|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > November 2006 > 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results
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 |
3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results
|
|
|
| The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
graphical form.
There are graphs for the following:
Market Share
Market Share over Time
Market Share Change over Time
ARPU
ARPU Over Time
Churn
Churn Over Time
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-11-09, 3:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>
> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
> graphical form.
>
> There are graphs for the following:
>
> Market Share
> Market Share over Time
> Market Share Change over Time
> ARPU
> ARPU Over Time
> Churn
> Churn Over Time
The text format you posted here is incomplete.
It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
share goes.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| Pegleg 2006-11-09, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>share goes.
Agreed that there are other carriers.
But is the "other" category significant enough to really matter or
consider?
-
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
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-11-09, 3:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <brian.pegleg.jones@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Agreed that there are other carriers.
>
> But is the "other" category significant enough to really matter or
> consider?
I am sure that over the nation, it is several percent. Supplying this value
shows a clear change in relationship between the remaining values. In
particular, it affects the way you compare the top three carriers.
Statistically, it is not irrelavent ... and he is supplying statistics,
correct?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100%
for
> market share when that is simply not true.
While I enjoy these quarterly posts of Steven's, I agree 100% with you,
Tom.
> That is like saying that the total
> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this
year is
> 100% of all the candidates.
Although that would probably be statistically more correct than Steven's
chart- Dems & GOP's probably make a larger total "market share" of
candidates than the big 5 wireless guys do of total wireless subscribers.
While there are no successful regional political parties, there are
successful regional wireless companies!
> There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
> share goes.
Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:18:43 -0700, Todd Allcock
< ElecConnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in
< 4553937c$0$12073$882
60bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!
And a lot more meaningful, but of course that's not his purpose. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<KEL4h.2583$Yy1.1124@textfe.usenetserver.com>:
>In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>The text format you posted here is incomplete.
>
>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>share goes.
Of course, but then his objective isn't objective. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jackzwick 2006-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45537416$0$88654$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>
> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
> graphical form.
>
> There are graphs for the following:
>
> Market Share
> Market Share over Time
> Market Share Change over Time
> ARPU
> ARPU Over Time
> Churn
> Churn Over Time
Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.
And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
will have more customers than Cingular.
| |
| Jackzwick 2006-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article <8NM4h.2589$Yy1.1938@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <brian.pegleg.jones@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am sure that over the nation, it is several percent. Supplying this value
> shows a clear change in relationship between the remaining values. In
> particular, it affects the way you compare the top three carriers.
> Statistically, it is not irrelavent ... and he is supplying statistics,
> correct?
Still trying to CYA for Sprint?
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
> market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
> 100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
> share goes.
The other carriers are so small that it's lost in the noise. But the
other problem is that companies like U.S. Cellular are not reporting
their results.
| |
|
| Jackzwick wrote:
> Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.
Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or Cingular.
> And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
> will have more customers than Cingular.
We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
change.
| |
| Scott 2006-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:i2f7l25i0oq8rlt
vobe63b06mi36emuc11@
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:18:43 -0700, Todd Allcock
> < ElecConnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in
> < 4553937c$0$12073$882
60bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>
>
>
> And a lot more meaningful, but of course that's not his purpose. ;)
>
Quit whining, Novice. He forgot more about the industry today than you
have ever been able to learn.
Oh wait- you're John Navas. You never learn. You simply regurgitate
whatever you find through Google. Sorry- my bad.
| |
| Scott 2006-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:h3f7l21m2q2rjee
9u0q3bdt1v9c0gcekeg@
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <KEL4h.2583$Yy1.1124@textfe.usenetserver.com>:
>
>
> Of course, but then his objective isn't objective. ;)
>
Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the
flaw in others.
Stones- glass houses... do you get the picture, or should I be much
simpler about it for your dinosaur brain to process?
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the
> flaw in others.
>
> Stones- glass houses... do you get the picture, or should I be much
> simpler about it for your dinosaur brain to process?
The data is what it is. I honestly don't know what he's so upset about.
Cingular is no longer losing market share, and their churn, while up a
little, is still a lot lower than it was a year ago. Their ARPU has been
recovering as well, and the only reason that it lags Verizon is that the
high speed Cingular data network is not yet fully deployed, so they
don't have as many high-revenue data customers as Verizon does to drive
up the average. I think that within six months, as Cingular completes
their HSDPA network, that Cingular's ARPU will be about equal to
Verizon's--it's not that long ago that Cingular had a slightly higher ARPU.
As I explained, the data for the very small carriers is often not
available in a timely manner. U.S. Cellular has had big problems
reporting their results, though they seem to be caught up except for the
third quarter of 2006. I have all the U.S. Cellular and Dobson data
entered other than the final data for 3Q2006 (still no 3Q2006 ARPU).
So to make people happy, I've updated the site for the top seven
carriers, but with the ARPU for US Cellular for 3Q2006 as an estimate
for now.
I'm not doing anything for the carriers smaller than Dobson, as these
tiny carriers will not affect the market share numbers of the other
carriers in a material way.
Thanks for all the interest. The number of hits on this page has been
extremely high, as a compilation of this data is not available anywhere
else.
"http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/"
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
> for
>
> While I enjoy these quarterly posts of Steven's, I agree 100% with you,
> Tom.
>
> year is
>
> Although that would probably be statistically more correct than Steven's
> chart- Dems & GOP's probably make a larger total "market share" of
> candidates than the big 5 wireless guys do of total wireless subscribers.
Probably not. All the small carriers put together are well under 5% of
total subscribers.
In any case, I've added number 6 and 7, snd the remaining carriers are
now less than 2% of the total subscribers.
| |
| Jackzwick 2006-11-10, 4:33 am |
| In article < 4553c54f$0$88633$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Jackzwick wrote:
>
>
> Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
> pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
> network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
> you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
> where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or Cingular.
>
>
> We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
> change.
Duh, where do you think Sprint gets the offnetwork coverage from? - Most
of it is Verizon !!!
| |
|
| Jackzwick wrote:
> Duh, where do you think Sprint gets the offnetwork coverage from? - Most
> of it is Verizon !!!
The issue here is that Verizon has eliminated a lot of off-network
roaming with America's Choice II that existed in the original America's
Choice plan, while Sprint has retained this off-network roaming. It's
roaming that I used extensively on my old America's Choice plan, that
new Verizon customers don't get, but that new Sprint customers do get.
On the other hand, Sprint doesn't let you roam onto Verizon's network in
areas where Sprint has its own network, and usually Sprint's network is
much worse than Verizon's network, due to several factors, but
especially due to the 1900 MHz versus 800 MHz spectrum.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Jackzwick wrote:
>
>
> Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
> pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
> network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
> you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
> where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or
> Cingular.
>
>
> We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
> change.
Following up on my own post, if you look at the raw total numbers of new
addtions, it's been falling for the last two quarters, by a significant
amount. Cingular's number of new additions has fallen for four quarters,
100,000 to 200,000 less every quarter, while Verizon has been increasing
their new additions by about 100,000 each quarter. At the present rates,
it would take about ten more quarters to close the gap.
What's more likely is that during the next few years is that there is
CDMA consolidation, similar to the AT&T Wireless/Cingular consolidation.
Verizon may end up buying a company like Alltel, which is not doing so
well financially.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-11-10, 10:33 am |
| Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
Verizon. Zwickie needs to recheck his facts.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4554a5e5$0$8862
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> SMS wrote:
>
> Following up on my own post, if you look at the raw total numbers of new
> addtions, it's been falling for the last two quarters, by a significant
> amount. Cingular's number of new additions has fallen for four quarters,
> 100,000 to 200,000 less every quarter, while Verizon has been increasing
> their new additions by about 100,000 each quarter. At the present rates,
> it would take about ten more quarters to close the gap.
>
> What's more likely is that during the next few years is that there is CDMA
> consolidation, similar to the AT&T Wireless/Cingular consolidation.
> Verizon may end up buying a company like Alltel, which is not doing so
> well financially.
| |
|
| Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
> Verizon. Zwickie needs to recheck his facts.
Nope, it was me that wrote that. Sprint's coverage is significantly
worse in metro areas, just look at the results of the independent surveys.
Part of the reason is due to the fact that they operate at 1900 MHz.
This means that they need more towers to cover a given area, and that
signal penetration into big-box type buildings is worse.
At least in California, Sprint has serious problems in the metro areas.
In fact they actually will let people out of their contracts without a
termination fee if their service doesn't provide coverage at the
subscriber's home.
I was talking to someone at work, who had Sprint for years, and NEVER
had coverage at her house. She didn't worry about it because she did
have coverage most other places, but eventually when her kids went off
to college, she wanted a service that she could use from home with
mobile to mobile, so she switched carriers to Cingular.
One of the other reasons that Sprint has such issues, also related to
1900 MHz, is the NIMBY attitude of many neighborhoods to cell towers.
When the residents are fighting towers, they always bring up the
argument, "hey Verizon and Cingular have coverage without a tower
there." They put T-Mobile and Sprint in a tough situation, because the
carrier has to admit the reason why they need more towers than the
competition, but the attitude of the planning commissions is often,
"hey, that's not our problem."
| |
| Pegleg 2006-11-10, 3:33 pm |
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:30:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>The issue here is that Verizon has eliminated a lot of off-network
>roaming with America's Choice II that existed in the original America's
>Choice plan,
If you kept your original AC plan it is still there. It was done
because people were not paying attention to when they were roaming and
then screamed when they saw their bill.
-
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
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:30:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45549b0c$0$88619$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jackzwick wrote:
>
>
>The issue here is that Verizon has eliminated a lot of off-network
>roaming with America's Choice II that existed in the original America's
>Choice plan, while Sprint has retained this off-network roaming. It's
>roaming that I used extensively on my old America's Choice plan, that
>new Verizon customers don't get, but that new Sprint customers do get.
>
>On the other hand, Sprint doesn't let you roam onto Verizon's network in
>areas where Sprint has its own network, and usually Sprint's network is
>much worse than Verizon's network, due to several factors, but
Fewer towers.
>especially due to the 1900 MHz versus 800 MHz spectrum.
Not a real issue.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:52:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45540572$0$88687$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>The data is what it is. I honestly don't know what he's so upset about.
Not upset at all. My forecast is proving out. Yours, not so much.
>Thanks for all the interest. The number of hits on this page has been
>extremely high, ...
Double digits? ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:25:26 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com>
wrote in <WJ15h.39295$3y3.14634@newsfe07.phx>:
>Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
>Verizon. ...
In some areas, yes, but in other areas, no. On balance overall, Sprint
is well behind both Cingular and Verizon on native network coverage.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:35:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4554c65a$0$88700$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>Nope, it was me that wrote that. Sprint's coverage is significantly
>worse in metro areas, just look at the results of the independent surveys.
>
>Part of the reason is due to the fact that they operate at 1900 MHz.
>This means that they need more towers to cover a given area, and that
>signal penetration into big-box type buildings is worse.
That's nonsense, as I've shown before. The only significant factor in
urban areas is the number and placement of towers, not frequency.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Nessnet 2006-11-10, 10:33 pm |
| #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.
#2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:ues9l25ha2a5jr7
vkl8slo1acfvuaob9qq@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:35:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 4554c65a$0$88700$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> That's nonsense, as I've shown before. The only significant factor in
> urban areas is the number and placement of towers, not frequency.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| scharf.steven@gmail.com 2006-11-10, 10:33 pm |
|
Nessnet wrote:
> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.
>
> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...
Yes, this is true. Even Cingular is now admitting this, which is rather
amusing to me, since when the western region was 1900 MHz only they
couldn't state the real reason why the coverage was so poor. Instead
they used statements like, 'we're the new carrier and we are still
building out or network.'
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-10, 10:33 pm |
| On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
<1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>Nessnet wrote:
I've actually posted authoritative citations.
[color=darkred]
Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.
[color=darkred]
>Yes, this is true. Even Cingular is now admitting this, which is rather
>amusing to me, since when the western region was 1900 MHz only they
>couldn't state the real reason why the coverage was so poor. Instead
>they used statements like, 'we're the new carrier and we are still
>building out or network.'
Yet another unsubstantiated claim that simply doesn't hold water..
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:gbial2l5n3obv20
987bu98je83edjegpbd@
4ax.com:
> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
> <1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> I've actually posted authoritative citations.
Yes you have- and not had any true experience with any of it. Finding it
on Google doesn't qualify as authoratative information, Novice.
>
>
> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.
Nice try, Johnny.
>
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated claim that simply doesn't hold water..
>
It is substantiated- Google is your friend.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-11, 12:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> One of the other reasons that Sprint has such issues, also related to
> 1900 MHz, is the NIMBY attitude of many neighborhoods to cell towers.
> When the residents are fighting towers, they always bring up the
> argument, "hey Verizon and Cingular have coverage without a tower
> there." They put T-Mobile and Sprint in a tough situation, because the
> carrier has to admit the reason why they need more towers than the
> competition, but the attitude of the planning commissions is often,
> "hey, that's not our problem."
That logic goes both ways. Sprint and T-Mobile might have towers in
place and Verizon and Cingular get denied.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-11, 12:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
> <1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> I've actually posted authoritative citations.
Lets see...you made a statement that frequency has nothing to do with
propagation. That was simply incorrect - higher frequencies have greater
path loss. Raterh admit you were incorrect, you started citing examples of
other reasons that are more likely to affect propagation - which was
correct, but none of them supported you claim that higher frequencies do
not suffer reduced path losses.
>
> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.
Ummm...Radio propagation is part of the physics landscape. Try again.
Scott wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:gbial2l5n3obv20
987bu98je83edjegpbd@
4ax.com:
>
>
>
> Yes you have- and not had any true experience with any of it. Finding it
> on Google doesn't qualify as authoratative information, Novice.
Again, I have asked when was the last time you opened up a Motorola or
Nokia base station to do maintenance or climbed a tower to replace an
antenna. You simply aren't a professional in cellular communications, as
some of us are.
| |
|
| decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> That logic goes both ways. Sprint and T-Mobile might have towers in
> place and Verizon and Cingular get denied.
It's rarely the case, because in most cases Verizon and Cingular have
the legacy 800 MHz networks (after a series of mergers, acquisitions,
etc. (except in a few major metro areas like South Florida, and parts of
Texas).
So not only do Verizon and Cingular have towers in places where they
were able to get them in before planning commissions knew what was
happening, they also have the huge advantage of the better spectrum.
It's an advantage that is nearly impossible to overcome, especially in
suburban and rural areas, because even if Sprint and T-Mobile could get
approval for sufficient towers to equal the coverage of Cingular and
Verizon, the cost of putting in so many towers would hurt their margins.
In the dense metro areas, the advantage is not as great, but in most
metro areas you have a few dense cities surrounded by vast suburban areas.
| |
|
| Pegleg wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:30:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> If you kept your original AC plan it is still there.
I have kept it, for that specific reason.
> It was done
> because people were not paying attention to when they were roaming and
> then screamed when they saw their bill.
Yes, this is true. Too bad they couldn't come up with some other method
of managing this. You know when you go to an ATM and it informs you
about a fee for non-customers, and you have to press a button to agree
to the fee? Since Verizon can get whatever firmware they want into a
handset, maybe they could have had an option to enable off-network
roaming, with approval for off-network calls, both for outgoing and
incoming.
Or maybe they could have required that subscribers call them to enable
off-network roaming, just like you have to call to enable international
roaming, with the express agreement that you pay for the off-network
roaming calls.
Part of the problem is that the roaming indicator was back-asswards. It
would flash for on-network, and be steady for off-network. This was
counter-intuitive to anyone that actually paid attention to the roaming
indicator.
| |
| Pegleg 2006-11-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:29:13 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Pegleg wrote:
>
>I have kept it, for that specific reason.
Me too...comes in handy when traveling!
>
>Yes, this is true. Too bad they couldn't come up with some other method
>of managing this.
Exactly...when I renewed and kept my original AC plan I ask why they
just didn't make roaming a user option that would require selection
instead of creating a completely new plan with no option and there was a
long period of silence and then
"that would have been a better option wouldn't it?"
-
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
| |
| John Richards 2006-11-11, 3:33 pm |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:gbial2l5n3obv20
987bu98je83edjegpbd@
4ax.com...
> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
> <1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> I've actually posted authoritative citations.
>
>
> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.
Physics says that RF path propagation loss consists of two components:
Free Space Loss, and loss caused by absorption and scattering from
buildings and vegetation (trees) in the path.
Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss
Using one of the commonly available online calculators, it is evident that
free space loss is increased approximately 7dB when changing the
operating frequency from 850MHz to 1900MHz:
http://www.terabeam.com/support/cal...-space-loss.php
Loss attributed to trees in the RF path is also proportional to
operating frequency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissberger's_Model
I haven't researched RF loss attributed to buildings in the path, but
there is no reason to believe that it would be substantially different
than losses from trees in the path.
--
John Richards (retired RF engineer)
| |
| Nessnet 2006-11-11, 10:33 pm |
| Johnny will now reply with "nonsense"....
Even when the facts are very clear.
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message news:qtq5h.657$yE6.615@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:gbial2l5n3obv20
987bu98je83edjegpbd@
4ax.com...
>
> Physics says that RF path propagation loss consists of two components:
> Free Space Loss, and loss caused by absorption and scattering from
> buildings and vegetation (trees) in the path.
>
> Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss
>
> Using one of the commonly available online calculators, it is evident that
> free space loss is increased approximately 7dB when changing the operating frequency from 850MHz to 1900MHz:
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/cal...-space-loss.php
>
> Loss attributed to trees in the RF path is also proportional to
> operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissberger's_Model
>
> I haven't researched RF loss attributed to buildings in the path, but
> there is no reason to believe that it would be substantially different
> than losses from trees in the path.
>
> --
> John Richards (retired RF engineer)
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-11, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>
> It's rarely the case, because in most cases Verizon and Cingular have
> the legacy 800 MHz networks (after a series of mergers, acquisitions,
> etc. (except in a few major metro areas like South Florida, and parts of
> Texas).
I mostly thinking of the 1900 MHz deployment that T-Mobile built out ten
years ago in California.
> because even if Sprint and T-Mobile could get
> approval for sufficient towers to equal the coverage of Cingular and
> Verizon, the cost of putting in so many towers would hurt their margins.
Getting approval is pretty much a trivial task now. Planning commissions
and home owners have no more recourses to deny an application.
| |
|
|
| Yakov Chiu 2006-11-11, 10:33 pm |
| decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> Getting approval is pretty much a trivial task now. Planning commissions
> and home owners have no more recourses to deny an application.
What the planning commission can't do, is to deny a cell tower permit on
the basis of the alleged _health effects_. That's all that the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 states. There are plenty of other reasons
to deny a permit, including asthetics, that are still fair game for
denying a permit.
| |
| scharf.steven@gmail.com 2006-11-11, 10:33 pm |
|
decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> John Richards wrote:
>
> Navas consistently refutes this fact.
He has never refuted it. He has claimed that it isn't true, but has
never refuted it. There is a big difference.
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:23:21 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4556070b$0$88653$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>
>It's rarely the case, because in most cases Verizon and Cingular have
>the legacy 800 MHz networks (after a series of mergers, acquisitions,
>etc. (except in a few major metro areas like South Florida, and parts of
>Texas).
>
>So not only do Verizon and Cingular have towers in places where they
>were able to get them in before planning commissions knew what was
>happening, they also have the huge advantage of the better spectrum.
>It's an advantage that is nearly impossible to overcome, especially in
>suburban and rural areas, because even if Sprint and T-Mobile could get
>approval for sufficient towers to equal the coverage of Cingular and
>Verizon, the cost of putting in so many towers would hurt their margins.
>
>In the dense metro areas, the advantage is not as great, but in most
>metro areas you have a few dense cities surrounded by vast suburban areas.
Simply not true.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-11-12, 4:33 am |
| At 11 Nov 2006 20:34:30 +0000 John Richards wrote:
> Physics says that RF path propagation loss consists of two components:
> Free Space Loss, and loss caused by absorption and scattering from
> buildings and vegetation (trees) in the path.
Bah, what does physics know? ;-)>
> Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss
>
> Using one of the commonly available online calculators, it is evident
that
> free space loss is increased approximately 7dB when changing the
operating frequency from 850MHz to 1900MHz:
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/cal...-space-loss.php
It think the point John Navas may be making (or, perhaps,
misinterpreting!) is that in most metro areas this is largely irrelevant,
since so many "extra" towers are needed to support the capacity load that
the propagation loss caused by distance of each individual tower is
generally moot.
Obviously in rural areas the 800MHz carriers have an advantage where
capacity isn't an issue, and distance is the limiting factor.
I remember in the late 80's a rural Nebraska cellular carrier (aptly
named "Nebraska Cellular") managed to provide excellent cellular service
along I-80 through almost the entire state with a minimal number of
towers thanks to 800MHz propagation and some VERY flat terrain!
Off topic, but interesting, one of their head honchos told me (back then)
that they made half of their total revenue from roamers (this was back
in the old $3/day + $1/minute roaming days) so highway coverage was more
important to them than covering the towns they serviced!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-12, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:04:54 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
< nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote in
<Gyt5h.7061$yl4.2313@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>SMS wrote:
>
>Getting approval is pretty much a trivial task now. Planning commissions
>and home owners have no more recourses to deny an application.
Correct.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-12, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:04:53 -0800, Yakov Chiu <chiuynospam@sbc.com>
wrote in < 45569e34$0$4202$2c56
edd9@news.cablerocket.com>:
>decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>
>What the planning commission can't do, is to deny a cell tower permit on
>the basis of the alleged _health effects_. That's all that the
>Telecommunications Act of 1996 states. There are plenty of other reasons
>to deny a permit, including asthetics, that are still fair game for
>denying a permit.
Not true. See the text of Section 704 at
<http://njpo.org/features/wireless/sec704.htm>
and the FCC Fact Sheet at <http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/fact1.html>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> It think the point John Navas may be making (or, perhaps,
> misinterpreting!) is that in most metro areas this is largely irrelevant,
> since so many "extra" towers are needed to support the capacity load that
> the propagation loss caused by distance of each individual tower is
> generally moot.
Perhaps, but this is demonstrably untrue in suburban areas, where the
tower placement is to cover a geographic area, and the capacity is not
the issue.
T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
address, and you can clearly see the gaps caused by insufficient towers
in many areas.
I don't think that anyone argues that 1900 MHz has as much range or as
much penetration as 800 MHz. Not even Navas would claim something like
that. The rule of thumb has always been 2x the distance, mathematically
it's more than 2x, but their are other factors (geologic features,
buildings, etc.) that make the increase in range less than ideal.
> Obviously in rural areas the 800MHz carriers have an advantage where
> capacity isn't an issue, and distance is the limiting factor.
>
> I remember in the late 80's a rural Nebraska cellular carrier (aptly
> named "Nebraska Cellular") managed to provide excellent cellular service
> along I-80 through almost the entire state with a minimal number of
> towers thanks to 800MHz propagation and some VERY flat terrain!
Yes, this is the big advantage of AMPS, at 800 MHz. The hope is that if
AMPS ever gets turned off in those rural areas, that something will take
its place, maybe something like Australia did with CDMA.
> Off topic, but interesting, one of their head honchos told me (back then)
> that they made half of their total revenue from roamers (this was back
> in the old $3/day + $1/minute roaming days) so highway coverage was more
> important to them than covering the towns they serviced!
This may be the reason why Verizon dropped so much coverage on America's
Choice II--those rural carriers saw no upside in a reciprocal roaming
agreement, yet Verizon was determined to not have any paid, off-network
roaming, anymore.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-11-12, 4:33 am |
| At 12 Nov 2006 00:52:00 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Perhaps, but this is demonstrably untrue in suburban areas, where the
tower placement is to cover a geographic area, and the capacity is not
the issue.
>
> T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
address, and you can clearly see the gaps caused by insufficient towers
in many areas.
I was very impressed with the accuracy of T-Mo's maps. Cingular now has
a similar street-level map as well, which seems equally accurate,
including the large dead spot my house is in the center of! ;-)
>
> I don't think that anyone argues that 1900 MHz has as much range or as
much penetration as 800 MHz. Not even Navas would claim something like
that. The rule of thumb has always been 2x the distance, mathematically
it's more than 2x, but their are other factors (geologic features,
buildings, etc.) that make the increase in range less than ideal.
Ironically, neither major 800MHz carrier in Denver works at my house
(Cingular or Verizon) but T-Mo and Sprint and (as well as Nextel) do!
(I realize it's not a frequency thing, I just find it funny that the
nation's two largest carriers can't get a signal to my neighborhood but
everyone else does...)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> (I realize it's not a frequency thing, I just find it funny that the
> nation's two largest carriers can't get a signal to my neighborhood but
> everyone else does...)
When Cingular was 1900 MHz only in my area, they were trying to put in a
tower near my house. About five years later, T-Mobile now has the site,
and they still have been turned down by the city to install a tower.
Contrary to what the carriers try to tell planning commissions, there is
no requirement to approve a tower, but you can't not approve it for the
wrong reasons, it has to be the right reasons.
| |
| George 2006-11-12, 10:33 am |
| Nessnet wrote:
> Johnny will now reply with "nonsense"....
> Even when the facts are very clear.
>
>
Somehow I picture that if you were to go to his house I think you would
find Cingular toothpaste, Cingular coffee creamer and him wearing a
Cingular cheerleader sweatshirt...
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-12, 12:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Contrary to what the carriers try to tell planning commissions, there is
> no requirement to approve a tower, but you can't not approve it for the
> wrong reasons, it has to be the right reasons.
The current landscape (pardon the pun) is that is cannot be denied
for alleged heath issues or cosmetic reasons. It can be denied under
historic preservation reasons, so they go with excluded pubic
easments.
| |
|
| decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> The current landscape (pardon the pun) is that is cannot be denied
> for alleged heath issues or cosmetic reasons. It can be denied under
> historic preservation reasons, so they go with excluded pubic
> easments.
Hmm, what section of the TCA lists cosmetic reasons?
I found the RF section, "Title 47 of the United States Code, Section
332, (7)(B)(iv) states that, "No state or local government or
instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that
such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such
emissions."
In an case, there is wide leeway in the definition of "cosmetic." If a
municipality is too restrictive, then the carrier may be able to seek
relief through the courts, but the carriers typically don't want to go
that far, as it is bad for their business and for their image.
It's important for neighborhoods that are seeking to block towers, to
not bring up the RF issue in their arguments against the towers, so the
carrier can not challenge the decision in court.
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:52:00 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4556e0b1$0$88672$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>Perhaps, but this is demonstrably untrue in suburban areas, where the
>tower placement is to cover a geographic area, and the capacity is not
>the issue.
[sigh] Again:
Claiming that over and over doesn't make it any more true. What is
true is that you've never cited any real authorities to support your
wild contention that "1900 Mhz requires 4x to 5x the number of base
stations as 800 Mhz".
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....f125ddd3224b9a1>
Do you have any? Or are you just making this up (like so many other
things)?
I see you've now dropped the "4x to 5x" claim. Apparently you now
realize how patently wrong that was. ;)
Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.
It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range
for 1900, or a maximum of about 20% more towers along a flat rural
highway strip, or a maximum of 50% more towers in area coverage, and
then only when range is limited only by maximum power, which is
rarely the case in metro areas. Tower spacing is only near maximum
in flat rural areas (and current small handsets don't come close to
maximum power levels), so your claim about metro areas is patently
bogus.
>T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
>address, ...
Likewise Cingular. <http://onlinecare.cingular.com/coverageviewer/>
>I don't think that anyone argues that 1900 MHz has as much range or as
>much penetration as 800 MHz. Not even Navas would claim something like
>that.
Again:
It's not that simple. While 1900 penetrates walls less well than
800/850, it does a better job of penetrating small openings (e.g.,
windows). Overall the difference is usually relatively small, with
800/850 better in some buildings, 1900 better in other buildings.
Authoritative articles support this. For a solid technical assessment
of the issues, see CS 294-7: Radio Propagation by Prof. Randy H. Katz,
CS Division, University of California, Berkeley
<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>. Those interested will
find that frequency isn't an issue in outdoor range, and is a relatively
minor issue in indoor penetration.
>The rule of thumb has always been 2x the distance, mathematically
>it's more than 2x, but their are other factors (geologic features,
>buildings, etc.) that make the increase in range less than ideal.
Nonsense. See above.
>
>Yes, this is the big advantage of AMPS, at 800 MHz. The hope is that if
>AMPS ever gets turned off in those rural areas, that something will take
>its place, maybe something like Australia did with CDMA.
More nonsense. The advantage with AMPS was/is high-power "bag" phones,
which have more range than small micro-power handsets, but that's a
function of power, not of band (800/850 vs 1900) or technology (AMPS vs
digital).
[color=darkred]
Yep.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:41:05 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4556fa41$0$88695$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>When Cingular was 1900 MHz only in my area, they were trying to put in a
>tower near my house. About five years later, T-Mobile now has the site,
>and they still have been turned down by the city to install a tower.
>Contrary to what the carriers try to tell planning commissions, there is
>no requirement to approve a tower, but you can't not approve it for the
>wrong reasons, it has to be the right reasons.
Wrong on both counts. Take the time to actually read Section 704 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>
> Hmm, what section of the TCA lists cosmetic reasons?
As in communities can't block a tower for the sole reason that it
doesn't look good or fit in with the neighborhood. That's why there
is a growing business in camouflaging the towers.
Radio Mobile Times magazine had a good write up on this and how
the carriers are fighting back. Communities learned they can't
play the radiation health issues and look to see if the tower
site might visually impact a designated historic area.
I say "visually impact" as the carriers know it would be a hard
fight to place a tower within such an area, so communities try
it from the other direction. Case in point, there was an historic
area within sight of a planned tower site - the FCC determined
to visually see the tower from the historic aera, it required
looking through trees and power lines. Tower site was approved.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> Obviously in rural areas the 800MHz carriers have an advantage where
> capacity isn't an issue, and distance is the limiting factor.
We had the opportunity to test coverage once for the fun of it.
Tower had a 1900 MHz AT&T at top and 800 MHz Cingular right below
it. We took two Nokia 61xx phones running in field diagnostics mode
which displays signal level in one dB increments. In a rural
environment and walking into small business, open road in a truck,
on foot...both phones had similar coverage.
| |
| Curtis R Anderson 2006-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| Yakov Chiu wrote:
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>
>
> What the planning commission can't do, is to deny a cell tower permit on
> the basis of the alleged _health effects_. That's all that the
> Telecommunications Act of 1996 states. There are plenty of other reasons
> to deny a permit, including asthetics, that are still fair game for
> denying a permit.
One healt effect, for example, was one family in the Chautauqua County,
NY town of Kiantone tried to block American Tower from putting up a 250'
free-standing cell tower, claiming their child's cochlear implants would
squeal and be otherwise painful. The court allowed the tower to go up
anyway, like they were supposed to.
I think of _Star Trek II_ logic here: "The needs of the many [who drive
around and may have a breakdown] outweigh the needs of the few [who have
ear implants]."
I was driving in the area some time ago and noticed VZW had a nice
strong signal off the tower.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
"In Heaven there is no beer / That's why we drink it here ..."
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gleepy@intell
igencia.com
mailto:gleepy@gleepy
.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:37:13 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45575bca$0$88626$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>Hmm, what section of the TCA lists cosmetic reasons?
>
>I found the RF section, "Title 47 of the United States Code, Section
>332, (7)(B)(iv) states that, "No state or local government or
>instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
>modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
>environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that
>such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such
>emissions."
>
>In an case, there is wide leeway in the definition of "cosmetic." If a
>municipality is too restrictive, then the carrier may be able to seek
>relief through the courts, but the carriers typically don't want to go
>that far, as it is bad for their business and for their image.
>
>It's important for neighborhoods that are seeking to block towers, to
>not bring up the RF issue in their arguments against the towers, so the
>carrier can not challenge the decision in court.
You need to look a bit harder. Key language:
`(B) LIMITATIONS-
`(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification
of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local
government or instrumentality thereof--
`(I) SHALL NOT UNREASONABLY DISCRIMINATE AMONG PROVIDERS OF
FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT SERVICES; AND
`(II) SHALL NOT PROHIBIT OR HAVE THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING THE
PROVISION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES.
`(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall
act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify
personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of
time after the request is duly filed with such government or
instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such
request.
`(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or
instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or
modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
`(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental
effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such
facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such
emissions.
`(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to
act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof
that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days
after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court
of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such
action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an
act or failure to act by a State or local government or any
instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may
petition the Commission for relief.
[emphasis added]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> Tower had a 1900 MHz AT&T at top and 800 MHz Cingular right below
> it. We took two Nokia 61xx phones running in field diagnostics mode
> which displays signal level in one dB increments. In a rural
> environment and walking into small business, open road in a truck,
> on foot...both phones had similar coverage.
That's a tough comparison to make accurately both because of the
absolute accuracy of the RSSI built into the phones and because of the
variability due to propagation. Still, an interesting one to attempt!
Further on the topic of 850/1900 frequency dependent propagation
differences...
At the risk of hearing more "nonsense" responses I'd like to submit that
there truly is a frequency term in outdoor propagation models and that
for typical scenarios, there indeed is a significant difference between
850 MHz and 1900 MHz, attributable to the difference of transmission
through real impairments, like buildings and foliage as well as to the
differences in diffraction between the different wavelengths. The
article that John Navas suggested as relevant:
http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf
is mostly discussing frequency selective fading and multi-path
impairments rather than mechanisms for attenuation. Slide 8 does show
curves for urban, suburban, rural and LOS but there is no detail
showing the derivation of the model and is not relevant to this discussion.
For a relevant comparison, I would suggest the COST231 propagation model
with Hata extensions. COST231/Hata applies to path lengths generally of
1 km or longer and beyond the LOS region discussed in the paper above.
The Hata extensions extend the useful frequency range of the model. One
can Google for Matlab implementations of the model if desired.
Applying this model to 850 and 1900 MHz scenarios, one really does see a
significant difference in attenuation due only to frequency. The precise
difference depends upon the transmitter and receiver antenna heights
selected and on the particular subset of the model. However, differences
in the area of 6-12 dB region are common. As an example, for 20
meter/1 meter antenna heights in a suburban environment, at 1 km the
model gives
radiosuburban_atten(
850e6,1000) = -107.37
radiosuburban_atten(
1900e6,1000) = -114.42
for a difference of about 7 dB.
If antenna/frequency effects can be avoided (something not necessarily
done in your walk-around test, by the way), by using constant physical
aperture on one antenna and constant electrical aperture on the second.
Doing this assures constant ERP and constant receive aperture so that
wavelength falls out of the freespace portion of the result. What
remains shows the frequency dependent effect in the model.
While one can argue which model is most correct or useful, the
experiential result is still a very significant difference between
propagation in the two bands in typical environments.
The above example is just one scenario but were complete coverage
required, the 1900 MHz scenario would require reducing the maximum radio
path by more than a factor of two. As a result of that reduction, over
an area the number of base stations would have to more than quadruple,
for equivalent coverage.
g
| |
|
| decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> As in communities can't block a tower for the sole reason that it
> doesn't look good or fit in with the neighborhood. That's why there
> is a growing business in camouflaging the towers.
That makes no sense. If you can't block a tower because it doesn't look
good, why are carriers bothering to camouflage the towers. I could not
find any section in the TCA that talks about anything other than
forbidding banning towers due to EMI issues.
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:49:14 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4557cf1a$0$88686$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>That makes no sense. If you can't block a tower because it doesn't look
>good, why are carriers bothering to camouflage the towers. I could not
>find any section in the TCA that talks about anything other than
>forbidding banning towers due to EMI issues.
You're obviously not paying attention.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-13, 4:33 am |
| g wrote:
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>
> That's a tough comparison to make accurately both because of the
> absolute accuracy of the RSSI built into the phones and because of the
> variability due to propagation. Still, an interesting one to attempt!
Actually, reading the dB scale wasn't necessary. Most importantly we
did a side by side comparison from same cell tower location and similar
preforming phones. So the only significant variable would be the
propagation difference of the two bands (assuming similar radio
performance).
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-13, 4:33 am |
| SMS wrote:
>
> That makes no sense. If you can't block a tower because it doesn't look
> good, why are carriers bothering to camouflage the towers.
To head off fruitless litigation. If the carrier proposes a hidden tower,
the communities will often go along with them. Thus avoiding legal tangles.
| |
|
| decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> Actually, reading the dB scale wasn't necessary. Most importantly we
> did a side by side comparison from same cell tower location and similar
> preforming phones. So the only significant variable would be the
> propagation difference of the two bands (assuming similar radio
> performance).
Yes, the real test is to see where communications stops, since power
control and a host of other things get into the act and make it very
hard to decipher what is truly going on as you are anything less than
last-gasp comms.
Do recognize though that this still isn't a propagation comparison until
you are sure that you know the ERP of each site (in the pilot or
whatever is being measured by 'bars') and the effective aperture of each
handset antenna.
We should note also that there is an implicit assumption of the same
noise+interference level here as well.
Effectively then you are still making an absolute power measurement
by comparing the point at which the Carrier/Noise ratio falls below that
required for the modulation scheme, with the assumption of constant,
known noise floor (KTB).
All in all this is a pretty rough way to determine frequency related
propagation differences. It's a lot more accurate and ultimately easier
to do it with a specialized system, which is what the better models reflect.
g
| |
|
| You also have to add in receiver senseivity/antenna gain on each band.
Your test is still good because it is testing the raw coverage for that
phone model to a single tower over two bands. It may be that the
phone is optimized for 1900 Mhz and will give equal results on both
bands.
The other Bill
"g" <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in message
news:455802b5$0$3449
2$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>
> Yes, the real test is to see where communications stops, since power
> control and a host of other things get into the act and make it very hard
> to decipher what is truly going on as you are anything less than last-gasp
> comms.
>
> Do recognize though that this still isn't a propagation comparison until
> you are sure that you know the ERP of each site (in the pilot or whatever
> is being measured by 'bars') and the effective aperture of each handset
> antenna.
>
> We should note also that there is an implicit assumption of the same
> noise+interference level here as well.
>
> Effectively then you are still making an absolute power measurement by
> comparing the point at which the Carrier/Noise ratio falls below that
> required for the modulation scheme, with the assumption of constant, known
> noise floor (KTB).
>
> All in all this is a pretty rough way to determine frequency related
> propagation differences. It's a lot more accurate and ultimately easier to
> do it with a specialized system, which is what the better models reflect.
>
> g
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-13, 10:33 am |
| Bill wrote:
> You also have to add in receiver senseivity/antenna gain on each band.
> Your test is still good because it is testing the raw coverage for that
> phone model to a single tower over two bands. It may be that the
> phone is optimized for 1900 Mhz and will give equal results on both
> bands.
Bottom line is the *ad hoc* test showed similar efficacy of
800 MHz and 1900 MHz when used is a rural environment.
Both Nokia phones were dual-band models.
| |
| user@domain.invalid 2006-11-13, 10:33 am |
| SMS wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the interest. The number of hits on this page has been
> extremely high, as a compilation of this data is not available anywhere
> else.
>
> "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/"
How about profit per carrier if that is available? While the data is pretty good at showing the
metrics, one can't tell if a carrier is sacrificing profits at the expense of market share or any
other metric.
Thanks,
-Jason
| |
|
|
> Bill wrote:
Actually you can ignore receiver sensitivity as long as the phone is
well designed and limited by the system noise - which is what I was
suggesting. I also mentioned antenna gains, as part of ERP on transmit
and as part of effective aperture in the handset (receiving).
decaturtxcowboy wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Bottom line is the *ad hoc* test showed similar efficacy of
> 800 MHz and 1900 MHz when used is a rural environment.
>
> Both Nokia phones were dual-band models.
Yes, that definitiely shows they had the same performance but it doesn't
say too much about the reason or whether there is was a frequency
dependency differentially affecting the transmission losses. For that
you need to do significantly more, as described.
For more detail on frequency dependent attenuation, look for a paper by
Brown & Currie. A microwave-millimeter model from them:
> ke = 0.5*f^(0.75)
>
> where f is in GHz, and ke is attenuation in dB/meter for 1 way
> propagation in the summer for coniferous and deciduous foliage.
> In the winter, ke is about a factor of 2 smaller.
which gives about .44 dB per meter at 850 MHz and .8 dB/meter at 1.9
GHz. If the path from the tower has significant foliage, there will be a
significant increase in attenuation, due only to the foliage, at 1.9 GHz.
g
| |
|
| user@domain.invalid wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
> How about profit per carrier if that is available? While the data is
> pretty good at showing the metrics, one can't tell if a carrier is
> sacrificing profits at the expense of market share or any other metric.
>
> Thanks,
> -Jason
Yes, I could add the profit and the margins, quarter after quarter.
However it really doesn't tell you about sacrificing profits for market
share. AT&T and Cingular had low margins at the height of the TDMA to
GSM conversion because of the high expenses of the network conversion,
compared to Verizon which has enjoyed very high margins. Now Cingular's
margins are increasing because the network conversion is complete.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-11-13, 12:33 pm |
| g wrote:
> Yes, that definitiely shows they had the same performance but it doesn't
> say too much about the reason or whether there is was a frequency
> dependency differentially affecting the transmission losses. For that
> you need to do significantly more, as described.
As far as the typical user-facing experience, results were similar.
| |
| John Richards 2006-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| "decaturtxcowboy" < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote in message news:ZMS5h.6649$6t.6547@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>g wrote:
>
> Actually, reading the dB scale wasn't necessary. Most importantly we
> did a side by side comparison from same cell tower location and similar
> preforming phones. So the only significant variable would be the
> propagation difference of the two bands (assuming similar radio
> performance).
Variations in the nominally comparable RF performance of the phones
could easily mask the 7 dB difference to be expected from the
operating frequency difference. These types of studies are normally
carried out with spectrum analyzers costing thousands of dollars.
--
John Richards
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2006-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| On 2006-11-12, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps, but this is demonstrably untrue in suburban areas, where the
> tower placement is to cover a geographic area, and the capacity is not
> the issue.
>
> T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
> address, and you can clearly see the gaps caused by insufficient towers
> in many areas.
I wish Verizon had a map like that. I'm not sure it would have fewer
gaps in suburban areas (like where I live), though there is no way
to tell currently.
> I don't think that anyone argues that 1900 MHz has as much range or as
> much penetration as 800 MHz. Not even Navas would claim something like
> that. The rule of thumb has always been 2x the distance, mathematically
> it's more than 2x, but their are other factors (geologic features,
> buildings, etc.) that make the increase in range less than ideal.
I think this is a bit bogus. I believe the "math" you are considering
is the path loss alone which, as another post here pointed out, is about
7 db greater at 1900 MHz than at 850 MHz. A 6 db difference in the
overall system budget would indeed be expected to double your
line-of-sight distance, so the decrease in frequency might double your
distance if nothing else in the system changed with frequency. It is
the latter assumption which is highly dubious; other things change
with frequency too.
As an example of what, suppose we were talking not about cell phones
but rather a point-to-point microwave circuit that we were picking a
frequency for. Suppose the transmitter power and parabolic dish sizes
were fixed. In this case, I think a 1900 MHz link would give you twice
the distance of an 850 MHz link. While 1900 MHz would increase the
path *loss* by 7 db, it would also increase the antenna *gain* (for
same size antennas) by 7 db each, and since there are two antennas
involved the net improvement at 1900 MHz would be 7 db. Path loss
is not the only thing which changes with frequency, and some of the
other changes can be to the benefit of the higher frequency. In
particular, while path loss increases with increasing frequency,
antenna performance, given realistic constraints, tends to improve.
The same situation exists with cell phones, it is just that since
I don't know the particular numbers (I don't think you do either)
I can only guess at how this might come out. Since the output
power on either frequency is constrained to be the same (by the
handset) we're down to a comparison of likely antenna performance.
One thing we know about this for sure is that if the antennas at
the two frequencies are the same physical size, the 1900 MHz
antenna is very likely to have higher gain. This is exactly
the situation of a dual band handset where the same antenna is used
for both frequencies. Worse, a quarter wavelength at 850 MHz is
a highly unstylish 3.5 inches, but at 1900 MHz is is a svelt 1.5
inches, so 850 MHz performance on a modern dual band handset is
increasingly likely to be compromised with an electrically short
antenna. I hence wouldn't be surprised if the handset antenna
gain gave 1900 MHz a 2-5 db advantage (look at 802.11a/g dual band
access points, which sometimes also share antennas at two frequencies;
if they list antenna gains for each frequency then you'll generally find
802.11a has an advantage of several db, even without the antenna
size constraints that are important for a handset).
At the base station the same issue applies, though slightly differently.
Since it is easier to build higher gain antennas at 1900 MHz than at
850 MHz, you can always compensate for any remaining path loss advantage
at 850 MHz by deploying higher gain 1900 MHz antennas. The problem
with this at a base station, however, is that with the highly efficient
antennas in use there (unlike the handset), higher gain implies greater
directionality, so the only way to use higher gain antennas is to
increase the sectorization, which seems certain to increase cost if
you don't need the added capacity as well. So, while I would agree
that building a 1900 MHz network in less densely populated areas
is likely to be more expensive than 850 MHz given equivalent coverage,
I don't agree at all that this extra expense necessarily needs to be
incurred by building more towers; it can also be incurred by spending
more money at the towers you've got.
And while the above necessarily includes some speculation about how
it works, what I can tell you for certain that it doesn't seem
to work your way, with Verizon having this incredible coverage advantage,
where I live because I did that experiment. I live in a coverage seam
which shows up at 1 bar on the T-Mobile map. I also know for
certain that my service comes from a cell site on top of a building
downtown where all 5 carriers have equipment (I know this because there
have been articles in the local paper about attempts to construct more
towers here which mentioned where the existing cell sites were). I
was a Sprint PCS customer several years ago when I moved into that house.
My phone worked okay on the second floor of my house, was marginal on the
ground floor, and wouldn't work at all in the basement except near the
windows. I eventually got fed up and, even though I was still under
contract with Sprint, I went to Verizon and bought a phone. I bought the
same model phone from Verizon (a Samsung, I think) that I had with Sprint
and took it home. It helped nothing. The maintenance display which
showed the received signal strength in db(m?) showed virtually no
difference; I think Sprint was in fact usually a db or so better, for
whatever that's worth. The phones were equally good upstairs, equally
marginal on the main floor and got service (or not) in pretty much the
same locations in the basement. There being no detectable improvement
with Verizon, I took that phone back (and no one in the shop seemed
surprised the phone didn't work well in my neighbourhood). I've since
had T-Mobile, and now Cingular service, and I've replaced Sprint with
Verizon for other reasons, but there's really little to choose between
them for coverage at my house. There is certainly no 850 MHz advantage
in the suburbs where I live.
In any case, if you want to persist in arguing that 850 MHz provides
a 2x distance advantage over 1900 MHz, you can't just quote the path loss
and stop. You've also got to explain why the antenna gains at
both frequencies would need to be identical, and my understanding of
the problem leads me to believe you'll have some trouble doing this.
I believe there is a a cost advantage at 800 MHz, I just don't believe
the extra money for 1900 MHz necessarily needs to be spent on more towers.
It can also be spent on improving the coverage of the towers you've
got.
[color=darkred]
>
> Yes, this is the big advantage of AMPS, at 800 MHz. The hope is that if
> AMPS ever gets turned off in those rural areas, that something will take
> its place, maybe something like Australia did with CDMA.
If there was an advantage for AMPS it was entirely due to the use of
3 Watt car phones (i.e. an 8-12 db advantage in power output over
a modern handset) with an antenna outside the car, as was common in
the late 80's. If you are power limited, as modern handsets are,
either CDMA or GSM will do better than AMPS under pretty much any
common set of circumstances.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> I think this is a bit bogus. I believe the "math" you are considering
> is the path loss alone which, as another post here pointed out, is about
> 7 db greater at 1900 MHz than at 850 MHz.
The "path loss" is constant with frequency if one considers a fixed gain
(electrical size) on one antenna and a fixed aperture (physical size) on
the other. The term 'path loss' was originally used (and misapplied)
modeling links with isotropic antennas at each end. Modeling that way
resulted in constant ERP but diminishing receive antenna aperture. The
result was an apparant loss of signal as frequency increased.
Interestingly, this was probably responsible for commercial and military
users of the radio spectrum considering everything of shorter wavelength
"200 meters and down" fairly useless. Actually though, energy is
conserved and no power is lost on a freespace path; the receive antenna
'bucket size' is just getting smaller with increasing frequency.
To empirically compare path attenuation one needs to know the ERP (which
takes care of both transmit power and sector antenna gain) and handset
antenna aperture.
Your comments about handset antenna differences are valid and without
knowing something about them, it's not possible to make a good
comparison of the effect of frequency on path length by comparing two
phones/systems.
Do note though, there is very solid measured evidence for the component
of attenuation due to frequency alone, as I posted earlier. In addition
to the 20*log(1900/850) 'pathloss' component there is also an absorption
component which truly is related to frequency.
> The same situation exists with cell phones, it is just that since
> I don't know the particular numbers
See above. Sector antennas are normally 10-12 dBi; they have roughly 120
degree beam width azimuthally but can have differing beam widths in
elevation.
Handset antennas are similarly hard to pin down, both due to
inefficiencies due to physical shortening you mention and also due to
ill-controlled polarization and siting errors when used in a typical way.
> And while the above necessarily includes some speculation about how
> it works, what I can tell you for certain that it doesn't seem
> to work your way, with Verizon having this incredible coverage advantage,
> where I live because I did that experiment.
But do you know that the ERP of the two systems was identical and that
the effective aperture of the two handset antennas, as well as the
receiver system temperature were identical?
> In any case, if you want to persist in arguing that 850 MHz provides
> a 2x distance advantage over 1900 MHz, you can't just quote the path loss
> and stop. You've also got to explain why the antenna gains at
> both frequencies would need to be identical, and my understanding of
> the problem leads me to believe you'll have some trouble doing this.
This is certainly true. Since there really isn't any 'path loss' one has
to know a lot about the system in order to measure it. However, this has
been measured extensively over real paths and is the source of COST231,
Lee and other models which do in fact show considerable frequency
dependent attenuation in non-LOS environments.
g
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:13:55 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 45592681$0$34518$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>This is certainly true. Since there really isn't any 'path loss' one has
>to know a lot about the system in order to measure it. However, this has
>been measured extensively over real paths and is the source of COST231,
>Lee and other models which do in fact show considerable frequency
>dependent attenuation in non-LOS environments.
The key words there are "non-LOS". In such cases, differences vary
considerably from location to location, and no frequency generalization
is truly valid; i.e., there are cases where 1900 will work better than
850 and vice versa. As in some many other things, it all depends.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
>
> The key words there are "non-LOS". In such cases, differences vary
> considerably from location to location, and no frequency generalization
> is truly valid; i.e., there are cases where 1900 will work better than
> 850 and vice versa. As in some many other things, it all depends.
Yes, different environmental models are used to approximate the median
characteristics. And on average, when a large number of measurements are
taken, higher frequencies will incur greater attenuation.
In typical environments here really is a significant, statistical and
practical difference between the two bands.
g
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-14, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:37:03 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 4559480e$0$34559$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Yes, different environmental models are used to approximate the median
>characteristics. And on average, when a large number of measurements are
>taken, higher frequencies will incur greater attenuation.
>
>In typical environments here really is a significant, statistical and
>practical difference between the two bands.
The empirical studies I've seen are anything but conclusive.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> The empirical studies I've seen are anything but conclusive.
I don't know what studies you are referring to but
http://www.radyn.com/Papers/gmc/Foliage_Attenuation.pdf might interest you.
This is particularly a millimeter wave study but pages 8-9 and
particularly paragraph 4 on page 9 are relevant and compare results from
several studies which were within 1 dB of each other.
From these, I would say it is conclusive that there is a significant
frequency dependency to attenuation through foliage.
g
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-14, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:37:25 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 45595634$0$34512$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>I don't know what studies you are referring to but
>http://www.radyn.com/Papers/gmc/Foliage_Attenuation.pdf might interest you.
I'm talking real world surveys of signal propagation in various
environments, particularly urban settings.
>This is particularly a millimeter wave study but pages 8-9 and
>particularly paragraph 4 on page 9 are relevant and compare results from
>several studies which were within 1 dB of each other.
>
> From these, I would say it is conclusive that there is a significant
>frequency dependency to attenuation through foliage.
Sure, but that's only a small factor in very complex circumstances. On
the other hand, higher frequencies are generally better at penetrating
smaller openings. Etc. That's why it's not valid to generalize from
limited data
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2006-11-14, 7:33 am |
| Here Sprint PCS and verizon are both PCS. The area covered by Sprint
PCS is larger than verizon. The quality of that coverage is probably
about the same. The two cellular carriers uscellular and cingular cover
a lot more area, but their coverage is not better in the areas also
covered by Sprint PCS .
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Yes, I could add the profit and the margins, quarter after quarter.
>
> However it really doesn't tell you about sacrificing profits for market
> share. AT&T and Cingular had low margins at the height of the TDMA to
> GSM conversion because of the high expenses of the network conversion,
> compared to Verizon which has enjoyed very high margins. Now Cingular's
> margins are increasing because the network conversion is complete.
Following up on my own post, I saw a report on the non-voice revenue for
the various carriers, which drives home the point about why the Cingular
ARPU is lagging.
Verizon has an ARPU of $50.59, with non-voice revenue representing $7.16
of the total.
Cingular has an ARPU of $49.76, with non-voice revenue representing
$6.32 per user.
If Cingular raises it's non-voice revenue to the same level as Verizon,
they would have an ARPU of $50.60, one cent more than Verizon. Cingular
has been slow to roll out their high speed data network, which is why
they lag Verizon in non-voice revenue, but that will change in the next
six months to one year.
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-14, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:26:31 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4559ee35$0$88670$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Following up on my own post, I saw a report on the non-voice revenue for
>the various carriers, which drives home the point about why the Cingular
>ARPU is lagging.
>
>Verizon has an ARPU of $50.59, with non-voice revenue representing $7.16
>of the total.
>
>Cingular has an ARPU of $49.76, with non-voice revenue representing
>$6.32 per user.
>
>If Cingular raises it's non-voice revenue to the same level as Verizon,
>they would have an ARPU of $50.60, one cent more than Verizon. Cingular
>has been slow to roll out their high speed data network, which is why
>they lag Verizon in non-voice revenue, but that will change in the next
>six months to one year.
Cingular has actually been pretty aggressive in rolling out data -- its
EGPRS(EDGE) network coverage predated Verizon's 1xRTT. The difference
is almost certainly due to marketing, not technology. Not that it | | |