Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann <nntpmail@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:51:15 GMT
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:03:01 -0400, Elmo wrote:
Ann wrote:
<SNIP>
Since the wireless carriers are only required to locate within 100Without having the phone receive GPS satellite signals so it can "know"
meters, the technology isn't as accurate as land line Caller-ID in high
population density areas. But for someone trapped in a car that's run
off the road or a farmer, hiker, hunter, etc having a heart attack in a
rural area, 100 meters is close.
where it is and tell the nearest tower[1] when it asks, the ability to
locate a phone depends on the range of the cell tower. Most cell towers
have 3 antennae each of which handles 120 degrees of arc and out to the
range of the tower. In urban environments, the number of towers is
relatively higher and the antennae are configured to point more "down"
than "out". This prevents a tower from being overloaded. In more rural
areas, the range is often greater. So if the phone can't say "I'm at
GPS location gridX, gridY" the best the tower can do is to locate the
sector the particular antenna the signal is being handled by and say
"That phone is somewhere in this area."[2]
[1] Towers don't have to be on towers, many are on buildings. [2] I
learned all of this while on a jury where the location of the
defendant's cell phone over time was used to match up with other
evidence which indicated that the person who stole the car from location
A and abandoned the car at location B and the cell phone which was near
point A at the time the car was stolen was later at point B where the
car was recovered. By itself it wouldn't have been compelling evidence
but it supported other evidence.
Lesson being not to carry a cell phone with a GPS chip while committing a
crime? <g> That's interesting. From what (little) I did read about it,
the FCC keeps granting extensions for a number of cell carriers to meet
the 100 meter requirement.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Jim
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Jim
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Jim
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Elmo
- "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- Prev by Date: Re: Skidloaders - Decent brands?
- Next by Date: Re: "Right to Dry"
- Previous by thread: Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- Next by thread: Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|