|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > January 2008 > Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"
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 |
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"
|
|
| Todd Allcock 2008-01-19, 4:33 am |
| At 19 Jan 2008 01:00:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
But Sprint's problems have nothing to do with being CDMA. If CDMA is
"declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other
way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead.
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.
Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy
customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular
customers know or care what technology their carrier uses.
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
> change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
> to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
> any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
> help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
> anything to do with this.
One big advantage of CDMA for voice, which was why Australia used it out
in the bush, is the fact that the range is so much greater. The
Australian government recently denie Telstra permission to shut down
CDMA because Telstra cannot switch-off its CDMA network without first
proving equivalent Next G coverage, and Next G coverage is so far not
able to provide equivalent coverage (though like all 3G networks it's
also based on CDMA).
This past weekend I was up in Lassen Volcanic National Park. While both
Verizon and AT&T had service in Mineral (the closest town south of the
park), there was no GSM coverage within the park itself, but Verizon had
excellent coverage (digital) for as far as we skied into the park on
snow-covered highway 89, despite to coverage map showing "Moderate"
coverage.
| |
|
| Robert Coe wrote:
> Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the
> GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle
> all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.
Actually they're pretty common, and not too expensive. Some tri-band
phones sold in the U.S. are also fine in Europe and Asia as they are
850/900/1900. In most places you can get by with only 900 MHz, you just
have to be careful when buying a prepaid SIM card that you don't use one
of the secondary carriers that got stuck up at 1800 MHz. What you want
to avoid if you're in the U.S. but traveling to Europe or Asia is an
850/1800/1900, and what you want to avoid if you're in Europe or Asia
and traving to the U.S. is a 900/1800/1900 (these were very common when
the only U.S. GSM service was at 1900 MHz).
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> No matter how many times you repeat it, total nonsense is still total
> nonsense.
Just like "extended GSM", huh?
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive
> advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon
> make about the same revenue from about the same number of customers, but
> Verizon's operating income from that revenue is about 50% higher than AT&T.
> And, despite the lower spending per customer, most big surveys which try
> to measure it still give Verizon's network a coverage and performance
> advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which
> matters it should be measureable somehow.
I think what some people don't take into account is the vast differences
between the U.S. and Europe & Asia when it comes to cellular. The
biggest reason why AT&T has such poor margins is because it has much
higher infrastructure costs, and these costs are directly related to the
technological disadvantages of GSM in terms of having to cover larger,
more sparsely populated, geographic areas. AT&T has even stated the
reasons for their low margins, and has said that margins will improve
once they are able to make fewer capital investments. Other than one
person out in the Pacific Ocean on a boat, no one in the U.S. has
experienced "extended range GSM" because no U.S. GSM carriers have
deployed it.
> I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
> change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
> to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
> any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
> help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
> anything to do with this.
The reasons for Sprint's problems are well known, and are unrelated to
CDMA or GSM. Poor customer service, poor coverage (though better than
AT&T's thanks to off-network roaming on Verizon), and a poor handset
selection. The last one _would_ have been made simpler if they were a
GSM operator, but Verizon has done well in handset selection, and is
able to leverage all the Korean CDMA handsets as well as getting CDMA
versions of other popular handsets. It wasn't that many years ago when
everyone was complaining about Verizon's handset selection, and claiming
that Sprint had better choices.
Eventually CDMA 2000 _and_ GSM will be EOL, and voice calls will be
carried over some version of CDMA or LTE technology.
| |
|
| Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> Is Japan entirely CDMA?
No.
Here's a good web site on the subject:
"http://euc.jp/misc/cellphones.en.html"
| |
| Mark Crispin 2008-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Dennis Ferguson posted:
> On 2008-01-31, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
> No. I think the original digital standard there was a TDMA variant
> called PDC. These days I think all the companies now support 3G UMTS,
> so you can also roam with a (European) 3G phone. No GSM though.
Close, but not quite correct. There is no GSM in Japan, but not "all
companies" support UMTS.
NTT DoCoMo, Softbank, and TU-KA all have PDC networks. PDC is 2G and
pretty much unique to Japan.
Willcom has a PHS network. IIRC, PHS is also used by a carrier in Taiwan.
There is a CDMA carrier in Japan (au), with both 2G and 3G CDMA. au
operates on different frequencies than North American CDMA phones.
Consequently, North American CDMA phones can NOT roam in Japan. Some CDMA
phones in other countries can roam in Japan.
NTT DoCoMo and Softbank have W-CDMA networks, however only Softbank's is
based upon the current UMTS specification. NTT DoCoMo is based upon an
earlier version. European 3G phones should roam on Softbank's network,
but there may be difficulties in roaming on NTT DoCoMo's FOMA network.
The bottom line is that most US phones do NOT roam in Japan. Only a phone
with UMTS in the 2100 band will roam in Japan. IIRC, T-Mobile and AT&T
each have one smartphone that has that.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
| |
| Mark Crispin 2008-01-31, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Dennis Ferguson posted:
> Ah, sorry. If I would have thought about it I'd have known it (only
> two UMTS carriers show up on my phone, but there's more than two
> mobile carriers), but I'm kind of fixated on UMTS in Japan since that
> is the only phone I have which works there.
I bet the roaming charges are horrendous. It's a lot cheaper to rent a
USIM from Softbank at the airport (105 yen/day + call charges) if you have
an unlocked UMTS 2100 capable phone. Softbank and the other carriers will
also rent a phone if you want to do that.
> I think one of the China landline carriers (China Netcom?) also runs a
> substantial PHS network.
I wouldn't be surprised. PHS is popular in East Asia.
> I've not heard of a T-Mobile phone which has it. AT&T has one.
I forget which T-Mobile phone does UMTS 2100, but IIRC it's one of the
smartphones. T-Mobile does have a roaming agreement with Softbank.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
|
|
|
|
|