Will Verizon soon overtake Cingular as Number One ?

In article <1102095020.OXLYFvykUJyQw2JgDXk0Dg@teranews>, [email protected]
says...
>
> > the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
> > move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those
> > partners are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon
> > converting to GSM/AMPS.
>
> Not necessarily. If the roaming partners that are running TDMA will get
> better revenue from Verizon Roaming than Cingular roaming, I would think
> they would switch to CDMA. It's all going to depend on how strong the
> combo Cingular/AT&T network is in the area where previously, one of the
> companies relied on the roaming partner. If the combined network removes
> the necessity for the roaming parnter, even if they convert to GSM,
> there is no incentive for roaming partner to convert to GSM.

True but in many/most areas Cingular and ATTWS served the SAME areas.
Cingular had the B side and ATTWS bought out carriers that had the A
side. In Texas at least I doubt if the merge resulted in 10% expansion
of coverage (just better coverage). The roaming partners are still
going to be needed.

>
> who is/was a roaming partner with either Cingular or AT&T thinks they
> are going to lose the business, why not switch to CDMA instead and pick
> up Verizon, or maybe even position yourself for a buyout?

The small carrier is going to lose either way they go. Before they had
Cingular and ATTWS customers roaming on both TDMA and AMPS and Verizon
customers roaming on AMPS. With AMPS going out of the picture, if they
go GSM they keep Cingular and gain T-Mobile roamers but loose Verizon's.
If they go CDMA they loose Cingular's but keep Verizon's. And either
way they go they're going to have to swap out their OWN customer's
phones which are now TDMA/AMPS and some pure AMPS--no choice if TDMA
phones start drying up. Sounds like a nightmare for the carriers.
Their decision will be have to be based on revenue. You imply that
there was more revenue coming from the Verizon roamers but are there
$figures to back that up--Cingular and ATTWS may have had as many or
more customers roaming.

Verizon would certainly have the most to gain. Not only would they not
loose nationwide coverage but if they could encourage the small carriers
to go CDMA--or buy them out--they could truly have nationwide digital
coverage. There is probably some major negotiations going on--that
might explain why many/most of the smaller carriers haven't started
conversion yet.

The guaranteed looser in all this is US--the customers. Go GSM and
Verizon customers loose nationwide coverage. Go CDMA and Cingular's
loose it. Allowing AMPS to be dropped before another technology is
covering the same areas--I.e. ALL small towns and most of the rural
areas--is kinda stupid when you think about it.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

---

› See More: Will Verizon soon overtake Cingular as Number One ?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:28:04 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Care to look at the numbers?
>>
>> 1. Profit.
>>
>> 2. Capital Investment
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...9/b3872045.htm
>>
>> Verizon Wireless is so profitable it can afford to do whatever it needs
>> to get and maintain being number 1. Cingular says it will be 2007 before
>> its profitable for the year.
>>
>> Cingular is years behind Verizon in 3G deployment, and will be spending
>> on that rather than TDMA conversion or Network expansion. When and if
>> the time comes Verizon can spend to convert Analog to CDMA.
>>
>> It is wishful thinking to think Cingular has ==> any <== advantage over
>> Verrizon, except perhaps in number of BlueTooth phones they currently
>> have available.
>
>Your hilarious, and I'll prove why. You are extracting VZW numbers from the
>parent company. When others have done this with other companies
>(specifically Sprint), you have accused them of providing fale numbers due
>to the 'hiding' of the cellular operation within the parent company. How is
>this any different.
>
>I smell hypocrisy at work.

I'd call it equal parts situational ethics and fantasy.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1102095020.OXLYFvykUJyQw2JgDXk0Dg@teranews> on Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:30:20
GMT, Bean <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Verizon is also looking at a dark cloud on the horizon. Their
>> nationwide coverage is solely dependent on the ability to fall back on
>> the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
>> move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those
>> partners are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon
>> converting to GSM/AMPS.
>
>Not necessarily. If the roaming partners that are running TDMA will get
>better revenue from Verizon Roaming than Cingular roaming, I would think
>they would switch to CDMA.

Many have already announced plans to migrate to GSM.

>While it may seem more logical to go from TDMA to GSM, somebody (who
>seemed knowledgeable) in Howard Forums posted that it's actually easier
>to overlay TDMA towers with CDMA that it is with GSM.

Nonsense.

>With Verizon's recent requisitions, including Mountain Wireless in
>California, it seems like their strategy is to buy the small companies
>where they either need coverage or spectrum. I think by buying these
>smaller companies that generally excel in strong local coverage, Verizon
>could actually end up with the superior network.

Verizon currently has the least spectrum per subscriber of any major carrier,
which is part of why it's having to spend big bucks to buy more, but that
doesn't solve the problem in saturated areas.

>Cingular isn't interested in having much more than "basic" coverage in
>more rural areas, at least where I live, ...

I disagree.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

It is possible for a carrier to overlay GSM with CDMA and service roamers on
both technologies.

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 03 Dec 2004
23:29:06 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The small carrier is going to lose either way they go. Before they had
>Cingular and ATTWS customers roaming on both TDMA and AMPS and Verizon
>customers roaming on AMPS. With AMPS going out of the picture, if they
>go GSM they keep Cingular and gain T-Mobile roamers but loose Verizon's.
>If they go CDMA they loose Cingular's but keep Verizon's. And either
>way they go they're going to have to swap out their OWN customer's
>phones which are now TDMA/AMPS and some pure AMPS--no choice if TDMA
>phones start drying up. Sounds like a nightmare for the carriers.
>Their decision will be have to be based on revenue. You imply that
>there was more revenue coming from the Verizon roamers but are there
>$figures to back that up--Cingular and ATTWS may have had as many or
>more customers roaming.
>
>Verizon would certainly have the most to gain. Not only would they not
>loose nationwide coverage but if they could encourage the small carriers
>to go CDMA--or buy them out--they could truly have nationwide digital
>coverage. There is probably some major negotiations going on--that
>might explain why many/most of the smaller carriers haven't started
>conversion yet.
>
>The guaranteed looser in all this is US--the customers. Go GSM and
>Verizon customers loose nationwide coverage. Go CDMA and Cingular's
>loose it. Allowing AMPS to be dropped before another technology is
>covering the same areas--I.e. ALL small towns and most of the rural
>areas--is kinda stupid when you think about it.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> It is possible for a carrier to overlay GSM with CDMA and service roamers on
> both technologies.
>
Now THAT would solve the problem. Their own customers would probably
all be on one technology. I didn't know if it was possible with the
licensing structure. Wonder if any of the carriers are actually
considering that?

Come to think of it there's another solution--not quite as elegant from
the feature integrity point-of-view but probably much cheaper. If they
could make a GSM/TDMA/AMPS Gait phone can't they make a GSM/CDMA phone?

A google search didn't turn up a dual GSM/CDMA phone but it did verify a
chipset that supports both is already available. Has a GSM/CDMA phone
ever been made?

Verizon could offer a CDMA/GSM phone for customers that need to roam in
a GSM only area. Or Cingular offer a GSM/CDMA phone if CDMA became
common for roamers. Seems like that would be much simpler than doing it
at the carrier level.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:46:44 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>A google search didn't turn up a dual GSM/CDMA phone but it did verify a
>chipset that supports both is already available. Has a GSM/CDMA phone
>ever been made?
>
>Verizon could offer a CDMA/GSM phone for customers that need to roam in
>a GSM only area. Or Cingular offer a GSM/CDMA phone if CDMA became
>common for roamers. Seems like that would be much simpler than doing it
>at the carrier level.

There is a combined CDMA/GSM phone that's in the process of being
deployed in China, but it's for 900/1800 GSM networks not for GSM 1900
or GSM 850.

http://www.threegmobile.net/main/ind...detail&nid=404

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 04 Dec 2004
00:46:44 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...

>> It is possible for a carrier to overlay GSM with CDMA and service roamers on
>> both technologies.
>>
>Now THAT would solve the problem. Their own customers would probably
>all be on one technology. I didn't know if it was possible with the
>licensing structure.

Licensing only covers frequency, not technology.

>Wonder if any of the carriers are actually
>considering that?

Qualcomm completed a trial on Vodaphone, and is reportedly still working on
it. See: <http://wirelessreview.com/ar/telecom...m_targets_gsm/>

>Come to think of it there's another solution--not quite as elegant from
>the feature integrity point-of-view but probably much cheaper. If they
>could make a GSM/TDMA/AMPS Gait phone can't they make a GSM/CDMA phone?
>
>A google search didn't turn up a dual GSM/CDMA phone but it did verify a
>chipset that supports both is already available. Has a GSM/CDMA phone
>ever been made?
>
>Verizon could offer a CDMA/GSM phone for customers that need to roam in
>a GSM only area. Or Cingular offer a GSM/CDMA phone if CDMA became
>common for roamers. Seems like that would be much simpler than doing it
>at the carrier level.

Samsung and Verizon Wireless Deliver Market Innovation with the SCH-a790
Global Phone, the First Phone for Globe Trotters
<http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/09/pr2004-09-01.html>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I'd call it equal parts situational ethics and fantasy.
>
> --

Mentioning ethics and Zwick? The ultimate oxymoron.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:09:49 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'd call it equal parts situational ethics and fantasy.
>
>Mentioning ethics and Zwick? The ultimate oxymoron.

Point taken.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> In <1102095020.OXLYFvykUJyQw2JgDXk0Dg@teranews> on Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:30:20
> GMT, Bean <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >While it may seem more logical to go from TDMA to GSM, somebody (who
> >seemed knowledgeable) in Howard Forums posted that it's actually easier
> >to overlay TDMA towers with CDMA that it is with GSM.
>
> Nonsense.

It is indeed easier (cheaper) to overlay an existing TDMA network with
CDMA rather than GSM. This is because TDMA and CDMA share the same
core network topology (ANSI-41) whereas GSM uses an entirely
differrent core network topology (MAP) and therefore requires
expensive upgrades to the backbone infrastructure.

Navas' one-liners (that fail to give any explanation for his
opinionated statements) are of no help as usual.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:57:15 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Verizon Wireless is so profitable it can afford to do whatever it needs
> >to get and maintain being number 1.
>
> It doesn't work that way -- spectrum licenses are a finite resource.

Everything (including finite resources) has a price. VZW has clearly
demonstrated that licenses are available for the right price
(Northcoast, NextWave, etc.)

> >Cingular is years behind Verizon in 3G deployment,
>
> Your ignorance is showing again: Cingular with ATTWS is ahead of Verizon in
> both 2.5G (widespread EDGE deployment) and 3G (UMTS deployment).

How do figure that? VZW has sixteen 3G markets live (total POPS 69.3
M) and Cingular has six 3G markets live (total POPS 22.2 M). How does
that put Cingular ahead?

> >When and if
> >the time comes Verizon can spend to convert Analog to CDMA.
>
> Verizon has no control over the plans of regional carriers, many (most?) of
> which are migrating from TDMA/AMPS to GSM.

I'd like to see some research and data that shows the numbers of
carriers migrating to CDMA and those migrating to GSM. I think you're
just blowing smoke and have no idea what the real numbes are. You're
way off.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on 4 Dec 2004 11:17:34
-0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:57:15 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It doesn't work that way -- spectrum licenses are a finite resource.
>
>Everything (including finite resources) has a price. VZW has clearly
>demonstrated that licenses are available for the right price
>(Northcoast, NextWave, etc.)

Only if such additional licenses are actually available for sale, which isn't
true in many markets.

>> Your ignorance is showing again: Cingular with ATTWS is ahead of Verizon in
>> both 2.5G (widespread EDGE deployment) and 3G (UMTS deployment).
>
>How do figure that? VZW has sixteen 3G markets live (total POPS 69.3
>M) and Cingular has six 3G markets live (total POPS 22.2 M). How does
>that put Cingular ahead?

Widespread deployment of EDGE, and significant availability of UMTS.

>> Verizon has no control over the plans of regional carriers, many (most?) of
>> which are migrating from TDMA/AMPS to GSM.
>
>I'd like to see some research and data that shows the numbers of
>carriers migrating to CDMA and those migrating to GSM.

Go for it.

>I think you're
>just blowing smoke and have no idea what the real numbes are. You're
>way off.

You're welcome to think whatever you want.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on 4 Dec 2004 10:55:15
-0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> In <1102095020.OXLYFvykUJyQw2JgDXk0Dg@teranews> on Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:30:20
>> GMT, Bean <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >While it may seem more logical to go from TDMA to GSM, somebody (who
>> >seemed knowledgeable) in Howard Forums posted that it's actually easier
>> >to overlay TDMA towers with CDMA that it is with GSM.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>It is indeed easier (cheaper) to overlay an existing TDMA network with
>CDMA rather than GSM. This is because TDMA and CDMA share the same
>core network topology (ANSI-41) whereas GSM uses an entirely
>differrent core network topology (MAP) and therefore requires
>expensive upgrades to the backbone infrastructure.

Nonsense.

>Navas' one-liners (that fail to give any explanation for his
>opinionated statements) are of no help as usual.

That almost all TDMA carriers have migrated and are migrating to GSM rather
than CDMA is ample evidence that GSM is the better migration path.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Joseph,

The dual CDMA / GSM Samsung SCH-a790 was released by Verizon in April this
year. It is GSM 900 / 1800 only, no 850 or 1900.

We've ordered about 2 dozen of them for various clients who report no
problems using them in Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

But while the phones are technically capable of working in most any
international GSM market VZW has been relatively slow to sign roaming and
routing agreements with foreign carriers.

Currently the ATTWS/Cingular quad band phones will work in many more
international markets because their agreements are already in place.

And VZW still has no International GSM capable Blackberry solution.

Richard


"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:46:44 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A google search didn't turn up a dual GSM/CDMA phone but it did verify a
> >chipset that supports both is already available. Has a GSM/CDMA phone
> >ever been made?
> >
> >Verizon could offer a CDMA/GSM phone for customers that need to roam in
> >a GSM only area. Or Cingular offer a GSM/CDMA phone if CDMA became
> >common for roamers. Seems like that would be much simpler than doing it
> >at the carrier level.
>
> There is a combined CDMA/GSM phone that's in the process of being
> deployed in China, but it's for 900/1800 GSM networks not for GSM 1900
> or GSM 850.
>
>
http://www.threegmobile.net/main/ind...detail&nid=404
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> In <[email protected]> on 4 Dec 2004 11:17:34 -0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>
> >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> >> Your ignorance is showing again: Cingular with ATTWS is ahead of Verizon in
> >> both 2.5G (widespread EDGE deployment) and 3G (UMTS deployment).
> >
> >How do figure that? VZW has sixteen 3G markets live (total POPS 69.3
> >M) and Cingular has six 3G markets live (total POPS 22.2 M). How does
> >that put Cingular ahead?
>
> Widespread deployment of EDGE, and significant availability of UMTS.

"Significant availability of UMTS"? UMTS is available in 6 markets to
22.2 M POPS. Compared to 1xEV-DO which is available in 16 markets to
69.3 M POPS I still fail to see how exactly that puts Cingular ahead.
By my math your "significant availability" is less than 1/3 of what
VZW offers, but according to you that puts Cingular ahead, right?

> >> Verizon has no control over the plans of regional carriers, many (most?) of
> >> which are migrating from TDMA/AMPS to GSM.
> >
> >I'd like to see some research and data that shows the numbers of
> >carriers migrating to CDMA and those migrating to GSM.
>
> Go for it.

This is by no means scientific, but a quick count of GSM versus CDMA
carriers on roamer1's site
(http://www.roamer1.org/wireless/digital.html) yields 54 carriers
running or deploying GSM versus 62 running or deploying CDMA. Now I
will admit that this list is not complete, but I have no reason to
believe that it is biased either, so it probably gives a fairly
representative picture of the overall situation. If you feel there
are errors or omissions please e-mail roamer1, I'm sure he'd like to
hear about it.