Message-ID: <367B42E2.6348@ibm.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:08:34 -0600
From: Bill Salmon <bsalmon@ibm.net>
Reply-To: bsalmon@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Transceiver recommendations
References: <VA.000006c2.00382b31@hbmltd> <75em2m$c0o@dixie.tagsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.207.202
X-Trace: 19 Dec 1998 06:08:13 GMT, 32.100.207.202
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 51
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.87.194.248!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!32.100.207.202
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:42307 rec.aviation.piloting:30013

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> 
> In article <VA.000006c2.00382b31@hbmltd>, Dave Mould <davem@airstrip.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >Not buildings as tall as the typical GA cruising altitudes though!
> 
> Living near NYC, I've been in some very tall buildings.  4000 feet
> tall (about the farthest up I've gone so far)?  Dunno.
> 
> >                                                                    The
> >tall buildings are factored in when the cell is designed, and the behaviour
> >of your 'phone inside them is taken into account.  Cell designers work out
> >which cells could possibly be within range of a 'phone from any possible
> >location - including existing and foreseeable buildings.
> 
> Interesting work, trying to predict where buildings may be put, and how
> tall they might be.  It makes me wonder how the cells in NYC might appear.
> 
> Many NYC buildings are line-of-site to where I live, about 15 miles
> out.  So, in theory, I'd hit a lot of cells while in the restaurant
> at the top of World Trade.
> 
> I appreciate the warning about this being illegal, and I'll be
> more careful about shutting down my phone (which may not be effected,
> as it is digital, but why not be safe).  But I still don't understand.
> 
> >
> >An aircraft is an "impossible" location as far as the design of the cell
> >network is concerned, and so can reach two or more cells that were never
> >designed to be accessed at the same time from a single station.
> 
> Why isn't this a concern while I'm in that restaurant at the
> top of World Trade?  I can see all of NYC, and much in New
> Jersey too.  That's, as I said, a lot of cells.
> 
> I feel like I'm missing a piece of this.  I hope that the
> missing piece isn't too obvious.
> 
>         - Andrew
> 
> P.S.    A lot of people have recommended the Icom A-22, and some
>         the Yaesu-100.  I also found message <rahF2xx1G.L9A@netcom.com>
>         (at Dejanews) which compared the A-20 to the Yaesu.
> 
>         Has anyone directly compared the A-22 and Yaesu-100?  They
>         both seem quite similar, but - for good reason - I don't
>         trust my judgement in this.  But it seems like both are
>         excellent units.
Use the cell phone only in emer. turn it off otherwise. ICOM is as sound
a radio as you will find. However, this is a decision you must make so
go and look at each. I am still trying to lay my hands on a Yaesu!
