Cingular cell phone service - Re: Rapid shutdown of AMPS within months (Steven Scharf dead wong

Author

Re: Rapid shutdown of AMPS within months (Steven Scharf dead wong

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-26, 10:33 pm

Joel Koltner wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:u204n3tsbidd9q5
dc2nk7u49qpchhkhjsv@
4ax.com...
>
> Interesting article... surprising that it's "impossible" to upgrade OnStar
> units from analog to digital, though -- clearly it has to just be a matter of
> it not being cost effective or something, but that seems odd given that the
> lady who complained received a $500 coupon towards a new card... hmm...
> Granted, I suppose that a $500 coupon is really only "worth" a small fraction
> of that amount since the likelihood she'd be able to use it (or sell it) is
> quite slim.

Actually most rural AMPS (Analog) networks will remain operational even
after the FCC AMPS mandate expires. The operators of the rural networks
have already stated this. They have no incentive to drastically reduce
their coverage.

The large carriers that have AMPS networks (AT&T, Verizon, and Alltel)
will turn off most or all of their AMPS networks soon after the mandate
expires. However per FCC rules, they are forbidden from turning off AMPS
in areas where doing so will result in any loss of wireless coverage.

According to the FCC website, "Cellular licensees that intend to
discontinue analog service after February 18, 2008 are permitted, in
lieu of making a revised Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA)
showing, to file a certification stating that the discontinuance of
analog service will not result in any loss of wireless coverage
throughout an affected CGSA."

If the FCC actually enforces their own rules (doubtful under a
Republican administration), this virtually guarantees that AMPS service
will remain available in areas where the digital coverage is less than
the AMPS coverage. Personally I could tell the FCC many areas even in
the San Francisco Bay Area where there is only AMPS coverage, but
somehow I think that the FCC has no intention of enforcing its own
rules. Unless someone is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas,
how would anyone challenge the carriers with not abiding by the FCC
rules? The carrier would simply have to say, 'no, we never had any
coverage in xyz area.'

Operators of small rural cellular networks have already indicated that
their AMPS networks will remain intact "for the foreseeable future."
This is because it would cost them a considerable amount of money to
install enough digital towers to duplicate their analog coverage.

The real question is whether Verizon, AT&T, and Alltel will comply with
the FCC rules and keep AMPS up and running in areas where there are not
sufficient digital towers to provide equivalent coverage to AMPS. It's
possible that the urban carriers that also have AMPS networks in rural
settings will just quietly leave the rural portions turned on in order
to remain in compliance with the FCC rules, but they understandably
don't want to get into the position of saying which AMPS areas will
remain on and which will be turned off.

DTC

2007-12-26, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> There is no real question. They've already made it clear that AMPS will
> be shut down completely.

Considering how large of remaining analog foot print Verizon has
in Texas ("As shown by carriers own coverage maps." - Navas), its hard
to imagine them turning up digital service in less than a year. Analog
will indeed fade away, but not next year or even the year after perhaps.

BTW, the analog foot print appears to have been static for the past
few years.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 4:33 am

DTC wrote:

> Considering how large of remaining analog foot print Verizon has
> in Texas ("As shown by carriers own coverage maps." - Navas), its hard
> to imagine them turning up digital service in less than a year. Analog
> will indeed fade away, but not next year or even the year after perhaps.

In California and Florida I've often roamed onto AT&T AMPS where there
is no digital coverage of any kind. If the major carriers really do shut
down _all_ their AMPS then they will be violating the FCC rules that
mandate that digital coverage be available in the areas where AMPS is
being shut down.

> BTW, the analog foot print appears to have been static for the past
> few years.

The rural carriers appear to have installed all the towers that they're
going to install. According to the statements from the rural carriers,
AMPS is going to be around for a very long time. That's good news for
people like me that often travel into those areas.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 10:33 am

DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> Considering how large of remaining analog foot print Verizon has
> in Texas ("As shown by carriers own coverage maps." - Navas), its hard
> to imagine them turning up digital service in less than a year. Analog
> will indeed fade away, but not next year or even the year after perhaps.
>
> BTW, the analog foot print appears to have been static for the past
> few years.

I added the facts about the end of the AMPS mandate to
"http://prepaiduswireless.com/". With a hyperlink near the top of the
page to that section.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 12:33 pm

Jud Hardcastle wrote:

> Static because Verizon doesn't own/operate many AMPS towers in rural
> Texas--they're roaming on other carrier's systems MOST of which are
> ALREADY digital--but GSM/TDMA not CDMA. AMPS (and TDMA) *can* be turned
> off by those carriers on the shutdown date--no need to "turn up" digital
> because it's already done.

As long as the GSM coverage is equal to the AMPS coverage that they are
turning off, then this is true. However in many areas of the country,
including the area I live in, there are large areas that presently have
AT&T AMPS coverage but that lack AT&T GSM coverage. Similarly, there are
areas that have Verizon AMPS coverage but that lack Verizon CDMA
coverage (I suspect that the same is true for Alltel, though I have no
personal experience with this). If the carriers are complying with the
FCC rules, then they'll have to leave some portions of their AMPS
network up and running until they can install a lot more digital towers.

Fortunately, many of the small carriers moved from TDMA/AMPS to
CDMA/AMPS, which helped coverage for both Verizon subscribers, and those
Cingular and AT&T subscribers with GAIT phones. They chose CDMA because
it has greater range per tower than GSM (yeah, I know about the one
person in the U.S. that insists that he has Extended GSM coverage!).

> The rural carrier's MAY add a few more towers
> to cover areas where high-power AMPS reached and digital doesn't but
> they're under no obligation to ADD CDMA.

This is true. Fortunately many of these rural carriers moved to CDMA
because they wanted to keep AMPS coverage. They chose CDMA because of
the lack of GSM/AMPS handsets. In my area, Golden State Cellular is a
prime example. Unfortunately, the rural carriers that were AT&T
affiliates mostly went the route of AT&T and went to GSM while keeping
TDMA/AMPS up for the time being.

> Verizon has been taking
> advantage of analog roaming to tout their "more coverage" than ATT--and
> correctly for those with dual mode phones (although no larger than my
> GAIT phone/plan)--but the advantage is about to end.

Unlikely to end any time soon. All the news reports about the AMPS
mandate ending always have statements by the rural carriers that they
will keep AMPS operating for the foreseeable future (they really have no
choice but to do so both for legal and practical reasons). Similarly, if
AT&T, Verizon, and Alltel intend to comply with the FCC rules, then they
will have to leave their fringe area AMPS network up, even if they don't
want to talk about doing so.

Will the FCC enforce their own rules is the real question. If they
don't, I'll lose coverage in the East Bay Hills, western Marin county,
much of the southern San Mateo coast and northern Santa Cruz coast, much
of the Santa Cruz mountains, much of the north coast area south of
Crescent City, much of San Benito County (down to the Pinnacles), much
of the Florida Everglades, the list goes on and on.

Is the FCC going to accept 100% overlay of existing AMPS towers with
digital, even though this means much less coverage?

In any case, the bottom line is that the original poster is incorrect.
Portions of the AMPS system will be shut down in February, but much of
it will remain operational if you believe what the rural carriers are
all saying.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 3:33 pm

clifto wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>
> Tell me more about these rules. I had the impression they could shut down
> AMPS wherever and whenever they felt the urge, no matter who it disabled.

See:
"http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=cellular"

"Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after
February 18, 2008 are permitted, in lieu of making a revised Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA) showing, to file a certification stating
that the discontinuance of analog service will not result in any loss of
wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA."

The reality is that no existing carrier that has both AMPS and digital
could possibly truthfully file such a certification.

Of course that wouldn't stop a carrier from filing it anyway, as they
know that enforcement will be non-existent.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 3:33 pm

Tinman wrote:

> In fact it's just the opposite: most of AMPS will be shut down with only a
> handful of rural operators--statistically insignificant--that cling to AMPS.

What you don't understand is that those handful of rural operators,
while insignificant as far as their own subscriber numbers, are
providing roaming coverage to tens of millions of Verizon and Sprint
subscribers (and getting revenue from doing so). I don't care that a
company like Golden State Cellular has only a few hundred thousand
subscribers, they still provide CDMA and AMPS coverage to me in many
areas where there is no other coverage at all. GSM users are SOL in
those areas.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 3:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:nvi6n357epv05bi
j3qffbgargiuojj7vp2@
4ax.com:
>
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>
> That's odd. There were ONLY 11 responses about AMPS sunset sent to the
> FCC. The big guns Verizon, Alltel, ATT/Cingular, of course, want it off
> to install more digital bandwidth in the cities. But, the comments from
> the rural carriers that responded say differently from your conjecture.

<snip>

The rural carriers have already overlaid digital on their AMPS network.
They are keeping the AMPS networks operational simply because they can't
possibly install enough towers to provide equivalent digital coverage.

I think that the government should have something similar to the REA.
Maybe the RDA (Rural Digitalization Authority) that helps fund digital
wireless coverage in rural areas where it is otherwise not cost effective.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 3:33 pm

Larry wrote:

> Notice how blacked out Verizon's responses are. What are they hiding,
> the truth again??

The big question is what the major carriers with AMPS are _really_ going
to do, not what they are saying publicly.

Since they're definitely turning off AMPS in urban areas, they can't go
around saying stuff like, "but we'll leave it on in places where we
can't cover the same area with digital."

There's two possibilities:

1) They have no intention of complying with the FCC rules, and will turn
off all of their AMPS service even in areas where it results in loss of
coverage.

2) They will leave the AMPS network running in areas where they cannot
provide equivalent digital coverage, but they won't publicly admit what
they're doing.

In any case, the subject of this thread is definitely incorrect. Some
AMPS will be shut down as soon as legally permissible. In terms of
numbers of subscribers losing urban AMPS coverage, the numbers are
large. In terms of overall area, the loss of AMPS coverage is a
relatively small percentage of the total area now covered.

You can understand why Navas has been lying about this whole thing for
years. As long as AMPS exists, Verizon will continue to enjoy an
enormous advantage over his beloved Cingular/AT&T in terms of coverage.
You can see the results in the latest Consumer Reports survey, where
AT&T fared so poorly.

What surprised me was that at the Verizon store the employees actually
understand what's going on with AMPS. When I was in a store earlier this
month to replace my wife's phone, they were explaining to an older
couple about the trade-offs of getting a digital-only phone versus one
of the two tri-mode phones that they still offer (one was a Samsung and
one was an LG).

George

2007-12-27, 10:33 pm

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:

>
> <snip>
>
> The rural carriers have already overlaid digital on their AMPS network.
> They are keeping the AMPS networks operational simply because they can't
> possibly install enough towers to provide equivalent digital coverage.
>
> I think that the government should have something similar to the REA.
> Maybe the RDA (Rural Digitalization Authority) that helps fund digital
> wireless coverage in rural areas where it is otherwise not cost effective.

But that has become a great way to subsidize all of the people who can
afford to pay for connectivity and buy a farm and plop their McMansion
in the middle of it.

I remember when the Internet got opened up. There is an area near here
that used to be largely farmland that is now mostly McMansions. It still
comes under the the rural subsidies. The local telco got truckloads of
money from the taxpayers to put fiber and DSLAMS all over their area so
the "farmers" could have broadband. I live in a much more densely
populated area and years later we were still on dialup.

George

2007-12-27, 10:33 pm

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>
> What you don't understand is that those handful of rural operators,
> while insignificant as far as their own subscriber numbers, are
> providing roaming coverage to tens of millions of Verizon and Sprint
> subscribers (and getting revenue from doing so). I don't care that a
> company like Golden State Cellular has only a few hundred thousand
> subscribers, they still provide CDMA and AMPS coverage to me in many
> areas where there is no other coverage at all. GSM users are SOL in
> those areas.

I wonder how many their really are? I border on a rural area and VZW
uses the carrier there for roaming. Even they added digital channels on
every site and have been deploying additional sites to fill in to the
point that there is really decent digital coverage there.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 10:33 pm

George wrote:

> I remember when the Internet got opened up. There is an area near here
> that used to be largely farmland that is now mostly McMansions. It still
> comes under the the rural subsidies. The local telco got truckloads of
> money from the taxpayers to put fiber and DSLAMS all over their area so
> the "farmers" could have broadband. I live in a much more densely
> populated area and years later we were still on dialup.

The difference here is that the primary beneficiaries are not the
residents that live in those areas, but the people passing through. I
remember going to a small town west of Minneapolis (Hamburg) where I
could get an AMPS signal outside, but nothing inside a building, and no
digital at all. While the residents didn't care that much about the lack
of coverage, it was more important to me as a traveler.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 10:33 pm

George wrote:

<snip>

> I wonder how many their really are? I border on a rural area and VZW
> uses the carrier there for roaming. Even they added digital channels on
> every site and have been deploying additional sites to fill in to the
> point that there is really decent digital coverage there.

In the areas I go through, there is usually digital coverage within the
small towns, but not between them. The most experience I have is for
towns up in the Sierra Nevada, on California highways like 88, 49, 140,
4, and 120. For example, on the major route to Yosemite, 120, you lose
Verizon and AT&T coverage just outside of Oakdale and if you're on CDMA
you start roaming onto Golden State Cellular. Sometimes it's digital,
sometimes it's AMPS. Within Yosemite, but outside Yosemite Valley (which
has digital GSM and CDMA coverage), you usually get only AMPS from
towers outside the park.

Since the rural carriers have indicated that AMPS is not going to be
shut down on February 18th, I'm not concerned about loss of coverage in
the rural areas. However withing AT&T and Verizon areas there are often
large areas with no digital coverage, such as inside parks, on rural
roads (such as the road down to the Pinnacles National Monument). If
they shut off AMPS in those areas, then that'll be the end of any
coverage at all since it'd be economically infeasible to install
sufficient digital coverage.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 10:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in news:47740300$0$8423
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> Why are we so hell bent on installing short range digital when long range
> AMPS has worked so good for years in markets where traffic is relatively
> low and users are quite satisfied with the results? If it doesn't NEED
> fixing, why can't we leave it alone?

Part of the reason is that consumers want small handsets. Even though
tri-mode handsets have longer AMPS range than CDMA or GSM range, it's
still a lot shorter range than the old 3 watt AMPS handsets.

> Are we going to replace all those irrigation AMPS systems? At whos
> expense, the farmers? The government (taxpayers)? The SELLphone
> company's? Someone would have to pay.
>
> The AMPS equipment is in place and obviously works quite well for these
> rural areas where more power with better antennas works so well. Do we
> HAVE to screw it up just to satisfy the city fanbois?

No, and AMPS is not going anywhere in the rural areas, it's going to be
around for years or decades. But for those people "just passing through"
it would be useful to have coverage.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 10:33 am

Bob Scheurle wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:33:23 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
>
> I have a tri-mode phone that's almost 6 years old. I usually have it set
> to 'digital only' unless I'm traveling through the Adirondacks or
> southern Quebec, which only has AMPS service.
>
> One time, I made an AMPS call connecting to a tower 50 miles away. (I
> was on top of a mountain in Hawaii.) CDMA won't work at that distance.

Wait, so you mean to say that you don't plan your travels so that you
are never out of range of digital coverage? You are actually willing to
travel to and through places with only AMPS coverage? You would actually
drive on a road with no digital coverage?

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 12:33 pm

Bob Scheurle wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:00:36 -0800, SMS ???• ?
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Not only that, but I travel on roads with - gasp! - no coverage at all!

Wow, you are brave. I've only found one area with no coverage at all in
the past year, which was the road from Lake Louise up to Jasper.

> I traveled for 45 years without a cell phone. I think I can manage
> without one for a bit, thank you.

I had an idea once where instead of everyone carrying cell phones, and
paying all that money, that someone should just install phones that you
pay to use when you need them. They could be installed at stores,
restaurants, gas stations, etc. You could just insert a token or some
coins and make a call. Maybe someday someone will do something like this
and cell phones will be obsolete.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 12:33 pm

Pegleg wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:25:19 GMT, Bob Scheurle <njtbob2@X-verizon-X.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Yea, no shit...does that idiot realize there are huge areas of the US
> that don't have any kind of coverage? Are we only suppose to travel
> where there is cell coverage? That would be a pretty damn boring life!

Obviously sarcasm doesn't work well on Usenet.

DTC

2007-12-28, 10:33 pm

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> I had an idea once where instead of everyone carrying cell phones, and
> paying all that money, that someone should just install phones that you
> pay to use when you need them. They could be installed at stores,
> restaurants, gas stations, etc. You could just insert a token or some
> coins and make a call. Maybe someday someone will do something like this
> and cell phones will be obsolete.

EXCELLENT idea...and they could be all VoIP on Oxford's
nationwide FREE WiFi

Jer

2007-12-28, 10:33 pm

SMS =E6=96=AF=E8=92=82=E
6=96=87=E2=80=A2 =E5=A4=8F wrote:
> Bob Scheurle wrote:
=20[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
![color=darkred]
>=20
> Wow, you are brave. I've only found one area with no coverage at all in=
=20
> the past year, which was the road from Lake Louise up to Jasper.
>=20
>=20
> I had an idea once where instead of everyone carrying cell phones, and =

> paying all that money, that someone should just install phones that you=
=20
> pay to use when you need them. They could be installed at stores,=20
> restaurants, gas stations, etc. You could just insert a token or some=20
> coins and make a call. Maybe someday someone will do something like thi=
s=20
> and cell phones will be obsolete.

I usually know sarcasm when I see it, but this has already been done -=20
and that public phone hanging on the pole or wall is a 'sell' phone.=20
Cellular backhaul, coin or credit card operated, corded handset,=20
dedicated phone number. I've seen these solar powered units in many=20
places across Central America. They also have CC only models which I=20
have in my vacation homes in Mexico and Costa Rica. There is a red=20
pre-programmed emergencia button that functions like a free 911 call (in =

the U.S.) I don't remember who makes them, but they work well with a=20
little rooftop yagi antenna, and are considered more reliable than land=20
lines, assuming that's available. I was on a land line waiting list for =

over a year before my first one.

--=20
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 28 Dec 2007 20:48:19 +0000 Bob Scheurle wrote:
>
>
>
> Ironically, the last time I saw someone actually using a payphone, he was
> making an international call to his cellphone provider in South Africa to
> ask why his phone wasn't roaming here in the US despite their promise to
> him that it would! ;-)

Ironically, it's actually cheaper nowadays to use a prepaid cell phone
than a pay phone for most calls. No long distance charges, but even for
short local calls, you can get prepaid minutes for less than 6¢ each.
There's the initial cost, and a minimum cost per month, but at 35¢ for a
local pay phone call you break even pretty quickly if you use pay phones
a lot.

Jer

2007-12-28, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 28 Dec 2007 16:26:46 -0600 Jer wrote:
>
>
> It must be tough to be old enough to have your first phone autographed by
> A. G. Bell himself, huh? ;-)
>
> Haven't heard from you here in a little while, Jer, nice to have you back!
>
>

I'm doing okay, kinda busy, kinda fun. One of the features of these
sell phones is if you want the emotional impact of slamming the handset
down to abruptly end a call, you can. Not with a measly end button!
See...? kinda fun.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

LinkBot