"Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, SMS wrote:
>>> The Alaska railroad more or less follows the line of the George Parks
>>> Highway, which is not covered much by any cellular.
>> I had AMPS coverage for much of the train trip between Anchorage and
>> Fairbanks, but I had to eventually turn off the phone because the
>> train was so slow and the AMPS coverage was draining the battery.
>
> And this contradicts what I said in what way?

"The Alaska railroad more or less follows the line of the George Parks
Highway, which is not covered much by any cellular."

> Did you try placing a call?

Actually yes, as well as receiving an AMPS call. My sister-in-law called
Verizon on her phone, from the train, on AMPS, because she didn't
believe me that a flashing triangle meant on-extended network, while a
solid triangle mean off-network roaming. I told her to wait until she
had digital coverage because I didn't think that AMPS roaming was
included, but she didn't get charged for the call, and I didn't get
charged for an AMPS call in Talkeetna. Anyway, she had to call Verizon
twice to get a good answer. The first person she talked to told her
'Verizon has no coverage in Alaska, it's our 49th state you know.'
Besides not knowing her history, the Verizon customer service rep was
incorrect. At least at the time, Alaska was included in Americas Choice
extended network.

---

› See More: "Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, SMS wrote:
>> And this contradicts what I said in what way?
> "The Alaska railroad more or less follows the line of the George Parks
> Highway, which is not covered much by any cellular."
>> Did you try placing a call?
> Actually yes, as well as receiving an AMPS call. My sister-in-law called
> Verizon on her phone, from the train, on AMPS, because she didn't believe me
> that a flashing triangle meant on-extended network, while a solid triangle
> mean off-network roaming. I told her to wait until she had digital coverage
> because I didn't think that AMPS roaming was included, but she didn't get
> charged for the call, and I didn't get charged for an AMPS call in Talkeetna.

All that shows is that you were able to make calls near Talkeetna, a
fairly important population center (which does indeed have a cell tower)
in the Mat-Su borough which itself is heavily populated (for Alaska).
The fact that population centers along a highway are served by cellular
does not mean that the highway itself is covered much by cellular.

The George Parks Highway is nearly 400 miles long from Palmer to
Fairbanks, and goes through substantial wilderness areas with no cellular
towers. The Alaska Railroad parallels the highway on that stretch of the
rail line, although at some points it is quite some distance away.

It seems that you only got as far north as Denali, about halfway, and
never got into unincorporated Alaska.

A greater extreme is in the Yukon, where (as of summer 2006) most
population centers have cellular (and the remainder will next get it next
summer). There is no coverage on the highways at all once you get more
than a couple of miles from town. And prior to 2006, the ONLY cellular
coverage of any kind between Fort Nelson and Tok was in Whitehorse.

Cellular coverage in the north continues to improve by leaps and bounds,
but it is FAR less than is taken for granted in the Lower 48 or southern
Canada. Even today, you can still drive for hundreds of miles in the
north country without any cellular signal, although maybe in another few
years that won't be the case any more.

Nonetheless, if you want reliable and continuous access to telephone
service in the north country, you rent a satellite phone. If you stay in
town, or just want to be able to check in with the folks at home once a
day, then cellular may be alright.

> Anyway, she had to call Verizon twice to get a good answer. The first person
> she talked to told her 'Verizon has no coverage in Alaska, it's our 49th
> state you know.' Besides not knowing her history, the Verizon customer
> service rep was incorrect. At least at the time, Alaska was included in
> Americas Choice extended network.

The Verizon customer representative was correct. Verizon has no coverage
in Alaska. And yes, Alaska is the 49th state; Hawaii is #50.

Alaska has other companies that have coverage, most of which have roaming
agreements with Verizon. The important statewide companies are ACS
Wireless (CDMA) and Dobson Cellular One (GSM). For a while, Dobson had
greater statewide digital coverage, but in 2006 ACS expanded
significantly. There are also important regional companies in Alaska, for
example Copper Valley Wireless (Glennallen, Valdez), ASTAC Cellular One
(North Slope Borough; *not* the same as Dobson), etc.

Whether you are charged in-plan or separate roaming depends upon your plan
and the nature of the roaming agreement between that carrier and Verizon:
. AC gives in-plan roaming with many, but not all, US domestic carriers
that will accept Verizon roamers. There is the AC1 and AC2 variant.
. NAC gives in-plan roaming with many, but not all, North American (US,
Canada, Mexico) carriers that will accept Verizon roamers.
. NSR (no longer offered to new subscribers) gives in-plan roaming with
all US domestic carriers that will accept Verizon roamers.
. SC (no longer offered to new subscribers) as an add-on to NSR gives
in-plan roaming with all Canadian domestic carriers that will accept
Verizon roamers.

Note "that will accept Verizon roamers." There are some carriers that do
not accept Verizon roamers. For example, as of July 2006, Latitude
Wireless in the Yukon did not accept US roamers; a Verizon phone would
recognize LW's CDMA signal but any attempt to place a call resulted in an
error tone. However, LW accepted Canadian roamers. Since LW's network
came online in July 2006, I expect that by 2007 they will have a roaming
agreement with Verizon.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Mutlley wrote:
>> I think you will find that GSM is now being superseded by CDMA in
>> allot of markets. Hopefully one day both CDMA and GSM will merge into
>> one standard.... just like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray..
>
>I haven't heard of any GSM network being replaced by CDMA. GSM is being
>replaced by WCDMA (a.k.a. UTMS) just as CDMA is being replaced by EV-DO.
>In spite of the similarity in names, the transition from GSM to WCDMA does
>not mean that GSM is being replaced by CDMA.
>
>-- Mark --
>
>http://panda.com/mrc
>Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
>Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Woops .. Your correct . It should have read WCDMA..

> there are not
> GSM/AMPS handsets. A lot of Alaskans switched from TDMA/AMPS to
> CDMA/AMPS, rather than give up AMPS for GSM.

How about the Nokia 6340i? It's GSM, TDMA and Analog. Of course, getting
Cingular to provision a new one might be tough.
http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/6340i

Service
GSM 850/1900 Mhz, TDMA 800/1900 Mhz, AMPS 800 Mhz

nas wrote:
>> there are not
>> GSM/AMPS handsets. A lot of Alaskans switched from TDMA/AMPS to
>> CDMA/AMPS, rather than give up AMPS for GSM.
>
> How about the Nokia 6340i? It's GSM, TDMA and Analog. Of course, getting
> Cingular to provision a new one might be tough.

It would also be pretty hard to buy a new one since they are discontinued.

The amount of AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage is still
very large. Even in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a lot of areas
where AMPS is all you'll get. You can look at the Verizon coverage page
that shows digital and analog coverage for AC1 versus AC2 and see how
much you lose without AMPS.

I.e., go to
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/C...type=newsearch
and put in zip code 94060. Look at the difference between AC and AC2
coverage, a huge area turns from gray (roaming or no coverage) to white
(no coverage)

A lot of the AMPS coverage is there for the roadside call boxes, but
it's still Verizon's network and is usable by any Verizon customer with
an AMPS capable handset (and by AT&T TDMA/AMPS customers, at least on an
emergency basis.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:15:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500685.html"
>
>Duh, Nokia has essentially abandoned CDMA, which is the leading
>technology in the U.S., with the most subscribers and an increasing
>market share. Motorola can amortize their development and marketing
>costs over a much larger TAM.

Duh indeed -- CDMA is actually facing an uncertain future given Sprint
Nextel's recent dumping of Qualcomm in favor of WiMAX:

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003298579_wimax11.html>

Two developments in the past year have given WiMax, the wireless
broadband technology that promises high-speed Internet access to
almost any device anywhere, virtually unstoppable momentum. One is
Kirkland-based Clearwire's expanding national WiMax rollout. The
other was Sprint Nextel's decision to use it to build nationwide
wireless broadband networks.

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

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:46:00 +1300, Mutlley <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Mutlley wrote:
>>> I think you will find that GSM is now being superseded by CDMA in
>>> allot of markets. Hopefully one day both CDMA and GSM will merge into
>>> one standard.... just like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray..
>>
>>I haven't heard of any GSM network being replaced by CDMA. GSM is being
>>replaced by WCDMA (a.k.a. UTMS) just as CDMA is being replaced by EV-DO.
>>In spite of the similarity in names, the transition from GSM to WCDMA does
>>not mean that GSM is being replaced by CDMA.

>Woops .. Your correct . It should have read WCDMA..

And WCDMA, designed to complement GSM, has little to do with "CDMA"
(more accurately CDMA 2000) -- in most respects they are quite
different.

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

John Navas wrote:
>
>
> Duh indeed -- CDMA is actually facing an uncertain future given Sprint
> Nextel's recent dumping of Qualcomm in favor of WiMAX:
>
> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003298579_wimax11.html>
>
> Two developments in the past year have given WiMax, the wireless
> broadband technology that promises high-speed Internet access to
> almost any device anywhere, virtually unstoppable momentum. One is
> Kirkland-based Clearwire's expanding national WiMax rollout. The
> other was Sprint Nextel's decision to use it to build nationwide
> wireless broadband networks.
>

Though presumably the existing CDMA providers will continue with it
since they aren't abandoning voice traffic (are they?) and WiMax's
lowest rate appears to be about 1 Mbps. It overlaps with EVDO but not
with 1xRTT which is used for voice calls.

WiMax would appear to be a data protocol not a voice one. I guess it's
possible that all CDMA will be replaced, including voice versions, but
I've never heard that suggested nor can I think of a good reason.

g

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:33:40 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> Duh indeed -- CDMA is actually facing an uncertain future given Sprint
>> Nextel's recent dumping of Qualcomm in favor of WiMAX:
>>
>> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003298579_wimax11.html>
>>
>> Two developments in the past year have given WiMax, the wireless
>> broadband technology that promises high-speed Internet access to
>> almost any device anywhere, virtually unstoppable momentum. One is
>> Kirkland-based Clearwire's expanding national WiMax rollout. The
>> other was Sprint Nextel's decision to use it to build nationwide
>> wireless broadband networks.
>
>Though presumably the existing CDMA providers will continue with it
>since they aren't abandoning voice traffic (are they?) and WiMax's
>lowest rate appears to be about 1 Mbps. It overlaps with EVDO but not
>with 1xRTT which is used for voice calls.
>
>WiMax would appear to be a data protocol not a voice one. I guess it's
>possible that all CDMA will be replaced, including voice versions, but
>I've never heard that suggested nor can I think of a good reason.

I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app."

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

John Navas wrote:

>>
>> WiMax would appear to be a data protocol not a voice one. I guess it's
>> possible that all CDMA will be replaced, including voice versions, but
>> I've never heard that suggested nor can I think of a good reason.
>
> I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app."
>
I doubt it. In order do that there has to be enough signal strength to
support minimum WiMax rate on the reverse (uplink) channel (and the
downlink as well, of course). With the power and antenna limitation of
the phone, that would shrink the existing coverage terribly. I don't
think the carriers will do that. It wouldn't be very good business to
suddenly require support for bi-di 1 Mbps just to continue to handle
voice. They would essentially be restricting their voice coverage to
what are otherwise the much-smaller data coverage footprints.

g

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:31:41 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> WiMax would appear to be a data protocol not a voice one. I guess it's
>>> possible that all CDMA will be replaced, including voice versions, but
>>> I've never heard that suggested nor can I think of a good reason.
>>
>> I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app."
>>
>I doubt it. In order do that there has to be enough signal strength to
>support minimum WiMax rate on the reverse (uplink) channel (and the
>downlink as well, of course). With the power and antenna limitation of
>the phone, that would shrink the existing coverage terribly. I don't
>think the carriers will do that. It wouldn't be very good business to
>suddenly require support for bi-di 1 Mbps just to continue to handle
>voice. They would essentially be restricting their voice coverage to
>what are otherwise the much-smaller data coverage footprints.

VoIP needs much less bandwidth than that, on the order of only 24 Kbps
per circuit, and I personally don't see a significant range (coverage)
limitation as compared to cellular. But even if coverage is smaller, a
dual mode phone might still be a killer app IMnsHO.

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

John Navas wrote:

> VoIP needs much less bandwidth than that, on the order of only 24 Kbps
> per circuit, and I personally don't see a significant range (coverage)
> limitation as compared to cellular. But even if coverage is smaller, a
> dual mode phone might still be a killer app IMnsHO.
>
I know VoIP *needs* less but WiMax won't operate any slower, 1.04 Mbps
is the lowest it's designed to go. The range limitation comes out of the
fundamentals of transferring bits at the rate across the channel.

A 1 Mbps channel takes 100 times more power, 20 dB, than a 10 kbps
channel even though both are supporting a single voice rate application.
I'm matching what existing voice requires not VoIP with this comparison.
If your 24 kbps is correct VoIP is about 2.5 times less efficient than
the compression and coding currently used by voice channels. Even though
the 1 Mbps channel only needs to run 1 percent of the time, it can't
trade off duty cycle/loading for data throughput.
If you don't have the required link budget to support the extra 20 dB it
won't work at all. This means you have to get closer (shrink the cell)
until you have the required margin. That's just Shannon's equation
determined by physics.
g

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:46 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> VoIP needs much less bandwidth than that, on the order of only 24 Kbps
>> per circuit, and I personally don't see a significant range (coverage)
>> limitation as compared to cellular. But even if coverage is smaller, a
>> dual mode phone might still be a killer app IMnsHO.
>>
>I know VoIP *needs* less but WiMax won't operate any slower, 1.04 Mbps
>is the lowest it's designed to go. [SNIP]

The three laws of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states
that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to
venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.

-Arthur C. Clarke

Sprint is free to implement a lower speed if that makes sense, and is
spending more than enough money to be able to call the shots (in that
and other ways). Even at 1 Mbps, I still don't see range as an issue
(as I wrote) because that could be easily addressed with dual modes
(WiMAX+CDMA 2000). That's part of why I think WiMAX VoIP will be a
killer app. But of course only time will tell -- does no good to argue
about it now.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:46 -0700,

> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
> something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states
> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
>
> 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to
> venture a little way past them into the impossible.
>
> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic.
>
> -Arthur C. Clarke
>

Interesting quote but I'm not sure how this applies. If you are doubting
Shannon's equation because it indicates limits to the possible, I think
I will terminate my part in this discussion now.


WiMax presently has a definition.
You seemed to think WiMax would replace CDMA.
I said 'I doubt it' for voice, because of what it would do to the footprint.
If a carrier uses something slower than WiMax to address the footprint
problem, it's no longer WiMax.
If a carrier uses CDMA to continue to cover voice (which seems likely)
then CDMA doesn't go away.

This wasn't about whether VoIP is a good app or not, it was about CDMA
going away to be replaced by WiMax.

g


> Sprint is free to implement a lower speed if that makes sense, and is
> spending more than enough money to be able to call the shots (in that
> and other ways). Even at 1 Mbps, I still don't see range as an issue
> (as I wrote) because that could be easily addressed with dual modes
> (WiMAX+CDMA 2000). That's part of why I think WiMAX VoIP will be a
> killer app. But of course only time will tell -- does no good to argue
> about it now.
>

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:46 -0700,
>
>> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
>> something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states
>> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
>>
>> 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to
>> venture a little way past them into the impossible.
>>
>> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
>> magic.
>>
>> -Arthur C. Clarke
>
>Interesting quote but I'm not sure how this applies.

Read #1 and #2 again.

>If you are doubting
>Shannon's equation because it indicates limits to the possible, I think

What I'm doubting are your assumptions and application of his theorem.

>I will terminate my part in this discussion now.

Your choice.

>WiMax presently has a definition.

Which Sprint is free to adapt to its own needs.

>You seemed to think WiMax would replace CDMA.

CMDA *2000*. What part of "dual modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000)" was unclear?

>I said 'I doubt it' for voice, because of what it would do to the footprint.
>If a carrier uses something slower than WiMax to address the footprint
>problem, it's no longer WiMax.

Sure it is, in the same way that "Pre N" is still considered Wi-Fi.

>If a carrier uses CDMA to continue to cover voice (which seems likely)
>then CDMA doesn't go away.

I didn't say it would -- I said WiMAX VoIP would be a killer app.

>This wasn't about whether VoIP is a good app or not, it was about CDMA
>going away to be replaced by WiMax.

With all due respect, you're reading something into what I wrote that
simply isn't there. My point was (and is) that CDMA 2000 is likely to
be relegated to a secondary role as Sprint moves forward.

>> Sprint is free to implement a lower speed if that makes sense, and is
>> spending more than enough money to be able to call the shots (in that
>> and other ways). Even at 1 Mbps, I still don't see range as an issue
>> (as I wrote) because that could be easily addressed with dual modes
>> (WiMAX+CDMA 2000). That's part of why I think WiMAX VoIP will be a
>> killer app. But of course only time will tell -- does no good to argue
>> about it now.

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