Analog Optional

[wa3vjb]

Does anyone know if this has implications for the interrupted coverage on VHF/UHF scanners?

I mean, you can't automatically decode the digital signals even when you can hear them, so the FCC rule requiring manufacturers to skip certain cellular frequencies seems to be on its way to being obsolete.

Then again, I still dial through the old TV channels 69-83 and pick up all sorts of interesting stuff.
-----------

FROM THE FCC WEBSITE:
Quote[/b] ] Analog Cellular Status Reports
In its Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review, the Commission established a five-year sunset period (February 18, 2003 through February 18, 2008) after which cellular service licensees will no longer be required to provide analog service. While the Commission concluded that the original goals of the analog requirement had been largely accomplished, it set out a transition period because it recognized that certain consumers, specifically persons with hearing disabilities and consumers that exclusively use their phones to access 911 emergency services, might not have readily available alternatives to analog service, and would be unduly affected by the immediate elimination of the analog requirement. In order to monitor the development of hearing aid-compatible devices, and to ensure that wireless services are continuing to be made available to persons with hearing disabilities as well as 911-only consumers, the Commission required nationwide cellular carriers to file reports in February 2006 and February 2007.

[ky5u]

Yep. The switch gets flipped on 2/20 and they can start ripping out equipment in March.

[N2RJ]

Who I really feel bad for are some OnStar users, whose vehicles' OnStar feature will go inactive when this switch takes place.

I know GM is dumb, but jeez, to make cars as recent as 2005 that relied on the analog cell phone network? That one takes the cake.

[m0dcd]

You mean you still have analogue cellular phones? How quaint.
I can't remember when these went over here in the UK but it's a long time ago. It's been over ten years.

[K6BTM]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 30 2007,20:47)]Who I really feel bad for are some OnStar users, whose vehicles' OnStar feature will go inactive when this switch takes place.

I know GM is dumb, but jeez, to make cars as recent as 2005 that relied on the analog cell phone network? That one takes the cake.
Yup have a 2004 GM product ... Analog. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
But GM did offer up Digital unit dealer installed for $200 with a years service. Not to bad, but still. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KC7UP]

I have a 2006 GM OnStar and checked to see if its digital. OnStar say I am ok.
Curt

[ka5piu]

Hello.

The OnStar unit is a glorified Motorola cellphone.
If one makes a harness, they can easily add a GSM unit.
This will only be .6 watts, and not 3 watts, but no other changes, and if the handset is mounted in a cradle, one can take it with them.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Dec. 31 2007,11:07)]Hello.

The OnStar unit is a glorified Motorola cellphone.
If one makes a harness, they can easily add a GSM unit.
This will only be .6 watts, and not 3 watts, but no other changes, and if the handset is mounted in a cradle, one can take it with them.
Actually the phones were made by Hughes which is owned by GE.

[WA2ZDY]

I just got a new phone last week and for the first time have one that does not have an analogue mode at all.

The march of progress.

But Paul, I don't see FCC changing that rule. From their point of view, what purpose would it serve? Nah, it'll stay in place I suspect.

[K3RRR]

I just checked and found that my 2005 onstar is both - the change doesn't make a difference on my truck.. for whatever thats worth.

[WA9SVD]

If I read things correctly, it says analog is "optional," not banned. If a service has many subscribers, I would suspect they would maintain service until the users fall below a certain number by attrition.

Of course, "On-Star" has always seemed as a "baby-sitting" service for those people who are either too lazy or too irresponsible to want to be held accountable for their own actions.

Yes, it has some valid uses, such as in the event of an accident, but in the past, if you locked your keys in your car, it was TS until you got the spare keys from home, or called a locksmith; that is a costly lesson learned. NOW, people seem to be careless, knowing "ON-Star" can bail them out. But a few year's worth of "On-Star" can pay for a lot of locksmith visits.

And now GM is trying to "sell" On-Star as an important feature to be included (thinly veiled "required") on all cars by law: Of course, what they do NOT mention or promote is that it would line their pockets by people paying the subscription. And I see no way of forcing people to actually pay the subscription for continuing coverage, so it would be another useless, unused piece of equipment in an auto that the consumer has to pay for, like it or not.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Dec. 31 2007,14:58)]If I read things correctly, it says analog is "optional," not banned. If a service has many subscribers, I would suspect they would maintain service until the users fall below a certain number by attrition.
Numbers are very low now. Letters have been going out to users for a year warning them and offering upgrades. Analog will be shut off by March 1.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 31 2007,14:33)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Dec. 31 2007,11:07)]Hello.

The OnStar unit is a glorified Motorola cellphone.
If one makes a harness, they can easily add a GSM unit.
This will only be .6 watts, and not 3 watts, but no other changes, and if the handset is mounted in a cradle, one can take it with them.
Actually the phones were made by Hughes which is owned by GE.
Hughes was owned by GM at one time too.

Actually the Hughes companies were split off and sold all over the place.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 31 2007,18:22)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Dec. 31 2007,14:58)]If I read things correctly, it says analog is "optional," not banned. If a service has many subscribers, I would suspect they would maintain service until the users fall below a certain number by attrition.
Numbers are very low now. Letters have been going out to users for a year warning them and offering upgrades. Analog will be shut off by March 1.
Very true. I have been getting letters from Verizon for over 6 months wanting me to switch, telling me that it's going away.

The carriers can make a lot more money on digital systems, they no longer want to provide analog as it operates at a loss today, and can be harder to maintain as well.

The only thing holding it is the FCC mandate, which is ending.

Joe

[KC9JIQ]

Quote[/b] ] Of course, "On-Star" has always seemed as a "baby-sitting" service for those people who are either too lazy or too irresponsible to want to be held accountable for their own actions.

# Yes, it has some valid uses, such as in the event of an accident, but in the past, if you locked your keys in your car, it was TS until you got the spare keys from home, or called a locksmith; that is a costly lesson learned. #NOW, people seem to be careless, knowing "ON-Star" can bail them out. #But a few year's worth of "On-Star" can pay for a lot of locksmith visits.

I agree, I also think that modern technology has made people more careless.

My Favorite David Lettman quote, "You couldn't get out of your car for a medium sprite?" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ka0sog]

I have an '02 Sierra with On-Star. I was offered a conversion and I told them I just wanted the parts and I would install it myself. They of course refused and I went on-line and joined the class action suit against OnStar.

Meanwhile I have a cell phone, Kenwood DM 710 (married to my Garmin Etrex for APRS) and a Kenwood TS 480 SAT. So as long as I am conscious I think I can get a hold of somebody and if I am dead I won't care.

[N6NZE]

I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE SCHEMATIC FOR A
PING PONG BALL MACHINE,
you put a ping pong ball "in" and a one dollar
comes "out." Communism exploits human potential
Capitalism does the exact opposite.

[WA9SVD]

HUH??? After 7 months?:rolleyes:

[KC2ESD]

My Ford Focus has something better then OnStar, it is D-Star.:D

[ky5u]

I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE SCHEMATIC FOR A
PING PONG BALL MACHINE,
you put a ping pong ball "in" and a one dollar
comes "out." Communism exploits human potential
Capitalism does the exact opposite.
Next time you freebase, try to stay off the internet.

[k4kyv]

It's a moot point. The government has no jurisdiction over what I receive on the radio. Only what I transmit.

[AG3Y]

Please answer me this, then, how come cell-phone frequencies are blocked out on scanners ?

And BTW, unless we are talking about a different Hughes corp, Hughes Network Systems is an LLC and is still autonomous, as far as I know. But it has been a struggle, since R. Murdock all but ruined the "system" !

[W5HTW]

Because they are telephones. And monitoring them constitutes wire tapping. Because when a person (not a ham or radio hobbyist) uses a cell phone, he believes, and this is part of the law, that his conversation is private. He expects it to be, and the FCC attempts to guarantee him that assurance. For that reason you see receivers that can be sold with the cellular frequencies open "for valid uses," which means law enforcement, or maintenance on the cell systems. And neither of those entities can monitor for content without a court order.

To me, monitoring my cell phone is the same as monitoring my landline phone. It is still a telphone, simply using radio waves, and I expect some assurance it is private. For many people, the cell phone is their only phone. If they have no assurance of privacy, they will have to resort to the US mail for private contact with friends and busnesses. If they call a credit card company, are give out their Social Security number, using the cell phone, they have lost their guaranteed privacy rights.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with those who advocate free monitoring of cell phones. I view them as telephones, not radios. And so do the providers, and so does the FCC, and so do legal authorities who must seek a warrant to monitor them.

[KE4YGS]

I still have a Motorola bagphone, that were there still service available worked far better than any of these little handheld StarTrekky gizmos. I personally am not a fan of the digital age. Yeh its everything they say it is but it doesnt sound the same and it doesn't work the same. Too small, too fragile and too silly with all the menus. If I wanted to carry around a danged computer I would buy one. A telephone is for making a phone call. Nothing more and nothing else. I cant read my new cell phones menus anyway, if I was 15 yeh I could see it perfectly. I can still see all the numbers on my rotary phone and on my bag phone though not as clear as it used to be. Yeh I'm getting older, but all this bling just makes it happen faster. I say analog is the only smart way. Ya run out of bandwidth then your just out of bandwidth. Go do something else. Hahahahah Yeh this is only half serious. I do lament the way analog and AM worked but in the end folks/society generally gets what it deserves. Heres to the digital age.

Scotty

[K0RGR]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with those who advocate free monitoring of cell phones. I view them as telephones, not radios. And so do the providers, and so does the FCC, and so do legal authorities who must seek a warrant to monitor them.

I have no problem whatsoever with making cellphone conversations private.

I have a problem with making the FREQUENCIES off limits to receivers.

Once upon a time, there was a concept of 'public airwaves' in America - you didn't need permission to listen to anything that was transmitted over the public airwaves. If someone wanted privacy, they could encrypt their transmissions.

But, along came cellphones, and instead of requiring the vendors to provide encryption, we instead decided to criminalize those with the means to listen to them. It was much cheaper for the cellphone mongers to buy Congress than to install a chip in each phone to secure them from eavesdropping.

Now, the scanner jockies can't easily decrypt the conversations, but the law lingers. Instead of making it a crime to eavesdrop on cellphone conversations and somehow decode them, it's a crime to sell a radio that can listen to cellphone frequencies. And, the concept of 'public airwaves' is long gone.

I do hope that when all of the public safety agencies switch to digital, analog-only ham rigs will be exempt from scanner laws. But they still won't be able to tune cellphone frequencies.

[k4kyv]

Once upon a time, there was a concept of 'public airwaves' in America - you didn't need permission to listen to anything that was transmitted over the public airwaves. If someone wanted privacy, they could encrypt their transmissions.


They essentially have, with modern-day digital phones.

If you don't want me to monitor your radio communications, then encrypt your transmissions or else make sure you keep the signal outside the boundaries my property.