20%
of the population...... your tech doesn't look real good.

PDW

What a complete dunce! My cellphone works anywhere in the U.S. that is within
range of a base station. If english wasn't a second or third language for you,
maybe you would have been able to decipher the incredibly complex explanation I
posted.

BB