-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
les anderson
Newbie
higher the frequency the further it travels. Boaters get much better reception with Sprint 1900 than Verizon 800 when they are off shore.
jamesthomas128
Lurker
Lower frequencies travel further in the same medium. Higher frequencies are more able to penetrate less permeable (aka buildings) mediums. Pick up a physics book, or just go to wikipedia, I'm sure it's there.
pking
Well-Known Member
Physics lesson time.
Actually scratch that, just take this example:
You're downstairs, someone upstairs is blaring some rockin rock music. What do you hear? The bass of course.
Lower frequencies are able to permeate further through denser objects. The treble hits the wall and bounces.
Radio frequencies behave no differently.
I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification james (see post below)
Actually scratch that, just take this example:
You're downstairs, someone upstairs is blaring some rockin rock music. What do you hear? The bass of course.
Lower frequencies are able to permeate further through denser objects. The treble hits the wall and bounces.
I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification james (see post below)
jamesthomas128
Lurker
Actually they do behave differently. Low frequencies do indeed travel further. However, higher frequencies penetrate buildings better because the porosity of materials, along with reinforcement by steel, create a Faraday cage that blocks low frequencies, yet allows higher frequencies to pass.
VHF radar dishes are incredibly dense so the VHF waves reflect rather than pass through.
LF dishes sometimes look like a wire grid because the large spacing reflects LF but allows HF to pass through.
This is why HF is used in home cordless phones. HF doesn't travel as far, but it doesn't need to for a home phone. It does, however, pass through walls with less attenuation.
For us, this means that Sprint's higher frequency allows you to get better reception inside, but you must be closer to the tower.
VHF radar dishes are incredibly dense so the VHF waves reflect rather than pass through.
LF dishes sometimes look like a wire grid because the large spacing reflects LF but allows HF to pass through.
This is why HF is used in home cordless phones. HF doesn't travel as far, but it doesn't need to for a home phone. It does, however, pass through walls with less attenuation.
For us, this means that Sprint's higher frequency allows you to get better reception inside, but you must be closer to the tower.
abourne
Well-Known Member
I believe this is accurate. When Sprint was building out its PCS-frequency CDMA network in 1996 and 1997, they needed more towers closer together than compared to the 800 Mhz cellular frequencies at the time.
jamesthomas128
Lurker
I agree, tethering is essential. I came from a Samsung Instinct (complete POS), but tethering on it was awesome. 1-2 mB/s isn't too shabby. At least Sprint's network made that damn phone somewhat bearable.
Nothing like the Hero
. Now they just have to fix the myriad of bugs...
Nothing like the Hero
. Now they just have to fix the myriad of bugs...
dcdttu
Well-Known Member
It's not the frequency of a network that matters, it's how it's put together. AT&T's 3G network in Austin for a long time was 1900mhz WCDMA, very similar to Sprint's 1900mhz CDMA network. Difference is, the 3G antennas for AT&T were put on towers that were designed and spaced for 850mhz 2G. The results were a disaster for 3G coverage in Austin. Sprint, however, has always had a 1900mhz system in Austin, and it works fantastic.
T-Mobile is even better off, their 2G is on 1900mhz, and their 3G is on 1700mhz. They should have overlapping coverage if they set it up right.
As for frequency, I've always been told that lower frequencies carry further and penetrate better.... but who knows. Even the Cellular companies themselves, esp AT&T, touted the building penetration abilities of their 850mhz network. And in my practice with AT&T's 1900 3G vs 850mhz 3G, the lower frequencies definitely had better reception indoors.... but maybe that was tower distance... Also, even if a 1900mhz signal can penetrate buildings better, it's rendered useless if the signal can't propagate as well as 850 and is very weak when it makes it to the building in the first place. It's probably best to not think of propagation and penetration separately. You don't get the right outcome.
T-Mobile is even better off, their 2G is on 1900mhz, and their 3G is on 1700mhz. They should have overlapping coverage if they set it up right.
As for frequency, I've always been told that lower frequencies carry further and penetrate better.... but who knows. Even the Cellular companies themselves, esp AT&T, touted the building penetration abilities of their 850mhz network. And in my practice with AT&T's 1900 3G vs 850mhz 3G, the lower frequencies definitely had better reception indoors.... but maybe that was tower distance... Also, even if a 1900mhz signal can penetrate buildings better, it's rendered useless if the signal can't propagate as well as 850 and is very weak when it makes it to the building in the first place. It's probably best to not think of propagation and penetration separately. You don't get the right outcome.