1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

More of Larry's BS...

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Richard Ness, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     



    › See More: More of Larry's BS...
  2. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  3. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  4. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  5. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  6. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  7. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  8. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  9. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  10. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  11. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  12. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  13. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:eek:JWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....

    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
     
  14. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:54:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >Bla, bla, bla....
    >Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD BS rant.
    >
    >So again.....
    >
    >Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND
    >for cellular service. AMPS (the old analog) couldn't handle the vastly increased capacity
    >demands. Carriers HAD to go to digital. This was NOT some "scam" or some conspiracy
    >to rob the public blind.
    >
    >And, because of pilot pollution (CDMA anyway) and the way digital actually works, towers
    >had to be re-configured to also handle the increased demand for cellular. They were also
    >being reconfigured smaller and smaller DURING Larry's beloved AMPS days to handle
    >the exponential increases in cellular traffic. It's why they first went from omni directional 'stick'
    >type antennas, to the panel antennas that then split cells up into 3 (or more) 'sectors'.


    If the new towers being built were digital-only, then the AMPS antennae on
    the older towers could have been left alone. If the new towers also had
    AMPS, then yes, the older ones' antennae needed to be pointed down to avoid
    serious overlap (and thus increase the capacity of even the AMPS system in
    a local area).

    >This "toy phone" and "scrapping" tower crap that Larry spouts is pure bull shit and is
    >NOT what is in ANY way, what is actual reality.
    >
    >Bottom line?? If we all were still using AMPS and "those trusty old 500' towers you used 9
    >years ago", we all would wait many minutes to make a cellular phone call because the system
    >would be almost always busy. IF you could even make a call because the systems were so
    >overloaded. Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND,
    >period!!
    >
    >Digital and smaller 'footprints' of towers came about because you and your neighbor and
    >his neighbor and all the high school girls, etc, etc, etc, etc..... all want to talk nowadays on a
    >cellular phone. The days of only the rich and elite having a cell phone are long gone and so
    >are the days of AMPS and the "10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels ". THIS
    >is the reality of increased demand and the technology that resulted to handle it.
    >
    >Larry, I'm surprised you have never bitched about the sectorization of sites. The 'good old
    >days' of "500' towers" AND omni directional antennas. Same (clueless) rant basically.
    >
    >Pull out your rectially inserted cranium and join the modern world....


    Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    cells is better than a small number of big cells.

    HOWEVER....

    Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    with the noise.

    So, to amend Larry's favorite saying, "Power CAN BE our friend."

    --
    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.
    "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip
    disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan
     
  15. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:54:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >Bla, bla, bla....
    >Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD BS rant.
    >
    >So again.....
    >
    >Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND
    >for cellular service. AMPS (the old analog) couldn't handle the vastly increased capacity
    >demands. Carriers HAD to go to digital. This was NOT some "scam" or some conspiracy
    >to rob the public blind.
    >
    >And, because of pilot pollution (CDMA anyway) and the way digital actually works, towers
    >had to be re-configured to also handle the increased demand for cellular. They were also
    >being reconfigured smaller and smaller DURING Larry's beloved AMPS days to handle
    >the exponential increases in cellular traffic. It's why they first went from omni directional 'stick'
    >type antennas, to the panel antennas that then split cells up into 3 (or more) 'sectors'.


    If the new towers being built were digital-only, then the AMPS antennae on
    the older towers could have been left alone. If the new towers also had
    AMPS, then yes, the older ones' antennae needed to be pointed down to avoid
    serious overlap (and thus increase the capacity of even the AMPS system in
    a local area).

    >This "toy phone" and "scrapping" tower crap that Larry spouts is pure bull shit and is
    >NOT what is in ANY way, what is actual reality.
    >
    >Bottom line?? If we all were still using AMPS and "those trusty old 500' towers you used 9
    >years ago", we all would wait many minutes to make a cellular phone call because the system
    >would be almost always busy. IF you could even make a call because the systems were so
    >overloaded. Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND,
    >period!!
    >
    >Digital and smaller 'footprints' of towers came about because you and your neighbor and
    >his neighbor and all the high school girls, etc, etc, etc, etc..... all want to talk nowadays on a
    >cellular phone. The days of only the rich and elite having a cell phone are long gone and so
    >are the days of AMPS and the "10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels ". THIS
    >is the reality of increased demand and the technology that resulted to handle it.
    >
    >Larry, I'm surprised you have never bitched about the sectorization of sites. The 'good old
    >days' of "500' towers" AND omni directional antennas. Same (clueless) rant basically.
    >
    >Pull out your rectially inserted cranium and join the modern world....


    Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    cells is better than a small number of big cells.

    HOWEVER....

    Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    with the noise.

    So, to amend Larry's favorite saying, "Power CAN BE our friend."

    --
    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.
    "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip
    disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan
     
  16. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:54:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >Bla, bla, bla....
    >Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD BS rant.
    >
    >So again.....
    >
    >Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND
    >for cellular service. AMPS (the old analog) couldn't handle the vastly increased capacity
    >demands. Carriers HAD to go to digital. This was NOT some "scam" or some conspiracy
    >to rob the public blind.
    >
    >And, because of pilot pollution (CDMA anyway) and the way digital actually works, towers
    >had to be re-configured to also handle the increased demand for cellular. They were also
    >being reconfigured smaller and smaller DURING Larry's beloved AMPS days to handle
    >the exponential increases in cellular traffic. It's why they first went from omni directional 'stick'
    >type antennas, to the panel antennas that then split cells up into 3 (or more) 'sectors'.


    If the new towers being built were digital-only, then the AMPS antennae on
    the older towers could have been left alone. If the new towers also had
    AMPS, then yes, the older ones' antennae needed to be pointed down to avoid
    serious overlap (and thus increase the capacity of even the AMPS system in
    a local area).

    >This "toy phone" and "scrapping" tower crap that Larry spouts is pure bull shit and is
    >NOT what is in ANY way, what is actual reality.
    >
    >Bottom line?? If we all were still using AMPS and "those trusty old 500' towers you used 9
    >years ago", we all would wait many minutes to make a cellular phone call because the system
    >would be almost always busy. IF you could even make a call because the systems were so
    >overloaded. Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND,
    >period!!
    >
    >Digital and smaller 'footprints' of towers came about because you and your neighbor and
    >his neighbor and all the high school girls, etc, etc, etc, etc..... all want to talk nowadays on a
    >cellular phone. The days of only the rich and elite having a cell phone are long gone and so
    >are the days of AMPS and the "10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels ". THIS
    >is the reality of increased demand and the technology that resulted to handle it.
    >
    >Larry, I'm surprised you have never bitched about the sectorization of sites. The 'good old
    >days' of "500' towers" AND omni directional antennas. Same (clueless) rant basically.
    >
    >Pull out your rectially inserted cranium and join the modern world....


    Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    cells is better than a small number of big cells.

    HOWEVER....

    Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    with the noise.

    So, to amend Larry's favorite saying, "Power CAN BE our friend."

    --
    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.
    "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip
    disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan
     
  17. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:54:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >Bla, bla, bla....
    >Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD BS rant.
    >
    >So again.....
    >
    >Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND
    >for cellular service. AMPS (the old analog) couldn't handle the vastly increased capacity
    >demands. Carriers HAD to go to digital. This was NOT some "scam" or some conspiracy
    >to rob the public blind.
    >
    >And, because of pilot pollution (CDMA anyway) and the way digital actually works, towers
    >had to be re-configured to also handle the increased demand for cellular. They were also
    >being reconfigured smaller and smaller DURING Larry's beloved AMPS days to handle
    >the exponential increases in cellular traffic. It's why they first went from omni directional 'stick'
    >type antennas, to the panel antennas that then split cells up into 3 (or more) 'sectors'.


    If the new towers being built were digital-only, then the AMPS antennae on
    the older towers could have been left alone. If the new towers also had
    AMPS, then yes, the older ones' antennae needed to be pointed down to avoid
    serious overlap (and thus increase the capacity of even the AMPS system in
    a local area).

    >This "toy phone" and "scrapping" tower crap that Larry spouts is pure bull shit and is
    >NOT what is in ANY way, what is actual reality.
    >
    >Bottom line?? If we all were still using AMPS and "those trusty old 500' towers you used 9
    >years ago", we all would wait many minutes to make a cellular phone call because the system
    >would be almost always busy. IF you could even make a call because the systems were so
    >overloaded. Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND,
    >period!!
    >
    >Digital and smaller 'footprints' of towers came about because you and your neighbor and
    >his neighbor and all the high school girls, etc, etc, etc, etc..... all want to talk nowadays on a
    >cellular phone. The days of only the rich and elite having a cell phone are long gone and so
    >are the days of AMPS and the "10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels ". THIS
    >is the reality of increased demand and the technology that resulted to handle it.
    >
    >Larry, I'm surprised you have never bitched about the sectorization of sites. The 'good old
    >days' of "500' towers" AND omni directional antennas. Same (clueless) rant basically.
    >
    >Pull out your rectially inserted cranium and join the modern world....


    Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    cells is better than a small number of big cells.

    HOWEVER....

    Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    with the noise.

    So, to amend Larry's favorite saying, "Power CAN BE our friend."

    --
    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.
    "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip
    disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan
     
  18. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:54:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >Bla, bla, bla....
    >Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD BS rant.
    >
    >So again.....
    >
    >Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND
    >for cellular service. AMPS (the old analog) couldn't handle the vastly increased capacity
    >demands. Carriers HAD to go to digital. This was NOT some "scam" or some conspiracy
    >to rob the public blind.
    >
    >And, because of pilot pollution (CDMA anyway) and the way digital actually works, towers
    >had to be re-configured to also handle the increased demand for cellular. They were also
    >being reconfigured smaller and smaller DURING Larry's beloved AMPS days to handle
    >the exponential increases in cellular traffic. It's why they first went from omni directional 'stick'
    >type antennas, to the panel antennas that then split cells up into 3 (or more) 'sectors'.


    If the new towers being built were digital-only, then the AMPS antennae on
    the older towers could have been left alone. If the new towers also had
    AMPS, then yes, the older ones' antennae needed to be pointed down to avoid
    serious overlap (and thus increase the capacity of even the AMPS system in
    a local area).

    >This "toy phone" and "scrapping" tower crap that Larry spouts is pure bull shit and is
    >NOT what is in ANY way, what is actual reality.
    >
    >Bottom line?? If we all were still using AMPS and "those trusty old 500' towers you used 9
    >years ago", we all would wait many minutes to make a cellular phone call because the system
    >would be almost always busy. IF you could even make a call because the systems were so
    >overloaded. Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND,
    >period!!
    >
    >Digital and smaller 'footprints' of towers came about because you and your neighbor and
    >his neighbor and all the high school girls, etc, etc, etc, etc..... all want to talk nowadays on a
    >cellular phone. The days of only the rich and elite having a cell phone are long gone and so
    >are the days of AMPS and the "10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels ". THIS
    >is the reality of increased demand and the technology that resulted to handle it.
    >
    >Larry, I'm surprised you have never bitched about the sectorization of sites. The 'good old
    >days' of "500' towers" AND omni directional antennas. Same (clueless) rant basically.
    >
    >Pull out your rectially inserted cranium and join the modern world....


    Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    cells is better than a small number of big cells.

    HOWEVER....

    Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    with the noise.

    So, to amend Larry's favorite saying, "Power CAN BE our friend."

    --
    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.
    "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip
    disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan
     
  19. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:54:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >Bla, bla, bla....
    >Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD BS rant.
    >
    >So again.....
    >
    >Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND
    >for cellular service. AMPS (the old analog) couldn't handle the vastly increased capacity
    >demands. Carriers HAD to go to digital. This was NOT some "scam" or some conspiracy
    >to rob the public blind.
    >
    >And, because of pilot pollution (CDMA anyway) and the way digital actually works, towers
    >had to be re-configured to also handle the increased demand for cellular. They were also
    >being reconfigured smaller and smaller DURING Larry's beloved AMPS days to handle
    >the exponential increases in cellular traffic. It's why they first went from omni directional 'stick'
    >type antennas, to the panel antennas that then split cells up into 3 (or more) 'sectors'.


    If the new towers being built were digital-only, then the AMPS antennae on
    the older towers could have been left alone. If the new towers also had
    AMPS, then yes, the older ones' antennae needed to be pointed down to avoid
    serious overlap (and thus increase the capacity of even the AMPS system in
    a local area).

    >This "toy phone" and "scrapping" tower crap that Larry spouts is pure bull shit and is
    >NOT what is in ANY way, what is actual reality.
    >
    >Bottom line?? If we all were still using AMPS and "those trusty old 500' towers you used 9
    >years ago", we all would wait many minutes to make a cellular phone call because the system
    >would be almost always busy. IF you could even make a call because the systems were so
    >overloaded. Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND,
    >period!!
    >
    >Digital and smaller 'footprints' of towers came about because you and your neighbor and
    >his neighbor and all the high school girls, etc, etc, etc, etc..... all want to talk nowadays on a
    >cellular phone. The days of only the rich and elite having a cell phone are long gone and so
    >are the days of AMPS and the "10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels ". THIS
    >is the reality of increased demand and the technology that resulted to handle it.
    >
    >Larry, I'm surprised you have never bitched about the sectorization of sites. The 'good old
    >days' of "500' towers" AND omni directional antennas. Same (clueless) rant basically.
    >
    >Pull out your rectially inserted cranium and join the modern world....


    Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    cells is better than a small number of big cells.

    HOWEVER....

    Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    with the noise.

    So, to amend Larry's favorite saying, "Power CAN BE our friend."

    --
    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.
    "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip
    disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan
     
  20. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:54:19 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >Bla, bla, bla....
    >Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD BS rant.
    >
    >So again.....
    >
    >Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND
    >for cellular service. AMPS (the old analog) couldn't handle the vastly increased capacity
    >demands. Carriers HAD to go to digital. This was NOT some "scam" or some conspiracy
    >to rob the public blind.
    >
    >And, because of pilot pollution (CDMA anyway) and the way digital actually works, towers
    >had to be re-configured to also handle the increased demand for cellular. They were also
    >being reconfigured smaller and smaller DURING Larry's beloved AMPS days to handle
    >the exponential increases in cellular traffic. It's why they first went from omni directional 'stick'
    >type antennas, to the panel antennas that then split cells up into 3 (or more) 'sectors'.


    If the new towers being built were digital-only, then the AMPS antennae on
    the older towers could have been left alone. If the new towers also had
    AMPS, then yes, the older ones' antennae needed to be pointed down to avoid
    serious overlap (and thus increase the capacity of even the AMPS system in
    a local area).

    >This "toy phone" and "scrapping" tower crap that Larry spouts is pure bull shit and is
    >NOT what is in ANY way, what is actual reality.
    >
    >Bottom line?? If we all were still using AMPS and "those trusty old 500' towers you used 9
    >years ago", we all would wait many minutes to make a cellular phone call because the system
    >would be almost always busy. IF you could even make a call because the systems were so
    >overloaded. Digital cellular and smaller cells were NECESSARY to handle increased DEMAND,
    >period!!
    >
    >Digital and smaller 'footprints' of towers came about because you and your neighbor and
    >his neighbor and all the high school girls, etc, etc, etc, etc..... all want to talk nowadays on a
    >cellular phone. The days of only the rich and elite having a cell phone are long gone and so
    >are the days of AMPS and the "10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels ". THIS
    >is the reality of increased demand and the technology that resulted to handle it.
    >
    >Larry, I'm surprised you have never bitched about the sectorization of sites. The 'good old
    >days' of "500' towers" AND omni directional antennas. Same (clueless) rant basically.
    >
    >Pull out your rectially inserted cranium and join the modern world....


    Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    cells is better than a small number of big cells.

    HOWEVER....

    Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    with the noise.

    So, to amend Larry's favorite saying, "Power CAN BE our friend."

    --
    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.
    "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip
    disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?