|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2006 > What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?
|
|
|
| What is the best phone available now for reception in rural areas.
Thanks,
Mike
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-08-11, 10:33 am |
| Mike wrote:
> What is the best phone available now for reception in rural areas.
Rural band (a Bell telephone term for 35-42 Mhz mobile phones). Sorry,
that was a humorous and kind of sarcastic reply.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-11, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:56:31 -0500, "Mike" <redenbau@uiuc.edu> wrote in
<ebgrkv$rgp$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>:
>What is the best phone available now for reception in rural areas.
Any standard phone with either (a) external high-gain antenna and/or (b)
external amplifier.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
| John Navas 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:06:35 -0500, Ace587
<Ace587.2ce1s2@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in
<Ace587.2ce1s2@nospam.cellphoneforums.net>:
>phones that support analog signals, its not worth it, since analog
>signals will be phased out soon. I would get a CDMA which is good for
>rural areas
I would get a GSM phone.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:g48qd2h2vnvtq61
4sd33krie7m547smert@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:06:35 -0500, Ace587
> <Ace587.2ce1s2@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in
> <Ace587.2ce1s2@nospam.cellphoneforums.net>:
>
>
> I would get a GSM phone.
>
Really? We never would have known from your horribly slanted posts.
CDMA phones will offer you coverage in many areas that GSM will not.
| |
|
| Ace587 wrote:
> phones that support analog signals, its not worth it, since analog
> signals will be phased out soon. I would get a CDMA which is good for
> rural areas
Analog (AMPS) is not going away any time soon. In 2008, carriers are
_permitted_ to shut down their AMPS networks. In areas where digital
coverage exists they are almost certain to do so. However there are vast
areas of the U.S. where the only coverage will be AMPS for the
foreseeable future.
The best phone for a rural area will be a tri-band CDMA phone. This will
give the subscriber the most coverage. Anyone in a rural area should
ensure that they subscribe to a carrier that offers tri-band CDMA
phones. This would be Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, etc.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:37:54 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>CDMA phones will offer you coverage in many areas that GSM will not.
GSM phones will offer you coverage in many areas CDMA will not.
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
| Mike wrote:
>
> What is the best phone available now for reception in rural areas.
The pay phone in front of the general store.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnania
n.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the government our founding fathers warned us about.
| |
| Joe Versaggi 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Ace587 wrote:
>
>
> Analog (AMPS) is not going away any time soon. In 2008, carriers are
> _permitted_ to shut down their AMPS networks. In areas where digital
> coverage exists they are almost certain to do so. However there are vast
> areas of the U.S. where the only coverage will be AMPS for the
> foreseeable future.
>
> The best phone for a rural area will be a tri-band CDMA phone. This will
> give the subscriber the most coverage. Anyone in a rural area should
> ensure that they subscribe to a carrier that offers tri-band CDMA
> phones. This would be Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, etc.
Read Aug 11 article here (stick with CDMA):
http://www.mountainwireless.com/news/
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:09:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44dd2a59$0$96174$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Ace587 wrote:
>
>Analog (AMPS) is not going away any time soon. In 2008, carriers are
>_permitted_ to shut down their AMPS networks. In areas where digital
>coverage exists they are almost certain to do so. However there are vast
>areas of the U.S. where the only coverage will be AMPS for the
>foreseeable future.
Carriers are actually eager to shut down AMPS, from which revenue is
rapidly dwindling, and convert the spectrum to more lucrative digital.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:56:21 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in <44DD3545.7F12E400@hovnanian.com>:
>Mike wrote:
>
>The pay phone in front of the general store.
LOL
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-08-11, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:hdeqd2d42sfuee7
t5ajge2omlem074knjk@
4ax.com...
>
> Carriers are actually eager to shut down AMPS, from which revenue is
> rapidly dwindling, and convert the spectrum to more lucrative digital.
>
> --
This is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, not fact as John would have you
believe.
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:37:54 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> GSM phones will offer you coverage in many areas CDMA will not.
Very, very few, if you're talking about the U.S.. It's extremely rare to
find a place where there is GSM coverage but no CDMA coverage. Of course
dead spots are going to vary, but in terms of coverage for a given
geographic area, CDMA has far more coverage, and AMPS has even more.
Just look at the ratings for the different carriers. Verizon, which is
CDMA, is consistently top-ranked for coverage by unbiased third-party
studies and surveys.
In fact, you know how poor the largest U.S. carrier is because they felt
compelled to come out with a study that they funded, that measures a
metric that is not even related to coverage, in order to create an
advertising campaign to fight the unbiased surveys. Verizon laughed it
off, but Sprint sued.
| |
|
| Joe Versaggi wrote:
> Read Aug 11 article here (stick with CDMA):
>
> http://www.mountainwireless.com/news/
Love the statement, "God help you if it's a GSM phone." Of course we all
know that g-d uses a tri-band CDMA/AMPS phone when he's in the U.S..
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-08-12, 4:33 am |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> The pay phone in front of the general store.
What's a payphone? LOL
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-12, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:31:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>Very, very few, if you're talking about the U.S.. It's extremely rare to
>find a place where there is GSM coverage but no CDMA coverage.
I exaggerated for effect above.
What I have found is that there are few places with CDMA coverage but
not GSM coverage, and visa versa.
There are a lot of places however with neither CDMA or GSM, but AMPS.
>Just look at the ratings for the different carriers. Verizon, which is
>CDMA, is consistently top-ranked for coverage by unbiased third-party
>studies and surveys.
This is true.
>In fact, you know how poor the largest U.S. carrier is because they felt
>compelled to come out with a study that they funded, that measures a
>metric that is not even related to coverage, in order to create an
>advertising campaign to fight the unbiased surveys. Verizon laughed it
>off, but Sprint sued.
Yeah. Sprint is run by a bunch of babies if they have to sick their
lawyers on Cingular.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:hdeqd2d42sfuee7
t5ajge2omlem074knjk@
4ax.com...
>
> This is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, not fact as John would have you
> believe.
Actually, it's a half-truth, something Navas is famous for. It's true
that carriers in urban areas, that have digital service, would love to
shut down AMPS. But it's also true that carriers in rural areas have no
desire to shut down AMPS and lose their considerable roaming revenue, as
well as losing most of their coverage.
AMPS is a thorn in John's side. As long as the AMPS network is active,
and tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handsets are available, GSM is at a huge
disadvantage when it comes to measuring total coverage in terms of
geography (rather than in terms of population).
It would actually be wonderful to see AMPS shut down, as long as enough
digital towers were constructed to provide identical coverage. Perhaps
the U.S. government could fund construction of digital towers in areas
where it is financially unsound for the carrier to construct them
(similar to the REA for electricity).
One big problem with AMPS is that only a few handset from each CDMA
carrier still support AMPS. Since AMPS cannot be shut down until its
usage is insignificant, carriers have been dropping tri-mode handsets in
an effort to reduce AMPS usage. This is how the FCC envisioned the usage
reduction in AMPS; they believed that AMPS usage would decrease simply
because digital would replace it all.
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:31:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I exaggerated for effect above.
>
> What I have found is that there are few places with CDMA coverage but
> not GSM coverage, and visa versa.
What I've found, and what coverage maps will show, is that there are
many areas where there is CDMA, but no GSM, and the lack of GSM is
because there is no GSM network that covers that area, not merely
because you're in a dead spot. OTOH, in the rare case that you find a
place with GSM but no CDMA, it's because you're unlucky enough to be in
a dead spot of an area that is otherwise covered by CDMA.
GSM is at a big disadvantage when it comes to rural areas, because a
CDMA tower has a much greater range than a GSM tower. This is why they
use CDMA in the Australian outback, despite the fact that they used GSM
in urban areas. Telstra is actually trying to replace that CDMA network
with 3G (W-CDMA) but has been running into problems. Amusingly, while
other companies wanted to buy their CDMA network and continue operating,
it, Telstra won't sell, because they want the 850 MHz spectrum to use
for their GSM network because of the superior range of the lower frequency:
"In town last week meeting with politicians and statutory authorities on
the issue, GSM Association communications director Mark Smith backed
Telstra's view.
For Telstra to sell its CDMA assets off, he told ZDNet Australia via
e-mail, "would mean Telstra would be unable to service rural Australia
effectively, as it would have to give up the 850MHz spectrum -- which is
so good for rural coverage -- or even split that spectrum."
It looks like there will be market for quad band phones for Australia
(though the 1900 MHz isn't really needed).
I guess the real problem is that no one in Australia consulted with
Navas, or they'd have known that the lower frequency was no better for
rural coverage than the PCS band.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-12, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:30:36 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>As long as the AMPS network is active, and tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handsets
>are available, GSM is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to
>measuring total coverage in terms of geography (rather than in terms
>of population).
Can't argue with you here.
>It would actually be wonderful to see AMPS shut down, as long as enough
>digital towers were constructed to provide identical coverage.
True again.
>One big problem with AMPS is that only a few handset from each CDMA
>carrier still support AMPS.
Right.
And most customers/sales reps don't realize the advantage of having
AMPS support to recommend those particular handsets to those customers
who may need them. These carriers "fanciest and coolest" handsets
seem to be CDMA only.
Another big problem is that NO (major ones at least) GSM carriers
support AMPS anymore.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-12, 12:33 pm |
| On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:31:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44dd4b9a$0$96153$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>Very, very few, if you're talking about the U.S.. It's extremely rare to
>find a place where there is GSM coverage but no CDMA coverage. Of course
>dead spots are going to vary, but in terms of coverage for a given
>geographic area, CDMA has far more coverage,...
Simply not true.
>Just look at the ratings for the different carriers. Verizon, which is
>CDMA, is consistently top-ranked for coverage by unbiased third-party
>studies and surveys.
Irrelevant -- those ratings aren't on size of network coverage.
>In fact, you know how poor the largest U.S. carrier is because they felt
>compelled to come out with a study that they funded, that measures a
>metric that is not even related to coverage, in order to create an
>advertising campaign to fight the unbiased surveys. Verizon laughed it
>off, but Sprint sued.
Verizon makes claims based entirely on its own internal "studies," the
least credible of all sources.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-12, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:38:57 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44dda1b6$0$96215$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>GSM is at a big disadvantage when it comes to rural areas, because a
>CDMA tower has a much greater range than a GSM tower. This is why they
>use CDMA in the Australian outback, despite the fact that they used GSM
>in urban areas. [SNIP]
Again, simply not true. GSM has range comparable to CDMA2000.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-12, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:30:36 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44dd83a0$0$96174$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>Actually, it's a half-truth, something Navas is famous for. It's true
>that carriers in urban areas, that have digital service, would love to
>shut down AMPS. But it's also true that carriers in rural areas have no
>desire to shut down AMPS and lose their considerable roaming revenue, as
>well as losing most of their coverage.
In fact they are rapidly losing roaming revenue as AMPS usage declines,
which is why they are eager to shut down AMPS and convert to more
lucrative digital.
>AMPS is a thorn in John's side. As long as the AMPS network is active,
>and tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handsets are available, GSM is at a huge
>disadvantage when it comes to measuring total coverage in terms of
>geography (rather than in terms of population).
AMPS doesn't matter for the great majority of customers, as demonstrated
by lack of demand, and GSM coverage is comparable to CDMA2000 coverage.
>One big problem with AMPS is that only a few handset from each CDMA
>carrier still support AMPS. Since AMPS cannot be shut down until its
>usage is insignificant, carriers have been dropping tri-mode handsets in
>an effort to reduce AMPS usage. This is how the FCC envisioned the usage
>reduction in AMPS; they believed that AMPS usage would decrease simply
>because digital would replace it all.
AMPS usage is declining. Digital coverage is expanding. Carriers are
free to shut down AMPS whenever they want after sunset, and will
probably do so rapidly.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-12, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:25:19 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < tesrd25bam1pisngjr48
ke6n306top5ta7@4ax.com>:
>Another big problem is that NO (major ones at least) GSM carriers
>support AMPS anymore.
It's obviously not a problem for the great majority of customers, both
of GSM and of CDMA2000, as demonstrated by the lack of demand for AMPS.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:ch2sd2dj7lcfde4
oiqeg9t0h1l7l8tn29j@
4ax.com...
> AMPS usage is declining. Digital coverage is expanding. Carriers are
> free to shut down AMPS whenever they want after sunset, and will
> probably do so rapidly.
>
Nice backpedaling, Skippy. You made it sound like a much more definate
thing earlier.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-12, 3:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:09:56 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:25:19 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < tesrd25bam1pisngjr48
ke6n306top5ta7@4ax.com>:
>
>
>It's obviously not a problem for the great majority of customers, both
>of GSM and of CDMA2000, as demonstrated by the lack of demand for
>AMPS.
You are essentially correct.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-12, 3:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:08:55 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
[snip]
>AMPS usage is declining. Digital coverage is expanding. Carriers are
>free to shut down AMPS whenever they want after sunset, and will
>probably do so rapidly.
Some will, some won't.
In rural areas with sparse population, it makes little financial sense
to add a bunch of digital towers to replace/supplement functional
digital towers.
It is unrealistic to think that every AMPS tower will be shut down
immediately on the date the FCC says they can be.
And, I believe it would "be nice" for the big carriers to offer
handsets that allows its users to make calls on these AMPS networks
when they are in a location where that's all there is.
For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
Cingular & TMobile do not.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-12, 3:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:06:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss
<anonymous@example.org> wrote:
[snip]
>In rural areas with sparse population, it makes little financial sense
>to add a bunch of digital towers to replace/supplement functional
>digital towers.
ANALOG towers I meant.
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
> Cingular & TMobile do not.
It's not that these carriers don't think that it makes sense for the
customer, is that there aren't any GSM/AMPS handsets available, as well
as the fact that Cingular certainly doesn't want to encourage use of
AMPS because increased usage would push out the sunset date.
Verizon is not selling many tri-mode phone models--it's only to the few
people that understand that "All-Digital" is a negative, not a positive.
Verizon doesn't want to encourage AMPS usage either, but if they drop
all AMPS capable models, that's a reason for a lot of customers to bail.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:33:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>
>It's not that these carriers don't think that it makes sense for the
>customer, is that there aren't any GSM/AMPS handsets available
That's a carrier problem. If the carriers told the handset makers to
make them (GSM+AMPS), they would.
>as well as the fact that Cingular certainly doesn't want to encourage
>use of AMPS because increased usage would push out the sunset date.
What I think we all want is not to extend the sunset date.
Turn off/convert the AMPS towers in places where there is digital
coverage for all I care.
What I think we all want (John Navas excepted) is for us to be able to
make/receive calls where all there is is an AMPS signal.
>Verizon is not selling many tri-mode phone models--it's only to the few
>people that understand that "All-Digital" is a negative, not a positive.
>Verizon doesn't want to encourage AMPS usage either
But why Verizon and not Cingular?
Because Verizon offers service in a lot of places Cingular does not?
And the reason they do is because in some of these areas, a lot of it
is covered solely by AMPS?
>but if they drop all AMPS capable models, that's a reason for a lot of
>customers to bail.
To where? Some regional podunk cellular company ran out of a barn?
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2006-08-12, 10:33 pm |
| DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> What's a payphone? LOL
Its like a regular phone except it doesn't have a crank on the side and
it has a coin slot on the front.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnania
n.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:06:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < ua9sd2hmmof0o6q740f0
6g9fi5vhm9nbgc@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:08:55 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Some will, some won't.
>
>In rural areas with sparse population, it makes little financial sense
>to add a bunch of digital towers to replace/supplement functional
>digital towers.
Much depends on how much roaming is going on, since roaming revenue is
usually the dominant profit generator for rural carriers, and with the
demand for AMPS roaming continuing to fall, conversion to digital looks
more and more attractive. Another big factor is the decreasing
availability of AMPS equipment.
Conversion from analog to digital is typically more a matter of tower
conversion than of adding towers. In most areas, line of sight is the
controlling factor, with towers nowhere near free space range limits.
>It is unrealistic to think that every AMPS tower will be shut down
>immediately on the date the FCC says they can be.
Perhaps, but I personally think shutdowns will be more rapid than you
currently expect. I expect carriers to start the process in about a
year, if not sooner.
>And, I believe it would "be nice" for the big carriers to offer
>handsets that allows its users to make calls on these AMPS networks
>when they are in a location where that's all there is.
>
>For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
>Cingular & TMobile do not.
Even if they agreed with you, GSM carriers couldn't possibly justify the
huge cost of developing, producing, and marketing such handsets,
particularly given the lack of demand for them, and the short remaining
timeframe of the AMPS mandate.
GAIT never got any real traction, a lesson that hasn't been lost on
carriers. In retrospect, the cost and hassle of GAIT, operation as well
as equipment, simply wasn't worth it.
Bottom line is that there's just not enough demand for AMPS to matter.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:30:52 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < svksd2119l7itn85psei
2shpe0dcnd1lg2@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:33:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>That's a carrier problem. If the carriers told the handset makers to
>make them (GSM+AMPS), they would.
Not quite a bit of money, which carriers aren't interested in spending.
The painful lesson of GAIT is still fresh in the minds of both carriers
and handset makers.
>
>What I think we all want is not to extend the sunset date.
>
>Turn off/convert the AMPS towers in places where there is digital
>coverage for all I care.
>
>What I think we all want (John Navas excepted) is for us to be able to
>make/receive calls where all there is is an AMPS signal.
The great majority of people I know have no interest in AMPS.
>
>But why Verizon and not Cingular?
>
>Because Verizon offers service in a lot of places Cingular does not?
>And the reason they do is because in some of these areas, a lot of it
>is covered solely by AMPS?
>
>
>To where? Some regional podunk cellular company ran out of a barn?
It's a silly claim.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> What I think we all want is not to extend the sunset date.
>
> Turn off/convert the AMPS towers in places where there is digital
> coverage for all I care.
Fine with me, for the most part. I'll still miss the AMPS coverage on
the periphery of urban areas, that's there just because the AMPS range
is so much greater than the digital range.
> What I think we all want (John Navas excepted) is for us to be able to
> make/receive calls where all there is is an AMPS signal.
Yes, that's a fair statement.
>
> But why Verizon and not Cingular?
>
> Because Verizon offers service in a lot of places Cingular does not?
> And the reason they do is because in some of these areas, a lot of it
> is covered solely by AMPS?
I think that it's also due to the fact that Verizon has a lot more
influence with handset makers. A GSM handset maker has a huge world
market with no AMPS, while CDMA handset makers have mainly the U.S. and
South Korea. Look how Nokia is losing market share year after year
because of their inability to succeed with CDMA. Motorola is going
gangbusters, as are LG and Samsung.
> To where? Some regional podunk cellular company ran out of a barn?
Without AMPS, a lot of CDMA users that stayed with CDMA only because of
the much wider coverage will have less reason to stay. Many of these
people may prefer a GSM phone that can also be used for international
travel.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:21:36 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44de7e9f$0$34573$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>... A GSM handset maker has a huge world
>market with no AMPS, while CDMA handset makers have mainly the U.S. and
>South Korea. Look how Nokia is losing market share year after year
>because of their inability to succeed with CDMA. Motorola is going
>gangbusters, as are LG and Samsung.
Your (mis)use of "CDMA" is misleading. Nokia is actually pulling out of
CDMA2000 because the CDMA2000 market is "shrinking" and not a good
opportunity. Instead, in addition to GSM, Nokia will focus on
UMTS/W-CDMA. Motorola is doing better (but still a long way from its
former glory) because of clever handset design, not CDMA2000. What's
"gangbusters" is the new deal to supply Sprint as it migrates to WiMAX,
a big loss for CDMA2000.
>
>Without AMPS, a lot of CDMA users that stayed with CDMA only because of
>the much wider coverage will have less reason to stay. Many of these
>people may prefer a GSM phone that can also be used for international
>travel.
There clearly aren't enough of such people to matter, and that "logic"
doesn't hold up in any event.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-13, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The great majority of people I know have no interest in AMPS.
Q: And this is why?
A: Because the great majority of people are unaware of the benefit of
having a handset with AMPS capabilites.
And the only way they'll probably be aware it's a problem if they are
out somewhere "in the boonies" and their buddy (with the AMPS capable
handset) can make calls, but they can't.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-13, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>Not quite a bit of money, which carriers aren't interested in spending.
>The painful lesson of GAIT is still fresh in the minds of both carriers
>and handset makers.
"Painful lesson of GAIT"?
GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Painful lesson of GAIT"?
>
> GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.
GAIT was a win for customers, but a pain in the butt for carriers.
Cingular's western region never officially offered GAIT, because
Cingular had no TDMA or AMPS network, and their GSM network was so bad
that they knew there would be a great deal of AMPS and TDMA roaming if
they offered it. You _could_ get it, but not at a store or on-line, you
had to figure out how to reach someone at the head office that would
screen you for it, and then sell you a handset at full price.
Here is an e-mail I received from Cingular:
"Dear Mr. Scharf,
I have been contacted by Lauren Garner regarding your questions
concerning California network and GAIT phones. I would be more than
happy to discuss the network and GAIT phones with you.
Please reply to this email with contact information, or contact me at
1-800-653-xxxx.
Sincerely,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
Customer Relations Specialist
Office of the President
Cingular Wireless West Region"
I called, and talked to this person at length regarding GAIT. The policy
was that you could buy a GAIT phone, direct from Cingular's corporate
office, it would be programmed so it wouldn't work on TDMA or AMPS in
Cingular's Western Region (or you'd pay for roaming when within the
region), and you had to explain why you needed a GAIT phone.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-08-13, 10:33 am |
| SMS wrote:
> Every survey of cell phone users shows that coverage is the
> number one issue. Not customer service, not ringtones, not data, not
> international roaming, but coverage.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but merely pointing out a different twist.
We know that Cingular has one business model that looks at their
customer base in terms of minutes used, not in the actual number of
subscribers. This was from a Cingular news release when GSM was being
rolled out. I don't recall the term itself, but it described the
percentage of users that would begin getting served by GSM. The
percentage of users was something like 90%.
When I commented on the article, I pointed out it was misleading as it
had no relation to the actual number of subscribers nor the geographical
coverage area. In other words, if Cingular had say one fourth
penetration of the cellular market (population wise), 40% of the
population would be covered in the three major metropolitan areas of
only 2% of the geographic area of the state. Lets also pick a number
like 10 times as much air time was used in the cities compared to every
where else.
Therefore Cingular could make some very impressive numeric claims for
GSM coverage. The point here is they are looking at a landscape where
coverage area is not an issue and thus concentrate on other selling factors.
I also commented tongue-in-cheek that Cingular could shut down all the
towers in the state except for the three major metropolitan areas and
still come out ahead.
--------------------------
We also know that AT&T Wireless had a on-line survey on their website (I
commented on this some time back) where they asked how important
ringtones, changeable faceplates, or a flip phone was....but nothing was
asked how important call quality, battery life, amount of dropped calls
was.
Bottom line here is Cingular (and mostly likely the other carriers also)
have a different perspective of looking at things than we do.
Network build-out may not be so much based on the actual number of
subscribers, but how much they use their phones. One hundred ranchers in
fifty time the geographic area calling their wives once a day to let
them know they got that cows in is a lot less network traffic than
teenagers in a city would use. And those farmers don't care what color
of the phone they use, but teenagers need to have the most fashionable
phones.
Disclaimer - other than my references to the news release and on-line
survey, everything else is a personal observation. Anyone is welcome to
call it rubbish, provided they has citations to prove otherwise.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-13, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:17:00 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < lk9td2pn5l3rdd892d99
os1n2sjpqa6dtc@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Q: And this is why?
>A: Because the great majority of people are unaware of the benefit of
>having a handset with AMPS capabilites.
Your opinion. My opinion, and those of people I've specifically asked,
is that they see no need for it.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-13, 10:33 am |
| On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:35:45 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44df2ab1$0$96233$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>LOL, the great majority of people don't have the slightest idea what
>AMPS is. Or GSM or CDMA for that matter. What they care about is
>coverage. Every survey of cell phone users shows that coverage is the
>number one issue. Not customer service, not ringtones, not data, not
>international roaming, but coverage.
Actually the ability to make calls, which is actually more a function of
dead spots, call quality, and dropped calls in the places where they
make most of their calls.
>When it's explained to someone that they will get far more coverage in
>non-urban areas, if they have a phone that supports AMPS, then they have
>a lot of interest in it.
Not in my experience. They actually care about places were they make
most of their calls. They see no value in being able to make calls on a
certain hilltop instead of being able to make calls at the local
shopping center.
>Part of the reason Cingular does so poorly in terms of all the surveys
>regarding coverage is because of the lack of ability to use all the AMPS
>networks in the country.
Nonsense.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-13, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:18:09 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < 6u9td2h8e9pbobha8ipv
4ujgvt9qefrmdj@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Painful lesson of GAIT"?
>
>GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.
Only if you ignore cost and market penetration. GAIT was actually a
market flop with consumers, and a large expense and hassle for carriers.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:eagud2hihedmsna
15ne2ljtndht107fedh@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:18:09 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
> wrote in < 6u9td2h8e9pbobha8ipv
4ujgvt9qefrmdj@4ax.com>:
>
>
> Only if you ignore cost and market penetration. GAIT was actually a
> market flop with consumers, and a large expense and hassle for carriers.
>
And yet CDMA/AMPS has been a success for a number of carriers. None of the
technological problems that GAIT had and more of a willingness by carriers
and handset makers to support the technology. Does this point the inherent
technological, philosophical or economical shortcomings of the companies
that could not make GAIT succeed?
| |
| Scott 2006-08-13, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:k6gud2tcjnul217
3ps871m52hbaal2ok7s@
4ax.com...
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
Perfect- now you can explain why they perform so poorly in the surveys.
After all, you have shot down this chain of logic. If you believe this not
to be the reason, tell us what the reason is.
Of course, we will never see an answer to the request.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:k6gud2tcjnul217
3ps871m52hbaal2ok7s@
4ax.com...
>
>
> Perfect- now you can explain why they perform so poorly in the surveys.
> After all, you have shot down this chain of logic. If you believe this not
> to be the reason, tell us what the reason is.
>
> Of course, we will never see an answer to the request.
LOL, it's either their poor digital coverage or their lack of AMPS
coverage (or both).
Of course Navas denies that any of the independent surveys are accurate,
so the whole premise is wrong to begin with.
| |
| Jud Hardcastle 2006-08-13, 10:33 pm |
| In article < eagud2hihedmsna15ne2
ljtndht107fedh@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
>
> Only if you ignore cost and market penetration. GAIT was actually a
> market flop with consumers, and a large expense and hassle for carriers.
>
Part of the reason the GAIT phones didn't do any better was because the
choices of phones were so poor. The small do-everything models had just
started coming out and even people that did understand what GAIT did
still chose the models with the bells and whistles.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-13, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:44:07 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44dfb947$0$96207$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
In fact surveys show relatively little difference between carriers,
probably close to or even below the margin of error.
[color=darkred]
Been there; done that. As you know
[color=darkred]
>LOL, it's either their poor digital coverage or their lack of AMPS
>coverage (or both).
Actually neither.
>Of course Navas denies that any of the independent surveys are accurate,
>so the whole premise is wrong to begin with.
What I've actually said (as you know) is that no valid conclusion can be
drawn on Cingular due to lumping different technologies together
(D-AMPS, 1900-only GSM, standard dual-band GSM, and GSM with ENS).
I know from my own experience that ENS and free dual-network roaming
with GSM is quite a bit superior to the other things being lumped in
with it. Sprint likewise, due to lumping together iDEN, CDMA2000 and
AMPS. Even Verizon is invalid, due to lumping together CDMA2000 and
AMPS. And to be clear, that simply means that no meaningful comparisons
can be drawn because it's simply not possible to narrow the results down
to specifically what a given person would be using. It matters not what
the average of (say) iDEN and CDMA2000 might be if I'm going to be using
either iDEN or CDMA2000 (not both).
Bottom line: "Much ado about nothing."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-13, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:49:58 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
< I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
<MPG. 1f4976984b9558ff9899
84@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>:
>In article < eagud2hihedmsna15ne2
ljtndht107fedh@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...
>Part of the reason the GAIT phones didn't do any better was because the
>choices of phones were so poor. The small do-everything models had just
>started coming out and even people that did understand what GAIT did
>still chose the models with the bells and whistles.
Same issue with trying to bring out a few AMPS enabled phones.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-08-13, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:i2fvd2dl4toe30k
9uh6to7067huc3sc48m@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:44:07 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44dfb947$0$96207$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>
>
> In fact surveys show relatively little difference between carriers,
> probably close to or even below the margin of error.
Totally non-responsive. I didn't ask about any differences in the numbers.
Cingular is always at the bottom of network surveys- why is that? The
question is not terribly difficult to comprehend, and yet you have such a
problem answering it. You have waved away any explanation givem here. Tell
us why they always take the bottom spot in network surveys.
>
>
> Been there; done that. As you know
I know no such thing. You made a statement claiming that information was
not correct. I asked that you supply us with the correct data. You have
not done so.
>
>
> Actually neither.
Then what is it?
| |
| Scott 2006-08-13, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:t3gvd2pjscuahiu
n8huknlnaohulpvqtg3@
4ax.com...
>
> Same issue with trying to bring out a few AMPS enabled phones.
>
And yet CDMA/AMPS has been a success for a number of carriers. None of the
technological problems that GAIT had and more of a willingness by carriers
and handset makers to support the technology. Does this point the inherent
technological, philosophical or economical shortcomings of the companies
that could not make GAIT succeed?
|
|
|
|
|