Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built in
the last two years had GPS capability.

Because of e911, I assumed all devices had some kind of GPS capability. When
I inquired about ordering a tracking service, the reply I got was "The
Motorola V3 has no GPS capability".

Is the Razr V3 e911 compliant?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built in
> the last two years had GPS capability.
>
> Because of e911, I assumed all devices had some kind of GPS capability. When
> I inquired about ordering a tracking service, the reply I got was "The
> Motorola V3 has no GPS capability".
>
> Is the Razr V3 e911 compliant?

With the GSM carriers, the phones are not e911 compliant, but the entire network
is, meaning they use the towers to pinpoint the location of the phone instead of
GPS tracking. Rumor has it that CDMA carriers chose e911 at the handset level
so they could force customers into new phones with new contracts in order to
comply. It would be impractical for GSM carriers to do anything at the handset
level because they would have to ensure that your SIM would work only with GPS
phones, and they would probably have to disallow foreign roamers who would not
meet the FCC requirement.

TH

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Thurman wrote:
> Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built in
> the last two years had GPS capability.
>
> Because of e911, I assumed all devices had some kind of GPS capability. When
> I inquired about ordering a tracking service, the reply I got was "The
> Motorola V3 has no GPS capability".
>
> Is the Razr V3 e911 compliant?
>
>


On Cingular, no handset needs to be GPS compliant, per see, but I can
see it's time to drag out a bookmark again...

http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:XtaAe.14842$zA.1291@fe04.lga...
> Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built
> in the last two years had GPS capability.

No they don't. One or two models do - that's all.

> Because of e911, I assumed all devices had some kind of GPS capability.
> When I inquired about ordering a tracking service, the reply I got was
> "The Motorola V3 has no GPS capability".

The technology for E911 has nothing to do with GPS in a cell phone.

> Is the Razr V3 e911 compliant?

Yes of course.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"John S." <john@mocha-n-micro-chips.com> wrote in message
news:VCRAe.2337$oZ.2300@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
> news:XtaAe.14842$zA.1291@fe04.lga...
>> Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built
>> in the last two years had GPS capability.
>
> No they don't. One or two models do - that's all.

Help me understand:

You are saying the CEO of Sprint PCS in his opening speech of the Business
Development Conference in Dallas, Monday June 2 2003, lied to the developers
and major accounts attending?

And the CEO of Qualcom backed him up?

Or maybe in the darkness of the auditorium I suffered a time warp.......

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Tropical Haven wrote:

>>Is the Razr V3 e911 compliant?
>
>
> With the GSM carriers, the phones are not e911 compliant, but the entire network
> is, meaning they use the towers to pinpoint the location of the phone instead of
> GPS tracking. Rumor has it that CDMA carriers chose e911 at the handset level
> so they could force customers into new phones with new contracts in order to
> comply.


That would be rather dumb, considering it's Sprint, and not the
customer, who must pay the fines if they fail to comply with the hadnset
sales targets.

The answer is in Cingular's own quaterly reports to the FCC dating back
to 2001:

http://www.mobile.commerce.net/story.php?story_id=569

EOTD technology is significantly more compliated to deploy, especially
in areas where major highways are the only coverage points. Why?
Becuase the cell sites are often in a "string of pearls" arrangement
along the highway, which generally doewsn't support triangulation very well.

If you have a GPS assist in the handset, however, you don't have to
worry as much about this.

> It would be impractical for GSM carriers to do anything at the handset
> level because they would have to ensure that your SIM would work only with GPS
> phones, and they would probably have to disallow foreign roamers who would not
> meet the FCC requirement.

That's pretty much true, which is why GSM carriers are stuck with using
EOTD or TDOA.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John S. wrote:
> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
> news:XtaAe.14842$zA.1291@fe04.lga...
>
>>Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built
>>in the last two years had GPS capability.
>
>
> No they don't. One or two models do - that's all.
>

*ahem*

http://tinyurl.com/acvsb :

"Sprint was the first and only carrier to effectively convert 100% of
all handset activations to GPS-enabled devices, reaching 99% of new
handset activations on June 28, 2003."

Now whether or or they really were the "first and only" is one matter to
contend with, but the point is, all new handsets sold by Sprint are GPS
enabled, as of 2003. All of them. Not just one or two.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:11dambfn27q63fa@corp.supernews.com...
> John S. wrote:
>> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
>> news:XtaAe.14842$zA.1291@fe04.lga...
>>
>>>Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built
>>>in the last two years had GPS capability.
>>
>> No they don't. One or two models do - that's all.
>>
>
> *ahem*
>
> http://tinyurl.com/acvsb :
>
> "Sprint was the first and only carrier to effectively convert 100% of all
> handset activations to GPS-enabled devices, reaching 99% of new handset
> activations on June 28, 2003."

Isaiah, when in DFW, I'll buy you a buffalo hamburger. ;-)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:08:15 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

>Tropical Haven wrote:
>
>>>Is the Razr V3 e911 compliant?
>>
>>
>> With the GSM carriers, the phones are not e911 compliant, but the entire network
>> is, meaning they use the towers to pinpoint the location of the phone instead of
>> GPS tracking. Rumor has it that CDMA carriers chose e911 at the handset level
>> so they could force customers into new phones with new contracts in order to
>> comply.
>
>
>That would be rather dumb, considering it's Sprint, and not the
>customer, who must pay the fines if they fail to comply with the hadnset
>sales targets.
>
>The answer is in Cingular's own quaterly reports to the FCC dating back
>to 2001:
>
>http://www.mobile.commerce.net/story.php?story_id=569
>
>EOTD technology is significantly more compliated to deploy, especially
>in areas where major highways are the only coverage points. Why?
>Becuase the cell sites are often in a "string of pearls" arrangement
>along the highway, which generally doewsn't support triangulation very well.
>
>If you have a GPS assist in the handset, however, you don't have to
>worry as much about this.
>
> > It would be impractical for GSM carriers to do anything at the handset
>> level because they would have to ensure that your SIM would work only with GPS
>> phones, and they would probably have to disallow foreign roamers who would not
>> meet the FCC requirement.
>
>That's pretty much true, which is why GSM carriers are stuck with using
>EOTD or TDOA.

Keep in mind that you get a pretty good distance to tower feature that
is built into GSM. That would give you a ring if there was only a
single omnidirectional antenna.

I believe most sites use 120 degree sectors and even with 180 on a
highway it narrows the location down pretty well.

Add in overlap to the next site and the chance that the caller may
actually be on the highway and you get even closer.

I had two different models of GPS phones (i730 and i830) with GPS and
the GPS absolutely did not work at all even standing on one foot out
in a field.

Nextel gave a presentation about their location services
implementation at the county comm center and I asked them if iDen had
the same built in feature as GSM and they said no.

My personal preference is network based rather than GPS especially
since GPS sure won't work in a building.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:Vv_Ae.3036$wG5.1416@fe03.lga...
>
> "John S." <john@mocha-n-micro-chips.com> wrote in message
> news:VCRAe.2337$oZ.2300@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
>> news:XtaAe.14842$zA.1291@fe04.lga...
>>> Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built
>>> in the last two years had GPS capability.
>>
>> No they don't. One or two models do - that's all.
>
> Help me understand:
>
> You are saying the CEO of Sprint PCS in his opening speech of the Business
> Development Conference in Dallas, Monday June 2 2003, lied to the
> developers and major accounts attending?
>
> And the CEO of Qualcom backed him up?
>
> Or maybe in the darkness of the auditorium I suffered a time warp.......

In the mean time technology was developed that didn't require the phones to
have ANY GPS technology in them at all. So, no they didn't lie, but things
changed.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John S. wrote:
> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
> news:Vv_Ae.3036$wG5.1416@fe03.lga...
>
>>"John S." <john@mocha-n-micro-chips.com> wrote in message
>>news:VCRAe.2337$oZ.2300@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:XtaAe.14842$zA.1291@fe04.lga...
>>>
>>>>Having been on Sprint for 30 months, I knew that all Sprint phones built
>>>>in the last two years had GPS capability.
>>>
>>>No they don't. One or two models do - that's all.
>>
>>Help me understand:
>>
>>You are saying the CEO of Sprint PCS in his opening speech of the Business
>>Development Conference in Dallas, Monday June 2 2003, lied to the
>>developers and major accounts attending?
>>
>>And the CEO of Qualcom backed him up?
>>
>>Or maybe in the darkness of the auditorium I suffered a time warp.......
>
>
> In the mean time technology was developed that didn't require the phones to
> have ANY GPS technology in them at all. So, no they didn't lie, but things
> changed.
>
>


I think it may be helpful to understand that when the "GPS" term is
used, some people automatically think of a handheld GPS device, ie. a
handset. With technology where it is today, a GPS-based location
service, ie. TDOA for E-911 Phase II, a system can be GPS compliant
without any such handheld GPS device for each individual user. The
service is GPS compliant because the network uses GPS, not the handset.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'