AMPS Upgrade

David L wrote:

> The imagined problem...with Nextel and SPCS joining, I wonder how
> friendly the current VZW/SPCS roaming agreements will stay? I'd hate to
> lose the complimentary SPCS fill in. That would be a huge loss in the
> SF Bay Area burbs and backwoods. Just as I would hate to lose all that
> analog roaming in the rural west and mountains

I don't think the VZW/SPCS roaming agreements were ever friendly in the first
place, which is why VZW no longer roams on Sprint with current PRLs.

Having said that, I don't think the merger will make a difference in area where
VZW customers roam on Sprint.

> Lets just say, I'm not buying into the "more signal bars" advert
> anytime in the forseeable future I don't think the GSM carrier/s
> ever were interested in rural coverage, or ever will be...

GSM carriers aren't an issue in this particular instance, as it has been
documented that Nextel is moving to CDMA 1xEV-DO and that this is the most
likely reason that they wanted to merge with Sprint in the first place.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

---

› See More: AMPS Upgrade

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:55:07 -0800, Steve
Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>David L wrote:

>> Lets just say, I'm not buying into the "more signal bars" advert
>> anytime in the forseeable future I don't think the GSM carrier/s
>> ever were interested in rural coverage, or ever will be...

I would disagree.

>GSM carriers aren't an issue in this particular instance, as it has been
>documented that Nextel is moving to CDMA 1xEV-DO and that this is the most
>likely reason that they wanted to merge with Sprint in the first place.

Actually CDMA2000.

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

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:20:21 -0600, Jer wrote:

> dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit di-dah-dah-dit
> dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit di-dah-dah-dit
> dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit di-dah-dah-dit
> dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit di-dah-dah-dit

dit-dit-dit-dah-dit-dah

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:37:52 -0800, Eric Rosenberry wrote:

> I would just like to make a comment that analog is not the only way to get 3
> watts... I personally have an amplifier that I hook to my LG 4400 that
> gives me 3 watts of power (plus an external antenna).

Not necessarily. CDMA towers can adjust the power output of cell phones to
prevent swamping. Your 3W signal could be dropped down into the milliwatt
range if you are close to a tower.

Besides, unless you also have a receive preamp in the amplifier you may not
hear as far as you can transmit.

John Navas wrote:

> Actually CDMA2000.

1xEV-DO implies CDMA2000, but... yes, you're right.

(CDMAone never did any type of high speed data.)



--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

GSM has a theoretical limit of 30km, or about 20 miles due to timing.
There's lots
of places in the rural western US where that doesn't do the trick including
mountain areas where there's no financial incentive to build the necessary
tower density.

The Bottom line:
Analog is absolutely required for much of the rural west and will continue
to be so.

At this point it would appear that most GSM carriers have little or no
analog offerings (at least
advertised).

-Dan

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

> Moral: If you frequent rural areas, choose your handset with care.

I agree the handset selection matters, but not as much as an external
antenna connected to any phone. Partly its the whole faraday cage thing,
but you cannot underestimate the improvement of a good antenna mounted
on a good ground-plane like the roof of a car.

I find traveling with multiple handsets, the one that is connected to my
external antenna always wins, and by far.

-Dan

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu




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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:12:43
> -0800, "Dan Albrich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> GSM has a theoretical limit of 30km, or about 20 miles due to timing.
>> There's lots
>> of places in the rural western US where that doesn't do the trick
>> including mountain areas where there's no financial incentive to
>> build the necessary tower density.
>>
>> The Bottom line:
>> Analog is absolutely required for much of the rural west and will
>> continue to be so.
>
> Not really. As I wrote earlier:
snip

I would not agree with you at all. A classic case in point was a recent
weekend visit to Beatty, NV. My Verizon service provided 3-4 bars of
digital and nearly as strong an analog signal. Two friends having AT&T
service had No Service for that entire weekend ... ever. This also was the
case for one of their wives having T-Mobile. This was also the case in
nearby Furnace Creek (Death Valley). You can talk about the technology
all you want ... fact of the matter is that out here (western states),
analog still rules many areas away from main thoroughfares.

--

- Philip

".Philip." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Navas wrote:
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:12:43
>> -0800, "Dan Albrich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> GSM has a theoretical limit of 30km, or about 20 miles due to timing.
>>> There's lots
>>> of places in the rural western US where that doesn't do the trick
>>> including mountain areas where there's no financial incentive to
>>> build the necessary tower density.
>>>
>>> The Bottom line:
>>> Analog is absolutely required for much of the rural west and will
>>> continue to be so.
>>
>> Not really. As I wrote earlier:
> snip
>
> I would not agree with you at all. A classic case in point was a recent
> weekend visit to Beatty, NV. My Verizon service provided 3-4 bars of
> digital and nearly as strong an analog signal. Two friends having AT&T
> service had No Service for that entire weekend ... ever. This also was
> the case for one of their wives having T-Mobile. This was also the case
> in nearby Furnace Creek (Death Valley). You can talk about the
> technology all you want ... fact of the matter is that out here (western
> states), analog still rules many areas away from main thoroughfares.
>
> --
>

The simplest thing to do is to add Navas to your blocked senders list.
All he does is write is that he wrote something earlier that didn't, in
fact, address the question and then he again fails to address the question.


--
Thomas M. Goethe

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I would not agree with you at all. A classic case in point was a recent
> weekend visit to Beatty, NV. My Verizon service provided 3-4 bars of
> digital and nearly as strong an analog signal. Two friends having AT&T
> service had No Service for that entire weekend ... ever. This also was the
> case for one of their wives having T-Mobile. This was also the case in

Hmm, probably not the case of whether GSM "could" reach the same areas
as analog but *when* it will. If that area is anything like half of
Texas then there are still large areas that don't have GSM service *at
all*--the carriers are still TDMA/AMPS. So your dual mode phone was
roaming on analog but your friends could have had GSM-only phones that
couldn't. (AT&T sales people started pushing GSM-only plans hard long
before Cingular.)

I also do a lot of rural travel and in the last couple of years I've
seen almost no area in Texas that wasn't able to get TDMA, even 30 miles
from the nearest town over 1000 people. That wasn't true about 5 years
ago--then I hit lots of 10-20 mile stretches that had nothing but analog
but that's no longer the case. Now it's pretty much TDMA or nothing--
the nothing being in extremely low valleys. If they can get TDMA working
this well in rural areas then they can get GSM to work also--just a
matter of time.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Dec 2004
15:29:22 GMT, ".Philip." <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:12:43
>> -0800, "Dan Albrich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> GSM has a theoretical limit of 30km, or about 20 miles due to timing.
>>> There's lots
>>> of places in the rural western US where that doesn't do the trick
>>> including mountain areas where there's no financial incentive to
>>> build the necessary tower density.
>>>
>>> The Bottom line:
>>> Analog is absolutely required for much of the rural west and will
>>> continue to be so.
>>
>> Not really. As I wrote earlier:
>snip
>
>I would not agree with you at all. A classic case in point was a recent
>weekend visit to Beatty, NV. My Verizon service provided 3-4 bars of
>digital and nearly as strong an analog signal. Two friends having AT&T
>service had No Service for that entire weekend ... ever. This also was the
>case for one of their wives having T-Mobile. This was also the case in
>nearby Furnace Creek (Death Valley). You can talk about the technology
>all you want ... fact of the matter is that out here (western states),
>analog still rules many areas away from main thoroughfares.

That simply shows that Verizon has good digital coverage in an area where
ATTWS and T-Mobile have a digital coverage hole. That's certainly no
surprise. There are likewise areas where ATTWS (now combined with Cingular)
and/or T-Mobile have good digital coverage where Verizon has a coverage hole.
And likewise areas without AMPS (analog) coverage, as well as (increasingly)
areas with digital coverage but no AMPS coverage. That's the nature of
cellular, and it really doesn't say anything about the need for AMPS.

As always with cellular, choose the service that works best in your particular
area(s). That may be GSM digital (depending on carrier), CMDA digital
(depending on carrier), or (for now at least) AMPS. In some areas that might
be digital plus AMPS, although such areas continue to shrink as digital (not
AMPS) coverage improves. That's a long way from a blanket generalization that
AMPS is essential. There's likewise no real basis for claiming that digital
coverage won't improve in rural areas, because it actually *is* improving in
rural areas, and there really isn't a tower density issue, since digital is
capable of sufficient range (particularly in "mountain areas").

--
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 Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:28:02 -0500,
"Thomas M. Goethe" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The simplest thing to do is to add Navas to your blocked senders list.
>...

Hands clapped over ears, eyes squeezed tight shut, chanting "I can't hear
you!" "I can't hear you!" over and over. Then you take your baseball and go
home.

--
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 Tue, 28 Dec 2004
16:44:43 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I also do a lot of rural travel and in the last couple of years I've
>seen almost no area in Texas that wasn't able to get TDMA, even 30 miles
>from the nearest town over 1000 people. That wasn't true about 5 years
>ago--then I hit lots of 10-20 mile stretches that had nothing but analog
>but that's no longer the case. Now it's pretty much TDMA or nothing--
>the nothing being in extremely low valleys. If they can get TDMA working
>this well in rural areas then they can get GSM to work also--just a
>matter of time.

Indeed, and not that much time, since TDMA (actually IS-136) is essentially
dead, making carriers reluctant to make further investments. Likewise AMPS.

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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:28:02
> -0500, "Thomas M. Goethe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The simplest thing to do is to add Navas to your blocked senders
>> list. ...
>
> Hands clapped over ears, eyes squeezed tight shut, chanting "I can't
> hear you!" "I can't hear you!" over and over. Then you take your
> baseball and go home.

Well John ... your sig line makes clear you are an appologist for GSM, AT&T,
etc.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Dec 2004
18:13:29 GMT, ".Philip." <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:28:02
>> -0500, "Thomas M. Goethe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The simplest thing to do is to add Navas to your blocked senders
>>> list. ...
>>
>> Hands clapped over ears, eyes squeezed tight shut, chanting "I can't
>> hear you!" "I can't hear you!" over and over. Then you take your
>> baseball and go home.
>
>Well John ... your sig line makes clear you are an appologist for GSM, AT&T,
>etc.

It does? Since I also publish a webpage on CMDA*, does that mean I'm a CDMA
apologist as well? LOL (Ad hominem is a sure sign that you have no real
point to make.)

* "Data mode with Sprint PCS and Samsung SCH-8500"
<http://navasgrp.home.att.net/tech/sch-8500/>

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