AT&T Wireless in play to be sold

[email protected] (XFF) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> And regardless, there are still plenty of people using analog
> service. I seem to remember that the latest industry figures talked
> about 94% digital subscribership, that leaves 6% (or about 9 Million!)
> subscribers on analog service. Not exactly negligible.

I just checked (http://www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/surveys/) and it
turns out as of 06/2003 digital subscribership was 92%, leaving 8% (or
about 12 Million!) analog subscribers.

---

› See More: AT&T Wireless in play to be sold

XFF wrote:



> Cellular service was the first mobile phone service deployed in the
> United States, so by that account it would be (relatively) old.

oops, you forgot about MTS and IMTS. Both preceded cellular service by
many years.


[....]


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

"XFF" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (LithiaSpgs) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > >Yes, but not cellular service. See
> > >http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/regions.html who holds the two
> > >cellular licenses and provides cellular service in any given market.
> >
> > When you say "cellular" most people think of any mobile phone as
> > being a "cell phone".
>
> They would be wrong. What you're talking about is a mobile phone or
> a wireless phone. A cellular phone is just that, a phone that operates
> in the cellular band of the electromagnetic spectrum. And cellular
> service is service provided in the cellular spectrum, not in any other
> part of the spectrum.
>
Well, maybe that's the technical definition of "cellular", but I think that
in common usage most people would refer to any wireless system that
uses many low-powered towers arranged in cells as a "cellular" system.
The original definition just refers to the earliest system which used cells.

In alt.cellular XFF <[email protected]> wrote:

> They would be wrong. What you're talking about is a mobile phone or a
> wireless phone. A cellular phone is just that, a phone that operates
> in the cellular band of the electromagnetic spectrum. And cellular
> service is service provided in the cellular spectrum, not in any other
> part of the spectrum.

A cell phone is a cell phone.

The constant insistence that frequency matters is idiotic. I love when
people insist that wireless phones running on the 1900MHz PCS frequencies
aren't cellular. They all use the same communications protocols! (OK, you
don't have 1900MHz AMPS, but GSM, CDMA and TDMA all work the same at both
frequencies.)

Sorry XFF, this rant isn't really directed at you... it's just a general
I-have-to-rant-about-this-continued-stupidity rant.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.cellular.verizon Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> AT&T Wireless, the Company America disTrusts.

Of course, Phillip ... or Robert M. You are David the guy that started
this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155

Moron.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAGnfc1p0e3NXsrtERAgMBAJ9E9Pj8JpJ3qX9Yx6s4tj5sswkyawCeISUC
DAlXejTBsymWZWhqP0AhbTc=
=P0ax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.cellular.verizon Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Of course, Phillip ... or Robert M. You are David the guy that started
> this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155
>
> Moron.
>

My apologies to the group and David (but not to Robert M ... Phillip).
I was mistaken when I though David started the thread and that it was
therefor another Phillip incarnation. It was indeed the Robert M
instance of Phillip that started the thread. My statement calling him a
moron still stands however.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAGnoZ1p0e3NXsrtERAgy0AJ9Y4h+KgCQyTn+f8BVgYZWZc0UljgCgh4M3
8eYeHj+tmWfF3OYQVzyAhXs=
=SHPz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The constant insistence that frequency matters is idiotic. I love when
> people insist that wireless phones running on the 1900MHz PCS frequencies
> aren't cellular.

The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the second
tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
coverage is worse for these carriers.

In alt.cellular Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> The constant insistence that frequency matters is idiotic. I love when
>> people insist that wireless phones running on the 1900MHz PCS frequencies
>> aren't cellular.
>
> The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
> much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the second
> tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
> coverage is worse for these carriers.

Perhaps. I've not noticed any major difference between my Verizon phones
and my wife's Sprint phones, and both in Cleveland (where I lived until 6/03)
and in Southern California (where I live now), Verizon is 800 MHz. Sprint, of
course, is 1900 MHz too.

To *just* look at frequency as the sole factor means you're missing the
point, IMHO.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

In alt.cellular.verizon Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps. I've not noticed any major difference between my Verizon phones
> and my wife's Sprint phones, and both in Cleveland (where I lived until 6/03)
> and in Southern California (where I live now), Verizon is 800 MHz. Sprint, of
> course, is 1900 MHz too.

I didn't mean "too".

Should read "1900 MHz."

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:07:36 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
>much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the second
>tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
>coverage is worse for these carriers.

Have *you* actually used both? I have and it makes a lot more
difference as to the position of the base stations than it does what
frequency they use. I have first-hand practical experience that says
this is so. What do you have except what you've heard?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NO from .NOcom to reply

In article <[email protected]>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

> You are David the guy that started
> this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155

Now Veldlouse is an AT&T apologist???

LOL

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You are David the guy that started
> > this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155
>
> Now Veldlouse is an AT&T apologist???
>

No- but you are still a moron.

In alt.cellular Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You are David the guy that started
>> this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155
>
> Now Veldlouse is an AT&T apologist???

Nah, but you're still a fraud.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:07:36 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
> >much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the
second
> >tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
> >coverage is worse for these carriers.
>
> Have *you* actually used both?

Yes. Of course there is no way to definitively say that the reason for the
poorer coverage was due to 1900 Mhz versus 800 Mhz. It is the location of
the base station that matters, as you state. But it takes a lot more base
stations to cover the same area when they are at 1900 Mhz. Cingular's
problems in California are due to not enough cells, among other things. At
800 Mhz they would have needed less cells.

Go down the Consumer Reports survey and look at how many instances where the
800 Mhz carrier in the area is rated the best. It's not 100%, but it's a
high percentage.

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 03:53:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes. Of course there is no way to definitively say that the reason for the
>poorer coverage was due to 1900 Mhz versus 800 Mhz. It is the location of
>the base station that matters, as you state. But it takes a lot more base
>stations to cover the same area when they are at 1900 Mhz. Cingular's
>problems in California are due to not enough cells, among other things. At
>800 Mhz they would have needed less cells.

A 1900 Mhz system will perform as well as an 800 Mhz system *if* the
system is set out properly. Of course it won't perform was well as an
800 Mhz system if the base station placement is the same as it is for
800 Mhz rather than 1900 Mhz. That's pretty self-evident.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NO from .NOcom to reply