Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod!ub!dsinc!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: gmp@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Message-ID: <16052@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 14 Jan 91 05:40:56 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 24 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 37, Message 3 of 8 > [Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme > difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is > there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it? > Wouldn't it make better sense to tone down the cell just a little so a > more realistic range *in both directions* could be observed? I've The point is to keep customers' phones from roaming. As long as a cell phone is receiving the setup signal from its home system, it won't roam (at least, not automatically). A cynical person would say that cellular providers do this to make more money, since it makes customers have to wait until they get in range of their home system to make calls. Being less cynical, perhaps there's good to this too. Probably many people don't want to pay roaming charges to another provider just because they happen to be a bit out of range or in a dead spot. Considering how outrageous such charges can be, one might say that the home system is providing a valuable protection service by preventing its customers from accidentally roaming. Greg Paris