they are all that way. att, sprint, etc, it's not about getting gps it's more than that, I think.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > Well the one they use in the Samsung device isn't modern. It's shit. My > phone can get GPS in a second or two anywhere in the house. This device > takes 30+ minutes at a window. > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Modern GPS receivers work surprisingly well, if not very accurately, from >> inside a single floor wood framed house... My oneplus one will pick up 6 >> satellites while standing in a central hallway 15'+ from any window. >> Should be accurate enough to get a location within 75'. >> >> All bets are off if it is a concrete framed apartment building or >> something like that. >> >> I still find it amazing that anything works at -162 RSL. Thanks to tiny >> channel size and very basic modulation. >> On Feb 8, 2016 6:46 PM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Canopy NAT seems to break it with regularity. It might also fail if the >>> GPS location that it reports is not within a 1/4 mile of where the customer >>> address is. >>> >>> Also requires enough GPS (like near a window) to get a GPS lock. >>> >>> bp >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> >>> On 2/8/2016 3:34 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>> What are the typical reasons for these not to work?� From the user >>> guide it appears to use IPSEC, so I assume anything that prevents a VPN? >>> � >>> Verizon support told the customer they needed a Class A address.� >>> WTF?� Did they maybe mean it *can't* be a class A address?� >>> Customer uses 10.x.x.x addresses internally, behind Cisco ASA firewall >>> (which I don't manage). >>> � >>> I do see some udp/500 and udp/4500 packets, I think that means something >>> is using UDP for IPSEC NAT traversal? >>> >>> >>> >
