|
I've often seen messages from people asking under what circumstances they
would pay long distance. This is obviously a poorly understood concept, but it's
really not that hard to master. The first thing you must realize is that the
answer is completely different for incoming calls and outgoing calls.
The easiest of the two to understand is outgoing calls. On all wireless
networks in Canada, your phone takes on the local dialing pattern of the area it
is in. That means that you can dial numbers locally just like anyone living in
that area. Similarly, you pay long distance for calling any numbers that a
person living in that area would pay.
Incoming calls are a completely different matter, and this is where the
confusion sets in. However, once you see your cell phone as having two distinct
identities, you should find this easy to understand. The first identity is its
phone number, which like a landline phone, has a fixed location. If you own a
cell phone with a Toronto number, then that number is literally fixed in the
city of Toronto. This is important to know, since anyone phoning you will be
calling this fixed number. No matter where you are, the caller sees no
difference in way in which he dials you. If it would be long distance for him to
call you while you are at home, then it will continue to be long distance for
him to call you when you are visiting his house, or when you are half way around
the world in Australia. If it would be local for him to you call, then it will
always be local, no matter where you go.
The second identity is the phone itself, which moves around with you. After a
caller places a call to your fixed number, the wireless network must make
contact with you. So long as you are within the local calling area of the fixed
number, you don't pay long distance to receive the call. If you are far away
from home, then you pay long distance for the call to be completed between your
fixed number, and your current location.
So as you can see, wireless calls actually consist of two components. The
first connects your caller with the fixed number that represents your phone. The
callers pay any necessary long distance for this phase of the call only. The
second component is between your fixed number and your present location. It is
only this phase for which you personally pay long distance charges, if they are
applicable.
So now it should be clear to you who pays what. It should also explain why
visiting an out-of-town friend would cause you both to pay long distance if that
friend were to call you. He would need to place a call to your fixed number back
home, which would be a long distance call for him. You would then have to pay
long distance charges to have the call routed your current location, even though
that might be a few feet from your friend.
Many people refer to this as "double long distance", and they don't
understand why it occurs. Now that you know why it applies, is there any way to
avoid it? One way is to note on your Caller ID that the call has come from your
friend. Don't answer the call, but instead phone him back right afterwards. This
does not incur long distance because we now apply the rules of an outgoing call,
which I discussed above. You take on the on local calling pattern of the area
you are in, and so you friend is just as much a local call as it would be if you
lived around there in the first place.
There used to be a thing called Roamer Access Numbers, but these have slowing
been going the way of the dinosaur. These are like "ports" into the network that
exist in various cities. They allow your friend to call a phone number in his
own city, and then from there he dials you. This circumvents both long distance
charges because: A) he has called a local number, and not a long distance
number, and B) the network is only routing the call from a point that is local
to your phone. Your fixed number back home was never involved. At this time,
only Bell Mobility has Roamer Access Numbers, and there is no guarantee that
they will continue to operate them. Like the other providers, Bell may decide
they aren't economical.
Up
Paying by the minute is obviously more expensive than paying by the second,
but exactly how does this impact upon your monthly bill. To begin, we need to
look at the statistical average overpayment that rounding-up incurs. On the low
end, the overpayment is 0 seconds, since you might make a call that is exactly 3
minutes for example. At the high end, the overpayment is 59 seconds, since you
could conceivable go 1 second over the boundary. If we assume that your call
times are randomly distributed, then the long-term average overpayment is 30
seconds per call.
Based on that average, we can easily determine how much more airtime you paid
for by simply counting the number of individual calls you made during a given
month. If you made 150 calls for example, that would use up, on average, an
extra 75 minutes of airtime than if you'd been paying by the second.
However, just because you consumed an extra 75 minutes doesn't mean it will
actually cost you anything. That depends upon whether you were going over your
"bucket of minutes". Say for example your service came with 300 minutes, but you
routinely used about 200 of those minutes. If that were the case, then those
extra 75 minutes wouldn't have any impact on your bill at all. On the other
hand, if you routinely used almost all of your minutes (or sometimes when
slightly over), then virtually all of those 75 minutes are going to count
against you. You'd either have to pay for them at the cost of overage, or you
would need to move up to the next highest package available.
The only way to know for sure if charging by the minute is bad or neutral
(because it certainly isn't good), you have to examine your bills and multiply
the total number of calls by 30 seconds. Use that figure to see how much extra
it would cost you, if anything.
However, being charged by the minute has a psychological impact that isn't
obvious from simply working out whether it truly affects your bottom line.
Knowing that you will be charged for a full extra minute if you go over a minute
boundary makes you far more likely to become a clock-watcher during your calls
(utilizing the minute minders that many phones provide). You then start to rush
your calls when those beeps sound, and using the phone becomes a less enjoyable
experience.
Up
Absolutely NOT. Even if such a concept could actually work, each antenna
would have to be specifically designed for each phone model, in order to
properly interact with the existing antennas and shielding. Since these devices
are the same for all phones, we know they are pulling our legs even before we
apply simple antenna design theory to them. Your best bet is to save your money,
and use it for something more worthwhile.
Up
I've deliberately worded this question in the form of "who is better", but if
you've read many of my opinions and suggestions in other parts of this web page,
you'd know that I don't give that sort advice. However, this is the way most
people seem to think of the issue, and so I felt that it was better to start
that way.
The biggest problem with the question, as asked, is the word better. There
are many ways that a network can be better or worse than another, and in the
case of Rogers GSM vs Fido (Microcell Connexions), it comes down to two distinct
issues: 1) Amount of coverage; and 2) Quality of that coverage.
In terms of amount of coverage, there is no question that Rogers GSM covers
vastly larger areas of Canada than does Microcell Connexions. However, much of
that extra area is sparsely populated, and for the vast majority of
city-dwellers, the coverage is of little use to them. However, if you are
someone who spends much of their time outside of the areas covered by Microcell
Connexions, you are definitely going to feel that Rogers is better than
Microcell Connexions. Any coverage is better than no coverage at all.
For those who live, work, and play inside the areas covered by Microcell
Connexions, the issue of coverage is moot. To this group of users, the issue is
which provider has the best coverage quality. In that respect, Microcell
Connexions comes out in the lead. In most places around Southern Ontario, where
both networks provide coverage, Microcell Connexions has at least 2 to 3 times
as many sites serving that given area. In the GTA, both have about the same
number of sites, but Microcell Connexions still wins for the following reasons:
First, Rogers has yet to implement
Frequency Hopping,
and as such they haven't got anywhere near the resistance to interference that
Microcell Connexions does in the GTA. Second, the handoff schedule implemented
on the Rogers GSM network is simply not responsive enough. Throughout hours of
online testing, I have been extremely disappointed with the extent of call
damage caused by delayed handoffs. In fact, these delayed handoffs have resulted
in at least 20 dropped calls in areas where coverage is quite decent. Those
delayed handoffs have also resulted in countless situations where the audio was
damaged to the point of being useless for periods exceeding 5 seconds (though in
the end, the call recovered by eventually handing off).
When it comes to network tuning however, we can always hope that the
engineers at Rogers will eventually set things right. They can certainly
implement Frequency Hopping, and they can change the handoff schedule any time
they please. As for the lack of sites outside of the GTA, that too can be fixed
by investing in a rather heavy build-out of new GSM-only sites in those areas.
This means that in time Rogers can bring their call quality up to the same
standards that Microcell Connexions already has. When that happens, we can
compare networks solely upon their coverage, but until that day arrives, you
must pick which GSM network you want based on the following criteria:
If you require your GSM phone to work in areas where Microcell Connexions
does not provide coverage, or where their coverage is weak and Rogers is strong,
then go with Rogers. If you spend the vast majority of your time in the urban
areas that are well-covered by Microcell Connexions, you'll find that you'll get
markedly better quality service by going with them. If you seem to be the type
that finds themselves in both situations frequently, you might want to consider
getting both services, and using the one that suits you the best at any given
moment.
Up
Over the past little while, CDMA providers have been referring to their new
1XRTT packet data services as true 3G. The question is, does referring to it as
3G mislead the public? There are many opinions on this issue, but if we look at
what is required for an air interface to be called 3G we find that 1XRTT falls
woefully short. Those requirements are:
144 kbps mobile (speed of a moving vehicle)
384 kbps pedestrian speed
2 Mbps fixed (with an antenna at work/home)
Bell Mobility is on record as stating that because they deal with mobiles,
and because 1XRTT can provide burst speeds up to 144 kbps, that 3G is a valid
moniker. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of Bell Mobility users
also on foot? If that's the case, then their argument is patently ridiculous,
since for those moving at walking speeds, the present implementation of 1XRTT is
not capable of providing 384 kbps.
Bell Mobility marketing hype goes further by attempting to distance 1XRTT
from GPRS (available on GSM networks) by using a variation on the above logic.
However, that is the sort of crap you generally expect from marketing
departments, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Telus marketing teams borrows
the argument for themselves.
The biggest problem with calling 1XRTT a 3G technology is how the general
public will react when they first try it. Due to hype generated by other
sources, the public has been prepped to believe that 3G is a wonder-technology
that will bring them the advantages of high-speed internet access without the
wires. However, since most people perceive high-speed internet to mean ADSL or
cable modem access, they are in for a huge shock when it comes to speed. 1XRTT
is not going to provide real-time speeds that even approach what ADSL and cable
are giving to their users on a daily basis. Speeds of 1000 to 3000 kbps are not
uncommon, in which case even burst speeds of 144 kbps are going to look mighty
slow.
The next problem will be selling the public on 3XRTT, which actually is a
true implementation of 3G technology. Now that they've used up the hype of the
3G name on 1XRTT, they are going to have to invent something else to convince
the public that 3XRTT is actually better than 1XRTT (and not just a evolutionary
step within 3G).
In the end, does it really matter what they call it? The bottom line is that
1XRTT is barely distinguishable from GPRS to the average user. They are both
packet data solutions, and will both provide real-world speeds that are in the
same ballpark. What will matter to the public is who sells their packet data
services the cheapest. Prices thus far have been astronomical compared to what
many people were expecting, so unless 1XRTT providers can come up with a
super-cheap plan, they don't look any different from GPRS. And to most people
that means too expensive to matter.
Up
The quick-and-dirty answer to this question is yes, but that would be a gross
over-simplification. 800 MHz is lower in frequency, and therefore is has a
better chance of penetrating various types of structures. The issue isn't
whether it can do this, but how much better does it than 1900 MHz. The reality
is that the improvement over 1900 MHz (given the same air interface, same
antenna gain, and same antenna placement) isn't enough to make it worth anyone
while. 1900 MHz signals can easily compensate with higher gain antennas.
Many people will tell you that 800 MHz is vastly better at building
penetration than 1900 MHz, but they base this information on experience with
different air interfaces. Some use the example that Rogers analog seems to
penetrate buildings better than their TDMA signals, but forget that both TDMA
and analog work at 800 MHz. Others note the difference in coverage between
Rogers GSM (at 1900 MHz) and Rogers TDMA (or analog) at 800 MHz. While this
comparison may seem fair, we don't know that Rogers is tuning both systems in
the same way.
The bottom line is that 800 MHz will penetrate a building better than 1900
MHz (if all else is equal), but the extent to which it does so isn't anywhere
near as great as many people believe.
Up
Many people are confused about the "System Access Fee" charged by Canadian
cellular and PCS providers. Some of them call it a "License Fee", but it's the
same thing. Rather than answering this question myself, I am including an
Industry Canada document on the subject:
Last Revised: 2/5/2001
Document Number: LDUD-4K5LWL
Document Status: External
Annual Service Fees for Cellular Telephones - Spectrum Management
Who sets the annual service fees for cellular telephones?
Cellular and personal communications services (PCS) carriers are subject to
federal license fees prescribed by regulation. Certain cellular and PCS carriers
have decided to pass this cost on to their subscribers along with other costs in
the form of an annual or monthly fee. Representatives of the carriers, when
asked by their subscribers what this fee is, have referred to it as a "system
access fee," "government tax" or "license fee."
Company representatives may incorrectly explain that this is a license fee
collected on behalf of the federal government and that it is paid to either
Industry Canada or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC). Industry Canada has very little control over the methods
carriers choose to distribute their costs for billing purposes. It is quite
conceivable that the cost elements that make up this fee go beyond the fees the
CRTC and Industry Canada charge and include such additional costs as radio
equipment and site acquisitions and amortization.
For its part, Industry Canada has licensed four competitive carriers to provide
mobile radiotelephone services. Subscribers should, as with any other consumer
purchase, seek to obtain the best value, as the market will ultimately dictate
what carriers can charge.
Up
I would like to begin my answer to saying that there is no best solution when
it comes to choosing a network or phone. Each network and each phone have their
own unique set of advantages and disadvantages. It is important for all of us to
carefully examine what facets of performance and convenience we treasure the
most, and what annoyances we can best tolerate.
So how do I personally choose what service and phone to use? I spent ages
trying to find just one service that could fulfill my every need, but I
eventually had to admit that it couldn't be done. What I have instead decided is
to go with two services, and use them in situations where they provide the best
compromise.
I love sound quality, and so after much comparing of GSM and CDMA, and after
testing countless phones offered for both services, I found that GSM usually
made me happy. It isn't perfect, but neither is CDMA. We now have two GSM
providers in Canada, but since I rarely go outside of the urban areas in
Southern Ontario, the lack of rural coverage by Microcell Connexions isn't a big
issue with me. What is a big issue is the quality of coverage provided in the
areas where I needed service. In that respect, Microcell Connexions has it all
over Rogers.
Now that you know that I'm a big fan of GSM, and that I feel Microcell
Connexions (in my case, Fido) does GSM best where I need it, what phone did I
choose? Without question, the Motorola P280 is the best GSM phone I've tested
for RF performance and audio quality. There are a few lemons out there, but if
you get your hands on a P280 that doesn't have any annoying flaws, I honestly
believe that you'll never want to let it go.
So now you know.
Up
Because of the popularity of downloading Ringtones and Graphics to Nokia GSM
phones, many people have come to believe that this is a standard feature of all
phones. Unfortunately this is not the case. Most non-Nokia phones, and most of
Nokia's non-GSM phones, cannot download Ringtones or Graphics. The exception to
this rule is the Nokia 8260 TDMA phone.
So if you have a Samsung, or an Ericsson, or a Motorola, or any other
non-Nokia phone, you are simply not able to download this sort of data to your
phone. However, Ericsson phones do have built-in ringtone editors that allow you
to compose a ringtone using the keypad.
Up
Predicting talk and standby times on a phone is a tricky business, and it's
rather akin to predicting the mileage you'll get on your brand new car. Did you
ever notice how the mileage stickers have disclaimers that say something like
"you mileage may vary"? This is because the way you drive your car has a strong
influence on mileage. Hard driving will result in lower gas mileage.
In the case of a cell phone, it isn't so much how you use it, but where you
use it. Let's examine the effects of battery life on talk time and standby time
individually, beginning with standby time.
Digital phones have markedly better standby times than their older analog
brothers because the manufacturers employ a technique called "sleep mode", where
the phone literally shuts down almost everything for the vast majority of the
time, including its receiver. However, in order to receive a phone call, it
still needs to turn the receiver on occasionally to check for pages. It does so
by powering up the receiver only about 5% of the time, at carefully timed
intervals.
However, the phone must sometimes talk with the network to tell it that it
has moved. When a phone remains stationary, it may never have to transmit
information to the network. A phone that moves around a lot will probably be
re-registering with the network quite frequently. All those short transmissions
to the network take their toll on the battery life. So, a moving phone will get
markedly less standby time than a stationary phone. Most manufacturers' claims
of standby time are based on a stationary model.
When it comes to talk time however, there is only one criteria that matters:
transmit power. Fortunately, all modern cell phone technologies adjust the power
output of your phone so that it only puts out the minimum amount of power
necessary. In CDMA systems, this is absolutely necessary for the smooth
operation of the network. The lower your output power, the less energy is
consumed from the battery.
A phone that is used in a stationary location very close to a site might even
be able to get talk times that exceed the manufacturers claims by a factor of 2
or 3! A phone that is used constantly at the fringes of coverage (or in a weak
signal area inside a building) will be transmitting at full power, and it might
not even get close to the manufacturer's claims. For talk times, most
manufacturers test based on relatively low transmitter outputs, but rarely with
the phone transmitting at it absolute minimum.
So, with all these variables involved, it is a fairly good bet that your talk
and standby times will not match the claims made by manufactures. In fact, they
might not even match your friends with the same phone, or even your own times
from one week to the next. It depends upon where the phone is used, how much it
moves around, and how close the nearest sites are (on average) during
conversations.
Up
Unlike the Nokia GSM models, you do not need any special hardware to do this.
Just press and hold the asterisk key, and then press 4, 3, 2, and 9. To turn the
mode off, repeat this operation. Unfortunately, the Field Test Mode on the G310
is rather disruptive, and it's difficult to use the phone to make calls or read
text messages. You can receive calls without any difficulty, but you probably
won't be able to see the ID of the caller before you answer. You also won't be
able to adjust the volume.
Up
Many people have looked at my maps and wondered how far a single site is able
to operate. The answer to this question is more complex that I suspect they were
imagining. However, the short answer is "it depends". In an area where there are
many sites, the range of a single one is usually limited by the distance to the
next. Providers don't want too much overlap between sites, otherwise they will
suffer from high levels of interference.
Sites that operate in fringe areas can be tuned to transmit for great
distances, but there is no guarantee that the operator will set them up that
way. Telus for example, tries to keep the range of their fringe sites quite low.
This reduces the size of the areas where digital signals are too weak to provide
service, but too strong to allow your phone to lock in on an analog signal.
There is no hard-and-fast rule to the range of a fringe site, but we can
generalize by saying that the range will vary between 2 and 20 kilometers.
Up
The truth is that I don't have access to phones for testing purposes. The
phones you see reviewed on this web site have either been purchased outright, or
I have taken advantage of the generous return policies offered by Fido and Telus
PCS. Obviously there is a limit to how many phones I am going to buy personally,
and there is certainly a limit to how far I will stretch the generosity of Fido
and Telus.
What I need is a source of phones that I can borrow for the purpose of
testing. If you are in a position to lend me phones I have not tested, or you
know people who are, then I would really appreciate hearing from you. You can
e-mail me at pcsguide@rogers.com. If
you run a retail outlet, perhaps we can work out a trade involving advertising,
or mentions in the reviews.
Up
Let me begin by noting that this web page represents my own personal take on
the PCS services offered in Southern Ontario. Although I try to be unbiased,
only a fool would believe that I truly could be. After testing many different
products and services, some seem to stand out as the best of their kind. For
that reason, you'll see a general bias toward Microcell Connexions and Bell
Mobility service, and a bias toward phones manufactured by Nokia.
I am not trying to prop up the businesses of these companies, and I do not
receive any compensation for saying nice things about them. I say those nice
things simply because they strike me as the cream of the crop in their various
endeavors. You may not agree with me, and that is certainly your prerogative. My
views are no better than your own, but I have the advantage of having
extensively tested many different services and models of phones over the years.
So yes, I am BIASED, but I'm biased by years of exposure to the products and
services of the PCS industry. Accept that at face value, or go elsewhere for
your information. I make no apologies for (as one industry employee once put it)
being biased in favor of superior technology.
Up
The letters "3G" stand for "3rd Generation". In the cellular world, the 1st
Generation was analog, and the 2nd Generation is the digital technologies we
have right now. This upcoming 3G technology is going to be geared for high speed
data communications with speeds of up to 2 megabits per second. As with the
current 2nd Generation, there will be multiple technologies that come under the
3G banner. Most of these technologies will be based on a CDMA air interface, and
this particular aspect of it has caused the greatest amount of misunderstanding.
Many people equate these up-and-coming CDMA technologies with the existing
IS-95 technology we have today. Although at least one of the 3G technologies
will be a direct descendant of IS-95, the others are completely different
implementations of the same basic idea. Many people have also misread this
information to mean that technologies such as GSM will cease to exist while
IS-95 will soldier on. This is also incorrect.
The 3G technology that will grow out of today's IS-95 is called cdma2000. It
overlays neatly on three consecutive IS-95 "carriers" as we know them today. The
3G technology that will grow out of GSM (and it will presumably still be called
GSM) is known as W-CDMA. There are other 3G variants, including one that will
grow from IS-136 (AKA TDMA). Each of these variants will be directly
incompatible with one another, but we may see multi-mode phones emerge that can
work on any of them.
Not all industry watchers are so sure that 3G will have a chance financially.
It will cost an enormous sum of money for existing 2G providers to upgrade to
3G. One estimate has it pegged that Sprint PCS would have to spend 10 billion
dollars to perform an upgrade on their CDMA network across the US. Of course,
such huge sums of money are worthwhile if there will be a market for the
product. However, the existence of this market is questionable in light of the
interim technologies (humorously referred to as 2.5G).
Since the primary thrust of 3G is to provide high speed data access, one has
to assess the advantage of it over the far less expense 2.5G alternatives. 2.5G
technologies (such as GPRS, EDGE, 1XRTT, and 3XRTT) will offer data speeds of up
to 384 kilobits per second on existing infrastructure. Although 3G can offer
speeds of up to 2 megabits, that would only apply to stationary devices (fixed
mobile). For vehicular speeds, the maximum planned rate for 3G is only 384
kilobits per second.
Only the marketplace will decide for sure if 3G is going to fly. And even if
it does, don't expect to see 3G systems available to you until at least 2004 or
2005. Some skeptics are now saying that 2007 is more realistic target. On the
other hand, expect to see 2.5G technologies implemented by late 2000, or early
2001. If 2.5G fulfills most of the user's needs for reasonably high speed data,
the implementation of 3G may be delayed. In either event, we have a few years to
wait before we know for sure.
Up
The answer to this question is slightly complicated. To fully understand the
answer we must first look at how we perform the same task using a landline
phone. Traditionally, we had have connected to the Internet using a device
called a Modem. This device turned the digital signals from our computer into a
series of waveforms that could be transmitted over a standard phone line. The
modem at the far end merely reversed the process and turned the waveforms back
into 1's and 0's for our computer.
Back in the days of analog cell phones, we continued to use modems to create
those waveforms, but the speed was limited by the narrow bandwidth of an analog
voice channel. Despite that limitation, the principle was essentially identical
to a landline.
Now we have Digital phones, and that throws a serious curve at the
traditional modem. Unlike analog systems, the audio picked up by your microphone
is converted into a series of 1's and 0's for transmission over the digital air
interface. This conversion process is optimized for the human voice, since we
have only a limited number of bits on which to broadcast the digital
representation of our voice. If we feed the tones generated by a modem into this
converter, we find that it does a very poor job. In fact, it does such a poor
job, that the fastest data rate we can reliably encode in this manner is 300 to
600 baud.
But look at this situation for a minute. We have a computer that wishes to
send 1's and 0's to a distant location, and we have an air interface that
actually uses 1's and 0's to send intelligence from one location to another.
They are made for each other. However, we can't just make a phone call and then
transmit 1's and 0's over the air, since the computer we want to talk to is
still connected to a landline phone system with a modem.
Service providers solve this problem by offering what they call "Data
Services". This means that your phone makes a special type of connection in
which the party you call is contacted using one of a pool of modems owned by the
provider. This modem at the provider's switch is connected to your party's modem
just as you would when dialing in from a landline. You then communicate with the
provider's modem using a direct digital connection across the air interface.
Doing this type of connection gives you a reliable throughput of between 9600
and 14,400 baud. This is still slow compared to the 56K we can now achieve on a
landline, but in the future that will be changing. Faster air interfaces will
eventually become available that will allow you to make digital over-the-air
connections of speeds upwards of 2 megabits per second. That's still a few years
off however, but interim solutions will be coming along shortly to provide
speeds up to 148 kilobits per second.
But getting back to the problem at hand, how does one go about making this
type of digital connection? The answer varies with the model of phone that you
own, but there are essentially three ways this can be done. Two of these methods
require a cable that connects between the phone and the serial port of your
computer. The third uses an infrared emitter on the phone, and it communications
with the infrared port on your computer. So far, very few phones take advantage
of the third option.
Some phones (such as Nokia's GSM models) require support software to make
this all work. Unfortunately, these pieces of driver software are often
available only for popular operating systems such as Windows. If you have a
computer that is not supported, then you are completely out of luck. Newer
phones (such as Nokia's CDMA models) do away with the need for specialized
interface software, and the phone directly emulates a modem. This means that any
computer with an RS-232 port can use these phones to connect to the Internet.
One last hurtle you need to concern yourself with is "does my provider
support digital data"? At the time of this writing for example, digital data was
only available on Microcell Connexions, Bell Mobility, and Telus Mike (with
certain phone models). Rogers will be able to support digital data once that
becomes available on IS-136, but they presently cannot (they have you use a
traditional modem on an analog connection). Telus PCS is capable of digital data
support, but they do not presently offer this service.
P.S. A future technology called Bluetooth will free of us from having to use
cables or infrared ports to connect devices together. Bluetooth is a short-range
wireless protocol that allows devices in close proximity to create a "micro
network". In the future therefore, we would only need to have our
Bluetooth-compatible phones within about 20 feet of the computer. We could just
leave the phone in our pockets or purses, and we would never have to touch them
ourselves.
Up
The term PCS (which stands for Personal Communications Service) was invented
by the FCC in the United States. Officially it refers to any digital
communications service operating on 1900 Mhz. This is confusing, since if we
took the same technology and deployed it at a different frequency, it would
cease to be a PCS service in the eyes of the FCC.
Once cellular marketing people got their hands on the term however, they
modified it to mean any digital service offered at any frequency. This makes a
lot more sense, and it is probably what most people think of when they hear the
term.
The bottom line is, there is no difference between the term Digital and the
term PCS. They apply equally to all four major technologies (other than analog)
available today. This includes GSM, IS-136 (AKA TDMA), IS-95 (AKA CDMA), and
iDEN. Don't let anyone fool you into believing that PCS is more advanced than
Digital Cellular, because that's just a lot of hot air.
Up
First type *3001#12345# on your phone to enter the programming menu. Scroll
down until you find an entry called Field test and select it. Change the
selection to Enabled and then press the OK softkey. To return the phone to its
normal operating mode, you must now power it off, and then power it on again.
Now that your phone is back on, select the Menu softkey and then scroll up
once. You'll now find that you have a new 10th menu item called Field test.
Select this menu, and enter a value from 1 to 199 in the edit box. This will
activate the requested Field Test Screen. The most useful screen is 01, which
contains most of the useful information about the network.
The screen looks something like this:
IDLE 0375 SP
180 17 1F
187 008 0F 0
-082-075
I don't know the meaning of all these numbers, but I do know many of them. In
the above example, 0375 represents the Carrier Channel. On Bell Mobility (to
which this example applies) they have two carriers in Toronto at channel 0350
and 0375.
The 180 presents the PN Offset of the current command signal. 17 is the Ec/Io
value (Signal-to-Interference Ratio). The lower this number gets, the better the
signal quality.
187 008 is the total number (in hex) of idle handoffs that have occurred
since the phone was new. Yes, the number in my example represents 1.6 million
idle handoffs since I bought the phone just over 5 months ago.
-082 is the RSSI given in dbm. A very weak signal would be between -102 and
-108 dbm. A very strong signal would be between -40 and -60 dbm. Typically, a
signal will fall between -95 dbm at the low end, and -65 dbm on the high end
(unless you are very close to a site, or very far away).
-075 is the transmit power, but it doesn't change during idle.
The phone may be moved to the next or previous screen by pressing the cursor
up and down buttons. That means you cannot use these buttons to quickly access
your phone book, but this feature isn't lost to you. Just press the Names
softkey (one on the right) followed the Select softkey (one on the left), then
scroll.
During a call, the arrow keys may or may not adjust the volume. I haven't
found out under what exact conditions that keys fail to work as volume controls,
but on my phone at least, they do about 90% of the time.
To turn off the Field Test screens, choose the Field test menu again, but ask
for menu 0. This doesn't turn off the new menu item though, as it remains
available for you to turn on Field Test Screens again in the future.
Up
First type *3001#12345# on your phone to enter the programming menu. Select
NAM1 from that menu, then scroll down until you reach a screen labeled Alpha
tag. Press the left softkey and enter a new tag line of your choice. To return
the phone to its normal operating mode, you must now power it off, and then
power it on again.
Your screen will now display the new tag that you just entered. It will stay
that way until you change it again.
Note: Some versions of the 6188 firmware apparently do not allow you to
change the banner. No one has found a way around that on those particular models
Up.
I strongly considered leaving this question off the list, since I can't
honestly give you a straight answer. Much research has been done to investigate
possible links between RF and cancer, but no studies have yet found one. Many
people choose to ignore these studies, because most of them are funded by cell
phone companies. They obviously have a vested interest in keeping people happy
with their phones, but to suggest that they would deliberately lie to cover up
the truth is a classic conspiracy theory if I ever heard one.
About the only thing we know for sure about RF exposure is that it can cause
localized heating. However, if slight heating of body tissue was dangerous, then
we would be putting ourselves at risk any time we exerted ourselves physically,
or stood around outside in the summer. To some sensitive individuals, it
possible that localized heating does cause headaches and other transient
maladies, but that doesn't mean they are going to die prematurely of brain
cancer.
I personally have not scaled down my use of cell phones as a result of these
warnings. Until such time as research can prove a positive link between RF and
cancer, I do not plan to change my behavior, and you shouldn't either. If we
jumped every time someone comes up with a scare that research has yet to
disprove, then we would spend our entire miserable lives cowering in fear.
Up
Until just recently, I would have answer this question with "No you cannot".
However, for owners of the Nokia 6190 with firmware versions 5.83 or later, it
is possible. I believe the recent firmware for the 5190 also supports this. For
everyone else, I know of no way to change it.
The 6190 (and possibly the 5190) now allows you to upload what is known as an
Operator Logo. This is a 72x14 pixel GRAPHIC image that will appear on the phone
in place of the network name. You can do anything you want inside that graphic.
To upload this image to your phone however, you will need a DAU-9P data cable,
and some appropriate software. There are numerous freeware and shareware
programs out there that allow you to upload Operator Logos.
It is also possible to transmit an Operator Logo as an SMS, but you'll need
to find someone who is willing to do this for you. Perhaps in the future,
someone will set up a web page that will automatically transmit Operator Logos
to your phone upon request, but I don't know of any that presently do this.
Up
The unfortunate answer is you don't (officially). There has been much
speculation as to why Telus has their phones programmed to disable this
particular feature. No matter what their reasoning however, the bottom line is
that Telus does not want you using analog if digital is available. The problem
with this idea (as many people on fringe areas already know) is that the digital
signal can often be too weak to make a call, and yet strong enough to keep the
phone in digital mode. Under these circumstances, the phone is essentially
useless.
I can't offer any advice as to how to deal with this problem. You might try
complaining to Telus, but unless enough subscribers do this I'm sure management
will ignore the requests. Only if they feel that not offering this feature is
hurting their business will they change their stance. If you absolutely can't
live with things the way they are, then you are left with no choice but to
switch carriers. For many however, this isn't really a valid solution, since
their choice of Telus may have been based on price plan options not available
from other providers.
Up
The short answer to this question is No. First of all, there are 4 different
technologies in use, and on 3 different sets of frequencies. For one phone to
physically work on a different network, that network must operate with the
correct technology and on the correct frequency. However, this does occur in
some instances. Both Bell Mobility PCS and Telus PCS use 1900 Mhz CDMA, and both
Fido and Cityfone use 1900 Mhz GSM (on the same network in fact). Even in these
cases however, you cannot use your phone on the other network (usually).
Why is this so? Cell phone companies sell phones for extremely low prices to
attract customers. They cover the difference in the cost to the consumer, and
what they pay the manufacturer, by means of a subsidy. Since they foot for the
bill for a large chunk of the phone's cost, they certainly don't want you
running off to the competition with it. After all, they aren't about to
subsidize the cost of a phone for which someone else is making all the money.
In some instances, you can get your hands on unlocked phones. Fido sold quite
a few Nokia 6190 phones back in 1997 that did not have SIM Locks on them. This
made it possible to use those phones on any GSM provider in North America. At
first, this didn't really matter much to Fido, since they were the only GSM
provider in Canada. However, it now has competition from other providers of
Microcell Connexions service (such as Cityfone), and the likelihood of people
"jumping ship" is much higher.
Some people feel cheated by this arrangement, but it is highly unlikely this
will change in the near future. People simply do not want to pay $500 to $800
for a cellular phone, and so long as the providers subsidize these prices to the
tune of hundreds of dollar per subscriber, there is just no incentive to change.
Are you willing to pay an extra $300 or $400 for your next phone just so you can
switch carriers later? I thought not. Besides, isn't that more than the cost of
a new subsidized phone from the competition?
Up
If you own either the 6120, the 6160, the 6185, or the 6188 then I have bad
news for you. These models are not able to download either Ring Tones or Group
Graphics. The good news for owners of 5190s is that the most recent firmware
version (5.81) of that phones does allow the uploading of graphics and tones.
This particular feature is limited to Nokia's GSM models only. I suppose Nokia
might have been able to figure out a way to handle it on these other phones, but
only GSM has the formatting standard available in its SMS to send non-text data
to the phone. Recent firmware for the 6190 and 5190 allows direct upload of
tones and graphics from the data cable, so one would think it could be done with
the other models. Unfortunately, it cannot.
If you own a 6190 with a pre-5.83 firmware release, you're still not quite
out of the woods. Most North American GSM providers do not support UDHI on their
SMSC. This means that they cannot correctly handle non-text SMS transmissions.
Without the ability to support UDHI, your messages will arrive on the phone in a
corrupted format that cannot be processed by the phone. The good news for
Canadian subscribers is that Microcell Connexions supports UDHI.
All 6190s have the ability to send and receive Group Graphics. If you have a
graphic your friend wants, you can send it directly from your phone to his. The
same capability does not exist for custom ring tones however. In order to obtain
a ring tone, you'll need special computer software and a data cable (the
DAU-9P). You might also find someone with a web site that will deliver ring
tones to your phone upon request, but I don't know of any such web pages
operating at this time.
Up
There are essentially two things that we can display on a signal strength
meter. The first is RSSI, which is short for Received Signal Strength Indicator
(or something like that). This is a simple measurement of the signal strength
with no consideration given to noise or other problems that may plague the
signal. For non-CDMA systems this is probably the best measurement, even though
noise does play a roll in diminishing the performance of the receiver.
In CDMA however, signal strength alone does not necessarily tell us how good
the call will be. How many of you have had poor audio using a Qualcomm 2700 or
the Telus Sony phone when it shows a 2 or 3 bar signal? In this case the strong
signal did not translate into good audio. Qualcomm chose to display the more
traditional RSSI on their phones.
The second thing we can measure is the Carrier-to-Interference Ratio (or Ec/Io).
This measurement essentially ignores the overall strength of the signal and
instead concentrates on how much better the desired signal is to the noise that
conspires to interfere with it. Although I wasn't sure of this at first, I am
now positive that the 6185 and 6188 uses this measurement for the meter.
With this in mind, it is therefore possible to observe a low meter reading in
an area where you know the signal is strong, and get a high reading in an area
where the signal is weak.
So is the use Ec/Io a good idea then? In my opinion: yes and no. The
information it provides is far more relevant to the type of call you'll end up
with than pure RSSI, but it is foreign to most cell phone users. So on one hand
it gives us truly useful signal quality measurements, but at the same time it
confuses the hell out of us when we see 2-bar readings while standing next to a
cell site. It also fluctuates quite a bit over time, even when the phone remains
stationary.
Up
To access the Field Debug Mode, enter 111111 on your keypad and then press
the Jog Dial button. Scroll down to "Field Debug" and press the Jog Dial button
once again. You'll now be prompted for the access code. Enter 362867. This
spells DOCTOR by the way. Now scroll down to the "Screen" entry and press the
Jog Dial button one last time.
Your screen will look something like this:
024 2 C1
X A 7F
The "024" part of the above example is the PN Offset (sort of like the
channel number in CDMA terms). PN Offsets are numbered from 001 to 512, but
Telus only uses every 6th offset (006, 012, 018 ... 492, 498, 504). Offset is
only valid while the phone is idling. Once in a call, the offset shown remains
fixed at the cell used to set the call up in the first place.
The "2" part of the above example is the mode the phone is presently in. 0
means there is no service. 2 means it is idling, 4 means you are in a call, and
5 means it is busy negotiating with the network.
The "C1" part of the above example is the receive signal strength given in a
hexadecimal number. The lowest possible signal strength is 80 (which means NO
SIGNAL). It goes up until it reaches FF, then it wraps around to 00 and
continues up to a maximum of 7F (theoretically). Typically you will see 30 to 60
when very close to a site.
The "X A" part means nothing, and it never changes.
The "7F" stays this way while idling, but during a call it indicates transmit
power. I don't really know how to read this number, since I have found no real
use for it.
Up
Let's begin by defining the term "Handoff" first. In any mobile phone
conversation, your call is passed from one cell to another in order to keep the
signal strong. This process of handing the call from one cell to another is
called a handoff (or handover in some countries). It is how this transfer takes
place that defines the difference between soft and hard.
In all non-CDMA systems, including analog, IS-136, GSM, and iDEN, the handoff
process is an all-or-nothing affair. At some point in time the switch instructs
the phone to change from one cell to another. The phone does this by terminating
its connection with the old cell and then establishing a connection with the new
cell. The term "hard" comes from the sharp-edged nature of this process.
In a CDMA system, all cells and all callers operate on the same frequency.
Each conversation is distinguished from the next by the encoding sequence used
to modulate the bits onto the wide carrier. The receiver in each CDMA phone has
the ability to demodulate multiple code sequences at the same time. These
receiver elements are likened to the tines of a fork, and the unit is called a
Rake Receiver. The CDMA switch chooses multiple cells in your general vicinity
and it broadcasts a copy of your conversation on each. Your phone assigns each
of these cells to one of the tines in its Rake Receiver. The phone may now
choose any of these tines, and it may also combine the output of two or more
tines to smooth the transition from one cell to another. Because contact with a
cell is never broken at any time during this process, the handoff is considered
"Soft".
CDMA supporters will tell you that this soft approach has three primary
advantages over the hard approach. The first is a much lower incidence of
dropped calls during the handoff process. However, considering the low number of
dropped calls reported by GSM users, and the shockingly high number reported by
CDMA users, one has to question if this advantage truly exists in practice.
The second advantage is that soft handoffs do not have a detectable impact on
the audio. When you use a phone near a cell boundary, handoffs can rapidly occur
between one cell and the other. This phenomenon is known as "Thrashing". When
trashing occurs on a hard handoff system, the call quality can be severely
compromised. In practice, this does seem to work.
The third advantage is that soft handoffs allow a phone to combine the
signals from two sites simultaneously. Under very weak signal conditions this
can translate to more error-free data recovery than either of the two sites
could yield on their own. It's hard to say if this actually works in practice or
not. If it does, I would tend to think that the number of cases where it might
be advantageous to you are very small.
Up
This is loaded question, and it has an amazing similarity to "you know a lot
about cars, which one should I buy?" If you've ever been asked that question,
then you know why I cannot give you a straight answer. There are many factors
that need to be examined before such advice can be dispensed. I don't run a
cellular consulting business, but if you don't mind paying a fee, I would be
glad to spent time examining your specific situation and then suggesting who
would best suit your needs. Keep in mind that I am only familiar with the
service providers in Southern Ontario.
I know a lot of you were hoping I would say "go with Fido", or "go with Telus",
but that would be unfair advice to give in a vacuum. For my situation and
requirements, the Microcell Connexions GSM network does the best job. But does
this mean I would always steer people to Fido? Certainly not, since each
company's pricing plans do tend to favor particular usage patterns. And would I
suggest GSM over any other technology? Again no. The implementation of each
network means that some provide better coverage in some places than others. It
would depend highly upon where you intended to use you phone the most often.
For example, Microcell Connexions has very few sites serving Markham,
Ontario. Many users have complained of poor indoor coverage in the main shopping
centers along Highway 7, whereas Telus PCS does extremely well in those same
locations. This is purely an implementation phenomenon, and not one technology
proving itself better than another. I wish I could recommend Microcell
Connexions services to people living Markham, but in all honesty I simply
cannot. Perhaps in the future Micrcocell Connexions will build more sites in
Markham, and I will have no trouble recommending them at that time.
On the other hand, London Ontario has wall-to-wall solid coverage on
Microcell Connexions. This makes it an excellent choice for people living in
London who spend most of their time inside the city limits. I wouldn't hesitate
suggesting Fido to London residents.
Up
There are three battery technologies in common use these days. Each of these
battery technologies has its own unique properties and its own peculiar charging
requirements. Here is a summary of those available technologies:
Nickel-Cadmium (NiCad)
This is the oldest of the three technologies, but you will still find quite a
few batteries of this type still around. Cadmium is extremely toxic, and so this
type of battery has been slated for extinction in the near future. If you have a
NiCad batteries, you can expect fairly long service life from them if you treat
them with respect. NiCad batteries suffer from a phenomenon known as "The Memory
Effect". It received this name because over time the battery seemed to
"remember" how long you used it between charges and then wouldn't hold a charge
much longer than that. This effect is cause by the build-up of bubbles in the
electrolyte as a result of "topping up" the battery.
Topping up the charge on a battery seems to be the way we prefer to treat our
rechargeable batteries, but NiCad technology is not particularly happy with this
practice. In order to prevent the memory effect from killing your batteries
prematurely, you should make a habit of running your battery down COMPLETELY at
least once a week. This can be done by leaving the phone on overnight. NiCads
thrive on full discharge/recharge cycles.
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH)
This technology replaced NiCad as the battery-of-choice about 4 or 5 years
ago. It provided similar capacity to NiCad, but it did not contain the toxic
Cadmium. This new technology promised improved performance and less memory
effect. Unfortunately, it did not do away with the memory effect completely.
NiMH batteries can withstand many top-ups without suffering from such pronounced
memory effect, but in the end they will suffer the same fate as NiCads. For that
reason, you should also run NiMH batteries through the occasional full
discharge/recharge cycle, but you only have to do this once every 2 or 3 weeks.
Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion)
This is the newest battery technology, which finally does away with the
memory effect once-and-for-all. In fact, Li-Ion batteries prefer to be topped
up, and their life expectancy will be diminished if you fully discharge them.
They also offer more power per unit of weight, so Li-Ion batteries usually lead
to smaller and/or lighter cell phones. Their preference for topping up fits well
with most people's usage patterns, which makes them an ideal choice.
As I understand it, the downside to Li-Ion technology is a shorter life
cycle. However, given how most people treat their batteries, chances are very
good that a Li-Ion battery would give longer service life than either of the
other technologies. For those of you who treat batteries with respect, and go to
the trouble of charging them in a manner that is in keeping with their "needs",
then Li-Ion batteries will probably need replacing sooner than NiCad or NiMH
batteries.
Li-Ion batteries also have the longest "shelf life". This refers to the
length of time the battery will retain its charge without being used. All three
of these rechargeable technologies have poor shelf life compared to dry cell
batteries, so care should be exercised when putting a phone in a glove
compartment for emergency-only use. This is especially true if you do so in the
winter, since extremely cold temperatures will severely shorten the shelf life
of the battery. If this is how you intend to use your phone, I would strongly
recommend keeping a car adapter in the glove compartment with it. Charge the
battery every couple of months to ensure it has plenty of usable power when it's
needed.
Up
Both of these services utilize the same cell sites, but none of them actually
run a GSM network. They are merely service providers for Microcell Connexions.
Yes Fido and Microcell Connexions have the same parent company, but they operate
as different entities. Fido purchases bulk airtime from Microcell Connexions at
a wholesale price. Cityfone do the same for their newly-launched services. If
you think of Microcell Connexions as a manufacturer and Fido/Cityfone as retail
outlets, then I think you can get a better picture of how this arrangement
works.
This brilliant marketing scheme goes one step further. GSM technology allows
Microcell Connexions to "plug in" any long distance carrier they please.
Furthermore, both companies get a direct connection to the switch at Microcell
Connexions, so they have full and independent control over the activation and
de-activation of subscribers.
This further increases competition in the wireless market without anyone
having to build another network. It is true that these companies will
cannibalize each other's market share to a certain a degree, but because the
consumer has greater choice in the GSM market, it greatly increases the chances
that an individual will choose GSM as their network. No matter which company you
pick, it's good news for Microcell Connexions.
Up
If you live in Canada and have service on Fido, then all you need to do is
take your phone into the near Fido FLAGSHIP store. They will upgrade your phone
free of charge. Call ahead to make sure a technician will be on hand when you
arrive. The phone number for the Flagship store in Toronto at Yonge & Eglinton
is 416-488-4631.
If you live outside of Canada, I recommend calling your service provider and
asking them how to get your phone upgraded, and if there will be any associated
costs.
Up
Clear your display, then type *#6190# and the version number will appear on
your screen.
Up
Unless someone in these other cities goes out and finds the sites for me,
there is nothing I can do. The information used on this site is NOT provided by
the carriers, and must be found in person. Unless I can make frequent trips to
the cities in question, I can't personally locate sites there. So far, no one
has offered to do the necessary footwork in locations such as Montreal, Ottawa,
or Vancouver, so it is highly unlike you'll see site maps for these places.
Up
First off, you have to stop listening to rhetoric coming from both sides on
this issue and look more closely at the claims these people are making. As a
subscriber, you care only about which technology delivers the best service
possible. Unfortunately, many of the staunch CDMA or TDMA supporters can't see
the forest for the trees, and tend to forget this.
Just about all of the claimed superiority of CDMA is at the engineering end
of things, and matters only to the service provider. While the sound quality on
CDMA differs from the two competing TDMA systems (IS-136 and GSM), there really
are no winners or losers here. The most recent updates to the two older TDMA-based
technologies provide audio quality that puts them all in a tie for first place.
Older versions of TDMA (IS-136 especially) were inferior in sound quality to
CDMA, but by-and-large that is a thing of the past.
The real differences in the four technologies lie in their feature sets. In
this regard, GSM does have the upper hand, since it provides more features than
either IS-136, iDEN, or CDMA. This may change in the future. CDMA, on the other
hand, has a slight advantage if interference is a big concern with you. Due to
the manner in which the data is spread onto a wide band channel, CDMA phones
produce very little interference (even to poorly shielded electronic equipment).
But don't the engineering issues eventually affect the consumer? Yes they do,
up to a point. CDMA has the greatest "spectral efficiency", which means it can
accommodate more users per Mhz or bandwidth. CDMA providers try to paint a
picture of the future where their networks will continue to work as if nothing
has happened, while all the TDMA networks will crumble under the sheer weight of
their subscriber base. Well yes and no. The capacity of digital systems is
extremely high, and whether we ever do get to a stage where the number of
subscribers increases to a point where ONLY CDMA can survive is both
questionable, and far off in the future. You are buying a PCS phone for use NOW,
not 3 or 4 years down the line. My suggestion is to ignore the doomsayers and
take comfort in knowing that you can always switch service providers in the
future if you become dissatisfied with your original choice.
For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see
CDMA vs TDMA.
Up
The key to answering this question is in the word "some". All four competing
technologies can be implemented well, or they can be implemented poorly. In some
areas, the local GSM provider may have done a horrible job of implementing their
system, and people living in those areas may rightfully conclude that any of the
other three technologies is the better choice for them. In other areas however,
the local CDMA, iDEN, or IS-136 systems may be poorly implemented, and you'll
get a high number of GSM supporters.
Since most people can only judge the technologies based on the service
provided in their area, biases against certain technologies are bound to occur.
And because of this disparity in implementation, it is impossible to tell
someone who doesn't live in your part of the country which technology is best
for them.
Up
Theoretically, CDMA has the best in-building coverage due to a greater
tolerance of weak signals. In practice, you will probably be able to use a CDMA
phone A LITTLE DEEPER inside a building than with GSM, IS-136, or iDEN, but
there is a far more important factor at work here.
Networks can provide excellent in-building coverage by means of indoor
picocells (or enhancers). Most of the Toronto PCS providers have coverage in
Toronto's underground concourses (known as the PATH system) using these
picocells. In the absence of such cells however, the ability to penetrate a
building is highly dependent upon the proximity of the closest site. You can
check my maps to see how close a site is to the building you wish to use your
phone in.
Statistically speaking, Rogers (who has the most sites) should provide
in-building coverage in more places than Mike (who has the least). However, a
secondary factor plays a part here too. Because of the huge number of sites
Rogers have, they must greatly reduce the range of each site to avoid
interference. This means you must be much closer to one of their sites to get
descent in-building signals. Mike can keep the output of their sites relatively
high, and you can be further away and still get good in-building coverage.
CDMA systems have one peculiarity that does not affect GSM, IS-136, or iDEN.
As the number of subscribers using a particular site goes up, the range of that
site goes down. This is difficult to explain without getting into the technical
details of CDMA systems. The upshot of this is that what seemed like good
in-building coverage one day, may not be so good the next. In-building coverage
would suffer the most during rush hour.
The bottom line is: All service providers have their good buildings and their
bad buildings. The closer the site is to the building, the better the coverage.
No one technology is inherently much better than another, so don't let
misinformed souls lead down the garden path on this one.
Up
| 
