Tell me about G3 please tech gurus

[journeyman Mick]

So can anyone tell me about this new G3 mobile phone network we're going to have? Apparently the CDMA system will be replaced by this in 2 years time (or thereabouts). I'm not the slightest bit interested in any of the whistle and bells type stuff, how it will make video phones possible etc etc. I'm just interested in its range. The old analogue system didn't have as many features as today's systems but it did have a much better range and didn't drop out as quickly.

I built a house way out past where I live now and had an analogue phone at the time. I could just get coverage using a bag phone (remember them?) if I left it at one end of the house. I've been back there since (ended up good friends with the owners) and can't get coverage with either digital or CDMA. The transmitters/antennas/whatever for both of these are on the same mountain as the analogue one was so obviously the range on both of the newer systems is not as great as of the older analogue. I've got a horrible feeling that the new system, while being really clever and making all sorts of jiggery-pokery possible is going to have even less range and/or be more sensitive to trees, smoke, rain etc etc. Anyone able to enlighten me?

Mick

[womble]

F****d if I know mate, but I do know CDMA is hopeless for us too, the missus bought one a few months ago so she could get reception along the gillies and at our place at lake eacham, useless shyiteheap is no better then her old standard mobile :mad: and worse at times reception wise!! Bring back analogue I reckon.

[Pat]

Mick, I've got a 3G phone (Motorola Razr), but it only has true 3G in the capital cities. In regional areas it still has 2 to 2.5G coverage. It does pick up signal along the illawarra escarpment better. I have not travelled outside of this area since obtaining this phone, so I cannot comment on range from tower issues.

[bitingmidge]

From The Australian Yesterday:

Bush high-speed broadband in doubt
August 03, 2006
A MAJOR technical flaw has put in doubt Telstra's plans to switch country users onto a third generation network for high speed wireless broadband internet by next year.

Company insiders have told The Australian Financial Review the trials by equipment supplier Ericsson of the $1.1 billion network have exposed the flaw.

They say that at present the telco could only offer "absolutely dreadful" broadband services to those a few kilometres from a base station.

Telstra is planning to use the 3G network to offer nationwide broadband services in order to cut spending on rural fixed line internet networks.

It wants to switch 1.3 million customers to the new network next year.

But if the flaws cannot be fixed, the newspaper reports, the telco will be forced to improve coverage by installing more base stations at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

If it does not it is likely to come under strong criticism by rural groups and the Howard government, with the switch of network due to occur just before the 2007 federal election.

A spokesman for Telstra told the newspaper there were months to go before the network was complete and that customers would be happy with the final result.

Cheers,

P

[journeyman Mick]

Sounds really promising then Midge . I've got pretty good coverage at the moment, and without getting the map out, I'd say that we're about 5 or 6 Kms away from the tower. So will the 3G completely replace the existing digital network or will it run in paralel? In other words, can I expect that mobile coverage will get better, worse or stay the same?

Mick

[keith53]

Mick,

For what its worth, my understanding is that around 21 km is the range for GSM. CDMA, whilst capable of greater distances (I've actually had 70 km + on my old analog phone) was artifically wound back to about 23 km so as to be not-that-much-better than GSM. I believe the G3 features are supposed to be much better but as has been said, probably only in the capital cities.

You can improve the reception on a CDMA (and a GSM) by using an external aerial. They can be passive (not amplified) and simply feed a car kit cradle. Not ideal, but signal strength can be significantly improved.

You can also get amplified aerials (but I think there's a grey area about how legal they are) which receive a signal and then boost it via wireless so that its possible to get acceptable reception within 20/30m of the aerial (i.e. around the house). Of course, all this assumes that there's a signal to be received and amplified in the first place. This also applies to the paragraph above.

btw, with the old analog phone, the signal will get weaker before it drops out because of the greater spread of the signal. Digital signals work on a much tighter frequency range and thus either work or not. Same applies for TV.

Interesting that a lot of the mobile technology we're using or about to use comes from little European countries that are about as long and wide as the distance from Kuranda to Cairns.

I wouldn't be too hopeful of your phone problems improving significantly in the near future.

[journeyman Mick]

Keith,
thanks for the info. I've got pretty good coverage most of the time, but there's a few areas not far from here that I avoid working in because I'm not contactable. With a sick wife at home that relies on me to be in range 24/7 I either miss out on some work or buy myself a sat phone.

I think the powers that be are often swayed by all the technical jiggery-pokery without looking at the nuts and bolts of things. Queensland Fire and Rescue has changed all their urban appliances over to UHF radios in regional areas "because that's what we use in the South East", and "it's better". Unfortunately UHF doesn't work too well in areas of heavy foliage and dense smoke, a bit like you might find in a bush fire . Fortuantely the rural brigades have been able to hang onto their VHF radios - for now at least.

There's whole areas around here with thousands of residents that have no mobile phone coverage at all. Bugger more broadband coverage, just give us a basic mobile phone service so we can operate our businesses and be available if our families need us or in an emergency.

Mick

[Zed]

lower frequencies propagate further eg Ultra low freqs used by sub's amateur nerds and whales..., thus higher freq's like the 3G bands will propogate less. Ie: closer to a tower is better. you country people might suffer for a while WRT advanced services until the carriers build network, however the Universal service guarantee in telco's will not let the old nw's be removed until the new ones are up to scratch.

[journeyman Mick]

..............you country people might suffer for a while WRT advanced services until the carriers build network, however the Universal service guarantee in telco's will not let the old nw's be removed until the new ones are up to scratch.

Hahahahaha yeah, right! I'd hardly call myself a "country person", I live less than 10kms from one of the busiest international airporst in Australia. If this is they type of service you get ina regional area what's it like for people that are in real country areas, let alone remote areas. I'm not asking for an advanced service here, just a basic phone network that works. I currently carry both a GSm and a CDMA phone as well as a two way radio in an attempt to be contactable. Not having a go at you personally chimp man I just reckon they should aim for something basic like a phone service that works for most people before they get too worried about adding all the bells and whistles. But I guess there's little money in that (damn those greedy shareholders )

Mick

[keith53]

Mick,

Sat phones are Ok provided you're out in the open. They don't work too well in buildings or under a tree canopy so I guess there's nothing that'll do all you want.

Hang on, isn't Warren Ench your federal member? He's a mate of Little Johnny. Get on to him & tell him your problem. He'll get on to Little Johnny and it'll all be fixed in a few weeks. Now why didn't I think of that sooner?

[Clinton1]

The lower freq comment is sorta correct, but the devil is in the detail - as always.
My opinion is that the 3G network will offer a poor service in country areas due to:
1. the amount of data the signal is carrying, and
2. the higher frequency.

1. If the rf signal has to carry a lot of information, any small corruptions to the signal will wipe out a larger amount of data and cause greater error correction overheads. Also, a digital signal is more prone to errors as it is carrying 0 and 1's - analogue is more robust in this respect. Analogue is a poor option commercially though, and the commercial providers have a tad more clout than the country user.
3G is great in the city, jump into a 'hotspot' near an antenna and away you go, a strong signal carrying lots of data is ok. Surf the net, download ringtones, get harrassed with trivial info from family and friends... all that really important info.
For the country the high data service is irrelevant - I reckon they'd appreciate a decent phone service first.

2. The frequency is higher, therefore more prone to losses caused by objects in the signal's path. As the signal is higher is can carry more data (again this is important commercially), however more data is lost (because there is more data to lose) and the signal has its energy stripped from it with more ease than the low frequency (as per Zeds comment). The trouble is that really low frequencies cannot be used due to other problems.

So .... prepare for one of two things. First, expect a service that does not live up to expectations, and is probably worse than a CDMA service. Itwill be bad at first, and slowly be improved due to whinging and service agreements.
Second - (highly unlikely) an enourmous amount of $ will be spent on overcoming problems that are based in simple physics, and the cost of the service will be very high to recoup the increased infrastructure investment.


Thats my simple way of looking at it, however I'm not juggling the demands of the commercial carriers to be able to sell ringtones to the 10% of the nation that lives in the bush, nor am I trying to hook an enourmous salary out of the Govt and Telstra to develop some innovative solution that overcomes the basic laws of physics. If you have an Iridium handset, I'd be keeping it.

[Coldamus]

When I was flying light aircraft in Queensland in the 1970's, we used VHF transceivers for most communications. These had a limited range, when airborne, of one or two hundred kilometres and much less when on the ground (maybe 50 km).

On cross country flights, when out of range on VHF, we used an HF radio that could communicate across the state and even nation-wide, whether airborne or not. Both systems were analogue. I don't know whether that's still the case.

It occurred to me that Mick's answer for keeping in touch with home might be an HF radio, such as those used by ham radio operators. He'd probably need to obtain a radio operator's licence. There's an exam to pass but it is (or was) very easy. I had to get one to go with my pilot's licence and it only took a day or two of study. In fact I think there were two - one for receiving and one for transmitting (broadcasting).

regards
Coldamus

[Auld Bassoon]

From The Australian Yesterday:


Cheers,

P

Actually that's based on hearsay and B*S; when it does roll out, the 3G coverage from the 850 band will be both wider and have more bandwidth. Just don't expect it straight away. Telstra has always said that it will retain CDMA and current GSM capabilities until it can better those older technologies with the 850 band.

I'm not saying that there aren't some technical issues to be addressed, but there always are...

In my view, the new service will be an order of magnitude better (speed, capability, content, range, etc) - and I do have some knowledge of what's going on...

[journeyman Mick]

Steve B,
given what the others have said with regards to range vs frequency + amount of data, can you explain how the "range" will be possible in: "will be an order of magnitude better (speed, capability, content, range, etc)" . I don't give a fig if I can't get fancy ringtones or whatever, I just want to be able to make and recieve phone calls.

Coldamus,
thanks, but radio is not an option for SWMBO getting in touch with me, too difficult for her.

Mick

[Auld Bassoon]

Mick,

The data just isn't in yet, so it would be premature to talk about specific ranges & whatnot.

However, Ericcson et al are, to coin a phrase, busting their nuts to get this new platform performing to not less than what is available currently on GSM or CDMA.

The USO will see to it that no service level is reduced from current performance, but it obviously makes sense for Telstra to maximise the capability of the 850 platform so that it can offer equal or better (and the aim is definitely better) performance without the costs associated with maintaining multiple network technologies. In other words, everyone benefits.

The broadband (at speeds yet to be determined) will almost certainly start out in metro areas, then fan out. How far? Don't know yet.

I'll post more as and when I know more (and can publicly do so).