Same idea as if you take a handheld dedicated GPS receiver (not one that partially uses aGPS / cellular location based assistance) from one side of the world to the other, powered off, and turn it on again... can take 5-10 minutes to reacquire lock even when on a flat rooftop with view to 12 satellites.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > It might not be just a matter of getting the location. If they use the > 1pps clock from GPS to calibrate an oscillator before they start > transmitting, then it would legitimately take 20-30 minutes. > > Telrad BTS's are like that too. Pisses me off if I ever have to reset the > power. > > > > On 2/9/2016 12:12 AM, Jason McKemie wrote: > > For whatever reason, the receivers that they use in some of these don't > seem to be "modern" at all. They frequently take an excessively long time > to get a lock. > > On Monday, February 8, 2016, Eric Kuhnke < <[email protected]> > [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? >>> >>> >>> >
