Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 04 Feb 2008 23:48:35 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Not really, I'll give Verizon a slight edge for coverage, mostly because
>>> they
>>> still support analog roaming. That still gives a small edge in rural
>>> areas. I agree with your premise that AT&T/Cingular HAD roughly equal
>>> coverage when AT&T/Cingular was still TDMA/AMPS-based. The switch to GSM
>>> lessened the roaming capability somewhat.
>> Whether that was ever really true or not, expansion of GSM coverage has
>> clearly long since surpassed D-AMPS/AMPS coverage, not in all specific
>> areas (all carriers have coverage holes), but definitely overall.
>
>
> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's TDMA
> areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built out
> (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get added to
> increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the system hasn't
> really changed _significantly_ in some time for the legacy 800MHz carriers.

The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but you
can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.

I carry a phone on AT&T's network when I go to these fringe areas, just
to check on the relative coverage quality. All the independent surveys
definitely are correct.

>> Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, and most other areas I care about,
>> AT&T has better overall coverage than Verizon.
>
>
> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
> subscribers! ;-)

LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile, it
was Cingular that was trying).

However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the
Bay Area. The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.

I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says about
the quality of Bay Area coverage.

Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they were
tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with AT&T a
distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.

Bay Area Consumer Checkbook had 814 responses for AT&T and 826 for
Verizon in their Volume, 11, No. 4 magazine (Spring/Summer 2007):

For "Being able to get connections in local area," AT&T was rated at
81%, Verizon at 91%.

For "Being able to get connections when traveling," AT&T was rated at
87%, Verizon at 93%.

For "Not having calls dropped," AT&T was rated at 79%, Verizon at 90%.


J.D. Power ranked Verizon highest in wireless call quality for the west.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:02:58 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a7df4d$0$84201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:

>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's TDMA
>> areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built out
>> (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get added to
>> increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the system hasn't
>> really changed _significantly_ in some time for the legacy 800MHz carriers.
>
>The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly
comparable.

>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but you
>can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.

Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.

>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
>> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
>> subscribers! ;-)
>
>LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile, it
>was Cingular that was trying).
>
>However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the
>Bay Area.

Again, not true.

>The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.

In fact doing quite well in this area.

>I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says about
>the quality of Bay Area coverage.

Believe you instead?

>Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they were
>tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with AT&T a
>distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.

It said nothing of the kind.

Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> Todd Allcock wrote

>>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's
>>> TDMA areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built
>>> out (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get
>>> added to increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the
>>> system hasn't really changed significantly in some time for the
>>> legacy 800MHz carriers.

>> The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>> much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly comparable.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.

>> For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>> that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>> GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but
>> you can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.

> Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.

>>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out
>>> decades-old 800- MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell
>>> system on us T-Mo subscribers! ;-)

>> LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>> neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile,
>> it was Cingular that was trying).

>> However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>> coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the Bay Area.

> Again, not true.

>> The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>> good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>> Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>> too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>> spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.

> In fact doing quite well in this area.

>> I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says
>> about the quality of Bay Area coverage.

> Believe you instead?

>> Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they
>> were tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with
>> AT&T a distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.

> It said nothing of the kind.

> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

You in spades.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:11:02 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in <60q9f8F1qs9iuU1@mid.individual.net>:

>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my twit
filter. It's a difficult honor -- your posts have to be pretty much
devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote

>>> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly comparable.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

> Be warned that I don't waste much time on people that stoop to insults in their replies.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

>> GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
>> that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.

> Actually not, since range is largely dictated
> by ine of sight and low handset power issues.

Wrong outside the builtup areas.

>>> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

>> You in spades.

> Not true.

Not a shred of proof in the above. Funny that.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47a7df4d$0$84201
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>

Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because CDMA is on
800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS? Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and
its range sucks just as bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2
miles unless there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead
zones.

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

> Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because
> CDMA is on 800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?

Neither. GSM has a digital cliff at 35KM, handsets outside
that distance from the base are just ignored by the base.

> Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and its range sucks just as
> bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2 miles unless
> there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

> GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain.

Because its got a high enough density that the 35KM digital cliff
doesnt matter because the bases are close than that anyway.

> But, that may be because Europe isn't afraid to
> buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead zones.

Nope, its because there is a higher density of bases than
you need with cdma because of the digital cliff that GSM has.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:21:31 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A3B43D3EBECnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47a7df4d$0$84201
>$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>
>Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because CDMA is on
>800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?

Neither. Steven tries to claim that 800 MHz propagates better than 1900
MHz, but that simply isn't true in general. All he's really got to go
on is the timing limit of standard GSM, 35 km (or about 22 miles).
That's actually not a significant issue in practice, because real world
range is typically limited by low handset power and line of sight
issues, and that limit can be overcome with extended range (multi time
slot) GSM.

>Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and
>its range sucks just as bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2
>miles unless there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

The issue for Sprint in this area (and perhaps your area) is number of
towers, not frequency. CDMA2000 has some issues, particularly with an
insufficient number of towers, notably cell breathing and pilot
pollution.

>GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
>because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead
>zones.

It's because GSM works as well or better than CDMA2000.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

>>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

>> Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because
>> CDMA is on 800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?

> Neither. Steven tries to claim that 800 MHz propagates
> better than 1900 MHz, but that simply isn't true in general.

Wrong, as always, particularly outside the built up areas.

> All he's really got to go on is the timing limit
> of standard GSM, 35 km (or about 22 miles).

Wrong again, there is a clear difference between
those bands propagation and building penetration wise.

> That's actually not a significant issue in practice, because real world
> range is typically limited by low handset power and line of sight issues,

Pigs arse it is, particularly outside built up areas where the base spacing
that GSM needs isnt as economic as with cdma, particularly with car kits.

> and that limit can be overcome with extended range (multi time slot) GSM.

Wrong again, it just doubles it, doesnt eliminate it and there are other
real downsides with that approach that sees it not used much at all.

>> Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and its range sucks just as bad
>> as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2 miles unless there
>> are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

> The issue for Sprint in this area (and perhaps your area) is number of
> towers, not frequency. CDMA2000 has some issues, particularly with
> an insufficient number of towers, notably cell breathing and pilot pollution.

>> GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
>> because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead zones.

> It's because GSM works as well or better than CDMA2000.

Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.

Rod Speed wrote:
> Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.

"Extended range" GSM overcomes that.

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.

> "Extended range" GSM overcomes that.

Nope, it just changes the distance at which the digital cliff cuts in and
has other significant downsides, which is why it isnt used much at all.

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:11:02 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote in <60q9f8F1qs9iuU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>>never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>
> I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my twit
> filter. It's a difficult honor -- your posts have to be pretty much
> devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.
>

Now, only if John would add himself to his twit filter ... in location #1 and
the alt.cellular.attws group would be free of his REPEATED posting of the
alt.cellular.cingular charter to it.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

Rod Speed wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.
>
>> "Extended range" GSM overcomes that.
>
> Nope, it just changes the distance at which the digital cliff cuts in and
> has other significant downsides, which is why it isnt used much at all.

Ummm....I think you missed my sarcasm there. Navas has repeatedly
insisted he experienced "extended GSM" (extended in the sense of
extended range, not in the industry definition sense of extended
frequency range).

His proof consisted of, "I experienced it and therefore it happened" and
"I spoke with an engineer friend and he said it was certainly possible."

He has consistently failed to provide credible professional links that
any U.S. carrier has deployed extended (range) GSM.

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.

>>> "Extended range" GSM overcomes that.

>> Nope, it just changes the distance at which the digital cliff cuts in and has other significant downsides, which is
>> why it isnt used much at all.

> Ummm....I think you missed my sarcasm there.

True, you left the sarcasm graphic off.

> Navas has repeatedly insisted he experienced "extended GSM" (extended in the sense of extended range, not in the
> industry definition sense of extended frequency range).

It is called extended GSM when the digital cliff is changed distance wise.

> His proof consisted of, "I experienced it and therefore it happened" and "I spoke with an engineer friend and he said
> it was certainly possible."

> He has consistently failed to provide credible professional links that any U.S. carrier has deployed extended (range)
> GSM.

Yep, it isnt used much at all world wide, because it has real
downsides that make it impractical to use it on normal bases.

DTC wrote:

> His proof consisted of, "I experienced it and therefore it happened" and
> "I spoke with an engineer friend and he said it was certainly possible."
>
> He has consistently failed to provide credible professional links that
> any U.S. carrier has deployed extended (range) GSM.

Heck, any links at all would be a start! He can find credible links
later. Navas _never_ provides links or citations. How would that even be
possible since he makes all this stuff up?