What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> What is the best phone available now for reception in rural areas.
>
> The pay phone in front of the general store.

What's a payphone? LOL

---

› See More: What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:31:34 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:37:54 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> CDMA phones will offer you coverage in many areas that GSM will not.
>>
>> GSM phones will offer you coverage in many areas CDMA will not.
>
>Very, very few, if you're talking about the U.S.. It's extremely rare to
>find a place where there is GSM coverage but no CDMA coverage.

I exaggerated for effect above.

What I have found is that there are few places with CDMA coverage but
not GSM coverage, and visa versa.

There are a lot of places however with neither CDMA or GSM, but AMPS.

>Just look at the ratings for the different carriers. Verizon, which is
>CDMA, is consistently top-ranked for coverage by unbiased third-party
>studies and surveys.

This is true.

>In fact, you know how poor the largest U.S. carrier is because they felt
>compelled to come out with a study that they funded, that measures a
>metric that is not even related to coverage, in order to create an
>advertising campaign to fight the unbiased surveys. Verizon laughed it
>off, but Sprint sued.

Yeah. Sprint is run by a bunch of babies if they have to sick their
lawyers on Cingular.

Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Carriers are actually eager to shut down AMPS, from which revenue is
>> rapidly dwindling, and convert the spectrum to more lucrative digital.
>>
>> --
> This is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, not fact as John would have you
> believe.

Actually, it's a half-truth, something Navas is famous for. It's true
that carriers in urban areas, that have digital service, would love to
shut down AMPS. But it's also true that carriers in rural areas have no
desire to shut down AMPS and lose their considerable roaming revenue, as
well as losing most of their coverage.

AMPS is a thorn in John's side. As long as the AMPS network is active,
and tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handsets are available, GSM is at a huge
disadvantage when it comes to measuring total coverage in terms of
geography (rather than in terms of population).

It would actually be wonderful to see AMPS shut down, as long as enough
digital towers were constructed to provide identical coverage. Perhaps
the U.S. government could fund construction of digital towers in areas
where it is financially unsound for the carrier to construct them
(similar to the REA for electricity).

One big problem with AMPS is that only a few handset from each CDMA
carrier still support AMPS. Since AMPS cannot be shut down until its
usage is insignificant, carriers have been dropping tri-mode handsets in
an effort to reduce AMPS usage. This is how the FCC envisioned the usage
reduction in AMPS; they believed that AMPS usage would decrease simply
because digital would replace it all.

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:31:34 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Anon E. Muss wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:37:54 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> CDMA phones will offer you coverage in many areas that GSM will not.
>>> GSM phones will offer you coverage in many areas CDMA will not.
>> Very, very few, if you're talking about the U.S.. It's extremely rare to
>> find a place where there is GSM coverage but no CDMA coverage.
>
> I exaggerated for effect above.
>
> What I have found is that there are few places with CDMA coverage but
> not GSM coverage, and visa versa.

What I've found, and what coverage maps will show, is that there are
many areas where there is CDMA, but no GSM, and the lack of GSM is
because there is no GSM network that covers that area, not merely
because you're in a dead spot. OTOH, in the rare case that you find a
place with GSM but no CDMA, it's because you're unlucky enough to be in
a dead spot of an area that is otherwise covered by CDMA.

GSM is at a big disadvantage when it comes to rural areas, because a
CDMA tower has a much greater range than a GSM tower. This is why they
use CDMA in the Australian outback, despite the fact that they used GSM
in urban areas. Telstra is actually trying to replace that CDMA network
with 3G (W-CDMA) but has been running into problems. Amusingly, while
other companies wanted to buy their CDMA network and continue operating,
it, Telstra won't sell, because they want the 850 MHz spectrum to use
for their GSM network because of the superior range of the lower frequency:

"In town last week meeting with politicians and statutory authorities on
the issue, GSM Association communications director Mark Smith backed
Telstra's view.

For Telstra to sell its CDMA assets off, he told ZDNet Australia via
e-mail, "would mean Telstra would be unable to service rural Australia
effectively, as it would have to give up the 850MHz spectrum -- which is
so good for rural coverage -- or even split that spectrum."

It looks like there will be market for quad band phones for Australia
(though the 1900 MHz isn't really needed).

I guess the real problem is that no one in Australia consulted with
Navas, or they'd have known that the lower frequency was no better for
rural coverage than the PCS band.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:30:36 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

[snip]

>As long as the AMPS network is active, and tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handsets
>are available, GSM is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to
>measuring total coverage in terms of geography (rather than in terms
>of population).

Can't argue with you here.

>It would actually be wonderful to see AMPS shut down, as long as enough
>digital towers were constructed to provide identical coverage.

True again.

>One big problem with AMPS is that only a few handset from each CDMA
>carrier still support AMPS.

Right.

And most customers/sales reps don't realize the advantage of having
AMPS support to recommend those particular handsets to those customers
who may need them. These carriers "fanciest and coolest" handsets
seem to be CDMA only.

Another big problem is that NO (major ones at least) GSM carriers
support AMPS anymore.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:31:34 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:37:54 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> CDMA phones will offer you coverage in many areas that GSM will not.
>>
>> GSM phones will offer you coverage in many areas CDMA will not.
>
>Very, very few, if you're talking about the U.S.. It's extremely rare to
>find a place where there is GSM coverage but no CDMA coverage. Of course
>dead spots are going to vary, but in terms of coverage for a given
>geographic area, CDMA has far more coverage,...

Simply not true.

>Just look at the ratings for the different carriers. Verizon, which is
>CDMA, is consistently top-ranked for coverage by unbiased third-party
>studies and surveys.

Irrelevant -- those ratings aren't on size of network coverage.

>In fact, you know how poor the largest U.S. carrier is because they felt
>compelled to come out with a study that they funded, that measures a
>metric that is not even related to coverage, in order to create an
>advertising campaign to fight the unbiased surveys. Verizon laughed it
>off, but Sprint sued.

Verizon makes claims based entirely on its own internal "studies," the
least credible of all sources.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:38:57 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>GSM is at a big disadvantage when it comes to rural areas, because a
>CDMA tower has a much greater range than a GSM tower. This is why they
>use CDMA in the Australian outback, despite the fact that they used GSM
>in urban areas. [SNIP]

Again, simply not true. GSM has range comparable to CDMA2000.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:30:36 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Carriers are actually eager to shut down AMPS, from which revenue is
>>> rapidly dwindling, and convert the spectrum to more lucrative digital.
>>>
>> This is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, not fact as John would have you
>> believe.
>
>Actually, it's a half-truth, something Navas is famous for. It's true
>that carriers in urban areas, that have digital service, would love to
>shut down AMPS. But it's also true that carriers in rural areas have no
>desire to shut down AMPS and lose their considerable roaming revenue, as
>well as losing most of their coverage.

In fact they are rapidly losing roaming revenue as AMPS usage declines,
which is why they are eager to shut down AMPS and convert to more
lucrative digital.

>AMPS is a thorn in John's side. As long as the AMPS network is active,
>and tri-mode CDMA/AMPS handsets are available, GSM is at a huge
>disadvantage when it comes to measuring total coverage in terms of
>geography (rather than in terms of population).

AMPS doesn't matter for the great majority of customers, as demonstrated
by lack of demand, and GSM coverage is comparable to CDMA2000 coverage.

>One big problem with AMPS is that only a few handset from each CDMA
>carrier still support AMPS. Since AMPS cannot be shut down until its
>usage is insignificant, carriers have been dropping tri-mode handsets in
>an effort to reduce AMPS usage. This is how the FCC envisioned the usage
>reduction in AMPS; they believed that AMPS usage would decrease simply
>because digital would replace it all.

AMPS usage is declining. Digital coverage is expanding. Carriers are
free to shut down AMPS whenever they want after sunset, and will
probably do so rapidly.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:25:19 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Another big problem is that NO (major ones at least) GSM carriers
>support AMPS anymore.

It's obviously not a problem for the great majority of customers, both
of GSM and of CDMA2000, as demonstrated by the lack of demand for AMPS.

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

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

> AMPS usage is declining. Digital coverage is expanding. Carriers are
> free to shut down AMPS whenever they want after sunset, and will
> probably do so rapidly.
>

Nice backpedaling, Skippy. You made it sound like a much more definate
thing earlier.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:09:56 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:25:19 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Another big problem is that NO (major ones at least) GSM carriers
>>support AMPS anymore.
>
>It's obviously not a problem for the great majority of customers, both
>of GSM and of CDMA2000, as demonstrated by the lack of demand for
>AMPS.

You are essentially correct.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:08:55 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>AMPS usage is declining. Digital coverage is expanding. Carriers are
>free to shut down AMPS whenever they want after sunset, and will
>probably do so rapidly.

Some will, some won't.

In rural areas with sparse population, it makes little financial sense
to add a bunch of digital towers to replace/supplement functional
digital towers.

It is unrealistic to think that every AMPS tower will be shut down
immediately on the date the FCC says they can be.

And, I believe it would "be nice" for the big carriers to offer
handsets that allows its users to make calls on these AMPS networks
when they are in a location where that's all there is.

For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
Cingular & TMobile do not.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:06:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>In rural areas with sparse population, it makes little financial sense
>to add a bunch of digital towers to replace/supplement functional
>digital towers.

ANALOG towers I meant.

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
> Cingular & TMobile do not.

It's not that these carriers don't think that it makes sense for the
customer, is that there aren't any GSM/AMPS handsets available, as well
as the fact that Cingular certainly doesn't want to encourage use of
AMPS because increased usage would push out the sunset date.

Verizon is not selling many tri-mode phone models--it's only to the few
people that understand that "All-Digital" is a negative, not a positive.
Verizon doesn't want to encourage AMPS usage either, but if they drop
all AMPS capable models, that's a reason for a lot of customers to bail.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:33:49 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
>> Cingular & TMobile do not.
>
>It's not that these carriers don't think that it makes sense for the
>customer, is that there aren't any GSM/AMPS handsets available

That's a carrier problem. If the carriers told the handset makers to
make them (GSM+AMPS), they would.

>as well as the fact that Cingular certainly doesn't want to encourage
>use of AMPS because increased usage would push out the sunset date.

What I think we all want is not to extend the sunset date.

Turn off/convert the AMPS towers in places where there is digital
coverage for all I care.

What I think we all want (John Navas excepted) is for us to be able to
make/receive calls where all there is is an AMPS signal.

>Verizon is not selling many tri-mode phone models--it's only to the few
>people that understand that "All-Digital" is a negative, not a positive.
>Verizon doesn't want to encourage AMPS usage either

But why Verizon and not Cingular?

Because Verizon offers service in a lot of places Cingular does not?
And the reason they do is because in some of these areas, a lot of it
is covered solely by AMPS?

>but if they drop all AMPS capable models, that's a reason for a lot of
>customers to bail.

To where? Some regional podunk cellular company ran out of a barn?