|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > April 2006 > Verizon ditching tri-mode phones?
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 |
Verizon ditching tri-mode phones?
|
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-04-12, 5:48 pm |
| It seems that, judging by the Verizon Wireless website that Tri-Mode phones
are no longer being offered. I found a couple of old model tri-mode phones on
the site, but they were not competitive in feature set and clearly will be
end-of-lifed.
What is the reasoning behind this? If you look at Minnesota's digital map as
an example, you will find that native digital coverage is relatively rare in
the state; just covering the metro twin cities along the river to St. Cloud
and some areas in the arrowhead and up near Fargo. The other carriers native
coverage far exceeds that of verizon. So, it would seem that tri-mode phones
would still have their place in their lineup.
I see Wisconsin is another state with a considerable population and
demographic layout.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
|
| "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems that, judging by the Verizon Wireless website that Tri-Mode
> phones are no longer being offered. I found a couple of old model
> tri-mode phones on the site, but they were not competitive in feature
> set and clearly will be end-of-lifed.
>
> What is the reasoning behind this? If you look at Minnesota's digital
> map as an example, you will find that native digital coverage is
> relatively rare in the state; just covering the metro twin cities
> along the river to St. Cloud and some areas in the arrowhead and up
> near Fargo. The other carriers native coverage far exceeds that of
> verizon. So, it would seem that tri-mode phones would still have
> their place in their lineup.
>
> I see Wisconsin is another state with a considerable population and
> demographic layout.
>
You must not have seen the V325.It's only been out a few months & is one
of only,so far anyway,two models to have the excellent VZ Nav pgm.Plus it's
a decent phone.Great reception,phonebook options & battery life.Me & g/f
just got back from visiting friends in s/w Va (we live in dc area) & her
Sprint all digital was useless.I made the mistake of offering my
V325.Christ only knows how much my next bill will be.But it kept her happy
& I didn't have to listen to the no-cell-whine-blues.That's got'a be worth
something. :)
But if you got'a have BT forget it.
I've no doubt analog is past technology but it's still used by ALOT of
people outside urban areas so some trimodes will be around for awhile.
--
| |
|
| I'm convinced that the analog option in my Kyocera KX1v is what kills
the battery in an extended area. I normally recharge when the battery
display drops one bar after about three full days with native VZW
coverage. But in an 'extended area' the battery display drops to
almost empty in one day. I think the phone is 'searching', including
looking for an analog signal, which sucks up more power. When I set
the phone to 'digital only', the battery stays charged for the three
days even in an extended area.
Lena
| |
|
| "Lena" <lenagainster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm convinced that the analog option in my Kyocera KX1v is what kills
> the battery in an extended area. I normally recharge when the battery
> display drops one bar after about three full days with native VZW
> coverage. But in an 'extended area' the battery display drops to
> almost empty in one day. I think the phone is 'searching', including
> looking for an analog signal, which sucks up more power. When I set
> the phone to 'digital only', the battery stays charged for the three
> days even in an extended area.
>
> Lena
>
>
You give excellent reasons why digital is better than analog.The
caveat...what good is digital if you can't use it.The only time to use
analog is when the digital won't work & you need voice service.
--
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-04-14, 5:48 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> It seems that, judging by the Verizon Wireless website that Tri-Mode phones
> are no longer being offered. I found a couple of old model tri-mode phones on
> the site, but they were not competitive in feature set and clearly will be
> end-of-lifed.
>
> What is the reasoning behind this? If you look at Minnesota's digital map as
> an example, you will find that native digital coverage is relatively rare in
> the state; just covering the metro twin cities along the river to St. Cloud
> and some areas in the arrowhead and up near Fargo. The other carriers native
> coverage far exceeds that of verizon. So, it would seem that tri-mode phones
> would still have their place in their lineup.
While that is true, the fact of that matter is, Verizon clearly wants to
put an end to AMPS usage. The sunset date is in 2008. It's 2006 now,
and most people on Verizon have "New Every 2." Coincidence?
I think the idea is that if they want the most people to upgrade their
phones to digital only in time for the network's sunset date, now is the
time for them to start sunsetting the equipment.
One would hope though, that they fill those analog areas with CDMA
coverage very soon.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-04-14, 5:48 pm |
| Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote:
>
> One would hope though, that they fill those analog areas with CDMA
> coverage very soon.
>
You would hope so. It will cost Verizon real capital though. Many of the
AMPS sites in MN are old AT&T AMPS/TDMA towers and those won't be upgraded to
CDMA anytime soon ;)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
|
| "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:443f9890$0$275$
8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:
> Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote:
>
> You would hope so. It will cost Verizon real capital though. Many of
> the AMPS sites in MN are old AT&T AMPS/TDMA towers and those won't be
> upgraded to CDMA anytime soon ;)
>
Really.And I don't care where the "sun sets" it 'aint going to happen in
two years.It'd be nice but I don't think alot of city folks realize how
much needs to be done re digitizing.
--
| |
|
| Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> While that is true, the fact of that matter is, Verizon
> clearly wants to put an end to AMPS usage. The sunset
> date is in 2008. It's 2006 now, and most people on
> Verizon have "New Every 2." Coincidence?
Conspiracy theory from Isaiah? Bit out of character isn't
it? I believe they have had New Every 2 for years before
the regulation came into being. Coincidence? Coincidence
that it's 2006 now and the sunset date is in 2 years? I
think every date has another date 2 years before it. And
I don't beleive *everybody's* new every 2 is synced up.
....this was a shot at humor wasn't it.
-Quick
| |
| Larry 2006-04-14, 11:48 pm |
| Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote in news:123v4aal465ds04
@corp.supernews.com:
> I think the idea is that if they want the most people to upgrade their
> phones to digital only in time for the network's sunset date, now is the
> time for them to start sunsetting the equipment.
>
FCC would take a dim view of shutting down the AMPS system before the magic
date, which keeps getting pushed back because there are so many AMPS users
on it, including the President's limo...(c; AMPS does crypto voice.
| |
|
| Isaiah Beard wrote:
> I think the idea is that if they want the most people to upgrade their
> phones to digital only in time for the network's sunset date, now is the
> time for them to start sunsetting the equipment.
>
> One would hope though, that they fill those analog areas with CDMA
> coverage very soon.
Remember, 2008 is when AMPS is _permitted_ to be turned off, it isn't
required that it be turned off. In urban areas, it will certainly be
turned off ASAP, but in rural areas, including those served by smaller
carriers, it will remain on. Of course with AC2, you can't roam on most
of these smaller carriers on AMPS anyway. So after 2008, the only people
that would even benefit by AMPS would be those users that are still on
an older plan (AC1 or National Single Rate). Except of course for 911
access.
Now is the time to put down a good stock of tri-mode phones, and plan on
never changing your plan. There are still a lot of areas in California
that are AMPS only.
| |
|
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:444065d6$0$1533
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> There are still a lot of areas in California
> that are AMPS only.
>
The whole country, not just California. City digital only customers'
phones will simply be NO SERVICE away from the interstates.
It's why there should be an unregistered AMPS bagphone in everyone's
trunk....
| |
| Pegleg 2006-04-15, 5:48 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:01:26 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>The whole country, not just California. City digital only customers'
>phones will simply be NO SERVICE away from the interstates.
>
>It's why there should be an unregistered AMPS bagphone in everyone's
>trunk....
And these days where does one find an old bag phone?
Pegleg
U.S. Navy Retired
Support Our Troops,
Question The Policy!
All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words:
freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Sir Winston Churchill
| |
| Janet Wilder 2006-04-15, 5:48 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Remember, 2008 is when AMPS is _permitted_ to be turned off, it isn't
> required that it be turned off. In urban areas, it will certainly be
> turned off ASAP, but in rural areas, including those served by smaller
> carriers, it will remain on. Of course with AC2, you can't roam on most
> of these smaller carriers on AMPS anyway. So after 2008, the only people
> that would even benefit by AMPS would be those users that are still on
> an older plan (AC1 or National Single Rate). Except of course for 911
> access.
Doesn't Verizon have contracts with small carriers to use their AMPS
towers when there is nothing else around? Wouldn't AC2 work on those?
--
-----------
Janet Wilder
The Road Princess
http://janetwilder.blogspot.com
| |
| Janet Wilder 2006-04-15, 5:48 pm |
| Pegleg wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:01:26 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> And these days where does one find an old bag phone?
>
Garage Sales?
We kept ours from 1995 when it was free with a contract.
--
-----------
Janet Wilder
The Road Princess
http://janetwilder.blogspot.com
| |
|
| Janet Wilder <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Doesn't Verizon have contracts with small carriers to use their AMPS
> towers when there is nothing else around? Wouldn't AC2 work on those?
>
>
I hope so 'cause that what I have (ac2).A'while ago I noted on one thread
that we were in a rural area where my trimode (v325) worked when my g/f's
did not.She has Sprint.It did not sound that great,analog compared to
digital,but it beat no voice service.
This happened in sw Va.I don't know if was a Verizon owned or leased area.
| |
| Dave Rudisill 2006-04-15, 11:48 pm |
| >SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Remember, 2008 is when AMPS is _permitted_ to be turned off, it isn't
>required that it be turned off. In urban areas, it will certainly be
>turned off ASAP, but in rural areas, including those served by smaller
>carriers, it will remain on. Of course with AC2, you can't roam on most
>of these smaller carriers on AMPS anyway.
Others should note that SMS said "with AC2, you can't roam on most of
these smaller carriers on AMPS anyway", not "with AC2, you don't have
AMPS service."
Folks tend to think that AC2 is digital only. Not true. There are analog
areas available with AC2.
--
Dave (AC1)
| |
| Larry 2006-04-15, 11:48 pm |
| Pegleg <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote in
news:jq6242dsm9ibu53
037r8taqrbp79g86ltg@
4ax.com:
> And these days where does one find an old bag phone?
>
>
$1 in local thrift shops in nice condition and very usable. I have 3
Motorola TX200 bagphones with cig lighter power cords in the vehicles. One
of them would be described as in new condition. I have high gain colinear
antennas, magmounted ones, too, but that's not really necessary.
| |
| Janet Wilder 2006-04-15, 11:48 pm |
| Dave Rudisill wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Others should note that SMS said "with AC2, you can't roam on most of
> these smaller carriers on AMPS anyway", not "with AC2, you don't have
> AMPS service."
>
> Folks tend to think that AC2 is digital only. Not true. There are analog
> areas available with AC2.
>
Good. That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks, Dave.
--
-----------
Janet Wilder
The Road Princess
http://janetwilder.blogspot.com
| |
|
| Janet Wilder wrote:
> Doesn't Verizon have contracts with small carriers to use their AMPS
> towers when there is nothing else around? Wouldn't AC2 work on those?
Apparently not. I checked the coverage map for AC1, AC2, and NSR. When
you do AC2 a lot of roaming coverage disappears from the map. My key
place to check is Zip Code 95646, which is CA Highway 88 through the
Sierra's past Kirkwood ski area. Look how much "Roaming or No Service"
disappears when you go to AC2 (Initiated on or after 2/21/05).
"http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/ CoverageLocatorContr
oller? requesttype=newsearc
h"
| |
|
| Dave Rudisill wrote:
> Folks tend to think that AC2 is digital only. Not true. There are analog
> areas available with AC2.
There are analog areas, but they are much less than on AC1 or NSR. One
place I always check is 95646. Look how much "Roaming or No Service"
disappears when you go to AC2 (Initiated on or after 2/21/05). From
experience, this is roaming onto analog, it's not no service. I'm sure
there are many similar areas to this.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Now is the time to put down a good stock of tri-mode phones, and plan on
> never changing your plan. There are still a lot of areas in California
> that are AMPS only.
FWIW, I bought another V276pp (prepaid) at Target last night, this time
for $70, as they are closing them out (or so I thought, this is the
second one I bought that appears to have been mis-marked as it scanned
at $120, but they honored the marked price of $70). Verizon seems to be
preparing to discontinue all of their tri-band phones in preparation for
their shutdown of AMPS in 2008. Already, AC2 doesn't allow nearly as
much AMPS coverage as the original AC (which I still have) or the old
National Single Rate plan. This is probably the last phone that will
work on my Motorola Hands Free Car Kit, so that's another reason I
wanted a spare.
The prepaid phones can be activated on your regular account.
| |
|
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I bought another V276pp (prepaid) at Target last night, this time
> for $70, as they are closing them out (or so I thought, this is the
> second one I bought that appears to have been mis-marked as it scanned
> at $120, but they honored the marked price of $70). Verizon seems to be
> preparing to discontinue all of their tri-band phones in preparation for
> their shutdown of AMPS in 2008.
Somehow I think AMPS service will still be available after 2008.
Clearly AMPS will be history....eventually.But certainly 2008 is not the
end all of all AMPS service.
Oh...I'm glad you got a "deal" on the 276.You seem so proud of it I had to
congratulate you.Just kidding now...
--
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| Quick wrote:
> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> Conspiracy theory from Isaiah?
What conspiracy? It's perfectly within Verizon's right to stop selling
AMPS-capable phones if they want to. And I'm already very happy with my
7130e. I'm *applauding* AMPS' eventual demise; it's about time we
started leaving behind horrificly outdated cellular technology for a
change. My hope is that Verizon actually gets around to making CDMA
useable in those areas currently covered by AMPS only.
> Bit out of character isn't
> it? I believe they have had New Every 2 for years before
> the regulation came into being. Coincidence?
co·in·ci·dence (n):
1. The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area
in space.
2. A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been
planned or arranged.
> Coincidence
> that it's 2006 now and the sunset date is in 2 years?
Ah, late to the party, but I see you ultimately figured it out. :)
> I
> think every date has another date 2 years before it.
I'm sure they do. But there's a significant correlation to these
particular dates:
1. AMPS sunset: early 2008
2. Verizon starting to phase out AMPS phones in early 2006.
3. NE2 commitment: 2 years
Makes perfect sense to me. If I were in Denny Strigl's shoes, I
would've done the same thing.
> And
> I don't beleive *everybody's* new every 2 is synced up.
Of course not. That's why if you want to work at phasing out
AMPS-capable phones, now is the time to start. At some point between
now and two years from now, everyone who wants to take advantage of
their NE2 will have done so. they're not going to get *everyone* - they
*still* haven't eliminated all non e911 compliant phones - but they will
likely get a large majority of the users who like to get new phones on
the cheap.
> ...this was a shot at humor wasn't it.
*Why* you spend so much time and effort attempting to find some hidden
meaning to my posts, I will *never* understand.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| Larry wrote:
> Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote in news:123v4aal465ds04
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>
> FCC would take a dim view of shutting down the AMPS system before the magic
> date,
Which would be... why they haven't done it yet! But the FCC doesn't
require legacy AMPS carriers to continue selling AMPS phones. Look at
the Once and Future ATT Wireless (aka Cingular). They still run AMPS
because they're required to. But you won't see a single analog phone on
sale in their stores.
Likewise, if Verizon stopped selling analog-capable phones tomorrow, the
FCC would not bat an eye, so long as an AMPS phone can still get an AMPS
signal in legacy Verizon territory.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
>
> Remember, 2008 is when AMPS is _permitted_ to be turned off, it isn't
> required that it be turned off.
I'm fully aware of that. However, I seriously doubt Verizon Wireless
intends to cling sentimentally to old technology.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote:
>
> You would hope so. It will cost Verizon real capital though.
Fortunately, they do like to pound into our heads the mantra that they
spend over $4 billion annually on network upgrades. Perhaps now is the
time to start spending that money on filling in the CDMA gaps, like they
should have done long ago.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Pegleg 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:07:36 -0400, Isaiah Beard
< sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote:
> My hope is that Verizon actually gets around to making CDMA
>useable in those areas currently covered by AMPS only.
CDMA should be active before AMPS is dropped in those areas!
Pegleg
U.S. Navy Retired
Support Our Troops,
Question The Policy!
All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words:
freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Sir Winston Churchill
| |
|
| Isaiah Beard wrote:
> I'm fully aware of that. However, I seriously doubt Verizon Wireless
> intends to cling sentimentally to old technology.
Verizon will turn it off, at least in urban areas, but there will be
many AMPS areas remaining that don't belong to Verizon, that will still
be available for roaming (at least with AC1).
There is no way to replace all the AMPS with digital, it would be
horrendously expensive for rural carriers to install enough digital
towers to cover the same area that AMPS covers. Those that do try, will
have to use CDMA, so that's good news for Verizon and Sprint users.
| |
|
| Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Quick wrote:
>
> What conspiracy? It's perfectly within Verizon's right to stop selling
> AMPS-capable phones if they want to. And I'm already very happy with my
> 7130e. I'm *applauding* AMPS' eventual demise; it's about time we
> started leaving behind horrificly outdated cellular technology for a
> change. My hope is that Verizon actually gets around to making CDMA
> useable in those areas currently covered by AMPS only.
You don't understand the problem. It isn't mainly a Verizon problem to
convert everything to digital, it's a problem for small carriers in
rural areas to convert because digital requires a lot more towers than
analog. It's not a choice of AMPS or digital, it's a choice of AMPS or
nothing.
I'll be sad to lose coverage around the outlying areas of the Bay Area,
the mountains, parks, and shore, where you can pick up an AMPS signal
from a long way away, but that will never have digital coverage.
| |
|
| If I sign up to VZW now will I be on (have?) AC1 or AC2? (If new users
are on AC2 then that really seals it regarding tri-mode not being very
useful to me).
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> There is no way to replace all the AMPS with digital, it would be
> horrendously expensive for rural carriers to install enough digital
> towers to cover the same area that AMPS covers. Those that do try, will
> have to use CDMA, so that's good news for Verizon and Sprint users.
I am always stumped by this. Isn't it possible to increase the power to AMPS
levels for cases like this? Is it just a matter of the FCC and public opinion
[and perhaps scientific research ... why would CDMA be worse than AMPS]?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| George 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I am always stumped by this. Isn't it possible to increase the power to AMPS
> levels for cases like this? Is it just a matter of the FCC and public opinion
> [and perhaps scientific research ... why would CDMA be worse than AMPS]?
>
Cellphones are bidirectional so neglecting other stuff like antenna
orientation the power would have to be increased on both the cellsite
and the phone which isn't practical with a hand held battery powered device.
And there are similar issues with AMPS and hand held phones. Just
because your low powered hand held phone can hear the cellsite doesn't
mean that it can hear your phone.
| |
|
| Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Quick wrote:
>
> What conspiracy? It's perfectly within Verizon's right
>
> co·in·ci·dence (n):
>
> 1. The state or fact of occupying the same relative
> position or area in space.
> 2. A sequence of events that although accidental
> seems to have been planned or arranged.
Exactly. It's seems a real stretch that they planned New Every 2
to coincide with the sunset date for AMPS... That's all I was
commenting on. They have had new every 2 for many years
and I can't imagine it was more than a (very successful) "loyalty"
promotion to encourage customers to sign up (and re-sign) for
2 year plans over 1 year (or month to month) plans. The more
stable the customer base the less variance in network planning,
fiscal planning, etc.
>
> *Why* you spend so much time and effort attempting to
> find some hidden meaning to my posts, I will *never*
> understand.
I don't. In fact that's why I read your posts. You (up to now)
stick to the facts, when you post technical information it is
correct. You are obviously an analytic. I do have the impression,
as I've mentioned before, that you are almost devoid of any
sense of humor. At least your posts and responses come accross
that way. Not such a bad thing.
Given the above, your associating the new every 2 promotion with
the AMPS sunset date is glaringly out of character. To point out that
the AMPS sunset date is 2 years away and suggest that it's no
coincidence that the "loyalty" promotion is a 2 year term is glaringly
out of character. It was worth comment. It was one of those things
where you are skimming something that is completely expected
and all of a sudden you hit some red flashing section that is completely
out of place and doesn't fit the profile...
-Quick
| |
| Janet Wilder 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| tman wrote:
> If I sign up to VZW now will I be on (have?) AC1 or AC2? (If new users
> are on AC2 then that really seals it regarding tri-mode not being very
> useful to me).
>
AFIK, AC2. I've checked the coverage maps for the places we will be
traveling this summer and there are still a lot of places where the AC2
will be covered with AMPS. I have a tri-mode.
--
-----------
Janet Wilder
The Road Princess
http://janetwilder.blogspot.com
| |
|
|
Janet Wilder wrote:
> tman wrote:
>
>
> AFIK, AC2. I've checked the coverage maps for the places we will be
> traveling this summer and there are still a lot of places where the AC2
> will be covered with AMPS. I have a tri-mode.
>
>
thank you. But you will not be covered once Verizon ditches AMPS,
right? (i've read on here that you won't be able to roam to AMPS from
other carriers on AC2)
| |
| clifto 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| Pegleg wrote:
> < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote:
>
> CDMA should be active before AMPS is dropped in those areas!
I should've been born rich instead of handsome, but sometimes things
don't go the way they should.
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
| |
|
| tman wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>
> thank you. But you will not be covered once Verizon
> ditches AMPS, right? (i've read on here that you won't be
> able to roam to AMPS from other carriers on AC2)
"...once Verizon ditches AMPS...". Well, but FCC mandate
that can't happen before 2008 and probably won't happen
until years after that. The main reason to "ditch" AMPS is
bandwidth. You can fit a lot more users in with digital. If
you have existing AMPS coverage and don't have overlaping
digital coverage then some users is better than no users.
It doesn't take all that many users to cover the cost of
maintaining existing service. Tell me again why they would
"ditch" AMPS in these areas?
-Quick
| |
| Janet Wilder 2006-04-17, 5:48 pm |
| tman wrote:
> thank you. But you will not be covered once Verizon ditches AMPS,
> right? (i've read on here that you won't be able to roam to AMPS from
> other carriers on AC2)
>
That would probably be true. I'm hopeful that they will be adding more
CDMA towers to replace their own AMPS towers. I'm sure they don't want
to lose all those customers and potential customers. Right now it's
difficult to get anything *but* AC2 in the majority of markets.
--
-----------
Janet Wilder
The Road Princess
http://janetwilder.blogspot.com
| |
|
|
Quick wrote:
> tman wrote:
>
> "...once Verizon ditches AMPS...". Well, but FCC mandate
> that can't happen before 2008 and probably won't happen
> until years after that. The main reason to "ditch" AMPS is
> bandwidth. You can fit a lot more users in with digital. If
> you have existing AMPS coverage and don't have overlaping
> digital coverage then some users is better than no users.
> It doesn't take all that many users to cover the cost of
> maintaining existing service. Tell me again why they would
> "ditch" AMPS in these areas?
>
> -Quick
I never said why (or when) they would ditch AMPS. I just found out
about AMPS a couple of days ago, on here - I'm just trying to get the
story straight going by what I've read on here, and others have said
they thought that Verizon would dump it when they could. It's obvious
that this is all pure speculation and no one knows when or if they will
drops AMPS service, and if they do, how or whether they will replace it
with digital or some other service.
| |
| Quick 2006-04-17, 11:48 pm |
| tman wrote:
> Quick wrote:
>
> I never said why (or when) they would ditch AMPS. I just
> found out about AMPS a couple of days ago, on here - I'm
> just trying to get the story straight going by what I've
> read on here, and others have said they thought that
> Verizon would dump it when they could. It's obvious that
> this is all pure speculation and no one knows when or if
> they will drops AMPS service, and if they do, how or
> whether they will replace it with digital or some other
> service.
I think it's a good bet they will do what's profitable for
them without getting on the bad side of the FCC or
other regulatory agencies. So it's only "pure speculation"
if you are assuming a possibility they have some nefarious
secret plot to screw over their customers by pulling the
switch the minute they are allowed to even if it costs them
money to do so.
-Quick
| |
|
| Quick wrote:
> I think it's a good bet they will do what's profitable for
> them without getting on the bad side of the FCC or
> other regulatory agencies. So it's only "pure speculation"
> if you are assuming a possibility they have some nefarious
> secret plot to screw over their customers by pulling the
> switch the minute they are allowed to even if it costs them
> money to do so.
Most of the roadside call boxes are still AMPS. They'll either have to
change them over to CDMA, or take them out entirely where no CDMA signal
is available.
AMPS will be around for a long time, whether or not you'll be able to
use it is another story entirely. Unless you're still on AC1, forget
about roaming onto the AMPS portion of carriers other than Verizon,
except perhaps for 911, and even there I'm not so sure.
It is highly likely that AMPS in the urban areas will be turned off as
soon as the FCC allows it. This is too bad, since much coverage on the
edges of urban areas is still AMPS. I.e. in my area, if you go into the
greenbelt of parks and mountains, the only coverage is AMPS, from towers
located on the periphery. This coverage will almost certainly go away.
This will delight Cingular, because they've been at a real disadvantage
in terms of coverage, since they no longer offer any phones that can use
GSM and AMPS. Once Verizon turns off AMPS, and worsens total coverage,
Cingular will have a network that is closer in total coverage.
| |
| Larry 2006-04-17, 11:48 pm |
| Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote in news:1247bpqefilgg54
@corp.supernews.com:
> My hope is that Verizon actually gets around to making CDMA
> useable in those areas currently covered by AMPS only.
>
It'll never happen....too many very expensive cells across the vast open
spaces of the country with too few 150mw toyphones to use them. They'd be
crazy to build that many cells so your little toyphone would work in the
boondocks.
You're too brainwashed to use a carphone that way too many RURAL people now
depend on because they actually work away from the cities, 10 miles from
the nearest AMPS tower....
AMPS' demise will simply mean NO SERVICE to most of the country away from
your little city hovel.
| |
| Larry 2006-04-17, 11:48 pm |
| "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4443c273$0$273
$8046368a@newsreader
.iphouse.net:
> why would CDMA be worse than AMPS]?
>
Because it won't work over long ranges with lots of multipath. I'll get
lambasted, as usual, by the CDMA lovers, but it simply will not work in
intense multipath environments, hence the trend to lots of small towers and
lower and lower powered CDMA (or any other digital mode) phones....
Multipath causes the FM analog AMPS system to fade in and out. You can
hear the hotspots on AMPS and simply move the phone to the best spot.
That's not possible on digital schemes as there is data conversion delays
in the processing.
The FM flutter AMPS customers hear either driving along or when a large
airplane flys overhead is caused by multipath signals, reinforcing then
cancelling each other.
At least on AMPS you can do something to improve conditions besides pray to
the data gods.
| |
|
| Larry, I won't (again) spend any time talking about CDMA and
multipath - ( Larry is always dead wrong here, but keeps at it)
But, concerning this discussion. Larry's again, not correct. CDMA
\can be adapted quite well to serve the boonies.
China Unicom is doing it.
The Aussies have already done it (turned AMPS off)
and we probably will go this route also.
http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/cdma.htm
This is one of Australia's best AMPS analog demonstration sites since the country is flat, the mast is high, power
transmission is at the top of the range (50 Watts), and the antenna half-sectored -- meaning that it concentrates its
transmissions into 180 degrees of arc rather than the full 360 degrees.
The Swan Hill base station also has special low-noise amplifiers on the mast to enable it to pick up distant low-power
signals from remote handsets or car-mounted units.
Telstra was therefore able to add its CDMA equipment to this base-station quite easily, since CDMA uses the same
frequencies as AMPS, and shares control channels and mast-amplifiers, etc. , This gave them a quick and easy
demonstration site to show the distance coverage of a single, relatively isolated transmitter. This is a totally
artificial situation, but valid to a limited degree.
Journalists were driven out along a straight western road away from the town, simultaneously holding conversations with
a Telstra staff member in Melbourne, while flipping between AMPS and CDMA output.
In general, for the first 30 km, the two signals were comparable in quality and clarity, and for the last 20 km the CDMA
was consistently better.
Telstra made a lot of play of the AMPS unit in the car being 3 Watts while the CDMA was only 0.2 Watts, but of course
for the voice quality we were hearing, the power output matters not one jot. Transmission power only matters when you
transmit, not when you receive.
However, given the limits of the demonstration, I think most of us would say that CDMA is probably capable of performing
as well as Telstra's current analog coverage in rural areas.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns97A8E3880BBE
1noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4443c273$0$273
> $8046368a@newsreader
.iphouse.net:
>
>
> Because it won't work over long ranges with lots of multipath. I'll get
> lambasted, as usual, by the CDMA lovers, but it simply will not work in
> intense multipath environments, hence the trend to lots of small towers and
> lower and lower powered CDMA (or any other digital mode) phones....
>
> Multipath causes the FM analog AMPS system to fade in and out. You can
> hear the hotspots on AMPS and simply move the phone to the best spot.
> That's not possible on digital schemes as there is data conversion delays
> in the processing.
>
> The FM flutter AMPS customers hear either driving along or when a large
> airplane flys overhead is caused by multipath signals, reinforcing then
> cancelling each other.
>
> At least on AMPS you can do something to improve conditions besides pray to
> the data gods.
>
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>
> Apparently not. I checked the coverage map for AC1, AC2, and NSR. When
> you do AC2 a lot of roaming coverage disappears from the map. My key
> place to check is Zip Code 95646, which is CA Highway 88 through the
> Sierra's past Kirkwood ski area. Look how much "Roaming or No Service"
> disappears when you go to AC2 (Initiated on or after 2/21/05).
>
> "http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/ CoverageLocatorContr
oller? requesttype=newsearc
h"
>
>
Ditto for most of New York State north of the Thruway (I-90). VSW is
still offering some tri-mode phones up here, but they get fewer and fewer.
| |
| Janet Wilder 2006-04-18, 5:48 pm |
| Larry wrote:
> Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote in news:1247bpqefilgg54
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>
>
> It'll never happen....too many very expensive cells across the vast open
> spaces of the country with too few 150mw toyphones to use them. They'd be
> crazy to build that many cells so your little toyphone would work in the
> boondocks.
>
> You're too brainwashed to use a carphone that way too many RURAL people now
> depend on because they actually work away from the cities, 10 miles from
> the nearest AMPS tower....
>
> AMPS' demise will simply mean NO SERVICE to most of the country away from
> your little city hovel.
>
Seems to me we would be going backward in technology if all of the rural
areas that had coverage with AMPS suddenly were to lose coverage and any
hope of future coverage.
I can't imagine all of those people having to switch to satellite
phones. Wouldn't the cell phone companies want to keep the business of
these people. They many not be the hoards of customers that there are in
cities, but, added together from across the country, it's probably a
significant number of customers.
Just Wondering
--
-----------
Janet Wilder
The Road Princess
http://janetwilder.blogspot.com
| |
|
| Bottom line - it won't
Google "boomer cell"
The Aussies have already done it.
http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/cdma.htm
This is one of Australia's best AMPS analog demonstration sites since the country is flat, the mast is high, power
transmission is at the top of the range (50 Watts), and the antenna half-sectored -- meaning that it concentrates its
transmissions into 180 degrees of arc rather than the full 360 degrees.
The Swan Hill base station also has special low-noise amplifiers on the mast to enable it to pick up distant low-power
signals from remote handsets or car-mounted units.
Telstra was therefore able to add its CDMA equipment to this base-station quite easily, since CDMA uses the same
frequencies as AMPS, and shares control channels and mast-amplifiers, etc. , This gave them a quick and easy
demonstration site to show the distance coverage of a single, relatively isolated transmitter. This is a totally
artificial situation, but valid to a limited degree.
Journalists were driven out along a straight western road away from the town, simultaneously holding conversations with
a Telstra staff member in Melbourne, while flipping between AMPS and CDMA output.
In general, for the first 30 km, the two signals were comparable in quality and clarity, and for the last 20 km the CDMA
was consistently better.
Telstra made a lot of play of the AMPS unit in the car being 3 Watts while the CDMA was only 0.2 Watts, but of course
for the voice quality we were hearing, the power output matters not one jot. Transmission power only matters when you
transmit, not when you receive.
However, given the limits of the demonstration, I think most of us would say that CDMA is probably capable of performing
as well as Telstra's current analog coverage in rural areas.
"Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:444522d7$0$1174
7$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Larry wrote:
>
>
> Seems to me we would be going backward in technology if all of the rural areas that had coverage with AMPS suddenly
> were to lose coverage and any hope of future coverage.
>
> I can't imagine all of those people having to switch to satellite phones. Wouldn't the cell phone companies want to
> keep the business of these people. They many not be the hoards of customers that there are in cities, but, added
> together from across the country, it's probably a significant number of customers.
>
> Just Wondering
>
> --
> -----------
> Janet Wilder
> The Road Princess
> http://janetwilder.blogspot.com
| |
| Larry 2006-04-18, 11:48 pm |
| "RNess" <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:If6dnbGWzvA2uNj
ZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:
> CDMA was only 0.2 Watts
50km on 200mw?
Bullshit.
| |
| Larry 2006-04-18, 11:48 pm |
| "RNess" <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:Lp6dnUMaU9mFytn
ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:
> Larry is always dead wrong here, but keeps at it
"Basic Path Loss Characteristics
All radio signals have their field intensity
reduced with increasing distance, as the wave
front spreads out like the surface of an inflating
balloon. Microwave system designers will
be familiar with the free-space loss equation:
á = 36.6 + 20log f + 20log d
where á is the attenuation in dB, f is the frequency
in MHz and d is the distance in miles."
36.6 + 20(log 850) + 20(log 30 miles)
36.6 + 20(2.929) + 20(1.477)
36.6 + 58.58 + 29.54
124.72 db simple path loss....
no account for obstructions/terrain/foliage absorptions/reflections/etc.
Make it easy - 130db path loss, which is way low if there is ONE tree or a
hill....and you're using an unobstructed dipole antenna, not some toyphone
nub-to-look-cutesy-against-your-ear human dummy load. Hell, your head adds
another 20db path loss. It's a big RF resistor! That's what cooks meat in
a microwave! It's called ABSORPTION.
..2W transmitter into a perfect 1/2 wave vertical antenna with 100%
transfer, no loss
-130 db = .000000000000002W (.002 picowatts into a 50 ohm lossless antenna
system.
E= sqrt of .002pW x 50 ohms = 2.65 picovolts or .316uV absolutely perfect
system with no other losses than a 30 mile path (50km).
"Can you hear me now?"
Bullshit.
Not in the sunshine off the Aussie desert makin' all that noise. Maybe at
midnight from two planes 5000 ft aloft with external antennas.
200mw isn't gonna make a signal 50km away, no matter how much the company
hypes it. Everyone on here knows what great signals CDMA, or ANY,
toyphones have on the ground 5 miles from the nearest cellsite they are
allowed to use. It sucks!
But, I'm all wrong all the time....
I don't read the sales department's wishful advertising....
Bullshit.
| |
| clifto 2006-04-18, 11:48 pm |
| Larry wrote:
> 50km on 200mw?
>
> Bullshit.
The world record seems to be 1,650 miles on one microwatt.
<http://www.rogerwendell.com/qrp.html>
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
| |
|
| Just like most every thing else.... (multipath, etc)
You can declare "bullshit", but it doesn't change the facts.
They remain solidly intact - no matter what YOU think.
The Aussies did away with AMPS and things seem to be
working OK. Deny the facts all you want - it changes nothing.
Users are using it daily - so they are all just imagining it?
Years ago, I thought CDMA was magic - smoke and mirrors
Being I come from a very solid RF engineering background.
Classic RF theory and all that - (so I actually DO understand where
you are coming from) - but that was then -this is now. Deal with it...
I was shown the light (eventually) and no matter how hard it was
for me to believe - (and you) - it actually works out there in the real
world.
No matter if you believe it - or not.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns97A9BD8BFA6B
3noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "RNess" <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> news:If6dnbGWzvA2uNj
ZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:
>
>
> 50km on 200mw?
>
> Bullshit.
>
| |
|
| L buddy....
Like I said in an above post - I too have a very solid
grasp of RF propagation and the physics behind it all.
Probably quite similar to yours - EE, General, etc, etc..
And, a few years ago, I would have been right beside you
exclaiming "bullshit" in unison with you. CDMA was a hard
concept for me to believe. Damn hard... fricking code crap.
It used to be watts and gain - old Moto TXes hooked up to
the Marconi and cranked up as far as we could get them.
3/5 dB Roof mounts and high gain yagis - Moto "cellular
connect"s for dial tone out at the cabin in the woods. I know
exactly what you are talking about. Been there, done that
But, no matter what you (or I) think we know......
I've been down under and by God, it actually works. Hard
to believe, but I had hands on personal experience and I
was admittedly amazed it worked, but it actually did.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns97A9C29DBF30
4noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "RNess" <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> news:Lp6dnUMaU9mFytn
ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:
>
>
> "Basic Path Loss Characteristics
> All radio signals have their field intensity
> reduced with increasing distance, as the wave
> front spreads out like the surface of an inflating
> balloon. Microwave system designers will
> be familiar with the free-space loss equation:
> á = 36.6 + 20log f + 20log d
> where á is the attenuation in dB, f is the frequency
> in MHz and d is the distance in miles."
>
> 36.6 + 20(log 850) + 20(log 30 miles)
> 36.6 + 20(2.929) + 20(1.477)
> 36.6 + 58.58 + 29.54
> 124.72 db simple path loss....
> no account for obstructions/terrain/foliage absorptions/reflections/etc.
>
> Make it easy - 130db path loss, which is way low if there is ONE tree or a
> hill....and you're using an unobstructed dipole antenna, not some toyphone
> nub-to-look-cutesy-against-your-ear human dummy load. Hell, your head adds
> another 20db path loss. It's a big RF resistor! That's what cooks meat in
> a microwave! It's called ABSORPTION.
>
> .2W transmitter into a perfect 1/2 wave vertical antenna with 100%
> transfer, no loss
> -130 db = .000000000000002W (.002 picowatts into a 50 ohm lossless antenna
> system.
> E= sqrt of .002pW x 50 ohms = 2.65 picovolts or .316uV absolutely perfect
> system with no other losses than a 30 mile path (50km).
>
> "Can you hear me now?"
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Not in the sunshine off the Aussie desert makin' all that noise. Maybe at
> midnight from two planes 5000 ft aloft with external antennas.
>
> 200mw isn't gonna make a signal 50km away, no matter how much the company
> hypes it. Everyone on here knows what great signals CDMA, or ANY,
> toyphones have on the ground 5 miles from the nearest cellsite they are
> allowed to use. It sucks!
>
> But, I'm all wrong all the time....
> I don't read the sales department's wishful advertising....
>
> Bullshit.
>
| |
|
| RNess wrote:
> L buddy....
>
> Like I said in an above post - I too have a very solid
> grasp of RF propagation and the physics behind it all.
> Probably quite similar to yours - EE, General, etc, etc..
>
> And, a few years ago, I would have been right beside you
> exclaiming "bullshit" in unison with you. CDMA was a hard
> concept for me to believe. Damn hard... fricking code
> crap.
Please do not push this any further. Larry initial response
is "bullshit". Next will be denial. Following that, if you keep
pressing the issue, will be a short period of avoidance
and diversion, and then total melt down. Larry is pretty
old. The humane thing to do would be to humor him or
just drop it altogether. Thank you for caring.
Larry,
This may be related and I could use your advice. I work
at a fairly large company in the Valley. Yesterday four
very large black helicopters showed up. Actually two
were black with white tops and the other two were very
dark green with large weapons pods on both sides. They
all circled a couple of times and then the two with white
tops landed. The other two circled closely for a while
(about a 1 mile radius) and then further out. I've never
held stock in the black helicopters but now I need your
advice on what to do.
-Quick
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-04-19, 5:48 pm |
| clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> The world record seems to be 1,650 miles on one microwatt.
>
> <http://www.rogerwendell.com/qrp.html>
>
Not on CDMA over 800Mhz or 1900MHz.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| clifto 2006-04-19, 11:48 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not on CDMA over 800Mhz or 1900MHz.
If the record holders can do one and a half billion miles per watt,
CDMA ought to be capable of 250 KM per watt.
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
| |
| Scott Ehrlich 2006-04-19, 11:48 pm |
| In article <l8mih3-cm8.ln1@remote.clifto.com>,
clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>If the record holders can do one and a half billion miles per watt,
>CDMA ought to be capable of 250 KM per watt.
>
>--
>All relevant people are pertinent.
>All rude people are impertinent.
>Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
> -- Solomon W. Golomb
Well, if the ionosphere/atmosphere cooperates (atmospheric ducting),
signals, regardless of coding method (CDMA), possibly even
spread-spectrum, might be able to tunnel through the clouds to a distant
cell site until the clouds give way and the tunnel breaks.
Would be interesting to get John Navas' insight on this, too ;-)
Scott
| |
|
| clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:omjgh3-a46.ln1@remote.clifto.com:
> The world record seems to be 1,650 miles on one microwatt.
>
>
Not to cellphone equipment on a crowded cellphone band it's not....
Totally irrelevant.
| |
|
| scott@mit.edu (Scott Ehrlich) wrote in news:4446e97f$0$561$
b45e6eb0
@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
> Well, if the ionosphere/atmosphere cooperates (atmospheric ducting),
> signals, regardless of coding method (CDMA), possibly even
> spread-spectrum, might be able to tunnel through the clouds to a distant
> cell site until the clouds give way and the tunnel breaks.
>
>
You forgot to add, "and noone else were transmitting for 50km on a cellular
phone"......Makes a difference.
| |
| Scott Ehrlich 2006-04-20, 5:48 pm |
| In article < Xns97AB18E0D6F85noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>scott@mit.edu (Scott Ehrlich) wrote in news:4446e97f$0$561$
b45e6eb0
>@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
>
>
>You forgot to add, "and noone else were transmitting for 50km on a cellular
>phone"......Makes a difference.
>
I don't believe it makes a difference _who_ else or _what_ else is
transmitting or broadcasting at the same time. If you can get your
broadcast or transmission involved in a "tunnel", you will get the
advantage of the distance, as will any other person who is able to do so,
too.
Scott
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-04-20, 5:48 pm |
| clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the record holders can do one and a half billion miles per watt,
> CDMA ought to be capable of 250 KM per watt.
>
Even if it were possible, it would only be effective in a noise free
environment ... and CDMA is by nature not noise free as the areas they cover
overlap.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Larry 2006-04-20, 11:48 pm |
| "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:44479beb$0$722$
8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:
> Even if it were possible, it would only be effective in a noise free
> environment ... and CDMA is by nature not noise free as the areas they
> cover overlap.
>
>
Well, as per my best case scenario of simple distance attenuation of 130
db, it would be spotty.
My Motorola V60i CDMA starts buzzing intermittenly around -97 to -100 dbm
on its little CDMA test display. At -105 dbm, the word USELESS comes to
mind. You can get it to connect, sometimes, but cannot hold a conversation
for all the data errors and buzzing from the codecs. The noise floor is in
the neighborhood of -95 dbm and any signal better than that is just peachy,
in and out.
But, of course, I'm running more power with the V60i than the new toyphones
produce when they are running with the pedal to the floor...(c;
Power is our friend!
|
|
|
|
|