Cell phones

[davidmc36]

I don't think you guys ever had the law up there.

You just suffered because your too small a market for your own product so you are stuck with US laws.

To the best of my knowledge there was a difference at one time between our scanners because of a lack of specific regulation mandating the scanner be "cell blocked". You used to see products advertised as "US version Cell Blocked", but don't quote me. I may have just seen ones that were being adveritsed for worldwide sales and the US part maybe needed to be interpreted as "Canada too"

This excerpt:

Section (9.1.1) covers receiving of signals. In Canada we took a bit more of a sane approach to cell phone scanners and eavesdropping on cell conversations back in the analog cell phone days. The rule makers knew that the technology existed for people to listen to the frequencies of analog cell phones, so rather than trying to jam the genie back in the bottle and declare a technology illegal, it is only illegal to divulge the contents of a conversation that you may eavesdrop on.

From this web page""

http://www.renderlab.net/articles/canadianwardrivinglaw.html

Puts it in laymans terms.

Their source it this:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/r-2/sec9.html

 

[slicerwizard]

To the best of my knowledge there was a difference at one time between our scanners

Who made a "Canadian version" of their scanner products? Probably nobody.

 

[mikewazowski]

Electra did at one point but it had nothing to do with cellular.

The BC220RC was a Canadian version of the BC220. It included the 138-144Mhz band and possibly the 406-420Mhz band. Before that, Canadians (specifically Ontario residents) had to use images to listen to the 138-144Mhz police services.

I believe there was also a Canadian version of the BC210 which included the ability to skip the IMTS pilot tone. I found one down at Dayton several years ago and the fellow told me it was the "Canadian" version.

However, I don't believe any manufacturer specifically made a cell enabled scanner for the Canadian market. You could buy European wide coverage receivers but there was never anything specifically produced for Canada.

 

[davidmc36]

Who made a "Canadian version" of their scanner products? Probably nobody.

To the best of my knowledge there was a difference at one time between our scanners because of a lack of specific regulation mandating the scanner be "cell blocked". You used to see products advertised as "US version Cell Blocked", but don't quote me. I may have just seen ones that were being adveritsed for worldwide sales and the US part maybe needed to be interpreted as "Canada too"

That is why I said the rest of the paragraph that you cut off when you quoted, I was not 100% sure what was meant by the "US version Cell blocked"

 

[N_Jay]

I think the issue is in Canada, there was never a law requiring (or even suggesting) that cellular frequencies had to be blocked.

If the products were sold that way, it was merely a convenience for the manufacturer not to have to distribute two different sub-models in North America.

You ONLY got blocked scanners because of our (stupid) laws, and your (relatively) insignificant market.

Your interception laws are much the same as ours are on non-cellular bands, pre the (stupid) millenium copyright act.

 

[torontokris]

Wasnt it only Rogers (along with Fido) who went FULL DIGITAL?

I swear I have heard BELL pay as you go phones lately on that band, mostly checking their BELL balances and other boring stuff. But not 100% sure.

BELL rep is maybe saying they only sell digital phones now, but wont old analog phones still work.

 

[davidmc36]

Yeah, Rogers abandoned analoag quite a few years ago. I have not actually turned my phone on but I got the letter from Bell in Ontario that said they were shutting down in November and canceled it in August cause I was not using it much anyway. I assume it is gone now. My mother in NB, which is owned by bell now, got her new digital phone and afterwards turned on her old analog for fun and sure enough, no signal, sitting right beside her new digital one that was humming away at full bars.

 

[mikewazowski]

BELL rep is maybe saying they only sell digital phones now, but wont old analog phones still work.

No, all major cellular carriers are turning off their analog service completely.

They need the spectrum to roll out all the fancy data services everybody wants.

You can make more money off of data then you can from a single customer per channel analog phone.

 

[vabiro]

Hi,

I understand both Bell and Telus are turning up GSM over the next year (probably to capture roaming traffic during the Olympics). It could be that they are not using the 850 spectrum they have recently recovered for their CDMA services because they are going to use them for GSM.

There is a pretty good chance that they have all the network capacity and coverage they need in the regions where AMPS was still in service. As a result, there was no point in spending the time and money to put in CDMA equipment when it would be ripped out in favour of GSM in 2009.

Cheers
Victor

 

[vabiro]

BTW, For those of you that want the "bag phone" power for the fringe and rural coverage areas, motorola has both GSM and CDMA bag phones called the "M Series":

CDMA M800
GSM M900

Victor

 

[davidmc36]

Just to confirm for the curious cat in all of us, I was looking for a power supply today and came across my old analog, Bell, baghone in a box. I fired it up and as suspected, NO SERVICE, here in SouthEastern Ontario.

I like the idea that vabrio suggested about the new GSM and CDMA bag phones, but if you look at the specs in their FAQ's it says .25W 850mhz/.4W 1900mhz for the 800 and 2W 850mhz/1W 1900mhz for the 900. Looks like the GSM is the way to go.

But then it gets more confusing, another FAQ that answers questions about data connectivity for their "3W" bagphones shows at the bottom applicable models and includes the M800 and M900??????

 

[vabiro]

Just to confirm for the curious cat in all of us, I was looking for a power supply today and came across my old analog, Bell, baghone in a box. I fired it up and as suspected, NO SERVICE, here in SouthEastern Ontario.

I like the idea that vabrio suggested about the new GSM and CDMA bag phones, but if you look at the specs in their FAQ's it says .25W 850mhz/.4W 1900mhz for the 800 and 2W 850mhz/1W 1900mhz for the 900. Looks like the GSM is the way to go.

But then it gets more confusing, another FAQ that answers questions about data connectivity for their "3W" bagphones shows at the bottom applicable models and includes the M800 and M900??????

I noticed the differences in RF power. Although there are advantages to the extra power, I have to wonder how much of a difference the bearer (CDMA vs. GSM) has on the performance.

Another thing I noticed about the CDMA (M800) is that I think it still has AMPS service listed in the specs, as well as very dated (circa 2006) data specifications.

These things make me wonder if they are close to the end of life for the product. The turn down of AMPS, and higher expectations for data throughput (eg 3G) may mean that they are not doing much with this phone.

BTW, I also couldn't find any info on whether external antennas were able to be connected.

Victor

 

[robertmac]

Sorry if I am repeating anything already posted here. Didn't look at other postings. The M800 from what I can see puts out a max. of 0.6 watts, same as handheld cells.. There are external antennas with the proper connection that will fit on the bag phone that may extend range slightly. There are also amplifiers that can be purchased to increase to 3 watts [I beleive], but these are extremely expensive. Might be cheaper to go to a Sat. phone if in fringe areas than buy a bag phone, antenna and amp..

 

[N_Jay]

High power is getting to be worthless in cellular.
You signal will come in hot, and the system will turn down the power on your channel. In the end you will have worse service.

The system is designed to be balanced. The real improvement in performance comes from having an external antenna, not extra power,

The new Motorola mobile/bag phones are nice.

 

[davidmc36]

High power is getting to be worthless in cellular.
You signal will come in hot, and the system will turn down the power on your channel. In the end you will have worse service.

The system is designed to be balanced. The real improvement in performance comes from having an external antenna, not extra power,

The new Motorola mobile/bag phones are nice.

I agree that external antenna is very important. i Always used one with my bag-phone and the booster I got here http://jdteck.com/ has an external mag-mount, it is just 3 or so inches high.

this is what i have http://jdteck.com/dual.htm

FCC and Industry Canada approved and 3 watts. takes 2 bars and makes it a full five.

 

[N_Jay]

I agree that external antenna is very important. i Always used one with my bag-phone and the booster I got here http://jdteck.com/ has an external mag-mount, it is just 3 or so inches high.

this is what i have http://jdteck.com/dual.htm

FCC and Industry Canada approved and 3 watts. takes 2 bars and makes it a full five.

The equipment is approved,

BUT > > > > > (at least as for as the FCC is concerned)

> > > > > > Its use by consumers without EXPLICIT permission by the LICENSEE (The Cellular Company) is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED!!!

 

[vabiro]

High power is getting to be worthless in cellular.
You signal will come in hot, and the system will turn down the power on your channel. In the end you will have worse service.

The system is designed to be balanced. The real improvement in performance comes from having an external antenna, not extra power,

The new Motorola mobile/bag phones are nice.

That is important and I forgot all about that: The site uses the RSSI to turn up and down the RF output on the phone, so if your TX power is amplified all that will happen is that the site will think that you're receiving the signal, when in fact your RX reception at the phone is marginal. This was a bigger problem with AMPS, but digital can have similar issues to a lesser degree.

To avoid this a better antenna would offer a more balanced gain for TX and RX. Even a small unity gain (1/4 wave) external antenna would be preferable to an on-phone antenna inside a moving vehicle.

As N_Jay said: Balance is what the network is looking for.

On the subject of satellite phones, Qualcomm just released a new chipset that incorporates terrestrial and satellite services. What this means is that handset manufacturers can have satellite roaming on their handsets for a very small incremental cost. The satellites are to be launched in June 09 and handsets should be available beginning in 2010.

Say goodbye to fringe coverage.

There is also some speculation that high-bandwidth mobile data applications, such as streaming video, would be off-loaded to the Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) networks to allow more TCP intesive applications (eg. VoIP) to use the Terrestrial networks.

BTW, if you can't wait until 2010, Globalstar has $19.95 unlimited airtime package

Cheers
Victor

 

[davidmc36]

So what is the signal indicator on your phone telling you? The strength of the Recieved signal, right, not the transmitted? So I am recieving the signal better. If they turned it automatically down a lot then should I not see the signal go up from two to five and then back down to two once the system detected I was getting too strong a signal? That does not happen, it stays at five. Regardless, I know that calls are clearer and get dropped less when I am in a normally poor area and using the booster. So what if they turn it down a bit, it is still at five bars so it is better than two. They must not turn it down a lot. Believe me a did a lot of test calls to see if it was actually better than before to make sure I did not get ripped off, to make sure it actually worked, and it did. I use one in the house too otherwise the cell is useless in the basement. I have an external antenna for that one too. Not to argue whether it is against the cell company's rules or not (I pretty much figured I should not dial them up and tell them I was using it) it has been in the house for a year or so and in the car for nearly two and I have not had anybody from either the cell company or IC knocking on the door telling me to unhook it.

 

[mikewazowski]

So what is the signal indicator on your phone telling you? The strength of the Recieved signal, right, not the transmitted? So I am recieving the signal better. If they turned it automatically down a lot then should I not see the signal go up from two to five and then back down to two once the system detected I was getting too strong a signal?

The signal strength indicator on phones are basically useless. Basically they tell you whether you have signal or you don't. To really tell signal strength, you need to place your phone into field test mode.

I have an external antenna for that one too. Not to argue whether it is against the cell company's rules or not (I pretty much figured I should not dial them up and tell them I was using it)

Sticking an external antenna on your cellphone is not illegal. What do you think all those onglass antennas people stick on their cars were for?

 

[N_Jay]

So what is the signal indicator on your phone telling you? The strength of the Recieved signal, right,

Nope!

The bars are driven by the phones processor and programming to use a large number of parameters to provide an indication consistent with the carriers desires. (Yes, the programming is different by carrier)

It can use RSSI, C/I or Signal Quality, neighbor cell strength, etc. to decide what to show.

The measurement way be integrated over a period of time, or may use a peak or "dip" following algorithm. (Or any creative solution in between.)

. . .Not to argue whether it is against the cell company's rules or not (I pretty much figured I should not dial them up and tell them I was using it) it has been in the house for a year or so and in the car for nearly two and I have not had anybody from either the cell company or IC knocking on the door telling me to unhook it.

It is not the cell company rules, it is the FCC rules!