|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2007 > THe winner with the fewest dropped calls is.....
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 |
THe winner with the fewest dropped calls is.....
|
|
| Scott 2007-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| ....not Cingular:
http://www.mindwireless.com/index.p...ecid=4&subid=44
"Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
reliable network. "
Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
report?
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> ...not Cingular:
>
> http://www.mindwireless.com/index.p...ecid=4&subid=44
>
> "Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
> claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
> provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
> Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
> January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
> Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
> nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
> reliable network. "
I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
not a metric that indicates which network is the best.
> Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
> report?
Who cares?
| |
|
| On Feb 22, 7:44 pm, Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
> ...not Cingular:
I'll attest to that. I used to have AT&T TDMA, and almost never had a
dropped call. Cingular GSM I get dropped calls occasionally. And
choppy calls frequently.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-02-23, 7:33 am |
| At 22 Feb 2007 21:22:12 -0700 SMS wrote:
> I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
> not a metric that indicates which network is the best.
Depends what you use your phone for. My phone is primarily used for
business calls in a few fixed locations in urban/suburban Denver. Not
dropping a customer's call mid-conversation is FAR more important to me
than having seamless coverage in, say, Rocky Mountain National Park.
My "metrics" for the best network fr my needs are call clarity and
reliability. Dropped calls, poor audio, or overloaded towers sendng my
calls straight to voicemail without my phone ringing are unacceptable
even if I have coverage "everywhere."
| |
|
| On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:44:25 -0600, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>...not Cingular:
>
>http://www.mindwireless.com/index.p...ecid=4&subid=44
>
>"Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
>claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
>provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
>Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
>January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
>nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
>reliable network. "
>
>
>Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
>report?
Absolute numbers is not the number anyone cares about, it's percentage
of calls. T-Mobile advertises fewest dropped calls in Houston, and
having the fewest customers, and therefore the fewest calls they may
well be correct.
| |
| PC Medic 2007-02-24, 4:33 am |
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1172217247.311179.301640@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 22, 7:44 pm, Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
> I'll attest to that. I used to have AT&T TDMA, and almost never had a
> dropped call. Cingular GSM I get dropped calls occasionally. And
> choppy calls frequently.
>
My experiences exactly.
Old ATT/Suncom never a dropped call and excellent clarity. After switch to
Cingular (3 different handsets) now get some dropped calls and constant
complaints from party at other end that I sound all 'choppy'. I have only
stayed with them due to the carry over of my old SunCom UnPlan. The contract
expires in a month and unless they are willing to extend the 'UnPlan' I will
most likely go elsewhere.
| |
| Ben Skversky 2007-02-26, 3:33 pm |
| T-mobile has fewer dropped calls then everyone but Verizon. And they are not
far behind Verizon.
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:vNmdnbJsfamE_kP
YnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> ...not Cingular:
>
> http://www.mindwireless.com/index.p...ecid=4&subid=44
>
> "Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) - With all major wireless carriers
> claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
> provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the
> scale.
> Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
> January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
> Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
> calls,
> nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
> reliable network. "
>
>
> Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
> report?
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-05, 7:33 am |
| On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:22:12 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45de6bef$0$27220$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
>not a metric that indicates which network is the best.
The more important issue is that this _isn't_ a measurement of dropped
calls -- it's a measurement of _duplicate_ calls to the same number,
which may or may not mean a dropped call. It's also old data. In other
words, interesting, but not terribly meaningful.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> The more important issue is that this _isn't_ a measurement of dropped
> calls -- it's a measurement of _duplicate_ calls to the same number,
> which may or may not mean a dropped call.
The most important issue is that this is the closest measurement you get
for dropped calls. How often does the normal person hangup and call the
number right back compared to dropping the call can calling right back.
And yes, you're going to say, "Actually, I do this quite often". But you're
not normal.
| |
| xPosTech 2007-03-05, 7:33 am |
| On 3/5/2007 4:14 AM, DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> The most important issue is that this is the closest measurement you get
> for dropped calls. How often does the normal person hangup and call the
> number right back compared to dropping the call can calling right back.
>
> And yes, you're going to say, "Actually, I do this quite often". But
> you're not normal.
And how often does the called party call back instead? And the
harassing ex call back when you hang up on her? And the wrong numbers
from blonds (Oops I did it again!)? Dupes aren't necessarily dropped.
Close but no cigar.
What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
count against my carrier?
It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data. It
would not surprise me if the carriers had a method of detecting dropped
calls. It would not surprise me if they did not.
Regards
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent,
but you'd be a fool to withhold that from your superiors.
| |
|
| xPosTech wrote:
> What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
> count against my carrier?
No, but presumably that happens at about the same rate across all the
carriers so it balances out. Same as when you forget to tell the person
on the other end something and call right back again. It would show up
as a dropped call, but since this would happen on all carriers it
cancels out.
> It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data.
Alas, as with many surveys and studies, you measure what's possible to
measure, and draw reasonable conclusions.
The problem with this metric is that it ignores the fact that with some
carriers, i.e. Verizon, you're going to have much wider coverage, but in
some cases the edges of the coverage are going to be marginal. So you're
able to make calls in areas where Cingular and T-Mobile users can't, but
the likelihood of it dropping and having to place it again is higher
than normal.
For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
AMPS signal. So a dropped call might be preferable to not being able to
make a call at all. It's extremely rare to find an area that has GSM
coverage but no CDMA coverage, and there is probably almost nowhere that
you'd have GSM and not have at least AMPS.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:27:48 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45eca777$0$27208$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
>areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
>AMPS signal. ...
Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
Verizon's own coverage data.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| xPosTech wrote:
> What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
count against my carrier?
No, but presumably that happens at about the same rate across all the
carriers so it balances out. Same as when you forget to tell the person
on the other end something and call right back again. It would show up
as a dropped call, but since this would happen on all carriers it
cancels out.
> It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data.
Alas, as with many surveys and studies, you measure what's possible to
measure, and draw reasonable conclusions.
The problem with this metric is that it ignores the fact that with some
carriers, i.e. Verizon, you're going to have much wider coverage, but in
some cases the edges of the coverage are going to be marginal. So you're
able to make calls in areas where Cingular and T-Mobile users can't, but
the likelihood of it dropping and having to place it again is higher
than normal.
For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
AMPS signal. So a dropped call might be preferable to not being able to
make a call at all. It's extremely rare to find an area that has GSM
coverage but no CDMA coverage, and there is probably almost nowhere that
you'd have GSM and not have at least AMPS.
[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 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45ecb4fa$0$27247$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
>areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
>AMPS signal. ...
Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
Verizon's own coverage data.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:c3epu2thbe9daep
srj7fmhbjhpk9s1gdqi@
4ax.com:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45ecb4fa$0$27247$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
> Verizon's own coverage data.
>
Nice try, Skippy- Verizon data would not address the lack of GSM in the
area.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| At 06 Mar 2007 00:40:45 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45ecb4fa$0$27247$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
> Verizon's own coverage data.
"Proved?" That takes the huge leap of faith that the Verizon maps are
accurate. Regardless of the accuracy, they also lack the detail level of
Cingular's maps, making direct comparisons between the two carriers
difficult.
Also, Verizon's site shows different maps for different rate plans .
There seemed to be plenty of AMPS coverage on the NSR plans, as well as
some on AC I.
| |
|
| xPosTech wrote:
> And how often does the called party call back instead? And the
> harassing ex call back when you hang up on her?
Good point...never even thought of that!
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> xPosTech wrote:
>
> Good point...never even thought of that!
It would all cancel out when comparing carriers, unless harassing exes
prefer one carrier over another.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 00:40:45 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
> "Proved?" That takes the huge leap of faith that the Verizon maps are
> accurate. Regardless of the accuracy, they also lack the detail level of
> Cingular's maps, making direct comparisons between the two carriers
> difficult.
>
> Also, Verizon's site shows different maps for different rate plans .
> There seemed to be plenty of AMPS coverage on the NSR plans, as well as
> some on AC I.
LOL, Navas's definition of "proof" is certainly amusing. Don't forget
his "proof" of extended range GSM.
However you did point out a major issue with Verizon, in that
non-Verizon AMPS coverage is very limited for subscribers that are not
on AC1 or NSR, two plans that new subscribers can't get.
When Verizon accidentally (or accidentally on-purpose) moved me to AC2
for a while, they acknowledged the AMPS advantages of AC1 when they
switched me back. What prompted AC2 with no off-extended-network roaming
was that subscribers were complaining about roaming charges on AC1.
Personally I'm perfectly happy to pay roaming charges when the
alternative is no coverage other than 911 coverage.
There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45ed9726$0$27191$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
But almost entirely in areas that also have digital coverage, as shown
by Verizon's own coverage maps, as I noted in "Steven's Myth of Verizon
AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area"
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....2d9e5179?hl=en&>.
>and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
>coverage replaces it,
AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
actions and their words.
>though unfortunately there is no way that digital
>will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.
Also not true -- what matters is handset power, not technology --
digital has as much range as analog.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| jeremy 2007-03-06, 12:33 pm |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45ed9726$0$2719
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area, and
> it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital coverage
> replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital will cover
> the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.
Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
bag phone.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:44:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in
<aMhHh.7852$Tf.4940@trndny03>:
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45ed9726$0$2719
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
>bag phone.
You can still get AMPS with CDMA (presumably until sunset early next
year), but you couldn't use an AMPS bag phone. Motorola makes both GSM
and CDMA bag phones that have comparable range to AMPS bag phones, and
the CDMA version includes AMPS. For the GSM version, see the Cingular
FAQ below.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
> bag phone.
You can't get AMPS-only service from Verizon. It's still available from
some rural carriers, especially up in Alaska.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 12:33 pm |
| At 06 Mar 2007 16:36:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
> are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
> spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
> actions and their words.
I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
with additional unneeded digital capacity?
Sure, removing any traces of AMPS in urban/suburban areas MIGHT make
sense for increasing capacity (but even then, not much- most
urban/suburban installations are down to one or two channels of AMPS
anyway- digital can get what, 3 or 4 calls per channel instead of one?
So shutting off the last two AMPS channels adds a 6 call capacity? "Wow!
Let's pay the techs time and half and double-shift them all to rip all
of this obsolete stuff out- it's killing us!")
Realistically, rural AMPS equipment will likely be phased out as it dies
of natural causes and not before. There is no real cost benefit to
rolling out a fleet of trucks and technicians to tear down the AMPS
network just because the Feds say you're allowed to.
AMPS equipment will be like the 5-1/4" floppy drives sitting in stacks of
older computers in businesses nationwide. No one uses them, they
aren't hurting anyone, and we're certainly not going to pay anyone to
remove them unless they're already servicing the equipment for a more
important reason anyway... ;-)
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 12:33 pm |
| At 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800 SMS wrote:
> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
> and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
> coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
> will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.
Why do you think that? I understand that the distance limitation of GSM
makes overlay a bit of a challenge, but why would CDMA overlay be
difficult? Even in the rural midwest, where flat terrain and low usage
are ideal for AMPS, I've found very few areas with AMPS-only service,
although I've USED AMPS due to technology incompatiblities (i.e. roaming
on Verizon or Alltel AMPS with a TDMA phone, etc.) but I believe we've
reached a point where a dual-band 800/1900 CDMA phone has 99% of the
coverage of a tri-mode, (certainly in POPs if not in actual geography.)
It's not like all of these rural carriers with AMPS service are still
selling Nokia 100s and Motorola MicroTACs to their customers. They've
all migrated to digital and overlaid substantially portions of their
networks. Their AMPS coverage is for roamers and their older "bagphone"
users.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
> Why do you think that? I understand that the distance limitation of GSM
> makes overlay a bit of a challenge, but why would CDMA overlay be
> difficult? Even in the rural midwest, where flat terrain and low usage
> are ideal for AMPS, I've found very few areas with AMPS-only service,
> although I've USED AMPS due to technology incompatiblities (i.e. roaming
> on Verizon or Alltel AMPS with a TDMA phone, etc.) but I believe we've
> reached a point where a dual-band 800/1900 CDMA phone has 99% of the
> coverage of a tri-mode, (certainly in POPs if not in actual geography.)
Yes it's the "actual geography" that's the issue. I doubt if there are
any non-rural AMPS towers that don't have some sort of digital. But just
in the past three months I've been in several areas of North America
where there is no GSM or CDMA coverage, just AMPS coverage. One AMPS
network I used was a Cingular AMPS network in Florida. One was a Telus
AMPS network in Canada. One was Golden State Cellular in California.
When I go around the Santa Cruz mountains and East Bay hills I can often
get AMPS but no CDMA or GSM. Sometimes this is away from the road, but
often it's on the backroads in remote areas.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 16:36:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>
> I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
> usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
> working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
> with additional unneeded digital capacity?
For rural carriers, the loss of AMPS coverage will be costly because of
roaming revenue. In several industries, including trucking, AMPS is
still widely used.
In urban areas the carriers will likely remove the little remaining AMPS
capacity when their crews are at a cell site for some other reason.
There is very little AMPS capacity left at each site, and replacing it
with digital or just removing it, isn't going to affect capacity very
much at all.
Cingular has an incentive to turn off AMPS as after TDMA is shut down
the only users using AMPS will be subscribers from CDMA carriers. No
sense improving the network coverage of your competitors. So I'm sure
that I'll lose that nice AMPS coverage out in the Everglades where
Cingular has both the A and B side 800 MHz networks. Maybe Cingular will
install Extended Range GSM, LOL.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:16:13 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eskbgq$uj0$1@aioe.org>:
>At 06 Mar 2007 16:36:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
>usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
>working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
>with additional unneeded digital capacity?
The carrier simply can't afford to do that due to negative backlash from
users. If the AMPS network is to be left up, then it has to be fully
maintained, a process that becomes more costly as it ages, components
become more difficult and expensive to get, and trained personnel become
less available.
As AMPS revenues go down, and the opportunity for digital revenues goes
up, the case for shutting down and migrating the AMPS spectrum becomes
ever more compelling. Spectrum is an expensive and finite resource.
>Sure, removing any traces of AMPS in urban/suburban areas MIGHT make
>sense for increasing capacity (but even then, not much- most
>urban/suburban installations are down to one or two channels of AMPS
>anyway- digital can get what, 3 or 4 calls per channel instead of one?
Eight with GSM. Roughly the same with CDMA. The difference is almost
an order of magnitude. Huge.
>Realistically, rural AMPS equipment will likely be phased out as it dies
>of natural causes and not before. There is no real cost benefit to
>rolling out a fleet of trucks and technicians to tear down the AMPS
>network just because the Feds say you're allowed to.
I disagree -- both carriers and major users (e.g. AlarmNet, OnStar) have
already announced plans to rapidly phase out AMPS.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:21:30 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eskbgs$uj0$2@aioe.org>:
>At 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
>Why do you think that? I understand that the distance limitation of GSM
>makes overlay a bit of a challenge,
There's no real challenge because the distance limitation of GSM just
isn't an issue. Range is primarily a matter of handset power and line
of sight.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:23:08 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45edbfa2$0$27253$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>For rural carriers, the loss of AMPS coverage will be costly because of
>roaming revenue.
Just the opposite -- the opportunity for digital roaming revenue is
orders of magnitude greater than AMPS.
>In several industries, including trucking, AMPS is
>still widely used.
It's actually being phased out rapidly, and isn't a major factor.
>[SMIP Cingular flame/troll]
Grow up, and quit trolling here. Since you're such a big fan of
Verizon, kindly stick to the Verizon group.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:46:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45edb701$0$27174$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>When I go around the Santa Cruz mountains and East Bay hills I can often
>get AMPS but no CDMA or GSM. Sometimes this is away from the road, but
>often it's on the backroads in remote areas.
Nonsense, as Verizon coverage maps make clear.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| At 06 Mar 2007 08:21:33 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
> It would all cancel out when comparing carriers, unless harassing exes
> prefer one carrier over another.
>
Boy, wouldn't that be an interesting target market for an MVNO! ;-)
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 08:21:33 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
> Boy, wouldn't that be an interesting target market for an MVNO! ;-)
I was going to make a comment on how certain carriers might affect the
divorce rate, but maybe an MVNO targeting divorced couples that don't
get along would be more interesting.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| At 06 Mar 2007 19:28:04 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> The carrier simply can't afford to do that due to negative backlash from
> users. If the AMPS network is to be left up, then it has to be fully
> maintained, a process that becomes more costly as it ages, components
> become more difficult and expensive to get, and trained personnel become
> less available.
Only if the carrier commits to allowing AMPS-only customers. I suspect
the vast majority of even very rural customers have been converted to
digital or digital/analog nits long ago. A roamer who is delighted to
find he has service in East Undershirt, IA isn't doing to notice or
complain that service wasn't available in West Cupcake, 30 miles back
down the road, even if both towers were part of the same network.
> As AMPS revenues go down, and the opportunity for digital revenues goes
> up, the case for shutting down and migrating the AMPS spectrum becomes
> ever more compelling. Spectrum is an expensive and finite resource.
In San Fran, yes. On a tower along I-70 in rural Kansas that processes
80 calls at peak times, spectrum isn't an isue- maximizing how many
different types of technology can use their service, is.
Look at Alltel- they're a CDMA carrier that left GSM capacity on their
rural midwestern networks just to service roamers. If spectrum was that
tight, they'd change everything to CDMA to better service their own
customers. Fortunately for me (who has roamed on Alltel quite a bit, in
both GSM with T-Mo, and Beyond Wireless in AMPS) they have capacity to
spare for CDMA, GSM, AMPS, and probably even a channel or two dedicated
to relaying smoke signals... ;-)
>
> Eight with GSM. Roughly the same with CDMA. The difference is almost
> an order of magnitude. Huge.
Huge, IF a tower is running 100% analog. Switching the last two channels
of AMPS to digital is a net gain of 14 calls using your numbers.
> I disagree -- both carriers and major users (e.g. AlarmNet, OnStar) have
> already announced plans to rapidly phase out AMPS.
Officially, for their customers use, perhaps. My point is that the
actual AMPS capacity itself will likely remain operational (for use by
roamers or 911 calls) until techs are dispatched to those towers for some
other more compelling (and economical) reason, like a repair. Outside of
urban/suburban sprawl, towers are just not running anywhere close to full
capacity, so there is no urgent, (or cost-effective) need to convert a
handful of analog channels to digital to shoehorn in a little more
calling capacity.
I'm not even suggesting that there is a need for AMPS coverage beyond the
sunset date- I'm just suggesting that the inertia and economy of wireless
companies will see to it that change happens slowly.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:28:17 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eskjd2$hq5$1@aioe.org>:
>At 06 Mar 2007 19:28:04 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>Only if the carrier commits to allowing AMPS-only customers. I suspect
>the vast majority of even very rural customers have been converted to
>digital or digital/analog nits long ago. A roamer who is delighted to
>find he has service in East Undershirt, IA isn't doing to notice or
>complain that service wasn't available in West Cupcake, 30 miles back
>down the road, even if both towers were part of the same network.
With all due respect, it simply doesn't work that way -- carriers know
that neglect leads to problems that come back to bite them, if not from
consumers, then from other carriers. Letting a network go down the
drain simply isn't a viable option -- it's either maintained properly,
or it's shut down.
>
>In San Fran, yes. On a tower along I-70 in rural Kansas that processes
>80 calls at peak times, spectrum isn't an isue- maximizing how many
>different types of technology can use their service, is.
Again, it simply doesn't work that way -- maintaining a network is
expensive, and the cost of AMPS doesn't even come close to being
justified from a business perspective.
>Look at Alltel- they're a CDMA carrier that left GSM capacity on their
>rural midwestern networks just to service roamers. If spectrum was that
>tight, they'd change everything to CDMA to better service their own
>customers.
On the contrary -- roaming revenue tends to be much more profitably than
own subscriber revenue, and GSM is a major factor in the USA, whereas
AMPS is now minuscule.
>
>Huge, IF a tower is running 100% analog. Switching the last two channels
>of AMPS to digital is a net gain of 14 calls using your numbers.
Again, it's a matter of cost and revenue.
>
>Officially, for their customers use, perhaps.
In practice as well.
>My point is that the
>actual AMPS capacity itself will likely remain operational (for use by
>roamers or 911 calls) until techs are dispatched to those towers for some
>other more compelling (and economical) reason, like a repair.
Again, I disagree.
>Outside of
>urban/suburban sprawl, towers are just not running anywhere close to full
>capacity, so there is no urgent, (or cost-effective) need to convert a
>handful of analog channels to digital to shoehorn in a little more
>calling capacity.
It's actually more cost-effective to shut down AMPS even without
conversion.
>I'm not even suggesting that there is a need for AMPS coverage beyond the
>sunset date- I'm just suggesting that the inertia and economy of wireless
>companies will see to it that change happens slowly.
Again, I disagree.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-03-06, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:16:13 -0700, Todd Allcock
>< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eskbgq$uj0$1@aioe.org>:
>
> Eight with GSM. Roughly the same with CDMA. The difference is almost
> an order of magnitude. Huge.
As I understand it that's not right. AMPS channels are 30 kHz wide,
1 conversation per channel. A GSM channel accomodates 8 TDM'd
users, but GSM channels are 200 kHz wide. CDMA channels are
1.25 MHz wide, but are reputed to accomodate well over 100 simultaneous
users (though I've never seen actual numbers published so this is a bit
fuzzy).
As I remember it the very reason they bothered to invent TDMA (and Japanese
PDC, for that matter) rather than just using the pre-existing GSM standard
is that GSM, at 25 kHz per voice user, is just barely more spectrum efficient
than AMPS. TDMA got 3 users in a 30 kHz channel (PDC got 3 in 25 kHz). The
reason they abandoned TDMA is that they decided higher speed data might be
important and they couldn't figure out a good way to do this in 30 kHz
channels without a lot of new invention; GSM existed already and the
200 kHz channels permitted a fairly straight forward data implementation,
so they switched rather than continue fighting. CDMA's big wide channels
made data easy, though this traded off against the number of users who
could share a channel quite sharply.
So the difference in users/kHz between AMPS and GSM is small. For
CDMA the original Qualcomm paper did claim a theoretical 7x AMPS
bandwidth utilization, but I've seen criticisms suggesting that paper
was significantly over-optimistic because of reliance on assumptions
that worked in the military radio environment Qualcomm had previously
designed for but which were more dubious for cellular service (and they
don't seem to publish real, measured numbers anywhere).
The advantage of digital services (GSM in particular) is hence not
increased capacity; there's no alternative to more towers for that.
The advantages are the increased set of services you can offer over
a digital network, and the fact that you can get the same distance
at lower handset transmitter power, enabling more attractive handsets.
Qualcomm claims than CDMA has an 11 db power advantage over FM (and I don't
think GSM is inferior), which not coincidentally is the difference between
a 2 or 3 Watt bag phone and the 200 mW handsets we use now.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| At 06 Mar 2007 12:10:42 -0800 SMS wrote:
> I was going to make a comment on how certain carriers might affect
> the divorce rate, but maybe an MVNO targeting divorced couples that
> don't get along would be more interesting.
>
Sure- picture a family plan that offers unlimited calls to your kids, and
forwards your ex's calls to your attorney automatically! ;-)
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:26 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrneurkla.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-03-06, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>As I understand it that's not right. AMPS channels are 30 kHz wide,
>1 conversation per channel. A GSM channel accomodates 8 TDM'd
>users, but GSM channels are 200 kHz wide. CDMA channels are
>1.25 MHz wide, but are reputed to accomodate well over 100 simultaneous
>users (though I've never seen actual numbers published so this is a bit
>fuzzy).
>
>As I remember it the very reason they bothered to invent TDMA (and Japanese
>PDC, for that matter) rather than just using the pre-existing GSM standard
>is that GSM, at 25 kHz per voice user, is just barely more spectrum efficient
>than AMPS. TDMA got 3 users in a 30 kHz channel (PDC got 3 in 25 kHz). The
>reason they abandoned TDMA is that they decided higher speed data might be
>important and they couldn't figure out a good way to do this in 30 kHz
>channels without a lot of new invention; GSM existed already and the
>200 kHz channels permitted a fairly straight forward data implementation,
>so they switched rather than continue fighting. CDMA's big wide channels
>made data easy, though this traded off against the number of users who
>could share a channel quite sharply.
>
>So the difference in users/kHz between AMPS and GSM is small. For
>CDMA the original Qualcomm paper did claim a theoretical 7x AMPS
>bandwidth utilization, but I've seen criticisms suggesting that paper
>was significantly over-optimistic because of reliance on assumptions
>that worked in the military radio environment Qualcomm had previously
>designed for but which were more dubious for cellular service (and they
>don't seem to publish real, measured numbers anywhere).
>
>The advantage of digital services (GSM in particular) is hence not
>increased capacity; there's no alternative to more towers for that.
>The advantages are the increased set of services you can offer over
>a digital network, and the fact that you can get the same distance
>at lower handset transmitter power, enabling more attractive handsets.
>Qualcomm claims than CDMA has an 11 db power advantage over FM (and I don't
>think GSM is inferior), which not coincidentally is the difference between
>a 2 or 3 Watt bag phone and the 200 mW handsets we use now.
<http://www.3gamericas.org/English/t...er/QA/gsmqa.cfm>:
GSM allows multiple users to share a single radio channel through a
technique called time division multiplexing (TDM), where a channel is
divided into six time slots. Each caller is assigned a specific time
slot for transmission, which allows multiple callers to share a
single channel simultaneously without interfering with one another.
This design makes efficient use of spectrum and provides seven times
more capacity than analog or "AMPS", which is a first-generation (1G)
technology. ...
Even D-AMPS is (IS-136) is three times more spectrally-efficient than
AMPS -- see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-AMPS>.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> AMPS equipment will be like the 5-1/4" floppy drives sitting in stacks of
> older computers in businesses nationwide. No one uses them, they
> aren't hurting anyone, and we're certainly not going to pay anyone to
> remove them unless they're already servicing the equipment for a more
> important reason anyway... ;-)
In telephone company lingo, its called R.I.P. - Retire In Place.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On 2007-03-06, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:26 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
><slrneurkla.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>
<...>[color=darkred]
><http://www.3gamericas.org/English/t...er/QA/gsmqa.cfm>:
>
> GSM allows multiple users to share a single radio channel through a
> technique called time division multiplexing (TDM), where a channel is
> divided into six time slots. Each caller is assigned a specific time
> slot for transmission, which allows multiple callers to share a
> single channel simultaneously without interfering with one another.
> This design makes efficient use of spectrum and provides seven times
> more capacity than analog or "AMPS", which is a first-generation (1G)
> technology. ...
>
> Even D-AMPS is (IS-136) is three times more spectrally-efficient than
> AMPS -- see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-AMPS>.
First, you are quoting something which incorrectly contradicts you,
as well as me, in sentence two, so I'm not sure why you have so
much faith in the unsupported assertion in sentence three. It says 6 time
slots per channel, but we both agree GSM has 8 timeslots per channel. The
unmentioned thing is, again, GSM channels are 200 kHz wide, so the
bandwidth per user is 25 kHz compared to 30 kHz for AMPS. See the tables
here:
<http://www.rfcafe.com/references/el..._comm_specs.htm>
How do they get a 7x more capacity from those numbers? That sounds
suspiciously like they are quoting the Qualcomm theoretical CDMA number,
which has nothing to do with GSM and which most people agree is dubious
anyway.
And yes, as I said, D-AMPS gets 3 users per 30 kHz channel, or 10 kHz per
user, which makes it 3 times more efficient than AMPS and 2.5 times more
efficient than GSM for voice service. As I said, that's why they invented
TDMA instead of just using GSM in the first place. And, as I said, the
reasons they changed back to GSM had nothing to do with its spectral
efficiency providing voice service, they were concerned about other stuff
that TDMA didn't do.
Note that in the table I linked to they have a rather lower opinion
of the spectral efficiency of CDMA than the number I quoted; at 50 users
per 1.25 MHz they think it is the same as GSM, which is not much better
than AMPS. I don't know if this is correct (no one seems to publish
measured numbers), but in any case the numbers make it fairly clear that
for the digital services we use now, spectral efficiency of voice service
compared to AMPS is clearly not a high priority; it is other issues which
are important. Please read what I wrote.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> In telephone company lingo, its called R.I.P. - Retire In Place.
The 5¼" drives are only a problem when someone that has never seen one
before thinks that it's a slot-loading CD-ROM drive.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:35:44 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrneurr60.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-03-06, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
><...>
>
>First, you are quoting something which incorrectly contradicts you,
>as well as me, in sentence two, so I'm not sure why you have so
>much faith in the unsupported assertion in sentence three. It says 6 time
>slots per channel, but we both agree GSM has 8 timeslots per channel. The
>unmentioned thing is, again, GSM channels are 200 kHz wide, so the
>bandwidth per user is 25 kHz compared to 30 kHz for AMPS. See the tables
>here:
>
> <http://www.rfcafe.com/references/el..._comm_specs.htm>
>
>How do they get a 7x more capacity from those numbers? That sounds
>suspiciously like they are quoting the Qualcomm theoretical CDMA number,
>which has nothing to do with GSM and which most people agree is dubious
>anyway.
>
>And yes, as I said, D-AMPS gets 3 users per 30 kHz channel, or 10 kHz per
>user, which makes it 3 times more efficient than AMPS and 2.5 times more
>efficient than GSM for voice service. As I said, that's why they invented
>TDMA instead of just using GSM in the first place. And, as I said, the
>reasons they changed back to GSM had nothing to do with its spectral
>efficiency providing voice service, they were concerned about other stuff
>that TDMA didn't do.
>
>Note that in the table I linked to they have a rather lower opinion
>of the spectral efficiency of CDMA than the number I quoted; at 50 users
>per 1.25 MHz they think it is the same as GSM, which is not much better
>than AMPS. I don't know if this is correct (no one seems to publish
>measured numbers), but in any case the numbers make it fairly clear that
>for the digital services we use now, spectral efficiency of voice service
>compared to AMPS is clearly not a high priority; it is other issues which
>are important. Please read what I wrote.
Still not correct. Call handling efficiency is commonly measured in
Erlangs. ( You knew that, right? ;)
<http://www.smartcomputing.com/edito...22r08.asp&guid=>
And GSM is much more efficient than TDMA, says Dave Williams, vice
president of Strategic Planning for Cingular. Where TDMA can carry
about 30 erlangs (a unit of telephone traffic) per cell sector,
modern versions of GSM carry 162, Williams says.
"Traffic Analysis of Partially Overlaid AMPS/ANSI-136 Systems"
ISBN 978-0-7923-7902-7
AMPS is in the range of 9.2-11 Erlangs.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:12:57 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <JHlHh.124573$_73.104713@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>In telephone company lingo, its called R.I.P. - Retire In Place.
What telephone company (by name)? I don't know of any that do that,
except perhaps for tiny locals.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On 2007-03-06, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:35:44 -0600, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
I notice you didn't answer this question...
[color=darkred]
>
> Still not correct. Call handling efficiency is commonly measured in
> Erlangs. ( You knew that, right? ;)
I knew that, they taught it where I went to school. It's not a measurement
of call handling "efficiency" (the article didn't say this either), however,
but rather just a measure of call volume or call capacity.
><http://www.smartcomputing.com/edito...22r08.asp&guid=>
>
> And GSM is much more efficient than TDMA, says Dave Williams, vice
> president of Strategic Planning for Cingular. Where TDMA can carry
> about 30 erlangs (a unit of telephone traffic) per cell sector,
> modern versions of GSM carry 162, Williams says.
>
> "Traffic Analysis of Partially Overlaid AMPS/ANSI-136 Systems"
> ISBN 978-0-7923-7902-7
>
> AMPS is in the range of 9.2-11 Erlangs.
John, I get the feeling you are grasping a bit. The number "162" refers
to the number of call channels the GSM base station supports times the
peak-load average probability that a call channel will be busy handling a call
given the (unspecified) call blocking performance they're trying to achieve.
What the last sentence says is that, at the time that (undated, probably
older) article was written you could buy GSM base stations big enough to
handle 162 simultaneous calls per sector, while the TDMA base stations you
could buy would only support 30 simultaneous calls per sector, i.e. you
could buy really good GSM equipment but the TDMA stuff is crappy. It is
discussing equipment performance rather than some fundamental property
of the sharing scheme and modulation, and it says nothing at all about
the thing we were discussing, which is how much bandwidth each of those
calls occupies, i.e. spectral efficiency.
I'll say it again. GSM gets up to 8 calls in a 200 kHz channel, or
25 kHz per call. TDMA gets (got) up to 3 calls in a 30 kHz channel, or
10 kHz per call. The spectral efficiency of TDMA is hence 2.5 times
greater than GSM, and 3 times greater than AMPS. If you want to dispute
those numbers you've really got to explain why, not come up with quotes on
other topics and pretend they have something to do with it.
If they'd continued development on TDMA gear I'm sure that by now they'd
have equipment that could carry 500 Erlangs per sector. It doesn't matter,
they didn't do that and that isn't the topic anyway.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:22:49 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrneus4v8.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>[SNIP]
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:606ru2pcq0rfdve
8ft83pi3nj7u82oe3o1@
4ax.com:
\
> AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset --
> carriers are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy
> the spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both
> their actions and their words.
>
Anything to back that up, like a quote or press release? Of course not-
you're making it up.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On 2007-03-07, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:22:49 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
><slrneus4v8.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Fine, as long as it is clear this is the sum total of your argument. You've
not said anything that disagrees with me other than that you disagree.
I can't argue with that.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Anything to back that up, like a quote or press release? Of course not-
> you're making it up.
Standard Navas procedure.
In any case, urban AMPS will likely be shut down as Dennis stated, with
RIP (retire in place) since no carrier is going to waste resources
rolling a truck out to every tower to disable a service that at worst is
not being used, and at best is providing some roaming revenue.
In rural areas the situation is different.
"But experts say that even after the FCC law expires in 2008, not all
wireless providers will drop AMPS coverage in rural areas just because
they can. Most likely, they will have a solid business case for keeping
AMPS service in rural areas.
In general, our expectation is that in urban areas, AMPS will be turned
off, says Bob Schoenfield, senior vice president of business development
for Aeris.net. In rural areas and highways, the smaller regional
carriers will continue to carry AMPS for another few years (beyond
2008). There are economical reasons to do that."
This is from "http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=51944"
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:42:08 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrneus63f.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-03-07, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Fine, as long as it is clear this is the sum total of your argument. You've
>not said anything that disagrees with me other than that you disagree.
Again, we'll just have to disagree.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:42:02 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45ee1870$0$27188$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>Standard Navas procedure.
Pot ... kettle ... black. ;)
>In any case, urban AMPS will likely be shut down as Dennis stated, with
>RIP (retire in place) since no carrier is going to waste resources
>rolling a truck out to every tower to disable a service that at worst is
>not being used, and at best is providing some roaming revenue.
Carriers will actually most likely turn AMPS off, whether hardware is
left in place or not -- there's no business case for a failing network.
>In rural areas the situation is different.
Not really.
>"But experts say that even after the FCC law expires in 2008, not all
>wireless providers will drop AMPS coverage in rural areas just because
>they can. Most likely, they will have a solid business case for keeping
>AMPS service in rural areas.
>
>In general, our expectation is that in urban areas, AMPS will be turned
>off, says Bob Schoenfield, senior vice president of business development
>for Aeris.net. In rural areas and highways, the smaller regional
>carriers will continue to carry AMPS for another few years (beyond
>2008). There are economical reasons to do that."
>
>This is from "http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=51944"
Wishful thinking by a few users. Carriers have already announced plans
to rapidly phase out AMPS, and prudent users (e.g., AlarmNet, OnStar)
are moving to meet the sunset date.
Best you could do? At least you've finally posted a URL, so that's
progress of a sort. Try a carrier citation net time. If you can find
one.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> John, I get the feeling you are grasping a bit.
Welcome to the Cingular World of John Navas.
When backed into a corner, he's obfuscates his original post to back pedal.
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:21:43 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <HZrHh.10081$tD2.3045@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"
You are of course free to make whatever baseless accusations you want.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:20:58 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <_YrHh.10080$tD2.68@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>Welcome to the Cingular World of John Navas.
>
>When backed into a corner, he's obfuscates his original post to back pedal.
Does being a jerk come naturally, or do you have to work at it?
Enquiring minds want to know.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> What telephone company (by name)? I don't know of any that do that,
> except perhaps for tiny locals.
Often used by Southwestern Bell and by de facto all other BOCs.
Of course you don't know, you never worked in the industry like I have,
much less for "The Company", a term used in their publications to refer to
themselves.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:25:43 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <r1sHh.10084$tD2.1256@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Often used by Southwestern Bell and by de facto all other BOCs.
Yet again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Of course you don't know, you never worked in the industry like I have,
>much less for "The Company", a term used in their publications to refer to
>themselves.
Yet again you would be misinformed.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:20:58 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
> wrote in <_YrHh.10080$tD2.68@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> Does being a jerk come naturally, or do you have to work at it?
> Enquiring minds want to know.
I learned it from you, pumpkin.
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:25:43 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
> wrote in <r1sHh.10084$tD2.1256@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> Yet again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Yet again, your standard reply when someone happens to know something that
you don't know..
>
> Yet again you would be misinformed.
Am I going to have to look for my prized "Notes on the Network" and scan
the pages that say that?
You have heard of that book, right?
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> Am I going to have to look for my prized "Notes on the Network" and scan
> the pages that say that?
>
> You have heard of that book, right?
Delivering telephone directories is his concept of "working in the
industry."
My first job out of college was working in for an operating company
(GTE). My first assignment was debugging a timing problem in Strowger
switches that was causing pay phones in Orange County to refund coins,
rather than collect them, after a completed call. Unfortunately, there
was no solution, other than to wait for the few remaining Strowger
switches to be replaced (this was in the 1980's).
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-03-07, 12:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:94tru2pftqudcht
lhb3fag9jtfocom7rsr@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:12:57 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
> wrote in <JHlHh.124573$_73.104713@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> What telephone company (by name)? I don't know of any that do that,
> except perhaps for tiny locals.
BellSouth and AT&T for two. Of course those may be "tiny locals" in your
world.
Don
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> BellSouth and AT&T for two. Of course those may be "tiny locals" in your
> world.
GTE used to do it as well. I presume that now that Verizon has the GTE
locals that they do the same thing.
I remember when I worked for GTE, one of the employees, very dedicated
apparently, came in with his vacation pictures. He had driven across the
U.S. and Canada in his RV, and had taken pictures of the outdoor mounted
GTE Lenkurt transmission equipment along the route. I worked for the
division that made digital switches, transmission equipment and digital
radios. It was quite an operation in San Carlos, we even made our own
transformers, inductors, and capacitors. Alas, with deregulation we lost
our captive GTE operating company customers, and that was the end of that.
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> Translation: "I can't Google for any citations to back up my statement"
LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
"agree to disagree" schtick.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45ef42ae$0$27203$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DTC wrote:
>
>LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
>entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
>to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
>"agree to disagree" schtick.
Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations (instead
of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested in wasting
more time on a silly pissing content. Have a nice day.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>
>
> Delivering telephone directories is his concept of "working in the
> industry."
ROFL...ok, that brought some brightness to my day and a laugh.
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> Am I going to have to look for my prized "Notes on the Network" and scan
> the pages that say that?
>
> You have heard of that book, right?
Hint...it was a baby blue one and a half inch thick book with AT&T on the
cover.
Considered by hackers twenty plus years ago to be a very valuable resource.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>
> LOL. It goes get amusing to see people, not just Navas, base their
> entire knowledge of a subject on what little information they are able
> to Google. When confronted with the facts, they back down with the
> "agree to disagree" schtick.
Or obfuscate the thread such that no one can tell just what the hell is
being argued.
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45ef42ae$0$27203$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations (instead
> of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested in wasting
> more time on a silly pissing content.
Stop it, yer killing me!
Shall we start on your "authoritative citation" in which you quoted
yourself proving you experienced Extended GSM?
"I'm just not interested" is a variation of a phrase often heard on a
playground, as in "I'm taking my marbles and going home."
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-07, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-03-08, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45ef42ae$0$27203$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations (instead
> of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested in wasting
> more time on a silly pissing content. Have a nice day.
I would have been way more impressed if you'd come up with, say, this one:
http://www.rysavy.com/Articles/ GSM...
1802.pdf
The reason the digital services can support a much larger number of calls
in a given area than AMPS is that they can reuse the frequencies on
much more closely-spaced towers than AMPS can; apparently they can
even reuse the frequencies in different sectors on the same tower. To
avoid interference with AMPS, towers on the same frequencies have to be
spaced far enough apart that they can't hear each other's FM, but the
digital modes can deal with a significant amount of interference without
this effecting the user. More than this, apparently GSM has gone to variable
rate codecs and power control, like CDMA, to reduce interference, and
can also adaptively run at half-rate with two users sharing a time slot,
getting up to 16 calls in a 200 kHz channel.
None of this matters in rural areas where there is just as much
spectrum but way fewer people who need to be served in it, but now
I can see why they might want to dump AMPS in urban areas as soon
as possible since the difference in total system capacity is quite
large: about 16x AMPS according to page 14 above.
There'd be no pissing if you would produce information which actually
supported your assertion.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>
> Hint...it was a baby blue one and a half inch thick book with AT&T on
> the cover.
>
> Considered by hackers twenty plus years ago to be a very valuable resource.
Are you talking about the Blue Book, aka as the Bell System Technical
Journal from Bell Labs? It was where the MF signaling tones were first
disclosed, which led to all the phreaking with the Blue Boxes. An
Esquire article on phreaking revealed this little secret, and Oui
magazine also had them.
Ramparts (now Mother Jones), had an article on building a Black Box,
which was very simple, it was just a resistor, a capacitor, and a
pushbutton switch. It let you receive long distance calls at no cost to
the caller because it made it seem as if the called party never picked up.
Good article at
"http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/ the_merry_pranksters
_of_microcomputing.php"
with a great picture of Jobs and Wozniak.
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> Shall we start on your "authoritative citation" in which you quoted
> yourself proving you experienced Extended GSM?
You mean you can't create a fictional account of something that never
happened then turn around and cite your own story as proof? Ronald
Reagan used to do this all the time. He loved the fictional anecdote.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Are you talking about the Blue Book, aka as the Bell System Technical
> Journal from Bell Labs?
That's the one!
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scott 2007-03-10, 10:33 am |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:rumuu2tmctfc0nv
vmmrfr4rmlljtvqolfp@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:54:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45ef42ae$0$27203$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Not even a nice try. Having posted my authoritative citations
> (instead of making stuff up the way you do), I'm just not interested
> in wasting more time on a silly pissing content. Have a nice day.
>
You haven't posted anything authoritative in years. Copying a google link
and hoping that it is the answer doesn't qualify.
| |
|
|
| John McDonald 2007-03-15, 10:33 pm |
| The numbers in the MindWireless report are percentages. It is also
interesting that legacy AT&T wireless outpaced legacy Cingular.
"Karl" < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:jbntt2tjmp735ju
jl66pgs97t2f9m5m7u9@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:44:25 -0600, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>
> Absolute numbers is not the number anyone cares about, it's percentage
> of calls. T-Mobile advertises fewest dropped calls in Houston, and
> having the fewest customers, and therefore the fewest calls they may
> well be correct.
>
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|