|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > April 2007 > TDMA Shutdown
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]
|
|
| catalpa 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| BeyondWireless is telling customers that Cingular is shutting down the
entire TDMA network on March 31, 2008. Is Cingular telling TDMA customers
the same date for shutdown?
| |
|
| catalpa wrote:
> BeyondWireless is telling customers that Cingular is shutting down the
> entire TDMA network on March 31, 2008. Is Cingular telling TDMA customers
> the same date for shutdown?
>
>
I don't think Cing^H^H^H^H at&t is actively informing customers about
any hard date yet, but the FCC "must carry AMPS" rule sunsets in Feb
2008, and continuing to carry AMPS beyond that sunset date doesn't make
business sense.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| catalpa wrote:
> BeyondWireless is telling customers that Cingular is shutting down the
> entire TDMA network on March 31, 2008. Is Cingular telling TDMA customers
> the same date for shutdown?
I think Cingular was saying February 2008, but maybe they built in some
margin and Beyond Wireless is taking advantage of that. Cingular is also
planning to shut down AMPS at that time, at least all of AMPS that is
covered by GSM.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-18, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:40:17 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45fc0be2$0$27166$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>catalpa wrote:
>
>I think Cingular was saying February 2008, but maybe they built in some
>margin and Beyond Wireless is taking advantage of that. Cingular is also
>planning to shut down AMPS at that time, at least all of AMPS that is
>covered by GSM.
All of AMPS period.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-03-18, 10:33 am |
| On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:12:54 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:40:17 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in < 45fc0be2$0$27166$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>All of AMPS period.
I have a friend who got a letter from General Motors informing
them their Onstar Service will cease functioning after Dec. 31, 2007
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:12:54 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have a friend who got a letter from General Motors informing
> them their Onstar Service will cease functioning after Dec. 31, 2007
The new OnStar is CDMA, isn't there an option to change the system? Not
clear if AMPS is still part of OnStar for non-digital areas.
| |
|
| Jer wrote:
> I don't think Cing^H^H^H^H at&t is actively informing customers about
> any hard date yet, but the FCC "must carry AMPS" rule sunsets in Feb
> 2008, and continuing to carry AMPS beyond that sunset date doesn't make
> business sense.
There is currently a petition before the FCC to extend the AMPS sunset
date to 2010 because of concerns of all the automated equipment that
uses AMPS, such as security systems, as well as roadside call boxes.
Verizon and Cingular are opposed to an extension of course, and they
have more political clout than the companies and individuals that will
benefit from continued AMPS service. These companies and governments
have had plenty of time to switch their equipment out, so it's really a
stretch to think that the FCC will grant another extension.
In any case TDMA is history in early 2008, whether or not the carriers
keep AMPS on, either voluntarily or by law.
[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.]
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-03-18, 10:33 am |
| On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:46:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>The new OnStar is CDMA, isn't there an option to change the system? Not
>clear if AMPS is still part of OnStar for non-digital areas.
Onstar hasn't said BOO about an upgrade. You have an older system,
you're S.O.L.
Revised January 16, 2007
Important Information about the Analog-to-Digital Transition
OnStar service was launched in 1996 using proven analog technology,
which had the broadest geographic coverage of the available cellular
network alternatives at the time. Usage of analog technology enabled
us to evolve into the most comprehensive in-vehicle communications
provider offering safety, security and peace of mind to millions of
vehicle owners.
Because OnStar connected to the proven analog network, our technology
helped ensure that if an airbag deployed in the U.S. or Canada, the
vehicle would be connected using the cellular network with the largest
geographical coverage available. Since we signed up our first
subscriber in 1996, OnStar has assisted subscribers and others in more
than 3.5 million emergency situations, including airbag deployment
notifications, remote door unlock requests, roadside assistance, good
samaritan, and other emergency calls. We are proud of OnStar's
societal contribution, which not only has been widely recognized by
our subscribers, but by the emergency response and medical communities
as well.
However, based on a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling,
cellular carriers will not be required to support the analog cellular
network beginning in early 2008. Without the analog network, we can't
ensure the coverage that will allow us to provide subscribers, with
analog equipment, the services they expect from us. As a result,
beginning January 1, 2008, OnStar service in the United States and
Canada will be available only through vehicles that are capable of
operating on the digital cellular network.
We at OnStar sincerely regret that we will not be able to provide
OnStar service to vehicles with analog equipment after December 31,
2007. All OnStar subscribers affected by this change will receive a
letter from OnStar that outlines how this affects their service.
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2007-03-18, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:01:50 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>I have a friend who got a letter from General Motors informing
>them their Onstar Service will cease functioning after Dec. 31, 2007
Yup. I got one too.
Best,
Bob
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>
> There is currently a petition before the FCC to extend the AMPS sunset
> date to 2010 because of concerns of all the automated equipment that
> uses AMPS, such as security systems, as well as roadside call boxes.
> Verizon and Cingular are opposed to an extension of course, and they
> have more political clout than the companies and individuals that will
> benefit from continued AMPS service. These companies and governments
> have had plenty of time to switch their equipment out, so it's really a
> stretch to think that the FCC will grant another extension.
>
> In any case TDMA is history in early 2008, whether or not the carriers
> keep AMPS on, either voluntarily or by law.
>
I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
to the procrastinators? Doing so will keep them as a client, thereby
preserving the contract relationships, and still convert the AMPS
spectrum to service those same contracts. Considering all the business
costs of keeping AMPS, my Cing^H^H^H^H at&t buds tell me their company
is salivating at the idea of turning it off, finger already poised above
the off switch and watching the second hand on the clock.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:46:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Onstar hasn't said BOO about an upgrade. You have an older system,
> you're S.O.L.
>
> Revised January 16, 2007
>
> Important Information about the Analog-to-Digital Transition
> OnStar service was launched in 1996 using proven analog technology,
> which had the broadest geographic coverage of the available cellular
> network alternatives at the time. Usage of analog technology enabled
> us to evolve into the most comprehensive in-vehicle communications
> provider offering safety, security and peace of mind to millions of
> vehicle owners.
>
> Because OnStar connected to the proven analog network, our technology
> helped ensure that if an airbag deployed in the U.S. or Canada, the
> vehicle would be connected using the cellular network with the largest
> geographical coverage available. Since we signed up our first
> subscriber in 1996, OnStar has assisted subscribers and others in more
> than 3.5 million emergency situations, including airbag deployment
> notifications, remote door unlock requests, roadside assistance, good
> samaritan, and other emergency calls. We are proud of OnStar's
> societal contribution, which not only has been widely recognized by
> our subscribers, but by the emergency response and medical communities
> as well.
>
> However, based on a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling,
> cellular carriers will not be required to support the analog cellular
> network beginning in early 2008. Without the analog network, we can't
> ensure the coverage that will allow us to provide subscribers, with
> analog equipment, the services they expect from us. As a result,
> beginning January 1, 2008, OnStar service in the United States and
> Canada will be available only through vehicles that are capable of
> operating on the digital cellular network.
>
> We at OnStar sincerely regret that we will not be able to provide
> OnStar service to vehicles with analog equipment after December 31,
> 2007. All OnStar subscribers affected by this change will receive a
> letter from OnStar that outlines how this affects their service.
Have they not offered even one word about what their AMPS clients can do
- other than 'see ya'? I'm not an OS client, but surely there's some
plan for preserving their service beyond the magic moment.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-03-18, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:49:21 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>Have they not offered even one word about what their AMPS clients can do
>- other than 'see ya'? I'm not an OS client, but surely there's some
>plan for preserving their service beyond the magic moment.
Further surfing the Onstar online FAQ gives this "SEE YA" message:
Q: Why can't a GM vehicle's analog-only equipment be upgraded?
A: Nearly 90 percent of OnStar subscribers driving GM vehicles are
either capable of operating on the digital cellular network or can be
upgraded to operate on the digital cellular network. When General
Motors and OnStar learned that the FCC would allow cellular service
providers to discontinue providing analog cellular service in 2008, we
engineered digital capable upgrade kits to be compatible with most
electrical systems found in vehicles previously produced by General
Motors. Unfortunately, digital capable upgrade kits were not created
for a small percentage of earlier GM models due to significant
differences in their electrical systems.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:49:21 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Further surfing the Onstar online FAQ gives this "SEE YA" message:
>
> Q: Why can't a GM vehicle's analog-only equipment be upgraded?
> A: Nearly 90 percent of OnStar subscribers driving GM vehicles are
> either capable of operating on the digital cellular network or can be
> upgraded to operate on the digital cellular network. When General
> Motors and OnStar learned that the FCC would allow cellular service
> providers to discontinue providing analog cellular service in 2008, we
> engineered digital capable upgrade kits to be compatible with most
> electrical systems found in vehicles previously produced by General
> Motors. Unfortunately, digital capable upgrade kits were not created
> for a small percentage of earlier GM models due to significant
> differences in their electrical systems.
Okay, so around 10% will be left in the dust, so upgrading the vehicle
will be their only option. :(
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-03-18, 10:33 pm |
| I would say It's going to be like cell service.
By the unit at a discounted rate and be in a contract for 2 or more years.
Onstar is going to have to give in somewhere. There not going to risk
the lost of all the customers that can't upgrade. That would spell doom
for onstar if they did.
Jer wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
> Okay, so around 10% will be left in the dust, so upgrading the vehicle
> will be their only option. :(
>
| |
| jeremy 2007-03-19, 4:33 am |
| "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in message
news:78mLh.14377$FG1.12091@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>I would say It's going to be like cell service.
> By the unit at a discounted rate and be in a contract for 2 or more years.
>
> Onstar is going to have to give in somewhere. There not going to risk the
> lost of all the customers that can't upgrade. That would spell doom for
> onstar if they did.
>
>
OnStar is not in a position to give in. They do not operate the cellular
networks. If AMPS is turned off, OnStar suffers just as their customers do.
As I understand it, AMPS operates at higher power, and has the potential to
offer better coverage than do digital PCS networks. Even if OnStar converts
everyone to digital there is the probability that there will be major
coverage gaps, especially in less-populated areas.
Of course, there is the chance that public outcry will be so loud, once AMPS
is shut down and large groups of users find that they have inadequate
coverage (or no coverage at all) that the FCC may recant. I anticipate an
uproar once people lose their AMPS service. Time will tell.
| |
| jeremy 2007-03-19, 4:33 am |
| < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:pdiqv29qcgq0cdk
bekai7mlblmh05bpmi4@
4ax.com...
>
> Onstar hasn't said BOO about an upgrade. You have an older system,
> you're S.O.L.
>
OnStar should not have to absorb the cost of migrating analog users to
digital. They did not make the decision to shut off AMPS.
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> OnStar should not have to absorb the cost of migrating analog users to
> digital. They did not make the decision to shut off AMPS.
Still, at $17/month, maybe there's an incentive for OnStar to absorb the
cost. Unfortunately, one of the big attractions of OnStar was that it
worked "in the boonies," and without AMPS the coverage will worsen. At
least they went with CDMA to maximize the digital coverage.
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> Of course, there is the chance that public outcry will be so loud, once AMPS
> is shut down and large groups of users find that they have inadequate
> coverage (or no coverage at all) that the FCC may recant. I anticipate an
> uproar once people lose their AMPS service. Time will tell.
They won't recant, but there's a chance that they will extend the
shutdown date.
| |
|
| Jer wrote:
> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
> to the procrastinators?
It's not that simple. It's not a question of the cost, it's that in many
cases there is just not equivalent digital equipment available for the
specialized applications. They had sufficient notice to design such
equipment, but now they're claiming that the equipment either won't be
ready, or that they can't replace all the AMPS stuff in time.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> However, based on a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling,
> cellular carriers will not be required to support the analog cellular
> network beginning in early 2008. Without the analog network, we can't
> ensure the coverage that will allow us to provide subscribers, with
> analog equipment, the services they expect from us. As a result,
> beginning January 1, 2008, OnStar service in the United States and
> Canada will be available only through vehicles that are capable of
> operating on the digital cellular network.
Have they ever mentioned whether the newer system is CDMA-only, or
CDMA/AMPS? Without AMPS, you lose a lot of the geographical coverage so
for people that travel on rural routes the value would be greatly
diminished.
| |
| Tinman 2007-03-19, 10:33 am |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45fe24e1$0$2721
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>
> Still, at $17/month, maybe there's an incentive for OnStar to absorb the
> cost. Unfortunately, one of the big attractions of OnStar was that it
> worked "in the boonies," and without AMPS the coverage will worsen.
Maybe some of those people who lock their keys in their vehicles in BFE will
realize it ain't exactly the end of the world. Might even figure out that
with 10+ windows in the 'ol SUV there *is* another way to get in. <g>
--
Mike
| |
| jeremy 2007-03-19, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45fe286a$0$2721
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jer wrote:
>
>
> It's not that simple. It's not a question of the cost, it's that in many
> cases there is just not equivalent digital equipment available for the
> specialized applications. They had sufficient notice to design such
> equipment, but now they're claiming that the equipment either won't be
> ready, or that they can't replace all the AMPS stuff in time.
Digital requires more towers than AMPS. The mere fact that one switches
over to digital does not guarantee the same level of reliable coverage,
especially in outlying areas. For OnStar, AMPS was a better choice, and
their ability to provide service will be diminished in many areas.
| |
|
| Jer wrote:
> Seems like the choice of AMPS only of AMPS/CDMA would be a decision for
> the carrier rather than GM. But I could be wrong.
Onstar roams onto different carriers, it's the nature of the beast to be
able to use just about any available compatible network.
| |
| Kevin K 2007-03-21, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:39:43 UTC, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
> GPS is one-way receive, OS uses a two-way interactive data link, and
> doing the same thing on a sat channel would be $$$.
>
I did state that the hardware costs would have been higher. But, in
the rare cases that Satellite was the only thing available, emergency
calls would still have been available. And the average bill probably
wouldn't have had to go up much, since most people would be making
calls from cellular areas. People abusing the system could have had a
higher rate plan, similar to people who roam too much now.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:13:41 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in
<9_oLh.8573$282.5653@trndny04>:
>As I understand it, AMPS operates at higher power, and has the potential to
>offer better coverage than do digital PCS networks. Even if OnStar converts
>everyone to digital there is the probability that there will be major
>coverage gaps, especially in less-populated areas.
Not true (on both counts).
>Of course, there is the chance that public outcry will be so loud, once AMPS
>is shut down and large groups of users find that they have inadequate
>coverage (or no coverage at all) that the FCC may recant. I anticipate an
>uproar once people lose their AMPS service.
I seriously doubt it (on both counts).
>Time will tell.
As always.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Bill Radio 2007-03-22, 10:33 pm |
| In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
have usable analog.
-Bill Radio
-Cellular Reviews and News at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com
>
> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment to
> the procrastinators?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
| On 2007-03-22, Bill Radio < wireless@mountainwir
elessNOOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
> equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
> coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
> have usable analog.
>
It is true they had GSM equipment, and found GSM coverage didn't match analog,
but they also said there was no available CDMA hardware that they could use
so they couldn't get service in places where the AMPS operator was CDMA.
And they only wanted to use 850 MHz operators too, which probably limited
them further.
It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.
Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog. This included
AT&T Wireless which, I'm pretty sure, has analog(/TDMA?) towers in the vicinity
of 94020 with no GSM coverage showing on their coverage map or detectable
on a phone, so I think they told a bit of a fib. Verizon reported that
in their in-person meeting with FCC people they were asked about higher
power phones for rural areas (they didn't report how they answered), which
maybe suggests people at the FCC might not think 200 mW CDMA is quite up
to the coverage of full-power AMPS, despite the company's protestations
otherwise.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
> cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
> users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
> 2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.
Pretty strange. Most of the time I'm using AMPS it's in rural areas,
though I've also used Cingular AMPS in Florida and Verizon AMPS in the
Bay Area.
> Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
> their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog.
Their definition of identical coverage is that every analog tower also
has digital equipment. This does not make the coverage identical.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:47:15 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45fd34d7$0$27215$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jer wrote:
>
>
>There is currently a petition before the FCC to extend the AMPS sunset
>date to 2010 because of concerns of all the automated equipment that
>uses AMPS, such as security systems, as well as roadside call boxes.
Actually been going on for the past several years. The FCC has shown no
>Verizon and Cingular are opposed to an extension of course, and they
>have more political clout than the companies and individuals that will
>benefit from continued AMPS service. These companies and governments
>have had plenty of time to switch their equipment out, so it's really a
>stretch to think that the FCC will grant another extension.
Indeed, simply because there's no good reason for further government
interference -- politics have nothing to do with it.
>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service.]
Please stop this crap -- you're just polluting alt.cellular.attws with
unhelpful thread fragments.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:59:26 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in
<iBELh.7712$dG.3332@trndny08>:
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45fe286a$0$2721
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>Digital requires more towers than AMPS. ...
Digital is actually capable of the same coverage as AMPS.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:31:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45ff1d63$0$27155$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>jeremy wrote:
>
>
>Yes, an AMPS shutdown greatly reduces the appeal of On-Star. ...
Actually not -- digital OnStar works as well or better.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:13:35 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45ff6d82$0$27194$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jer wrote:
>
>
>Onstar roams onto different carriers, it's the nature of the beast to be
>able to use just about any available compatible network.
No more or less than any other cellular service.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
|
| Bill Radio wrote:
> In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
> equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
> coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
> have usable analog.
I guess that they'll have to go to satellite service if AMPS goes away.
I just saw that REI is now selling satellite phones, the ultimate
backpacking accessory.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:56:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4603dca9$0$27203$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Bill Radio wrote:
>
>I guess that they'll have to go to satellite service if AMPS goes away.
Or engineer better hardware (instead of making lame excuses).
>I just saw that REI is now selling satellite phones, the ultimate
>backpacking accessory.
Too old to qualify. PLB better fits the category of ultimate
backpacking accessory.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-23, 12:33 pm |
| On 2007-03-23, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
> Pretty strange. Most of the time I'm using AMPS it's in rural areas,
> though I've also used Cingular AMPS in Florida and Verizon AMPS in the
> Bay Area.
It makes sense if you realize their main concern is not really coverage,
but rather the number of analog radios they need to replace with digital
by 2008. If there are hardly any customers in rural areas then there are
only a small number of radios which need to be replaced.
>
> Their definition of identical coverage is that every analog tower also
> has digital equipment. This does not make the coverage identical.
Actually their definition seems to be that the usable signal contours
are identical (US Cellular said this explicitly).
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> It makes sense if you realize their main concern is not really coverage,
> but rather the number of analog radios they need to replace with digital
> by 2008. If there are hardly any customers in rural areas then there are
> only a small number of radios which need to be replaced.
Yeah, looking at it from the view of ADT that makes sense. I guess they
just drop those rural customers, or tell them that they only get land
line connectivity.
> Actually their definition seems to be that the usable signal contours
> are identical (US Cellular said this explicitly).
Then they are not being truthful, at least if Verizon and Cingular are
claiming this. I have direct experience that contradicts that claim.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-23, 3:35 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:01:59 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46040816$0$27166$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
[restoring some parts you snipped]
It is.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
Correct. Worth repeating. All other things being equal, AMPS and
digital have the same coverage.
[color=darkred]
>Then they are not being truthful, at least if Verizon and Cingular are
>claiming this. I have direct experience that contradicts that claim.
That "direct experience" is directly contradicted not only by Verizon
coverage maps, but also by how these radios actually work.
The only way you get more range with AMPS versus digital (assuming
you're not just making things up) is by comparing apples and oranges,
either mobile devices with much different power and/or antennas, or
coverage in areas with one service but not the other.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jud Hardcastle 2007-03-23, 10:33 pm |
| In article < t04803lenfq4sn0q4d2u
f2vqgjda9nsf75@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> Correct. Worth repeating. All other things being equal, AMPS and
> digital have the same coverage.
>
>
> That "direct experience" is directly contradicted not only by Verizon
> coverage maps, but also by how these radios actually work.
>
> The only way you get more range with AMPS versus digital (assuming
> you're not just making things up) is by comparing apples and oranges,
> either mobile devices with much different power and/or antennas, or
> coverage in areas with one service but not the other.
>
>
But in this case we NEED to compare apples and oranges *IF* OnStar and
ADT and other fixed AMPS users ARE USING 3 WATT UNITS and they most
likely are. 3 watt AMPS transceivers with external antennas *DO* have a
larger coverage area than low power digital units--there is no way you
can deny that.
Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
And many times there was only the ONE tower involved--AMPS and TDMA were
clearly coming from the same tower/same carrier/both 8xx mhz--but the
AMPS connected further out. You can quote theory all day long but in
practice *something* allowed the same low power handset to connect to
AMPS at distances where it could not connect TDMA. Maybe it's a case of
digital dropping a weak signal where analog allowed it as a noisy call.
But it's was definately happening--and too often to be an isolated case.
And no doubt still is.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
| |
|
| Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
> thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
> back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
> digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
I have the same experience with Verizon and a tri-band phone. Most
recently (Monday) it was in San Benito county. I was traveling with
someone that had a Verizon all-digital PDA phone. He lost all coverage
about 20 miles sooner than I did with my tri-band. The coverage map
showed "Roaming or No Service." On the way back, I got a signal back
about 20 miles sooner than he did. There was no GSM coverage.
What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater, even
on a low power handset, and on coverage maps they will always show
digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing the
additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
As you stated, there's a big difference between being "officially
covered by digital" and actually being covered by digital.
One down side of all the AMPS coverage that I've found while hiking and
bicycling in the Bay Area is that my phone will switch to AMPS without
warning, and in a couple of hours the battery is dead. I have to
remember to turn it off when not in use, unless I'm expecting a call.
[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.]
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-23, 10:33 pm |
| At 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700 SMS wrote:
> What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater,
> even on a low power handset, and on coverage maps they will always
> show digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing
> the additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
Maybe CDMA is an entirely different beast, butin a decade with TDMA on
Cingular, AT&TWS (and now both!) a phone TELLING you it has AMPS
coverage, and the ability to actually make or receive a call are entirely
different things. It's been pretty rare that I has enough signal to
actually make a call when the "D" for digital indicator disappeared from
my TDMA phones (unless I was roaming on a non-TDMA carrier like Verizon
and had no TDMA coverage but lots of signal.)
So a lot of this AMPS coverage you speak of is likely unusable service.
An, in my experience (again, with TDMA) I've never seen a tower lose
digital signal 20 miles before the analog service craps out, and that
includes service in rural Kansas and Nebraska. I have to believe you
were analog roaming on some partner's service that your friend's PRL
denied him access to.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>
> Maybe CDMA is an entirely different beast, butin a decade with TDMA on
> Cingular, AT&TWS (and now both!) a phone TELLING you it has AMPS
> coverage, and the ability to actually make or receive a call are entirely
> different things. It's been pretty rare that I has enough signal to
> actually make a call when the "D" for digital indicator disappeared from
> my TDMA phones (unless I was roaming on a non-TDMA carrier like Verizon
> and had no TDMA coverage but lots of signal.)
>
> So a lot of this AMPS coverage you speak of is likely unusable service.
I've often made calls on the AMPS service, including in Tilden Park
(above Berkeley), Sanborn County Park, along the far northern California
coast between Fort Bragg and Mendocino, as well as along highway 88
between Kirkwood and Lake Tahoe.
I didn't try making a call on Monday when I was down in San Benito
County, so I don't know if it would have gone through or not.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-24, 3:33 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:23:38 -0500, Jud Hardcastle
< I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
<MPG. 206e0f64963439009899
c4@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>:
>In article < t04803lenfq4sn0q4d2u
f2vqgjda9nsf75@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...
>But in this case we NEED to compare apples and oranges *IF* OnStar and
>ADT and other fixed AMPS users ARE USING 3 WATT UNITS and they most
>likely are.
I doubt that, but then the relevant comparison would be high-power GSM
units.
>3 watt AMPS transceivers with external antennas *DO* have a
>larger coverage area than low power digital units--there is no way you
>can deny that.
Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
>thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
>back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
>digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
That's probably a function of not all legacy AMPS towers having been
augmented with digital coverage. In many cases digital was only added
on roads and in other high-demand areas, leaving some other towers as
AMPS-only. Now that AMPS will soon go away, and also due to increasing
digital demand, digital coverage is being added to more legacy AMPS
towers.
>And many times there was only the ONE tower involved--AMPS and TDMA were
>clearly coming from the same tower/same carrier/both 8xx mhz--but the
>AMPS connected further out.
Only with legacy high-power AMPS phones, so-called bag phones, car
phones, and old large and heavy handsets. In an apples to apples
comparison of current small low-power handsets, range is comparable.
>You can quote theory all day long but in
>practice *something* allowed the same low power handset to connect to
>AMPS at distances where it could not connect TDMA. Maybe it's a case of
>digital dropping a weak signal where analog allowed it as a noisy call.
>But it's was definately happening--and too often to be an isolated case.
>And no doubt still is.
Not at the same low power levels. Modern digital systems with robust
codecs are actually capable of delivering a usable call at weaker signal
levels than AMPS.
If you've got any real evidence to the contrary, of AMPS having
significantly more range than digital at comparable power levels (and
antennas), then by all means post it.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:bcoa03h38i3p8p2
bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@
4ax.com:
>
> Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>
Resorting to vaporware again, Johnny? No proof of any "high-power" GSM
units in use in this country. You've been asked for proof countless times
and have yet to provide any.
Why don't you try to stay within the realm of reality for a change. We
really don't care about the technology available on your home planet- only
things that apply here need to be discussed.
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-03-24, 3:33 pm |
|
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:23:38 -0500, Jud Hardcastle
> < I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
> <MPG. 206e0f64963439009899
c4@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> I doubt that, but then the relevant comparison would be high-power GSM
> units.
>
>
>
> Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>
>
Where are these high power GSM Units ?
>
> That's probably a function of not all legacy AMPS towers having been
> augmented with digital coverage. In many cases digital was only added
> on roads and in other high-demand areas, leaving some other towers as
> AMPS-only. Now that AMPS will soon go away, and also due to increasing
> digital demand, digital coverage is being added to more legacy AMPS
> towers.
>
>
>
> Only with legacy high-power AMPS phones, so-called bag phones, car
> phones, and old large and heavy handsets. In an apples to apples
> comparison of current small low-power handsets, range is comparable.
>
>
>
> Not at the same low power levels. Modern digital systems with robust
> codecs are actually capable of delivering a usable call at weaker signal
> levels than AMPS.
>
> If you've got any real evidence to the contrary, of AMPS having
> significantly more range than digital at comparable power levels (and
> antennas), then by all means post it.
>
>
| |
|
|
|
| Motorola makes a high powered GSM Bag Phone and a higher than normal power
handset phone (Non Flip)
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:z_ednVh1kMu29Jj
bnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:bcoa03h38i3p8p2
bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@
4ax.com:
>
>
>
> Resorting to vaporware again, Johnny? No proof of any "high-power" GSM
> units in use in this country. You've been asked for proof countless times
> and have yet to provide any.
>
> Why don't you try to stay within the realm of reality for a change. We
> really don't care about the technology available on your home planet- only
> things that apply here need to be discussed.
>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46045689$0$27221$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
>
>I have the same experience with Verizon and a tri-band phone. Most
>recently (Monday) it was in San Benito county. I was traveling with
>someone that had a Verizon all-digital PDA phone. He lost all coverage
>about 20 miles sooner than I did with my tri-band. The coverage map
>showed "Roaming or No Service." On the way back, I got a signal back
>about 20 miles sooner than he did. There was no GSM coverage.
You really are a piece of work, Steven -- you rant about Bay Area
coverage, but go far afield to try and discredit GSM -- San Benito
County isn't in what most people think of as the Bay Area.
That said, your claims (as usual) simply don't hold up:
* Verizon's coverage map
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...ntr
oller> shows
_no_ areas of analog-only coverage in that area.
* Cingular's coverage map <http://cingular.com/coverageviewer> shows
digital (GSM) coverage through most of that area.
My own experience in that area is consistent with the coverage maps, not
your claims.
>What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater, even
>on a low power handset,
Range is actually comparable.
>and on coverage maps they will always show
>digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing the
>additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
The coverage map actually shows AMPS only areas.
>As you stated, there's a big difference between being "officially
>covered by digital" and actually being covered by digital.
Not true.
>[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.]
You are badly mangling that newsgroup with these rude partial threads,
shooting yourself in the foot.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| Indeed. And there are amps that can be used with low-power handsets.
Scott is one of the very few posters worth filtering out -- he almost
never posts anything of any value -- just the same old same old childish
attacks.
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:52:06 -0400, "Chuck" <Chuckk2nospam@cox.net>
wrote in <SbgNh.147838$_w.24530@newsfe13.lga>:
[color=darkred]
>Motorola makes a high powered GSM Bag Phone and a higher than normal power
>handset phone (Non Flip)
>"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:z_ednVh1kMu29Jj
bnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:26:06 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eu1tpa$8fg$1@aioe.org>:
>At 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>
>Maybe CDMA is an entirely different beast, butin a decade with TDMA on
>Cingular, AT&TWS (and now both!) a phone TELLING you it has AMPS
>coverage, and the ability to actually make or receive a call are entirely
>different things. It's been pretty rare that I has enough signal to
>actually make a call when the "D" for digital indicator disappeared from
>my TDMA phones (unless I was roaming on a non-TDMA carrier like Verizon
>and had no TDMA coverage but lots of signal.)
>
>So a lot of this AMPS coverage you speak of is likely unusable service.
>An, in my experience (again, with TDMA) I've never seen a tower lose
>digital signal 20 miles before the analog service craps out, and that
>includes service in rural Kansas and Nebraska. I have to believe you
>were analog roaming on some partner's service that your friend's PRL
>denied him access to.
Either Steven has a very very old phone, or he just makes it up.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:46:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46049f0d$0$27245$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
For the record, you keep making that claim (like other claims) without
anything at all to back it up, so it just can't be taken seriously.
[color=darkred]
In fact AMPS-only areas _are_ shown on the coverage maps.
[color=darkred]
>
>I've often made calls on the AMPS service, including in Tilden Park
>(above Berkeley), Sanborn County Park, along the far northern California
>coast between Fort Bragg and Mendocino, as well as along highway 88
>between Kirkwood and Lake Tahoe.
Those claims don't hold up to Verizon's own coverage maps.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| On 2007-03-24, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:bcoa03h38i3p8p2
bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@
4ax.com:
>
> Resorting to vaporware again, Johnny? No proof of any "high-power" GSM
> units in use in this country. You've been asked for proof countless times
> and have yet to provide any.
I have inlaws in San Angelo, Texas, and my wife says you can actually buy
an M900 bag phone (2W GSM) here:
http://www.westcentral.com
The M800 bag phones sold in the US appear not to be high power, but
I noticed the Bell Mobility vendor in my home town in Canada, here:
http://www.neilnet.com
is selling what they claim to be full power CDMA phones.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Jud Hardcastle 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| In article < bcoa03h38i3p8p2bo0va
b67jp2batrc5to@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> That's probably a function of not all legacy AMPS towers having been
> augmented with digital coverage. In many cases digital was only added
> on roads and in other high-demand areas, leaving some other towers as
> AMPS-only. Now that AMPS will soon go away, and also due to increasing
> digital demand, digital coverage is being added to more legacy AMPS
> towers.
Nope, see next sentence.
I knew these towns very well--and in a few cases the people operating
the cellular system. Usually there was ONE repeat ONE tall rural tower
serving the entire area--most often the cellular antennas about half way
up the local cable TV tower. Only after they started the GSM conversion
have they slowing been adding additional towers. By the way, in all the
time down there I never saw a bag phone but every handset I bothered to
ask about was TDMA/AMPS.[color=darkred]
>
> Only with legacy high-power AMPS phones, so-called bag phones, car
> phones, and old large and heavy handsets. In an apples to apples
> comparison of current small low-power handsets, range is comparable.
>
>
No again. Same 6340i handheld. Depending on which vehicle I was in,
sometimes alone in a cupholder, sometimes in a Nokia handsfree cradle
that added an external antenna but no power boost. All the carkit did
was move the changeover further out. Haven't had a carkit with booster
since my Startac days (except now with the RV and that's via a Signal
Reach active booster paired to a Wilson trucker antenna at the top of a
22' telescoping mast--since getting that rig I've been able to go GSM-
only).
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:56:36 -0500, Jud Hardcastle
< I5i5changethistodash
5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
<MPG. 206f68a0f97adaa99899
c5@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>:
>In article < bcoa03h38i3p8p2bo0va
b67jp2batrc5to@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...
>
>Nope, see next sentence.
Your disagreement is noted, but I nonetheless stand by what I wrote, as
further explained below.
>
>I knew these towns very well--and in a few cases the people operating
>the cellular system. Usually there was ONE repeat ONE tall rural tower
>serving the entire area--most often the cellular antennas about half way
>up the local cable TV tower. Only after they started the GSM conversion
>have they slowing been adding additional towers. By the way, in all the
>time down there I never saw a bag phone but every handset I bothered to
>ask about was TDMA/AMPS.
Checking such things is a difficult and tricky business -- you can't
simply assume you know about all towers and how they are configured --
it's all to easy to be mistaken, and even seemingly small differences
can result in major variations in results. For example, one tower
I checked originally had an essentially omni AMPS antenna pattern, but
digital was added with sector antennas that resulted, as compared to
AMPS, in much improved signal in certain directions (along major roads),
but reduced signal in other directions. The bottom line was a clear
difference in results that wasn't related to any difference between AMPS
and digital. I've discussed this with several experienced field techs,
and their takes are essentially the same as mine. Also, I note that you
(like Steven) haven't supported your claim with authoritative citations.
If there really is such a difference, it would undoubtedly be easy to
find in the literature.
>No again. Same 6340i handheld. Depending on which vehicle I was in,
>sometimes alone in a cupholder, sometimes in a Nokia handsfree cradle
>that added an external antenna but no power boost. All the carkit did
>was move the changeover further out. Haven't had a carkit with booster
>since my Startac days (except now with the RV and that's via a Signal
>Reach active booster paired to a Wilson trucker antenna at the top of a
>22' telescoping mast--since getting that rig I've been able to go GSM-
>only).
That your 6340i got a better AMPS signal is easily explained by factors
other than technology, as I explain above.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:du3b035ps54ri3r
hp2nq76880k8iv6fk0u@
4ax.com:
> Indeed. And there are amps that can be used with low-power handsets.
Indeed, but the bagphone is not for sale by any major US GSM provider and
the "amps" that you talk about are available on all platforms and provide
limited value. Try again, Novice.
>
> Scott is one of the very few posters worth filtering out -- he almost
> never posts anything of any value -- just the same old same old
> childish attacks.
>
Only because you fear those that actually know what they are talking about
and have proven experience in the field. Unlike you, we don't have to rely
on Google for all of our pertinent information. Only a pompous XXX such as
yourself would fail to see the no-win situation you are in here- you have
nothing more than a normal consumer's knowledge base and are extremely
behind the times in the changing business environment Your posts and lack
of legitimate information proves out both of these points quite well. Why
don't you go back to playing with your 56k modems?
If by saying that I don't post anything of value you really mean that I
never agree with you- too bad. Your information is laughable and your
ability to back anything up with reliable sources or something other than
your own words is non-existent.
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> If you've got any real evidence to the contrary, of AMPS having
> significantly more range than digital at comparable power levels (and
> antennas), then by all means post it.
If you've got any *real evidence* of Extended GSM, then by all means post it.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 3:33 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:13:00 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <wzuNh.16139$tD2.12868@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>If you've got any *real evidence* of Extended GSM, then by all means post it.
1. Irrelevant to the issue at hand -- "You do it too!" isn't a
persuasive argument. ;)
2. I have first hand experience with Extended Range GSM, so I know it
exists, and really don't care whether anyone else believes it or
not. ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:02id03hfostcemb
7gojk5iuq555bel52h7@
4ax.com:
>
> 2. I have first hand experience with Extended Range GSM, so I know it
> exists, and really don't care whether anyone else believes it or
> not. ;)
>
So you have nothing but the anecdotal story of an average user as proof of
your claim? According to many of your own posts, that is not worthy of
consideration.
How pathetic.
The fact is that no carrier on the north american continent is using
"extended GSM" technology. The technology, while possible, has proven too
costly to be of any benefit in the US.
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> 2. I have first hand experience with Extended Range GSM, so I know it
> exists,
And *THAT*, dear readers....is his version of "credible evidence".
So whenever he demands you back up your post or claim with credible
evidence, remind him your personal experience is as good as it gets.
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> And *THAT*, dear readers....is his version of "credible evidence".
>
> So whenever he demands you back up your post or claim with credible
> evidence, remind him your personal experience is as good as it gets.
"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth
and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain
| |
|
| In article <cYBNh.15029$PL.14052@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> And *THAT*, dear readers....is his version of "credible evidence".
>
> So whenever he demands you back up your post or claim with credible
> evidence, remind him your personal experience is as good as it gets.
>
Amen.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:46:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46049f0d$0$27245$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>I've often made calls on the AMPS service, including in Tilden Park
>(above Berkeley), Sanborn County Park, along the far northern California
>coast between Fort Bragg and Mendocino, as well as along highway 88
>between Kirkwood and Lake Tahoe.
Ah yes, your Tilden Park claim again.
Well it happens that I was in Tilden Park today, and took the
opportunity to check Cingular coverage with my Motorola RAZR V3xx, both
by car and on foot. I found it to actually be good over most of the
park, almost always 3-5 bars of signal, most often 4 bars, with
high-speed data as well, both HSDPA(3G) and EGPRS(EDGE). I entertained
people with streaming video while waiting for the steam train.
I was there to meet a friend, but we failed to connect. The reason is
that she wasn't able to call me on her (tri-mode dual-band) Verizon
phone.
Another Scharfism bites the dust.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:54:35 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 460719ca$0$27160$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DTC wrote:
>
>"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth
>and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain
That's pretty funny coming from you.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgroup.com/>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
| |
| Scott 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:un9e031dfoa2gdb
dif1ejot2jne577341f@
4ax.com:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:46:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 46049f0d$0$27245$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Ah yes, your Tilden Park claim again.
>
> Well it happens that I was in Tilden Park today, and took the
> opportunity to check Cingular coverage with my Motorola RAZR V3xx, both
> by car and on foot. I found it to actually be good over most of the
> park, almost always 3-5 bars of signal, most often 4 bars, with
> high-speed data as well, both HSDPA(3G) and EGPRS(EDGE). I entertained
> people with streaming video while waiting for the steam train.
>
> I was there to meet a friend, but we failed to connect. The reason is
> that she wasn't able to call me on her (tri-mode dual-band) Verizon
> phone.
>
> Another Scharfism bites the dust.
>
Wow- that was even more self-serving than usual for you. And it has the
distinct aroma of pure bullshit. You wouldn't be lying, would you Johnny?
Of course, it will be up to the rest of the readers to determine just how
much credence your statememnt is given (if any).
You see, that's the problem with having such blinding product bias, as you
do. You have proven that you will go to any length to paint the company in
a positive light. Your "word" no longer has a value to anyone here and all
of your claims are baseless and devoid of fact. Resorting to using your
own questionable experience as end-all-be-all fact simply shows the
deperation of your viewpoint.
As for me, I have no doubt that your claims above are either a complete
fabrication or were greatly "enhanced" to prove your point. You have
proven yourself capable of both countless times in the past
| |
|
|
Whenever navas is having his PMS, both his "personal experience" and his
"V3xx" tend to be part of his claims.
In article < YfednWYuDdhrsprbnZ2d
nUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:un9e031dfoa2gdb
dif1ejot2jne577341f@
4ax.com:
>
>
> Wow- that was even more self-serving than usual for you. And it has the
> distinct aroma of pure bullshit. You wouldn't be lying, would you Johnny?
> Of course, it will be up to the rest of the readers to determine just how
> much credence your statememnt is given (if any).
>
> You see, that's the problem with having such blinding product bias, as you
> do. You have proven that you will go to any length to paint the company in
> a positive light. Your "word" no longer has a value to anyone here and all
> of your claims are baseless and devoid of fact. Resorting to using your
> own questionable experience as end-all-be-all fact simply shows the
> deperation of your viewpoint.
>
> As for me, I have no doubt that your claims above are either a complete
> fabrication or were greatly "enhanced" to prove your point. You have
> proven yourself capable of both countless times in the past
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:54:35 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 460719ca$0$27160$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DTC wrote:
>
>"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth
>and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain
p.s. Check your computer clock, and you'll have a better chance of not
putting your foot in your mouth yet again. ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:6ode0317crpmk9j
78c4433fg6k215l18bg@
4ax.com:
>
> p.s. Check your computer clock, and you'll have a better chance of not
> putting your foot in your mouth yet again. ;)
>
Getting a little nit picky? Could that be due to the lack of actual facts
you have to counteract his well presented claim?
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-03-26, 4:33 am |
| Scott wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:un9e031dfoa2gdb
dif1ejot2jne577341f@
4ax.com:
>
>
ah, She just happens to have Verizon as her provider. Yeah
Righttttttttt........[color=darkred]
>
> Wow- that was even more self-serving than usual for you. And it has the
> distinct aroma of pure bullshit. You wouldn't be lying, would you Johnny?
> Of course, it will be up to the rest of the readers to determine just how
> much credence your statememnt is given (if any).
>
> You see, that's the problem with having such blinding product bias, as you
> do. You have proven that you will go to any length to paint the company in
> a positive light. Your "word" no longer has a value to anyone here and all
> of your claims are baseless and devoid of fact. Resorting to using your
> own questionable experience as end-all-be-all fact simply shows the
> deperation of your viewpoint.
>
> As for me, I have no doubt that your claims above are either a complete
> fabrication or were greatly "enhanced" to prove your point. You have
> proven yourself capable of both countless times in the past
>
| |
| Chuck 2007-04-14, 12:33 pm |
| The "Amps" Service is locked out by Cingular on GSM/Amps capable phones,
such as the Nokia 6340i.
This seems to be accomplished in two sneeky ways.
1. Remove the Amps provider from the phone on a no notice update.
2. Lock the phone such that it will use a GSM site even thought the GSM site
has a problem.
a. One way conversations when using the GSM site is a typical
problem.
b. No channels available on the GSM site, other than the channels
used for housekeeping. Actual use does not work.
c. No bearer available or no connection is a typical message when
you run into the issues.
3. When phone service is poor to unusable, the same phone will not roam to a
working GSM site due to Cingulars programming, even if the working GSM site
is a Cingular site, or a site with a cingular agreement. Again, the cause is
Cingulars unique firmware, that locks out "standard" features of this model.
4. The ability to manually force change to a working GSM site (Even when
it's a Cingular site) is locked out by Cingulars unique firmware.
5. Cingular no longer fully supports the WAP version on this phone, even
though they are "required" to do so until at least 2008.
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:v24b03haofkrm98
gllobtganujg1a53m7g@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:26:06 -0600, Todd Allcock
> < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eu1tpa$8fg$1@aioe.org>:
>
>
> Either Steven has a very very old phone, or he just makes it up.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jud Hardcastle 2007-04-14, 10:33 pm |
| In article <zb8Uh.33953$YJ4.23784@newsfe23.lga>, Chuckk2nospam@cox.net
says...
> The "Amps" Service is locked out by Cingular on GSM/Amps capable phones,
> such as the Nokia 6340i.
> This seems to be accomplished in two sneeky ways.
> 1. Remove the Amps provider from the phone on a no notice update.
> 2. Lock the phone such that it will use a GSM site even thought the GSM site
> has a problem.
> a. One way conversations when using the GSM site is a typical
> problem.
> b. No channels available on the GSM site, other than the channels
> used for housekeeping. Actual use does not work.
> c. No bearer available or no connection is a typical message when
> you run into the issues.
> 3. When phone service is poor to unusable, the same phone will not roam to a
> working GSM site due to Cingulars programming, even if the working GSM site
> is a Cingular site, or a site with a cingular agreement. Again, the cause is
> Cingulars unique firmware, that locks out "standard" features of this model.
> 4. The ability to manually force change to a working GSM site (Even when
> it's a Cingular site) is locked out by Cingulars unique firmware.
> 5. Cingular no longer fully supports the WAP version on this phone, even
> though they are "required" to do so until at least 2008.
If you are having these problems on a 6340i then I suspect your 6340i is
either not on a GAIT plan or doesn't have the proper GAIT feature codes
set on a GSM plan.
I have roamed all over TX in the last couple of years and I have seen
the 6340i switch between GSM, TDMA and AMPS frequently with none of the
problems you are describing. (Well, #4 above is true about not being
able to manually select a carrier but that was true from day1.) Yes, it
will hold onto a Cingular GSM signal until it looses the last bar but
then I've seen it switch to both TDMA and another GSM carrier. Once it
switches to a stronger carrier it holds that one for awhile--in fact
I've had to turn it off and back on to make it pick up Cingular again
(several times in the case of the old ATT system). And there is one
stretch near my family home in central TX where it ALWAYS switches to
AMPS--used to be from TDMA to AMPS, now it's from GSM to AMPS.
The last couple of months I've been using a GSM-only PDA phone and never
lost GSM (due to booster and external antennas)--at least not long
enough to dig the 6340i out of the glovebox. But before that it was
certainly switching as intended. The next time I loose GSM I'll switch
to the 6340i and verify it's still working on TDMA and/or AMPS--but I
bet it's fine on a GAIT plan.
And WAP was working fine the last time I tried it.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-15, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:29:18 -0400, "Chuck" <Chuckk2nospam@cox.net>
wrote in <zb8Uh.33953$YJ4.23784@newsfe23.lga>:
>The "Amps" Service is locked out by Cingular on GSM/Amps capable phones,
>such as the Nokia 6340i.
>This seems to be accomplished in two sneeky ways.
>1. Remove the Amps provider from the phone on a no notice update.
>2. Lock the phone such that it will use a GSM site even thought the GSM site
>has a problem.
Home network is a standard GSM feature.
> a. One way conversations when using the GSM site is a typical
>problem.
I'm not seeing such problems.
> b. No channels available on the GSM site, other than the channels
>used for housekeeping. Actual use does not work.
> c. No bearer available or no connection is a typical message when
>you run into the issues.
If no Home channels are available, then the phone will try non-Home
networks.
>3. When phone service is poor to unusable, the same phone will not roam to a
>working GSM site due to Cingulars programming, even if the working GSM site
>is a Cingular site, or a site with a cingular agreement. Again, the cause is
>Cingulars unique firmware, that locks out "standard" features of this model.
Actually standard GSM operation -- Home network is preferred when there
is a "usable" signal even if there's a much better signal on a non-Home
network.
>4. The ability to manually force change to a working GSM site (Even when
>it's a Cingular site) is locked out by Cingulars unique firmware.
True, probably to prevent unnecessary higher-cost roaming.
>5. Cingular no longer fully supports the WAP version on this phone, even
>though they are "required" to do so until at least 2008.
What requirement? I know of no such requirement.
p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
-- it makes the thread confusing and hard to follow. Thanks.
[color=darkred]
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:v24b03haofkrm98
gllobtganujg1a53m7g@
4ax.com...
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|