MOBILK n\mo TRANSMISSION 



107!) 



(Mitly much }i;reiiler than tlic similarity bctweon tlic median Naliic and 

 the \alu(' computed over smootli earth for any j>;iven i're<iuency. 



It was not possible to get complete enough data to plot a ( iu\c tor 

 3700 me similar to the ones mentioned above. The test setup at this 

 fre([uency was limit(>d by transmitter power and receiver sensitivity. 

 Only those locations for which path loss was relati\-ely low could be 

 tested. .\ comparison of results at these locations is given in Figure 10. 

 The cui v(\s labeled "1 mi.", "2 mi.", and "4 mi." for Manhattan are the 

 median N-alues obtained along test routes wiiich followed circles of 1, 2 

 and -i miles radius from the transmitters. The other curves refer to 

 selected small areas at greater distances on the Hutchison River Parkway 

 and New Jersey Route 10, as indicated. Although the data at 3700 mc 

 not extensive, the trend with frequency' seems clear. 



Alore specific data for path losses measured along the routes toward 

 l)o\er and New Rochellc are given in Fig. 11. Each value plotted here is 

 the median of about 200 samples taken in a smaU area at the distance 

 indicated. The strong effect of the First and Second Orange mountains 

 at fourteen and sixteen miles on the Dover route is of interest. 



The coverage desired in these mobile telephone systems extends into 

 suburban locations. It follows that a comparison of coverage by the 



0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 



DISTANCE FROM TRANSMITTER IN MILES 



Fig. 8 — Measured path loss at 900 mc in Manhattan and the Bron.x and suburbs. 

 (Note: Data for 10 miles and greater were taken on Route 1 toward New Kocliclle 

 and on Route 10 toward Dover.) 



