|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > February 2007 > Cingular ATT merger. Better coverage?
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 |
Cingular ATT merger. Better coverage?
|
|
| planetx 2007-02-01, 10:33 pm |
| I have been been on Verizon for several years and have always wanted
to move to Cingular, because everyone I know is on Cingular and I can
get free mobile to mobile. But I was always worried about coverage in
some semi-rural areas where my verizon tri-mode works. Will the new
at&t provide better coverage?
| |
|
| planetx wrote:
> I have been been on Verizon for several years and have always wanted
> to move to Cingular, because everyone I know is on Cingular and I can
> get free mobile to mobile. But I was always worried about coverage in
> some semi-rural areas where my verizon tri-mode works. Will the new
> at&t provide better coverage?
No.
If you need semi-rural coverage then stick with a tri-mode from Verizon.
If you only need semi-rural coverage occasionally, then get a PagePlus
prepaid account for the tri-mode phone, and at least you can make calls
in the semi-rural areas. You could leave a voice-mail greeting on your
Cingular account to tell people to call you on your PagePlus account.
| |
| Jeffrey Kaplan 2007-02-02, 4:33 am |
| It is alleged that planetx claimed:
> I have been been on Verizon for several years and have always wanted
> to move to Cingular, because everyone I know is on Cingular and I can
> get free mobile to mobile. But I was always worried about coverage in
> some semi-rural areas where my verizon tri-mode works. Will the new
> at&t provide better coverage?
The network merge happened years ago. This is a corporate merge, a
completely different thing. It would be like if GE bought Ford, there
wouldn't suddenly be an increase in Ford dealers, because GE has no
auto dealers to start with.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
"Thanks, I owe you." "Import another steak." "I don't owe you +that+
much." (Cmdr. Sinclair and Mr. Garibaldi, B5 "Believers")
| |
| Ryan Sinn 2007-02-02, 4:33 am |
| No. I would stick with verizon... unless you can find a cost
effective plan for you on Cingular... I've been an AT&T / Cingular
customer for 6 years -- they suck. The customer support is horrible.
The only thing that keeps me from switching is that verizon / sprint /
nextel's photo selection is garbage... and all the service comments
I've heard regard many other providers as poor.
On Feb 2, 12:57 am, Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
> It is alleged that planetx claimed:
>
>
> The network merge happened years ago. This is a corporate merge, a
> completely different thing. It would be like if GE bought Ford, there
> wouldn't suddenly be an increase in Ford dealers, because GE has no
> auto dealers to start with.
>
> --
> Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
> The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
>
> "Thanks, I owe you." "Import another steak." "I don't owe you +that+
> much." (Cmdr. Sinclair and Mr. Garibaldi, B5 "Believers")
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-02-02, 7:33 am |
| It's just one data point, but in rural North Georgia (lots of mountians as
well), Cingular works much better than Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile. The
area is dominated by Cingular stores. Sceptics might say it's because alot
of very highup Cingular and BellSouth executives have weekend homes up here.
;-)
Verizon stores are very, very few and far between, no Sprint or T-Mobile
stores to be seen North of Canton, GA.
Best bet would be to get a Cingular phone and give it a try for the trial
period in the area you are concerned about.
Don
"planetx" <planetx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170386302.191466.99870@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have been been on Verizon for several years and have always wanted
> to move to Cingular, because everyone I know is on Cingular and I can
> get free mobile to mobile. But I was always worried about coverage in
> some semi-rural areas where my verizon tri-mode works. Will the new
> at&t provide better coverage?
>
| |
|
| In article <1170404076.732375.265780@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Ryan Sinn" <ryansinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. I would stick with verizon... unless you can find a cost
> effective plan for you on Cingular... I've been an AT&T / Cingular
> customer for 6 years -- they suck. The customer support is horrible.
> The only thing that keeps me from switching is that verizon / sprint /
> nextel's photo selection is garbage... and all the service comments
> I've heard regard many other providers as poor.
>
> On Feb 2, 12:57 am, Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
Aside from the Treo, Cingular's current phone selections are pretty bad.
Motorola used to be great.
No wonder everyone is so excited about the iPhone.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| jeremy 2007-02-02, 10:33 am |
|
"planetx" <planetx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170386302.191466.99870@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have been been on Verizon for several years and have always wanted
> to move to Cingular, because everyone I know is on Cingular and I can
> get free mobile to mobile. But I was always worried about coverage in
> some semi-rural areas where my verizon tri-mode works. Will the new
> at&t provide better coverage?
>
It is my understanding that VZW has restricted access to AMPS for most of
its digital customers.
If you require AMPS you might want to look at Sprint, as they also use CDMA
for digital, but we can roam onto analog networks if necessary.
| |
| Jeffrey Kaplan 2007-02-02, 3:33 pm |
| It is alleged that Ryan Sinn claimed:
> No. I would stick with verizon... unless you can find a cost
> effective plan for you on Cingular... I've been an AT&T / Cingular
> customer for 6 years -- they suck. The customer support is horrible.
> The only thing that keeps me from switching is that verizon / sprint /
> nextel's photo selection is garbage... and all the service comments
> I've heard regard many other providers as poor.
I've been with Verizon and Cingular, I'm currently with Cingular.
Verizon is more expensive for voice and data plans. Verizon cripples
their phones with proprietary requirements of leaving basic functions
out, such as the simple ability to transfer data directly to or from
your computer with either a wired sync or BT in favor of making you use
their expen$ive data connection. In my experience, Verizon's network
isn't any better than Cingular's, except maybe in data speed.
At least around where I live, Cingular's network has better coverage -
I have Cingular coverage where Verizon is dead, and I've yet to find a
place where Verizon has coverage where Cingular is dead.
Customer service wise, Verizon does have a slight edge up. But if you
don't need to talk to them, it doesn't really matter. :)
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
"If I am ever the Hero top 100 list: #93. When I am about to enter the
Evil Overlord's hideout, I will have it surrounded by friendly forces
so that they can detain him if he sneaks out the back door while I kick
down the front door.
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> "planetx" <planetx@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170386302.191466.99870@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It is my understanding that VZW has restricted access to AMPS for most of
> its digital customers.
Yes, this appears to be true. If you look at the AMPS areas between
Americas Choice, and Americas Choice II, a lot of non-Verizon AMPS
roaming disappeared. Under Americas Choice, it was paid roaming, under
ACII they eliminated all paid roaming.
>
> If you require AMPS you might want to look at Sprint, as they also use CDMA
> for digital, but we can roam onto analog networks if necessary.
Possibly, but the problem with Sprint is that in areas where Sprint does
have coverage, they usually don't allow off-network roaming. For
example, in most parts of California, if Sprint has a network then you
can't roam onto Verizon, even when Sprint coverage has gaps. Of course
the converse is also true, but Verizon has much better coverage than
Sprint in almost all areas, by virtue of their 800 MHz spectrum, and
their earlier deployment before the NIMBYs started screaming about towers.
Look at Consumer Reports, and you'll see the differences in quality of
coverage, at least for the metro areas. Verizon is almost always better
than Cingular, sometimes by a little, but often by a significant amount.
Since the CR survey used an exceptionally large sample, their data is
better than anecdotal Usenet reports.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-05, 4:33 am |
| On 1 Feb 2007 19:18:22 -0800, "planetx" <planetx@gmail.com> wrote in
<1170386302.191466.99870@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>I have been been on Verizon for several years and have always wanted
>to move to Cingular, because everyone I know is on Cingular and I can
>get free mobile to mobile. But I was always worried about coverage in
>some semi-rural areas where my verizon tri-mode works. Will the new
>at&t provide better coverage?
AMPS will soon be going away, so that would be a poor criteria.
Cingular digital coverage is arguably the best of any carrier.
That said, you should compare the detailed coverage maps of areas
important to you -- no one carrier is best in all areas.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:13:49 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>AMPS will soon be going away,
Name the date. You been scaring folks with that for years, and its
still far off.
| |
|
| Karl wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:13:49 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Name the date. You been scaring folks with that for years, and its
> still far off.
When the FCC permits AMPS to be shut down in 2008, it will almost
certainly immediately be shut down in areas that are covered by digital
service, because it uses a lot of bandwidth unnecessarily.
However, remote areas, where AMPS is the only service, will almost
certainly not have AMPS shut down, at least by the rural CDMA/AMPS
carriers. There are several reasons for this. First, a lot of emergency
call boxes are in areas with no digital coverage, and these call boxes
use AMPS. Second, a lot of the AMPS coverage is by smaller carriers in
rural areas, and AMPS represents roaming revenue. Third, AMPS provides
the only coverage for locals in a lot of the area covered by these
carriers. There is no cost savings in turning off AMPS unless there is a
capacity issue, and the rural carriers don't have capacity issues.
For AMPS areas that are currently covered only by Cingular AMPS, they
will almost certainly turn off AMPS even in their areas that have no
digital coverage. For example, I was recently out in the Florida
Everglades, roaming onto Cingular's AMPS network from my Verizon
tri-band phone (Verizon doesn't have an AMPS network in South Florida,
both the A&B side 800 MHz networks are now AT&T). 95% of Cingular's
customers can't use that AMPS network, and had no coverage. It makes
Cingular look bad when only Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, etc's customers can
use one of their networks. Hence, I think that Cingular will turn of all
AMPS as soon as they can, even though this means vast areas with no
coverage will be created. Fortunately, there are not a lot of areas
where Cingular is the only AMPS carrier.
Metro areas with rural areas surrounding them, will suffer when AMPS is
permitted to be turned off. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
there are a lot of areas outside the urban core, sometimes only a few
miles from the urban core, where AMPS is the only coverage you're able
to get. A lot of these areas are city, county, state, and national
parks, where they are unlikely to permit enough towers to cover the
areas in digital, but where you currently get decent AMPS coverage from
towers outside the parks. All the coverage in these areas will be lost
when AMPS is turned off. This is good news for Cingular, which has much
poorer coverage, at least in my area, by virtue of their lack of AMPS.
I'm hoping that the state of California will insist that all the
roadside call boxes remain operational, which will give AMPS a bit more
life, even in the semi-urban areas.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Yes, this appears to be true. If you look at the AMPS areas between
> Americas Choice, and Americas Choice II, a lot of non-Verizon AMPS
> roaming disappeared. Under Americas Choice, it was paid roaming, under
> ACII they eliminated all paid roaming.
Following up on my own post, but it seems that the "Extended Network"
indicator on Verizon phones is not a good indicator of whether or not
the roaming is included, or at extra charge (on the old America's
Choice plan). When I was calling from the Everglades, the "Extended
Network" was solid rather than flashing, so I should have been charged
for those calls--but I wasn't. They never showed up on my bill.
| |
|
| On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:51:57 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Karl wrote:
>
>When the FCC permits AMPS to be shut down in 2008, it will almost
>certainly immediately be shut down in areas that are covered by digital
>service, because it uses a lot of bandwidth unnecessarily.
It will more likely be delayed many times as Congressmen from Rural
areas complain.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-06, 10:33 am |
| On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:54:49 -0600, Karl < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net>
wrote in < dvufs21g8elrcflcdmma
oncml1g1kjntj5@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:13:49 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Name the date.
February 18, 2008
>You been scaring folks with that for years, and its
>still far off.
It's only one year from now.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-06, 10:33 am |
| On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:51:57 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c81774$0$69008$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>When the FCC permits AMPS to be shut down in 2008, it will almost
>certainly immediately be shut down in areas that are covered by digital
>service, because it uses a lot of bandwidth unnecessarily.
>
>However, remote areas, where AMPS is the only service, will almost
>certainly not have AMPS shut down, at least by the rural CDMA/AMPS
>carriers. There are several reasons for this. First, a lot of emergency
> call boxes are in areas with no digital coverage, and these call boxes
> use AMPS. Second, a lot of the AMPS coverage is by smaller carriers in
> rural areas, and AMPS represents roaming revenue. Third, AMPS provides
> the only coverage for locals in a lot of the area covered by these
>carriers. There is no cost savings in turning off AMPS unless there is a
> capacity issue, and the rural carriers don't have capacity issues.
In fact there's considerable cost in maintaining AMPS coverage, which
will probably be turned down in rural areas as well, in part because the
spectrum can be more profitably migrated to high margin digital roaming.
Conversion of emergency call boxes is a non-issue.
>Metro areas with rural areas surrounding them, will suffer when AMPS is
>permitted to be turned off. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
>there are a lot of areas outside the urban core, sometimes only a few
>miles from the urban core, where AMPS is the only coverage you're able
>to get.
In fact digital coverage is quite good over most of the Bay Area,
including areas with no AMPS coverage. There are relatively few areas
with AMPS but no digital coverage, and even fewer as digital coverage is
expanded.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-06, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:10:47 GMT, Karl < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net>
wrote in < sgogs25suu7r2cua1dc5
79n082poi67trh@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:51:57 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>It will more likely be delayed many times as Congressmen from Rural
>areas complain.
Doubtful, since there is now far more lobbying on the side of sunset.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Karl wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:51:57 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> It will more likely be delayed many times as Congressmen from Rural
> areas complain.
That's what I'm hoping.
I also wrote the FCC about this issue, and received a non-committal
reply that they understand the issues of lost coverage if AMPS is
allowed to be turned off. Unfortunately, the FCC has essentially become
part of the broadcasting industry under the Republicans.
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-02-06, 12:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:f67hs2llmsqlt5n
dvqat1m07p2r4l5g65t@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:54:49 -0600, Karl < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net>
> wrote in < dvufs21g8elrcflcdmma
oncml1g1kjntj5@4ax.com>:
>
>
> February 18, 2008
>
>
> It's only one year from now.
As I understand it, the FCC decided to no longer *require* A and B carriers
to support AMPS service as of 2/18/08. That's hardly the same as it "going
away". The FCC did not mandate a cutoff of AMPS on 2/18/08.
If there are areas that would go uncovered witthout AMPS and a carrier could
make money with it, why would it go away? I would suspect that AMPS could
well go away in areas already well covered by digital services. In rural
areas, where it is the only infrastructure in place, why turn it off and be
left with no footprint? That just does not make sense.
don
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> If there are areas that would go uncovered witthout AMPS and a carrier could
> make money with it, why would it go away? I would suspect that AMPS could
> well go away in areas already well covered by digital services. In rural
> areas, where it is the only infrastructure in place, why turn it off and be
> left with no footprint? That just does not make sense.
I think that in rural areas where the AMPS carrier is Cingular, it will
be turned off, and there will be no footprint. When I was out in the
Everglades recently, the only coverage was AMPS from Cingular. No GSM,
no CDMA, and I presume no TDMA (I didn't have a TDMA phone with me). I
was able to use my Verizon tri-mode phone and make calls on Cingular's
network. Cingular's own customers had no coverage at all (unless they
were part of the few percent still on TDMA/AMPS). It looks pretty bad
for Cingular when Verizon and Sprint customers have coverage but not
Cingular customers, so I think that Cingular will be anxious to turn off
AMPS in areas like this, and equalize the coverage to no coverage. The
FCC shouldn't allow this to happen, but this is not your father's FCC.
They no longer look out for the public interest, they look out only for
the interests of the broadcasters and wireless operators.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-06, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:25:00 -0500, "Don Udel \(ETC\)"
<donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in <eqadle05nk@enews5.newsguy.com>:
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:f67hs2llmsqlt5n
dvqat1m07p2r4l5g65t@
4ax.com...
>
>As I understand it, the FCC decided to no longer *require* A and B carriers
>to support AMPS service as of 2/18/08. That's hardly the same as it "going
>away". The FCC did not mandate a cutoff of AMPS on 2/18/08.
While no cutoff is mandated, carriers are eager to do away with AMPS in
order to migrate valuable spectrum to profitable digital. As noted
below, most industry analysts and major AMPS users expect AMPS to be
turned off very quickly.
>If there are areas that would go uncovered witthout AMPS and a carrier could
>make money with it, why would it go away? I would suspect that AMPS could
>well go away in areas already well covered by digital services. In rural
>areas, where it is the only infrastructure in place, why turn it off and be
>left with no footprint? That just does not make sense.
It does actually make sense:
* Relatively little AMPS revenue
* Cost of maintaining inefficient AMPS service
* Greatly increased capacity with digital
* Opportunity for much greater digital revenue
See "The Future of AMPS" at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Advan..._
of_AMPS>:
In Canada, where rural is a bigger issue than the USA:
Rogers Wireless is in the process of dismantling their AMPS (along
with IS-136) network, with full shutdown expected in May 2007.
OnStar is a major user of AMPS in the USA:
... Cellular companies who own an A or B license (such as Verizon and
Alltel) must still provide analog service until February 18, 2008.
After that point, however, most cellular companies will be eager to
shut down AMPS and use the remaining channels for digital services.
OnStar is transitioning to digital service with the help of data
transport technology developed by Airbiquity, but warns customers who
cannot be upgraded to digital that their service will permanently
expire on January 1, 2008.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:26:44 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
That makes no sense at all. Perhaps it might be sold to other
carriers? Why would Cingular forego all the income they get from
those Analog towers???
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-06, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:13:42 GMT, Karl < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net>
wrote in < bbvhs2lnigep203q1m4n
ohgvas7ikhp2qm@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:26:44 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>That makes no sense at all. Perhaps it might be sold to other
>carriers? Why would Cingular forego all the income they get from
>those Analog towers???
Because there simply isn't much AMPS income.
Digital is far more efficient and lucrative.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| clifto 2007-02-06, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> I also wrote the FCC about this issue, and received a non-committal
> reply that they understand the issues of lost coverage if AMPS is
> allowed to be turned off. Unfortunately, the FCC has essentially become
> part of the broadcasting industry under the Republicans.
Nice political hit job, but they weren't any better under the Democrats.
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
| |
|
| Karl wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:26:44 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> That makes no sense at all. Perhaps it might be sold to other
> carriers? Why would Cingular forego all the income they get from
> those Analog towers???
First, the CDMA carriers aren't really selling may tri-mode phones, so
the amount of income Cingular gets is very limited. Second, it makes
Cingular look bad when their top competitors have coverage in areas that
they lack coverage. They'd be willing to fore go the small amount of
roaming income in order to worsen their competitors coverage.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-07, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:41:08 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c97485$0$68974$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Karl wrote:
>
>First, the CDMA carriers aren't really selling may tri-mode phones, so
>the amount of income Cingular gets is very limited. Second, it makes
>Cingular look bad when their top competitors have coverage in areas that
>they lack coverage. They'd be willing to fore go the small amount of
>roaming income in order to worsen their competitors coverage.
Please cut out the silly anti-Cingular trolling.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-07, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-06, Don Udel (ETC) <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
> If there are areas that would go uncovered witthout AMPS and a carrier could
> make money with it, why would it go away? I would suspect that AMPS could
> well go away in areas already well covered by digital services. In rural
> areas, where it is the only infrastructure in place, why turn it off and be
> left with no footprint? That just does not make sense.
Note that to make money from this service they need to have more than
a little bit of use. Just having those towers costs money. There's a
power bill to pay, they need to pay for tower rental or taxes on the land
it is constructed on, and they need to spend a bit on maintaining
both the physical infrastructure (so the tower doesn't fall on someone
or cause a fire) and the electronics for both the cell and the backhaul
network connecting it to the PSTN. The cost of repairing or replacing
old electronics continually increases, so at some point they'd need to
pay for new investment to keep the cost of continuing maintenance
reasonable. Also, the coverage in rural areas with only AMPS is seldom
"complete" any more because the tower spacing is designed for significantly
higher power handsets than are now available for purchase.
So they need to make some investment to keep this stuff viable and to
keep ongoing maintenance costs reasonable, and to pay for all of this
they need to have people using, and paying for, the service they provide.
The carriers who own these towers know how much it costs to maintain the
service, and how much use they are getting to pay for it, and from that
they can figure out whether there is money to be made from keeping the
service or whether it is just going to be an ongoing loss. And, to
tell the truth, if there were serious money to be made from these
services they already would have added digital service to the tower.
There's no shortage of spectrum in rural areas, digital service would
improve (though probably not entirely fix) the coverage situation with
low power handsets, and modern electronics would help with maintenance
costs. The fact that they've not made this investment in some places
should suggest that the business prospects may not be that rosy.
Or, at least, this is the argument the carriers might make. I have some
suspicions arising from the unanimity of the big carriers (including
Verizon and Alltel, whose customers can still use AMPS service) that
they are keen to turn this stuff off just as soon as it is permitted.
While I believe that AMPS is a goner regardless, my suspicion is that
they're playing chicken with the FCC over rural coverage because they'd
like to coax yet another handout from the government (to add to your
bill), like the landline carriers get, to keep coverage turned on in
places with small populations or where the terrain is rugged. We'll
see how that goes.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Jud Hardcastle 2007-02-07, 3:33 pm |
| In article <slrnesk9cf.8p.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>,
dcferguson@pacbell.net says...
> On 2007-02-06, Don Udel (ETC) <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>
> Note that to make money from this service they need to have more than
> a little bit of use. Just having those towers costs money. There's a
> power bill to pay, they need to pay for tower rental or taxes on the land
> it is constructed on, and they need to spend a bit on maintaining
> both the physical infrastructure (so the tower doesn't fall on someone
>
That's assuming there are towers with nothing but AMPS. If there is any
digital on the tower at all then all those costs must exist anyway. Are
there any such towers--most likely both digital and analog are there but
the analog is either further up the tower or is cranked up powerwise or
both to support a few callers at greater range than digital reaches. To
reach the same area as analog with digital would take more towers.
> While I believe that AMPS is a goner regardless, my suspicion is that
> they're playing chicken with the FCC over rural coverage because they'd
> like to coax yet another handout from the government (to add to your
> bill), like the landline carriers get, to keep coverage turned on in
> places with small populations or where the terrain is rugged. We'll
> see how that goes.
>
Could be. Whatcha want to bet if nothing has been done when the AMPS
sunset is reached, they'll turn off AMPS--BUT LEAVE THE EQUIPMENT IN
PLACE--waiting for enough public to scream and the politicans to jump on
the FCC and congress to subsidize the carriers maintainance of AMPS in
those areas. The trouble with that is if there are no AMPS phones being
made then eventually the problem is going to have to be addressed with
expanding the digital signal to where it should be in the first place.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-07, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-07, Jud Hardcastle < I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote:
> dcferguson@pacbell.net says...
> That's assuming there are towers with nothing but AMPS. If there is any
> digital on the tower at all then all those costs must exist anyway. Are
> there any such towers--most likely both digital and analog are there but
> the analog is either further up the tower or is cranked up powerwise or
> both to support a few callers at greater range than digital reaches. To
> reach the same area as analog with digital would take more towers.
No, I don't think the last bit is correct. AMPS had greater reach when
everyone had 1 or 2 or 3 Watt RF output phones, and had an antenna mounted
on the roof or the trunk when they used a phone in the car. Now we all have
200 mW or 300 mW RF output handsets, and expect to be able to shove the handset
to our ears inside cars and have it work. You can't buy high power phones
any more. There's little you can do at the tower to make up for the fact
that the phones we have now transmit 10db less power than the phones we had
when the tower spacing was engineered (not to mention the crappier antennas),
and are hence harder for the tower to hear. The digital stuff, if you trust
basic physics, should give you better distance than AMPS when run at the
same power level, which is the situation we have now with our
power-constrained handsets. AMPS has no advantage.
As for the other issue, any tower that has digital service now is one
which sees enough use that the carrier could justify investing in its
upgrade. You are correct they won't turn these towers off, but there's
a pretty solid chance they'll be getting rid of the AMPS and replacing
it with more digital, since the digital stuff should both work better
and support higher revenue services (like data). I think AMPS is gone
anywhere there is digital service already; the spectrum it occupies can
be more profitably used for digital service. The only issue is what
happens to those towers which only support AMPS, which apparently
provide so little revenue that they could never justify upgrading them.
> Could be. Whatcha want to bet if nothing has been done when the AMPS
> sunset is reached, they'll turn off AMPS--BUT LEAVE THE EQUIPMENT IN
> PLACE--waiting for enough public to scream and the politicans to jump on
> the FCC and congress to subsidize the carriers maintainance of AMPS in
> those areas. The trouble with that is if there are no AMPS phones being
> made then eventually the problem is going to have to be addressed with
> expanding the digital signal to where it should be in the first place.
I guess I should have made it clearer. I don't believe they are hoping
for subsidies for the AMPS service, I'm sure every one of the big carriers
wants that to go away. What I suspect they might want the subsidies for
is to pay for the conversion of all that rural infrastructure to digital,
along with its future maintenance. We'll see what they get.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-02-08, 10:33 am |
|
"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnesk9cf.8p.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> Note that to make money from this service they need to have more than
> a little bit of use. Just having those towers costs money. There's a
> power bill to pay, they need to pay for tower rental or taxes on the land
> it is constructed on, and they need to spend a bit on maintaining
> both the physical infrastructure (so the tower doesn't fall on someone
> or cause a fire) and the electronics for both the cell and the backhaul
> network connecting it to the PSTN. The cost of repairing or replacing
> old electronics continually increases, so at some point they'd need to
> pay for new investment to keep the cost of continuing maintenance
> reasonable. Also, the coverage in rural areas with only AMPS is seldom
> "complete" any more because the tower spacing is designed for
> significantly
> higher power handsets than are now available for purchase.
> There's no shortage of spectrum in rural areas, digital service would
> improve (though probably not entirely fix) the coverage situation with
> low power handsets, and modern electronics would help with maintenance
> costs. The fact that they've not made this investment in some places
> should suggest that the business prospects may not be that rosy.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/do...=37&id=cellular
Don
| |
| Jud Hardcastle 2007-02-08, 10:33 am |
| In article <slrneskkob.a6.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>,
dcferguson@pacbell.net says...
>
> No, I don't think the last bit is correct. AMPS had greater reach when
> everyone had 1 or 2 or 3 Watt RF output phones, and had an antenna mounted
> on the roof or the trunk when they used a phone in the car. Now we all have
> 200 mW or 300 mW RF output handsets, and expect to be able to shove the handset
> to our ears inside cars and have it work. You can't buy high power phones
> any more. There's little you can do at the tower to make up for the fact
>
>
But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
in those areas. In that case the only way to get digital (ok ANY low
power) handsets to work is to build out more towers.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-02-08, 10:33 am |
|
"Jud Hardcastle" < I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
> still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
> in those areas. In that case the only way to get digital (ok ANY low
> power) handsets to work is to build out more towers.
Yep, that's the link I posted from the FCC said. Seems farmers are using
bag phones (for the higher power) to transmit status information from
irrigation pivots. Maybe smaller companies would buy the AMPS footprint
from larger carriers. What are crumbs to large carriers might make a good
business for smaller regional carriers. If that happens, then AMPS would
continue to be available.
Don
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:07:15 -0500, "Don Udel \(ETC\)"
<donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in <eqfhrl02fhd@enews2.newsguy.com>:
>
>"Jud Hardcastle" < I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
>
>Yep, that's the link I posted from the FCC said. Seems farmers are using
>bag phones (for the higher power) to transmit status information from
>irrigation pivots. Maybe smaller companies would buy the AMPS footprint
>from larger carriers. What are crumbs to large carriers might make a good
>business for smaller regional carriers. If that happens, then AMPS would
>continue to be available.
The problems are that (1) the spectrum is too valuable for low usage and
(2) there's not enough of such usage to justify the cost of maintaining
AMPS. These farmers can greatly increase the range of digital with a
number of options, such as high gain antennas -- a 13 dBi Yagi (about
$60) has about 4x the range of a typical handset antenna.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
Good points.
I would also point out, that even though a high-power AMPS bag phone
would provide better AMPS coverage than a tri-mode CDMA/AMPS phone,
there are still a great many places where the tri-mode phone provides
AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage at all.
I can go about three miles from my house, in a suburban part of Silicon
Valley, up into the surrounding hills, and have no GSM or CDMA coverage,
but good AMPS coverage. In the Sierras, there are a lot of AMPS-only
coverage areas, even with a tri-mode handset.
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/do...=37&id=cellular
"Will there be “new” unserved area where digital service does not
duplicate analog service?"
Duh. Since there are currently vast areas where digital service doesn't
duplicate analog service, it's obvious that this will occur.
The FCC should allow AMPS to be turned off in areas with digital
service, and forbid it from being turned off in areas with no digital
service.
Perhaps there is enough of a public interest issue that the government
should do something similar to what they did with the REA, and help fund
digital coverage in rural areas.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:50:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cb54ef$0$68951$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>
>Good points.
>
>I would also point out, that even though a high-power AMPS bag phone
>would provide better AMPS coverage than a tri-mode CDMA/AMPS phone,
>there are still a great many places where the tri-mode phone provides
>AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage at all.
>
>I can go about three miles from my house, in a suburban part of Silicon
>Valley, up into the surrounding hills, and have no GSM or CDMA coverage,
>but good AMPS coverage.
There are actually relatively few places in the San Francisco Bay Area
with only AMPS coverage. The number of such places continues to decline
as digital coverage increases, and there are now many places with
digital but no AMPS coverage, including parts of those same hills near
your house. ;)
>In the Sierras, there are a lot of AMPS-only
>coverage areas, even with a tri-mode handset.
There are some AMPS-only places, but only off the major highways, which
now have very good digital coverage.
Regardless, the issue will soon be moot, because AMPS will almost
certainly go away rapidly when the FCC mandate sunsets in about a year.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question may
> still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not work
> in those areas.
They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
|
| Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
> But the people still getting USE out of the analog areas in question
may still be using the high power models--the low mW handsets may not
work in those areas.
They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
>
> They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
> still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
> where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
>
>
>
> [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
> posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
> and alt.cellular. is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
> Wireless Service.]
Oops...
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:10:16 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cb597d$0$68951$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
>
>They do work. Obviously not as well as a high power phone, but there are
>still vast areas where you have AMPS coverage on a tri-mode phone, but
>where there is no CDMA or GSM available.
Depends on what you mean by "vast" areas. Yes, there are areas with
AMPS coverage but no digital coverage, but fewer and fewer with each
passing month, and AMPS will probably go away rapidly when the FCC
mandate sunsets in about a year. Digital coverage of non-remote areas
is now quite good.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:08:34 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cb5918$0$68951$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>
>"Will there be “new” unserved area where digital service does not
>duplicate analog service?"
>
>Duh. Since there are currently vast areas where digital service doesn't
>duplicate analog service, it's obvious that this will occur.
That's by no means obvious -- in fact carriers are rapidly building out
and converting to digital as a precursor to shutting down their AMPS
networks once the FCC mandate expires (in about a year).
>The FCC should allow AMPS to be turned off in areas with digital
>service, and forbid it from being turned off in areas with no digital
>service.
That kind of continued regulation would be a very bad and unwarranted
idea -- the FCC should continue getting out of the way and letting the
market decide. If there is sufficient market for AMPS, then it will
survive; otherwise it deserves to die. Digital coverage will
undoubtedly be expanded to satisfy whatever actual market demand exists.
>Perhaps there is enough of a public interest issue that the government
>should do something similar to what they did with the REA, and help fund
>digital coverage in rural areas.
A truly horrible idea.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "Jud Hardcastle" < I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
>
> Yep, that's the link I posted from the FCC said. Seems farmers are using
> bag phones (for the higher power) to transmit status information from
> irrigation pivots. Maybe smaller companies would buy the AMPS footprint
> from larger carriers. What are crumbs to large carriers might make a good
> business for smaller regional carriers. If that happens, then AMPS would
> continue to be available.
This isn't just about what's best for the carrier's business model. They
purchased their spectrum from the government with the express
understanding of the AMPS requirement. It's entirely reasonable to turn
off AMPS where digital coverage is available, and entirely unreasonable
to turn it off where there is no other coverage. Unfortunately, it takes
a lot more CDMA towers, and a helluva lot more GSM towers, to cover the
same area as AMPS, even without high-power bag phones.
Since there is a compelling public interest in this issue, it would make
sense for the government to help fund digital coverage in rural areas,
just as they did with electricity (REA), and the USF (universal service
fee) helps fund rural wireline service. There is no way that any rural
carrier can afford to duplicate their analog coverage with digital coverage.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
| Tinman 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:pcnms29uj5s8j75
2adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@
4ax.com...
>
> That kind of continued regulation would be a very bad and unwarranted
> idea -- the FCC should continue getting out of the way and letting the
> market decide. If there is sufficient market for AMPS, then it will
> survive; otherwise it deserves to die.
Thank God they don't build highways the way you advocate cellular coverage.
--
Mike
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:pcnms29uj5s8j75
2adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@
4ax.com...
>
> Thank God they don't build highways the way you advocate cellular coverage.
LOL, many of the places where I've had AMPS as the only coverage are
also areas where the roads would never have been built without the
government being involved.
Most of us benefit by funding infrastructure improvements of roads and
utilities, even if the benefit is indirect.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-08, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps there is enough of a public interest issue that the government
> should do something similar to what they did with the REA, and help fund
> digital coverage in rural areas.
You should be careful what you wish for, if the experience with rural
landline subsidies are anything to go by:
http://www.physorg.com/news88056298.html
I'm not opposed to the idea, since I really like to find cell phone
coverage in deep rural areas and I'm a bit worried it will disappear,
but somehow what government subsidies for phone companies seem to mostly
end up doing is making the phone companies richer by paying them to
do stuff they'd do anyway.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:55:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cb63fd$0$68998$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>This isn't just about what's best for the carrier's business model.
Actually it is. That's what market-based spectrum licensing is all
about.
>They
>purchased their spectrum from the government with the express
>understanding of the AMPS requirement.
And the sunset thereof in 2008, originally announced in 2000 and ordered
in 2002. The seven year warning and five year transition periods were
more than enough to take care of any real issues.
>It's entirely reasonable to turn
>off AMPS where digital coverage is available, and entirely unreasonable
>to turn it off where there is no other coverage.
In your opinion. I disagree. Likewise the FCC and major carriers. Now
the market will decide. If there is sufficient market demand to justify
keeping AMPS alive, then it will survive; otherwise it deserves to die.
>Unfortunately, it takes
>a lot more CDMA towers, and a helluva lot more GSM towers, to cover the
>same area as AMPS, even without high-power bag phones.
The range of digital is actually comparable to AMPS given comparable
mobile devices (e.g., handsets).
>Since there is a compelling public interest in this issue, it would make
>sense for the government to help fund digital coverage in rural areas,
>just as they did with electricity (REA), and the USF (universal service
>fee) helps fund rural wireline service. There is no way that any rural
>carrier can afford to duplicate their analog coverage with digital coverage.
The FCC has already found there to be no compelling public interest or
any other good reason to continue interference in the market.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:09:44 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<5317bqF1r40stU1@mid.individual.net>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:pcnms29uj5s8j75
2adm46tg7ilss8hr63r@
4ax.com...
>
>Thank God they don't build highways the way you advocate cellular coverage.
Private toll highways actually make a great deal of sense.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:19:38 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cb69bf$0$68980$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Tinman wrote:
>
>LOL, many of the places where I've had AMPS as the only coverage are
>also areas where the roads would never have been built without the
>government being involved.
Bad analogy -- roads are single shared physical infrastructure.
>Most of us benefit by funding infrastructure improvements of roads and
>utilities, even if the benefit is indirect.
The problem is the inevitable inefficiency that results when the
government meddles in the market.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-02-08, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> You should be careful what you wish for, if the experience with rural
> landline subsidies are anything to go by:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news88056298.html
"AP) -- Cellular subscribers are paying hundreds of millions of dollars
each year to subsidize landline telephone service, enriching big
telecommunications companies while providing little or no benefit to
cell phone users."
Yeah, those millions of dollars should be going into expanding the
wireless network into areas that wireless users travel through.
> I'm not opposed to the idea, since I really like to find cell phone
> coverage in deep rural areas and I'm a bit worried it will disappear,
> but somehow what government subsidies for phone companies seem to mostly
> end up doing is making the phone companies richer by paying them to
> do stuff they'd do anyway.
The problem is that they're not doing it anyway. Do you think that
Cingular or Verizon cares if there is any coverage off the major
roadways, where the usage is very low? They aren't going to spend money
on rural coverage.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:42:55 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cb6f35$0$69002$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>The problem is that they're not doing it anyway.
Mostly because the government is still interfering.
>Do you think that
>Cingular or Verizon cares if there is any coverage off the major
>roadways, where the usage is very low?
Of course they do. These are functions of market demand and service
positioning.
>They aren't going to spend money
>on rural coverage.
They already do.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-08, Don Udel (ETC) <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
> "Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Dennis here is an example of people still using AMPS bag phone for rural
> farming applications. The bag phones have higher power and range than
> digital handheld units. There are lots of farmers who use this to monitor
> pivot irrigation systems. Sometimes we are so focused on our own personal
> situation that we fail to understand that others are still finding use for
> an older technology that, in this case, works better than the newer.
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/do...=37&id=cellular
I wonder where they get the analog bag phones from? I went looking
for them at the Motorola site and couldn't find any; I don't think
they make them any more unless I missed it. Google didn't come up
with anything either, which makes me think they might not be able to
do this forever.
What I did find on the Motorola site, however, was this:
http://tinyurl.com/yzd5vw
A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
(though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:33:39 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnesn5pj.6t.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-02-08, Don Udel (ETC) <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>
>I wonder where they get the analog bag phones from? I went looking
>for them at the Motorola site and couldn't find any; I don't think
>they make them any more unless I missed it. Google didn't come up
>with anything either, which makes me think they might not be able to
>do this forever.
>
>What I did find on the Motorola site, however, was this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yzd5vw
>
>A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
>(though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
>would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
>to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
>only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
That's the M900 GSM phone, available in both fixed car and bag versions.
There's also the M800 CDMA phone, with the same two versions.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-08, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
> That's the M900 GSM phone, available in both fixed car and bag versions.
> There's also the M800 CDMA phone, with the same two versions.
Ah, that one also answers the question of where one might get a high
power AMPS phone these days. Very neat.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> A 2 Watt GSM phone! I had no idea that existed and I now covet one
> (though I'm not sure I'd get it past my wife). I'm pretty sure this
> would match the range of a 3 Watt AMPS phone, if the tower were prepared
> to match it, so there's some hope for digital as a replacement. I'm
> only worried about the places where they've not bothered with digital...
Cool. It's only $500!
Actually it would not match the range of a 3W AMPS phone, due to hard
distance limit of GSM.
GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
CDMA is limited to about 62Km (39 Miles). Analog is limited by line of
sight and phone power.
*One person in the United States believes that extended range GSM is
currently in use on the Pacific Coast.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:36:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cbc21b$0$68994$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>Cool. It's only $500!
>
>Actually it would not match the range of a 3W AMPS phone, due to hard
>distance limit of GSM.
That depends.
>GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
>station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
>antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
Extended Range GSM is capable of much longer range.
>CDMA is limited to about 62Km (39 Miles).
Actually longer.
>Analog is limited by line of
>sight and phone power.
Which typically makes it no better than GSM or CDMA.
Bottom line is that a high power GSM or CDMA phone will work as well as
or better than a high power AMPS phone under most field conditions.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:hlgns2h064gotr4
t0lavnlre7ebi85ghj0@
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:36:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45cbc21b$0$68994$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> That depends.
On what? There is no GSM deployment in rural America that has the range of
a 3W AMPS phone
>
>
> Extended Range GSM is capable of much longer range.
>
Why talk about that vaporware again? It has not been deployed in any
American market.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| Scott wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
>
> Why talk about that vaporware again? It has not been deployed in any
> American market.
Very true....the only thing we got from Navas was a link showing it does
exist on paper, but no credible information that it is actually deployed in
the U.S. market in spite of repeated attempts to ask for credible
information). We did get a anecdotal reference from John where he talked
to a friend that said something about it (but as John has often pointed out
for us, anecdotal information is meaningless).
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-09, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
> Cool. It's only $500!
That's why I don't think I'd get it past my wife.
> Actually it would not match the range of a 3W AMPS phone, due to hard
> distance limit of GSM.
>
> GSM systems are limited to 35Km (about 22 miles) between the tower
> station and the handset. This is regardless of phone output power,
> antenna, line of sight or anything else.*
>
> CDMA is limited to about 62Km (39 Miles). Analog is limited by line of
> sight and phone power.
Actually the CDMA limit isn't a big deal, as I understand it, since you
can fix it at the tower alone. I think the number comes from a specification
of the maximum delay the tower needs to search to find PRN code alignment with
a handset, and as such is an arbitrary value. If you think your tower
might talk to things that are further away than 62 km you can just make
that tower search out to longer delays. The GSM thing is harder, it would
need to be fixed at both the tower and the handsets. I wouldn't presume
that AMPS is entirely free of some similar limit; while the FM part is no
problem, AMPS handsets do need to talk to a TDMA digital control channel to
set up calls and keep them up and, while my memory of the details is dim,
it isn't clear to me why this wouldn't have an equivalent of GSM's problem.
This is kind of beside the point since neither a high-power GSM nor a
CDMA handset is likely to do much good talking to a normal tower. If
the base station radio designer thinks all handset radios transmit at
200 mW then there's no use having the base station transmit much more
than 200 mW back at the handsets; if the tower can hear the handset at
that power then the handset will hear the tower. You need base stationss
to match the handsets. Since Motorola sells the high power handsets it's
a good bet they also sell high power digital base station radios to match
the handset capability, and there's no reason they wouldn't design both
ends so that they operate at the limits of the power and modulation
available. I still think either digital mode will get out further than
analog in the end.
So all that's required is the deployment of a bunch of new stuff
and everything will be fine with digital phones. We're back around
to the original point: is there enough use in rural areas to support
any of this?
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> This is kind of beside the point since neither a high-power GSM nor a
> CDMA handset is likely to do much good talking to a normal tower. If
> the base station radio designer thinks all handset radios transmit at
> 200 mW then there's no use having the base station transmit much more
> than 200 mW back at the handsets; if the tower can hear the handset at
> that power then the handset will hear the tower. You need base stationss
> to match the handsets.
Well it's a virtual certainty that every AMPS tower also has CDMA or GSM
on it, plus there's a lot of towers that are CDMA or GSM only.
The very fact that it many locations a GSM or CDMA phone can't get a
digital signal, but an AMPS-capable phone can make and receive calls,
means that AMPS has some advantage even with low power handsets. There
are vast areas in California, including some in the San Francisco Bay
Area counties, where AMPS is the only service you can pick up with a
regular low power tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handset, and where there is no GSM
coverage at all.
> So all that's required is the deployment of a bunch of new stuff
> and everything will be fine with digital phones. We're back around
> to the original point: is there enough use in rural areas to support
> any of this?
Look at the mess in Australia. They put in CDMA to cover the outback,
instead of AMPS, since GSM didn't have the range. Then they decided that
they'll do W-CDMA in the outback and try to do one nationwide network,
GSM for urban voice, W-CDMA for urban data, and rural voice. The CDMA
sites in the outback could reach 120km in all directions. Presumably
W-CDMA will be just as good. Eventually everything will be one version
of CDMA or another, and even the voice in urban areas will be carried
over the W-CDMA network.
All this rigmarole when the European carriers would have loved to go to
CDMA in the first place, but their governments wouldn't let them.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-09, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:00:55 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnesnov7.88.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-02-09, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>Actually the CDMA limit isn't a big deal, as I understand it, since you
>can fix it at the tower alone. I think the number comes from a specification
>of the maximum delay the tower needs to search to find PRN code alignment with
>a handset, and as such is an arbitrary value. If you think your tower
>might talk to things that are further away than 62 km you can just make
>that tower search out to longer delays.
Essentially correct -- CDMA can easily be made to work over much longer
distances given sufficient tower height for line of sight transmission.
>The GSM thing is harder, it would
>need to be fixed at both the tower and the handsets.
Not correct -- Extended Range GSM (which combines adjacent time slots)
is easily implemented entirely at the tower, and again is capable of
much longer distances than standard GSM given sufficient tower height.
>I wouldn't presume
>that AMPS is entirely free of some similar limit; while the FM part is no
>problem, AMPS handsets do need to talk to a TDMA digital control channel to
>set up calls and keep them up and, while my memory of the details is dim,
>it isn't clear to me why this wouldn't have an equivalent of GSM's problem.
Not correct -- AMPS control (paging and access) uses MEFSK with a
continuous stream of bits -- there is no TDMA timing issue.
>This is kind of beside the point since neither a high-power GSM nor a
>CDMA handset is likely to do much good talking to a normal tower. If
>the base station radio designer thinks all handset radios transmit at
>200 mW then there's no use having the base station transmit much more
>than 200 mW back at the handsets; if the tower can hear the handset at
>that power then the handset will hear the tower. You need base stationss
>to match the handsets. Since Motorola sells the high power handsets it's
>a good bet they also sell high power digital base station radios to match
>the handset capability, and there's no reason they wouldn't design both
>ends so that they operate at the limits of the power and modulation
>available. I still think either digital mode will get out further than
>analog in the end.
Essentially correct.
>So all that's required is the deployment of a bunch of new stuff
>and everything will be fine with digital phones.
Not much new stuff, actually.
>We're back around
>to the original point: is there enough use in rural areas to support
>any of this?
With the FCC out of the way, the market will decide, as it should.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-09, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:35:42 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cbec0f$0$69039$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>Well it's a virtual certainty that every AMPS tower also has CDMA or GSM
>on it, plus there's a lot of towers that are CDMA or GSM only.
Actually quite a few AMPS + TDMA towers, and still a fair number of
AMPS-only towers.
>The very fact that it many locations a GSM or CDMA phone can't get a
>digital signal, but an AMPS-capable phone can make and receive calls,
>means that AMPS has some advantage even with low power handsets. There
>are vast areas in California, including some in the San Francisco Bay
>Area counties, where AMPS is the only service you can pick up with a
>regular low power tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handset, and where there is no GSM
>coverage at all.
Digital coverage is actually quite good in the San Francisco Bay Area --
there are relatively few areas with AMPS-only coverage.
>
>Look at the mess in Australia. They put in CDMA to cover the outback,
>instead of AMPS, since GSM didn't have the range.
Extended Range GSM is actually capable of comparable range.
>Then they decided that
>they'll do W-CDMA in the outback and try to do one nationwide network,
>GSM for urban voice, W-CDMA for urban data, and rural voice. The CDMA
>sites in the outback could reach 120km in all directions.
Only under ideal conditions. Practical range is quite a bit less than
that.
>Presumably
>W-CDMA will be just as good.
Actually better.
>Eventually everything will be one version
>of CDMA or another, and even the voice in urban areas will be carried
>over the W-CDMA network.
Apples and oranges -- W-CDMA is actually quite different from and
incompatible with CDMA2000. CDMA without qualification is misleading.
>All this rigmarole when the European carriers would have loved to go to
>CDMA in the first place, but their governments wouldn't let them.
In fact there was no real interest in CDMA2000 in Europe, in part due to
horrid behavior by Qualcomm.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|