NEWS: Rapid shutdown of AMPS within months (Steven Scharf dead wong again)

clifto wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>> In California and Florida I've often roamed onto AT&T AMPS where there
>> is no digital coverage of any kind. If the major carriers really do shut
>> down _all_ their AMPS then they will be violating the FCC rules that
>> mandate that digital coverage be available in the areas where AMPS is
>> being shut down.
>
> Tell me more about these rules. I had the impression they could shut down
> AMPS wherever and whenever they felt the urge, no matter who it disabled.

See:
"http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=cellular"

"Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after
February 18, 2008 are permitted, in lieu of making a revised Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA) showing, to file a certification stating
that the discontinuance of analog service will not result in any loss of
wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA."

The reality is that no existing carrier that has both AMPS and digital
could possibly truthfully file such a certification.

Of course that wouldn't stop a carrier from filing it anyway, as they
know that enforcement will be non-existent.

---

› See More: NEWS: Rapid shutdown of AMPS within months (Steven Scharf dead wong again)

Tinman wrote:

> In fact it's just the opposite: most of AMPS will be shut down with only a
> handful of rural operators--statistically insignificant--that cling to AMPS.

What you don't understand is that those handful of rural operators,
while insignificant as far as their own subscriber numbers, are
providing roaming coverage to tens of millions of Verizon and Sprint
subscribers (and getting revenue from doing so). I don't care that a
company like Golden State Cellular has only a few hundred thousand
subscribers, they still provide CDMA and AMPS coverage to me in many
areas where there is no other coverage at all. GSM users are SOL in
those areas.

Larry wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In fact they plan to migrate to digital, just like the majors.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>
> That's odd. There were ONLY 11 responses about AMPS sunset sent to the
> FCC. The big guns Verizon, Alltel, ATT/Cingular, of course, want it off
> to install more digital bandwidth in the cities. But, the comments from
> the rural carriers that responded say differently from your conjecture.

<snip>

The rural carriers have already overlaid digital on their AMPS network.
They are keeping the AMPS networks operational simply because they can't
possibly install enough towers to provide equivalent digital coverage.

I think that the government should have something similar to the REA.
Maybe the RDA (Rural Digitalization Authority) that helps fund digital
wireless coverage in rural areas where it is otherwise not cost effective.

Larry wrote:

> Notice how blacked out Verizon's responses are. What are they hiding,
> the truth again??

The big question is what the major carriers with AMPS are _really_ going
to do, not what they are saying publicly.

Since they're definitely turning off AMPS in urban areas, they can't go
around saying stuff like, "but we'll leave it on in places where we
can't cover the same area with digital."

There's two possibilities:

1) They have no intention of complying with the FCC rules, and will turn
off all of their AMPS service even in areas where it results in loss of
coverage.

2) They will leave the AMPS network running in areas where they cannot
provide equivalent digital coverage, but they won't publicly admit what
they're doing.

In any case, the subject of this thread is definitely incorrect. Some
AMPS will be shut down as soon as legally permissible. In terms of
numbers of subscribers losing urban AMPS coverage, the numbers are
large. In terms of overall area, the loss of AMPS coverage is a
relatively small percentage of the total area now covered.

You can understand why Navas has been lying about this whole thing for
years. As long as AMPS exists, Verizon will continue to enjoy an
enormous advantage over his beloved Cingular/AT&T in terms of coverage.
You can see the results in the latest Consumer Reports survey, where
AT&T fared so poorly.

What surprised me was that at the Verizon store the employees actually
understand what's going on with AMPS. When I was in a store earlier this
month to replace my wife's phone, they were explaining to an older
couple about the trade-offs of getting a digital-only phone versus one
of the two tri-mode phones that they still offer (one was a Samsung and
one was an LG).

SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> In fact it's just the opposite: most of AMPS will be shut down with
>> only a handful of rural operators--statistically insignificant--that
>> cling to AMPS.
>
> What you don't understand is that those handful of rural operators,
> while insignificant as far as their own subscriber numbers, are
> providing roaming coverage to tens of millions of Verizon and Sprint
> subscribers (and getting revenue from doing so). I don't care that a
> company like Golden State Cellular has only a few hundred thousand
> subscribers, they still provide CDMA and AMPS coverage to me in many
> areas where there is no other coverage at all. GSM users are SOL in
> those areas.


Your argument assumes a great many AMPS-capable phones still in use. I don't
buy that argument, as most people don't use AMPS/CDMA or AMPS/TDMA phones
anymore (and GAIT never took off). I haven't had one in over two years. And
quite frankly I've not been all that impressed with the quality of AMPS on
CDMA/AMPS phones for about 5 years now.

Moreover, the number of AMPS-capable digital phones is going to drop even
more so next year. Any carrier who can't rely on their own subscribers to
make a living is in serious trouble if they think they can instead rely on
AMPS roaming. And you can forget about OnStar users for revenue...


--
Mike

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> In fact it's just the opposite: most of AMPS will be shut down with
>> only a handful of rural operators--statistically insignificant--that
>> cling to AMPS.
>
> What you don't understand is that those handful of rural operators,
> while insignificant as far as their own subscriber numbers, are
> providing roaming coverage to tens of millions of Verizon and Sprint
> subscribers (and getting revenue from doing so). I don't care that a
> company like Golden State Cellular has only a few hundred thousand
> subscribers, they still provide CDMA and AMPS coverage to me in many
> areas where there is no other coverage at all. GSM users are SOL in
> those areas.

I wonder how many their really are? I border on a rural area and VZW
uses the carrier there for roaming. Even they added digital channels on
every site and have been deploying additional sites to fill in to the
point that there is really decent digital coverage there.

George wrote:

> I remember when the Internet got opened up. There is an area near here
> that used to be largely farmland that is now mostly McMansions. It still
> comes under the the rural subsidies. The local telco got truckloads of
> money from the taxpayers to put fiber and DSLAMS all over their area so
> the "farmers" could have broadband. I live in a much more densely
> populated area and years later we were still on dialup.

The difference here is that the primary beneficiaries are not the
residents that live in those areas, but the people passing through. I
remember going to a small town west of Minneapolis (Hamburg) where I
could get an AMPS signal outside, but nothing inside a building, and no
digital at all. While the residents didn't care that much about the lack
of coverage, it was more important to me as a traveler.

George wrote:

<snip>

> I wonder how many their really are? I border on a rural area and VZW
> uses the carrier there for roaming. Even they added digital channels on
> every site and have been deploying additional sites to fill in to the
> point that there is really decent digital coverage there.

In the areas I go through, there is usually digital coverage within the
small towns, but not between them. The most experience I have is for
towns up in the Sierra Nevada, on California highways like 88, 49, 140,
4, and 120. For example, on the major route to Yosemite, 120, you lose
Verizon and AT&T coverage just outside of Oakdale and if you're on CDMA
you start roaming onto Golden State Cellular. Sometimes it's digital,
sometimes it's AMPS. Within Yosemite, but outside Yosemite Valley (which
has digital GSM and CDMA coverage), you usually get only AMPS from
towers outside the park.

Since the rural carriers have indicated that AMPS is not going to be
shut down on February 18th, I'm not concerned about loss of coverage in
the rural areas. However withing AT&T and Verizon areas there are often
large areas with no digital coverage, such as inside parks, on rural
roads (such as the road down to the Pinnacles National Monument). If
they shut off AMPS in those areas, then that'll be the end of any
coverage at all since it'd be economically infeasible to install
sufficient digital coverage.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:33:23 -0700, "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Your argument assumes a great many AMPS-capable phones still in use. I don't
>buy that argument, as most people don't use AMPS/CDMA or AMPS/TDMA phones
>anymore (and GAIT never took off). I haven't had one in over two years. And
>quite frankly I've not been all that impressed with the quality of AMPS on
>CDMA/AMPS phones for about 5 years now.

I have a tri-mode phone that's almost 6 years old. I usually have it set
to 'digital only' unless I'm traveling through the Adirondacks or
southern Quebec, which only has AMPS service.

One time, I made an AMPS call connecting to a tower 50 miles away. (I
was on top of a mountain in Hawaii.) CDMA won't work at that distance.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
wrote in news:[email protected]:

> I think that the government should have something similar to the REA.
> Maybe the RDA (Rural Digitalization Authority) that helps fund digital
> wireless coverage in rural areas where it is otherwise not cost
> effective.
>
>

Why are we so hell bent on installing short range digital when long range
AMPS has worked so good for years in markets where traffic is relatively
low and users are quite satisfied with the results? If it doesn't NEED
fixing, why can't we leave it alone?

Are we going to replace all those irrigation AMPS systems? At whos
expense, the farmers? The government (taxpayers)? The SELLphone
company's? Someone would have to pay.

The AMPS equipment is in place and obviously works quite well for these
rural areas where more power with better antennas works so well. Do we
HAVE to screw it up just to satisfy the city fanbois? No 200mw radios
with ****ty, near non-existant antennas, are going to give good service
in dense woods, massive ranches, over long ranges AMPS was made for.
That would be a gross error and an economic disaster for smaller carriers
who ALREADY have the AMPS system running fine. How stupid it is to try
to change it so some teenie bopper's little pink toyphone works without
an AMPS transceiver in it.

We already ****ed 'em one time when we destroyed the paging business,
with its great rural coverage with serious power from multiple
transmitters. Why again?


Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Tinman wrote:
>
>> In fact it's just the opposite: most of AMPS will be shut down with
>> only a handful of rural operators--statistically insignificant--that
>> cling to AMPS.
>
> What you don't understand is that those handful of rural operators,
> while insignificant as far as their own subscriber numbers, are
> providing roaming coverage to tens of millions of Verizon and Sprint
> subscribers (and getting revenue from doing so). I don't care that a
> company like Golden State Cellular has only a few hundred thousand
> subscribers, they still provide CDMA and AMPS coverage to me in many
> areas where there is no other coverage at all. GSM users are SOL in
> those areas.
>

And ALL of that problem lays directly on the shoulders of the FCC who
refuse to enforce their own regulations when they hand out a license to
these thieves. There's no enforcement when SELLular lies or simply
refuses to respond to poor coverage issues where it's not particularly
profitable, something ONLY the FCC can force them to do.

Some powerful organization needs to take a very investigative look at the
money flowing up this pyramid from the carriers on the bottom through the
FCC to the damned politicians. The whole thing is corrupt to the core.

Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

Larry wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> I think that the government should have something similar to the REA.
>> Maybe the RDA (Rural Digitalization Authority) that helps fund digital
>> wireless coverage in rural areas where it is otherwise not cost
>> effective.
>>
>>
>
> Why are we so hell bent on installing short range digital when long range
> AMPS has worked so good for years in markets where traffic is relatively
> low and users are quite satisfied with the results? If it doesn't NEED
> fixing, why can't we leave it alone?

Part of the reason is that consumers want small handsets. Even though
tri-mode handsets have longer AMPS range than CDMA or GSM range, it's
still a lot shorter range than the old 3 watt AMPS handsets.

> Are we going to replace all those irrigation AMPS systems? At whos
> expense, the farmers? The government (taxpayers)? The SELLphone
> company's? Someone would have to pay.
>
> The AMPS equipment is in place and obviously works quite well for these
> rural areas where more power with better antennas works so well. Do we
> HAVE to screw it up just to satisfy the city fanbois?

No, and AMPS is not going anywhere in the rural areas, it's going to be
around for years or decades. But for those people "just passing through"
it would be useful to have coverage.

Bob Scheurle wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:33:23 -0700, "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Your argument assumes a great many AMPS-capable phones still in use. I don't
>> buy that argument, as most people don't use AMPS/CDMA or AMPS/TDMA phones
>> anymore (and GAIT never took off). I haven't had one in over two years. And
>> quite frankly I've not been all that impressed with the quality of AMPS on
>> CDMA/AMPS phones for about 5 years now.
>
> I have a tri-mode phone that's almost 6 years old. I usually have it set
> to 'digital only' unless I'm traveling through the Adirondacks or
> southern Quebec, which only has AMPS service.
>
> One time, I made an AMPS call connecting to a tower 50 miles away. (I
> was on top of a mountain in Hawaii.) CDMA won't work at that distance.

Wait, so you mean to say that you don't plan your travels so that you
are never out of range of digital coverage? You are actually willing to
travel to and through places with only AMPS coverage? You would actually
drive on a road with no digital coverage?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:00:36 -0800, SMS ???� ?
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Wait, so you mean to say that you don't plan your travels so that you
>are never out of range of digital coverage? You are actually willing to
>travel to and through places with only AMPS coverage? You would actually
>drive on a road with no digital coverage?

Not only that, but I travel on roads with - gasp! - no coverage at all!

I traveled for 45 years without a cell phone. I think I can manage
without one for a bit, thank you.

--
Bob Scheurle
Visit the NJ-ARP Blog at http://www.nj-arp.org/blog

Bob Scheurle wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:00:36 -0800, SMS ???• ?
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wait, so you mean to say that you don't plan your travels so that you
>> are never out of range of digital coverage? You are actually willing to
>> travel to and through places with only AMPS coverage? You would actually
>> drive on a road with no digital coverage?
>
> Not only that, but I travel on roads with - gasp! - no coverage at all!

Wow, you are brave. I've only found one area with no coverage at all in
the past year, which was the road from Lake Louise up to Jasper.

> I traveled for 45 years without a cell phone. I think I can manage
> without one for a bit, thank you.

I had an idea once where instead of everyone carrying cell phones, and
paying all that money, that someone should just install phones that you
pay to use when you need them. They could be installed at stores,
restaurants, gas stations, etc. You could just insert a token or some
coins and make a call. Maybe someday someone will do something like this
and cell phones will be obsolete.