TDMA Shutdown

BeyondWireless is telling customers that Cingular is shutting down the
entire TDMA network on March 31, 2008. Is Cingular telling TDMA customers
the same date for shutdown?

---

› See More: TDMA Shutdown

catalpa wrote:
> BeyondWireless is telling customers that Cingular is shutting down the
> entire TDMA network on March 31, 2008. Is Cingular telling TDMA customers
> the same date for shutdown?

I think Cingular was saying February 2008, but maybe they built in some
margin and Beyond Wireless is taking advantage of that. Cingular is also
planning to shut down AMPS at that time, at least all of AMPS that is
covered by GSM.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:12:54 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:40:17 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> catalpa wrote:
>>>> BeyondWireless is telling customers that Cingular is shutting down the
>>>> entire TDMA network on March 31, 2008. Is Cingular telling TDMA customers
>>>> the same date for shutdown?
>>> I think Cingular was saying February 2008, but maybe they built in some
>>> margin and Beyond Wireless is taking advantage of that. Cingular is also
>>> planning to shut down AMPS at that time, at least all of AMPS that is
>>> covered by GSM.
>> All of AMPS period.
>
>
> I have a friend who got a letter from General Motors informing
> them their Onstar Service will cease functioning after Dec. 31, 2007

The new OnStar is CDMA, isn't there an option to change the system? Not
clear if AMPS is still part of OnStar for non-digital areas.

Jer wrote:

> I don't think Cing^H^H^H^H at&t is actively informing customers about
> any hard date yet, but the FCC "must carry AMPS" rule sunsets in Feb
> 2008, and continuing to carry AMPS beyond that sunset date doesn't make
> business sense.

There is currently a petition before the FCC to extend the AMPS sunset
date to 2010 because of concerns of all the automated equipment that
uses AMPS, such as security systems, as well as roadside call boxes.
Verizon and Cingular are opposed to an extension of course, and they
have more political clout than the companies and individuals that will
benefit from continued AMPS service. These companies and governments
have had plenty of time to switch their equipment out, so it's really a
stretch to think that the FCC will grant another extension.

In any case TDMA is history in early 2008, whether or not the carriers
keep AMPS on, either voluntarily or by law.


[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I would say It's going to be like cell service.
> By the unit at a discounted rate and be in a contract for 2 or more years.
>
> Onstar is going to have to give in somewhere. There not going to risk the
> lost of all the customers that can't upgrade. That would ***** doom for
> onstar if they did.
>
>


OnStar is not in a position to give in. They do not operate the cellular
networks. If AMPS is turned off, OnStar suffers just as their customers do.

As I understand it, AMPS operates at higher power, and has the potential to
offer better coverage than do digital PCS networks. Even if OnStar converts
everyone to digital there is the probability that there will be major
coverage gaps, especially in less-populated areas.

Of course, there is the chance that public outcry will be so loud, once AMPS
is shut down and large groups of users find that they have inadequate
coverage (or no coverage at all) that the FCC may recant. I anticipate an
uproar once people lose their AMPS service. Time will tell.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Onstar hasn't said BOO about an upgrade. You have an older system,
> you're S.O.L.
>


OnStar should not have to absorb the cost of migrating analog users to
digital. They did not make the decision to shut off AMPS.

jeremy wrote:

> OnStar should not have to absorb the cost of migrating analog users to
> digital. They did not make the decision to shut off AMPS.

Still, at $17/month, maybe there's an incentive for OnStar to absorb the
cost. Unfortunately, one of the big attractions of OnStar was that it
worked "in the boonies," and without AMPS the coverage will worsen. At
least they went with CDMA to maximize the digital coverage.

jeremy wrote:

> Of course, there is the chance that public outcry will be so loud, once AMPS
> is shut down and large groups of users find that they have inadequate
> coverage (or no coverage at all) that the FCC may recant. I anticipate an
> uproar once people lose their AMPS service. Time will tell.

They won't recant, but there's a chance that they will extend the
shutdown date.

Jer wrote:

> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
> to the procrastinators?

It's not that simple. It's not a question of the cost, it's that in many
cases there is just not equivalent digital equipment available for the
specialized applications. They had sufficient notice to design such
equipment, but now they're claiming that the equipment either won't be
ready, or that they can't replace all the AMPS stuff in time.

[email protected] wrote:

> However, based on a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling,
> cellular carriers will not be required to support the analog cellular
> network beginning in early 2008. Without the analog network, we can't
> ensure the coverage that will allow us to provide subscribers, with
> analog equipment, the services they expect from us. As a result,
> beginning January 1, 2008, OnStar service in the United States and
> Canada will be available only through vehicles that are capable of
> operating on the digital cellular network.

Have they ever mentioned whether the newer system is CDMA-only, or
CDMA/AMPS? Without AMPS, you lose a lot of the geographical coverage so
for people that travel on rural routes the value would be greatly
diminished.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>> OnStar should not have to absorb the cost of migrating analog users to
>> digital. They did not make the decision to shut off AMPS.
>
> Still, at $17/month, maybe there's an incentive for OnStar to absorb the
> cost. Unfortunately, one of the big attractions of OnStar was that it
> worked "in the boonies," and without AMPS the coverage will worsen.

Maybe some of those people who lock their keys in their vehicles in BFE will
realize it ain't exactly the end of the world. Might even figure out that
with 10+ windows in the 'ol SUV there *is* another way to get in. <g>


--
Mike

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jer wrote:
>
>> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
>> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
>> to the procrastinators?
>
> It's not that simple. It's not a question of the cost, it's that in many
> cases there is just not equivalent digital equipment available for the
> specialized applications. They had sufficient notice to design such
> equipment, but now they're claiming that the equipment either won't be
> ready, or that they can't replace all the AMPS stuff in time.

Digital requires more towers than AMPS. The mere fact that one switches
over to digital does not guarantee the same level of reliable coverage,
especially in outlying areas. For OnStar, AMPS was a better choice, and
their ability to provide service will be diminished in many areas.

jeremy wrote:

> Digital requires more towers than AMPS. The mere fact that one switches
> over to digital does not guarantee the same level of reliable coverage,
> especially in outlying areas. For OnStar, AMPS was a better choice, and
> their ability to provide service will be diminished in many areas.

Yes, an AMPS shutdown greatly reduces the appeal of On-Star. However the
entities complaining about the AMPS shutdown are security companies,
trucking companies, etc.

If the new On-Star system is CDMA/AMPS then the coverage will still be
excellent. I think the issue with the existing users of AMPS-only
On-Star is that their systems will not work in urban areas once AMPS is
turned off, but could, if GM wanted to allow it, work in the areas where
AMPS is not turned off if the new system is CDMA/AMPS.

Jer wrote:

> Seems like the choice of AMPS only of AMPS/CDMA would be a decision for
> the carrier rather than GM. But I could be wrong.

Onstar roams onto different carriers, it's the nature of the beast to be
able to use just about any available compatible network.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:13:41 GMT, "jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in
<9_oLh.8573$282.5653@trndny04>:

>As I understand it, AMPS operates at higher power, and has the potential to
>offer better coverage than do digital PCS networks. Even if OnStar converts
>everyone to digital there is the probability that there will be major
>coverage gaps, especially in less-populated areas.

Not true (on both counts).

>Of course, there is the chance that public outcry will be so loud, once AMPS
>is shut down and large groups of users find that they have inadequate
>coverage (or no coverage at all) that the FCC may recant. I anticipate an
>uproar once people lose their AMPS service.

I seriously doubt it (on both counts).

>Time will tell.

As always.

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