John, Did you ever solve the problem with your cell phone pinging a _distant_ tower, discharging your battery excessively?
Did you find a suitable booster? ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions, by understanding what nature is hiding.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
They use wifi for Internet access, but not for the phone. If you are with Verizon or ATT (maybe others too) they can provide you with a pico-cell tha t will provide a cell tower just for your local area, and I mean local. A friend has one in her house and it won't reach the barn which is maybe 100 yards. She paid for the box. An ATT guy told me the box can be free if yo ur home doesn't have coverage.
Yes. However, you still have to enable/disable wi-fi calling and cellular calling depending on the area you're in. Here's T-Mobiles "wi-fi calling" instructions:
Set Wi-Fi Calling to handle all calls, which will turn off the device's cellular connection. See device common procedures for Wi-Fi Calling, and look for the Wi-Fi only or Never use Cellular Network setting.
I'm not sure if roaming needs to be disabled. The trick is to remember to turn on cellular calling when you return to civilization.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
You can set that as an option on most smart phones though to save battery I think you also need to put it in airplane mode. Otherwise it does ET phone home as can be seen by the battery state display.
Don't waste your money on a high gain yagi and a supposed passive coupler - they are utterly useless. I have one. The yagi is fine the coupler is utter crap (even though I bought it from a usually reliable supplier - I note that they no longer stock it).
The only things that really work are picocells available from your phone provider that piggyback onto your internet connection to provide a phone service for your phone and a handful of nominated others on the same network. I presume something similar is available in the USA.
Look on eBay for a suitable device for your mobile provider.
It has largely been overtaken by phones that talk directly to WiFi.
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
If you have reliable internet just use Snapchat or Messenger for text and voice "calls" like a 21st century person! Nobody use the POTS anymore. People under 25 don't even know what it is.
AFAIK the "phone" feature on all modern cell phones is just a flaky lil provider-specific VOIP app.
That's not far from reality. The only limitation of the phone network thes e days is that it doesn't work in many large areas due to lack of coverage. I don't see where the phone companies have any real interest in addressin g this shortcoming. Otherwise the POTS system could be scrapped.
Except for the crucial matter of full-duplex voice. I have a few customers who are geniuses at never being entirely quiet on a phone call which (when they're on cell) means that once they get going they are impossible to interrupt. The number of billable hours they could have saved by using a land line is quite impressive. ;)
We all grew up on crystal-clear full-duplex voice calls--how did we ever wind up using these horrible walkie-talkie things for 9-to-5 business?
Weird.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:22:13 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :
ese days is that it doesn't work in many large areas due to lack of coverag e. I don't see where the phone companies have any real interest in address ing this shortcoming. Otherwise the POTS system could be scrapped.
The problem is 80% of the users are indoors, where it would be extremely di fficult (and prohibitively expensive) to try to serve them via the macrocel lular network (i.e., towers). There is also a capacity problem.
So, the obvious solution is to provide coverage in ways that ADD capacity ( small cells, eFemto's, fiber-fed DAS, etc...) and not try to boost coverage from an already overloaded cell tower network. In most urban areas during peak traffic hours anyway.
Even if you wanted to go with a consumer-grade booster, they are limited to 600mW ERP (1000 mW EIRP), which frankly, is a lot, but you might still go through batteries -- and you need at least some decent signal outside (even if up high) to start with. You must have something to amplify.
Add to that, depending on your situation, you might also have a situation w here you're receiving plenty of cell sites (all weak), and then you can add the problem of pilot pollution (so many cells the handset can no longer di fferentiate between them to maintain network synchronization.
If you're chewing through batteries, pilot pollution can be part of the cau se, but I suspect if you're in the "boonies", it's just plain ol lack of co verage.
The option to just "unplug" is however, appealing all by itself. :)
And then the businesses use music-on-hold on their phone systems. The codecs used on cell phones are not designed to run music. Very annoying to say the least. It would be much better to have a canned sales talk for the hold times.
these days is that it doesn't work in many large areas due to lack of cover age. I don't see where the phone companies have any real interest in addre ssing this shortcoming. Otherwise the POTS system could be scrapped.
difficult (and prohibitively expensive) to try to serve them via the macroc ellular network (i.e., towers). There is also a capacity problem.
Since when is being indoors a prohibition for cell usage? What capacity pr oblem??? You must mean for data, watching Netflix on your cell phone? Oth erwise there is no capacity issue and the coverage issue I'm talking about has nothing to do with being indoors.
Heck, I was test driving a car the other day and it had an onboard GPS driv en by a cell connection. Before we could get started the salesman had to t urn off the cell connection and switch to wifi in order to get an update. This was in a major metropolitan area. So while the connection was so poor that it couldn't update the trip info, it had nothing to do with being ind oors. Where I live I'll have to do all my comms via wifi when parked at th e house. The cell signals are all very poor here.
(small cells, eFemto's, fiber-fed DAS, etc...) and not try to boost covera ge from an already overloaded cell tower network. In most urban areas duri ng peak traffic hours anyway.
You seem to be talking about something a bit different than what I was. Wh en I talk about coverage, I mean geographical coverage. There is still ple nty of geography that has poor or no cell service in the US. The phone com panies won't admit it. If you can wander around and get a call through, th ey consider that to be "covered". But if you move off your spot the call w ill drop. That happens to me all the time.
to 600mW ERP (1000 mW EIRP), which frankly, is a lot, but you might still g o through batteries -- and you need at least some decent signal outside (ev en if up high) to start with. You must have something to amplify.
I think you are talking about something different again, a cell repeater pe rhaps? I'm talking about a pico-cell that talks over the Internet. Use yo ur network connection to provide a cell tower at your home. As you say, a repeater would need a good signal somehow.
I use a landline for the 20% "crucial" stuff and email/Internet messaging app for the 80% "regular BS" stuff. As for cellular voice sometimes I use it to talk to my girlfriend and Mom. that's 'bout it.
k these days is that it doesn't work in many large areas due to lack of cov erage. I don't see where the phone companies have any real interest in add ressing this shortcoming. Otherwise the POTS system could be scrapped.
y difficult (and prohibitively expensive) to try to serve them via the macr ocellular network (i.e., towers). There is also a capacity problem.
problem??? You must mean for data, watching Netflix on your cell phone? O therwise there is no capacity issue and the coverage issue I'm talking abou t has nothing to do with being indoors.
iven by a cell connection. Before we could get started the salesman had to turn off the cell connection and switch to wifi in order to get an update. This was in a major metropolitan area. So while the connection was so po or that it couldn't update the trip info, it had nothing to do with being i ndoors. Where I live I'll have to do all my comms via wifi when parked at the house. The cell signals are all very poor here.
ty (small cells, eFemto's, fiber-fed DAS, etc...) and not try to boost cove rage from an already overloaded cell tower network. In most urban areas du ring peak traffic hours anyway.
When I talk about coverage, I mean geographical coverage. There is still p lenty of geography that has poor or no cell service in the US. The phone c ompanies won't admit it. If you can wander around and get a call through, they consider that to be "covered". But if you move off your spot the call will drop. That happens to me all the time.
d to 600mW ERP (1000 mW EIRP), which frankly, is a lot, but you might still go through batteries -- and you need at least some decent signal outside ( even if up high) to start with. You must have something to amplify.
perhaps? I'm talking about a pico-cell that talks over the Internet. Use your network connection to provide a cell tower at your home. As you say, a repeater would need a good signal somehow.
I agree these topics can be considered two different issues, but they are t ightly coupled on the capacity front. It would not be possible for a macro cellular network of towers (which today only serves 20% of users), to cover the additional 80% of users who are indoors. To do that, (effectively and at reasonable cost) requires things like small cells, eFemtos, etc... but NOT boosters, which rob capacity from the tower network.
I guess the only reason I mentioned boosters at all is that they can be ver y good solutions to poor coverage in some cases. Of course, the same can b e said for microcells, which typically backhaul on LAN.
However, in my experience, area of the country that don't have robust, reli able cell service tend not to have many good choices for Internet backhaul either.
I guess that's the price you pay for living in the "boonies". :)
ork these days is that it doesn't work in many large areas due to lack of c overage. I don't see where the phone companies have any real interest in a ddressing this shortcoming. Otherwise the POTS system could be scrapped.
ely difficult (and prohibitively expensive) to try to serve them via the ma crocellular network (i.e., towers). There is also a capacity problem.
y problem??? You must mean for data, watching Netflix on your cell phone? Otherwise there is no capacity issue and the coverage issue I'm talking ab out has nothing to do with being indoors.
driven by a cell connection. Before we could get started the salesman had to turn off the cell connection and switch to wifi in order to get an updat e. This was in a major metropolitan area. So while the connection was so poor that it couldn't update the trip info, it had nothing to do with being indoors. Where I live I'll have to do all my comms via wifi when parked a t the house. The cell signals are all very poor here.
city (small cells, eFemto's, fiber-fed DAS, etc...) and not try to boost co verage from an already overloaded cell tower network. In most urban areas during peak traffic hours anyway.
When I talk about coverage, I mean geographical coverage. There is still plenty of geography that has poor or no cell service in the US. The phone companies won't admit it. If you can wander around and get a call through , they consider that to be "covered". But if you move off your spot the ca ll will drop. That happens to me all the time.
ted to 600mW ERP (1000 mW EIRP), which frankly, is a lot, but you might sti ll go through batteries -- and you need at least some decent signal outside (even if up high) to start with. You must have something to amplify.
r perhaps? I'm talking about a pico-cell that talks over the Internet. Us e your network connection to provide a cell tower at your home. As you say , a repeater would need a good signal somehow.
tightly coupled on the capacity front. It would not be possible for a mac rocellular network of towers (which today only serves 20% of users), to cov er the additional 80% of users who are indoors. To do that, (effectively a nd at reasonable cost) requires things like small cells, eFemtos, etc... b ut NOT boosters, which rob capacity from the tower network.
I have no idea why you say any of this. Where are these 80% of cell phone users who aren't getting served??? I am in an area with very poor coverage . There is some difference between indoors and out, but mostly it is just being too far from the tower with bad spots both indoors and out.
ery good solutions to poor coverage in some cases. Of course, the same can be said for microcells, which typically backhaul on LAN.
liable cell service tend not to have many good choices for Internet backhau l either.
I have wireless Internet which works fine. Many locations in this area hav e poor cell reception because of the sparse towers and intervening terrain.
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 8:41:36 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wro te:
ave poor cell reception because of the sparse towers and intervening terrai n.
Wireless Internet, as in a WiFi router connected to a LAN? Totally irrelevant with regard to the discussion about cellular coverage.
However -- if you have good WiFi, then you're definitely a candidate for an in-home microcell. Your cell handset talks to the microcell, the microcel l talks to the network via your broadband connection.
Of course, I still somewhat envy the notion that you could just throw up yo ur hands and say "screw it". I'm in the boonies anyway with poor cellular coverage, and maybe that's part of the allure. :)
To your point about many areas around you having poor coverage, all I can s ay to that is the wireless carriers seem to have a very flexible definition of "coverage". But then, these are the same a-holes who didn't quite unde rstand the definition of "unlimited" back when they were throttling subscri ber's download speeds. In short, I really have no love lost for wireless o perators. Any of them. They all suck in different ways.
The FCC has tried for years to get carriers to better serve rural and under served areas. Nothing ever seems to work. The carriers take the incentive money, and then smear a thin veneer of effort over multiple coats of lip s ervice hype in the industry press (i.e., lies, smoke and mirrors) and then claim for themselves and outright Victory.
have poor cell reception because of the sparse towers and intervening terr ain.
I have that too, but as you say, irrelevant. My ISP is a WISP, wireless, l ike the cell towers, but dedicated to Internet service, not phones. They t ypically serve a more targeted area and in this case is picking the missed fruit the ISPs and cell companies won't bother with.
an in-home microcell. Your cell handset talks to the microcell, the microc ell talks to the network via your broadband connection.
I have a friend who gets around a grand a month for the monster cell tower in her back yard (of her business). I wonder if I could charge the cell ph one company $100 a month?
your hands and say "screw it". I'm in the boonies anyway with poor cellula r coverage, and maybe that's part of the allure. :)
say to that is the wireless carriers seem to have a very flexible definiti on of "coverage". But then, these are the same a-holes who didn't quite un derstand the definition of "unlimited" back when they were throttling subsc riber's download speeds. In short, I really have no love lost for wireless operators. Any of them. They all suck in different ways.
That's the big reason why my WISP is so great, they don't bother to enforce limits of any sort likely because it would be too much work. My PC says i t used 171 GB over the last 30 days and I'm only here half the time but tha t seems a bit high. In the past it was around 60 GB a month which is way t oo expensive with the cell companies.
erserved areas. Nothing ever seems to work. The carriers take the incenti ve money, and then smear a thin veneer of effort over multiple coats of lip service hype in the industry press (i.e., lies, smoke and mirrors) and the n claim for themselves and outright Victory.
One of the counties near here made noise about promoting a wireless system that would cover the county. But the talk went nowhere. Companies want mo ney and counties often don't have much. Not sure why anyone started the co nversation.
Multi-party dial-in conference calls are nightmares. The confusion is exponential on the number of participants, and the sound quality is a negative exponential. I have customers that love these insane calls, which rarely produce concrete results.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
Yep. Trying the same thing over and over resulting in repeated failures doesn't work very well. It's all based on the USF (universal service fund) which subscribers pay to support such ventures in rural telecom improvement, but which some always seems to end up in the pockets of the large ILEC's (incumbent local exchange carrier) with nothing to show for the money spent. When a small CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier) does something predictable, like demand their fair share of the USF funds to support their rural infrastructure, the fund suddenly doesn't have any money to burn err... spend.
The latest is CAF (Connect America Fund): "Larger companies that accepted CAF Phase II support have committed to adding service for more than 3.6 million homes and businesses in 45 states and the Northern Mariana Islands." Translation: They pocketed the money without doing anything, just like the USF.
"In areas where service providers accepted CAF Phase II support, the FCC plans to evaluate and address the areas that remain unserved after the completion of the program in 2020. In the areas that remain unserved, the FCC will award support through a competitive bidding process." Translation: Nobody is saying where the money has been spend and nobody is going to ask until 2020. By then, yet another acronym will have been contrived to replace CAF and the cycle will continue.
[MPM. Do you still want the 2x20 display with the genuine Hitachi chip that I found? Email please].
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.