1998-01-06 - RE: Location Escrow anyone ?

Header Data

From: Pearson Shane <Shane.Pearson@tafensw.edu.au>
To: “‘Steve Schear’” <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 5015cdd8e55af832957c8547420ce5a63570e1ee88788b426626e678ded29887
Message ID: <c=AU%a=TELEMEMO_%p=TAFENSW%l=ISF10-980106012148Z-5016@ixf2m1.isd.tafensw.edu.au>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-06 01:46:32 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:46:32 +0800

Raw message

From: Pearson Shane <Shane.Pearson@tafensw.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:46:32 +0800
To: "'Steve Schear'" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Location Escrow anyone ?
Message-ID: <c=AU%a=TELEMEMO_%p=TAFENSW%l=ISF10-980106012148Z-5016@ixf2m1.isd.tafensw.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Hi All,
>
>> 800 MHz analog may be the most difficult. GSM perhaps can reach 500 meteres
>>under ideal conditions
>> (Andreas Bogk).  IS-95/CDMA probably a bit better than GSM due to the very
>>high data (chip) rate and
>> spread spectrum's better multipath characteristics, although the system's
>>multipath performance most
>> improves communications not ranging (Phil Karn, Qualcomm).
>
>
>GSM doesn't use spread spectrum?
>
>Either way, I'd imagine that the accurate time domain division used with GSM
>would provide
>the Telco's with something a lot better than 500 meters.
>
>Some cells where I live aren't much further apart than 500 meters.	:)
>
>Bye for now.






Thread