"GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:50:45
-0700, "Giambi" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> Be equally wary of material from interested parties with as axe to grind, as
>> is the case here, which is anything but "impartial."
>
>Ah the irony.. does that advice apply to your posts too, John? ...

Indeed it does.

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

---

› See More: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

Actually the reason I cite the impartial sources rather than
citing the GSM or CDMA trade association propoganda, as
John does, is that the trade association material is way too
biased (on both sides). Problem for the GSM camp is that
there is no impartial data that favors their position in terms
of spectral efficiency, as this would not be possible.

At least with the Deutches Bank study, both the CDMA and
the GSM trade groups claimed that the study favored the
other side and that their own numbers showed that they
each were better. That make me feel much more confident
that the Deutches Bank study was on target.

> Oh, and could you do that bit where you claim to be the
> technology-neutral voice again? That one cracks me up
> every time.

The Usenet Voice of GSM claimed that he was impartial?
ROTFLLMAO.

Personally I'd be quite happy if the whole world had
settled on GSM, but of course there are technical reasons
that are leading to the dominance of CDMA in one form
or another. If you want true 3G and enough spectrum for
voice, there is no alternative at this time.

Steve

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"Steven Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Oh, and could you do that bit where you claim to be the
> > technology-neutral voice again? That one cracks me up
> > every time.
>
> The Usenet Voice of GSM claimed that he was impartial?
> ROTFLLMAO.

Yeah.. here's the link (from this very thread no less!):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...hoon.sonic.net

Since you also know John and his posting history, you know yourself why that
claim is so entertaining. And I never thought he'd say something better than
the "if the phone doesn't work there, then the cellco has decided it's a
place meant for peace and quiet anyways" logic I once saw him float:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...hoon.sonic.net
--
Jason G
2002: Yanks - $126M = 103 wins, A's - $40M = 103 wins too!

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

> Yeah.. here's the link (from this very thread no less!):
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=aSXSa.3931%24dk4.184142%40typhoon.sonic.net
>
> Since you also know John and his posting history, you know yourself why
that
> claim is so entertaining.

Indeed I do.

> And I never thought he'd say something better than
> the "if the phone doesn't work there, then the cellco has decided it's a
> place meant for peace and quiet anyways" logic I once saw him float:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=joH2a.66001%24Ik.2775860%40typhoon.sonic.net

I did see that gem. Funny thing is, I agree with half of it. There are
places that
I don't want my phone to ring. But I want to be the one that decides for
this
to happen by turning it off. And even if it's off, if there is a situation
that requires
it to work so I can make a call, and there is coverage of some sort, I want
to be
able to simply turn it on. But as a rationalization of why it's okay to
select a carrier
with poor coverage, it remains a classic.

My other favorite, which the salespeople of the poorer carriers often use,
and
John has used as well, is the "no carrier provides 100% coverage" argument.
This is an attempt to divide the carriers into two camps, ones with 100%
coverage
and ones with < 100% coverage. Since all carriers fall into the latter
category,
ipso facto, they all are equal. Since you can't depend on either AMPS or GSM
to provide a signal no matter where you are, you may as well just choose
GSM.
The fact that AMPS provides magnitudes more geographic coverage is
irrelevant
to these people, as is the fact that TDMA and CDMA provide far more digital
coverage.

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

In <BS6%[email protected]> on Fri, 15 Aug
2003 15:20:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My other favorite, which the salespeople of the poorer carriers often use,
>and
>John has used as well, is the "no carrier provides 100% coverage" argument.
>This is an attempt to divide the carriers into two camps, ones with 100%
>coverage
>and ones with < 100% coverage. ...

No, that "no carrier provides 100% coverage" simply means that there will
*always* be places where your cell phone won't work, no matter what the
technology (AMPS included) and no matter what the carrier (your buddy Verizon
included, notwithstanding misleading "Can you hear me now? ads). Thus, here
in the USA a cell phone isn't a terribly good *emergency* device, simply
because there are too many places where there isn't coverage (other than
perhaps in metro areas, although there are holes even in metro areas) -- you
may be able to call for help, but then again you may not. Different areas
have coverage by different carriers, and no one carrier works best in all
areas -- even if a given carrier has more coverage overall, that won't matter
if try to use that carrier in an area without coverage. The bottom line is
that cell phones are a convenience, not something you can depend on. If you
are truly concerned about being able to get help in an emergency, then you
need something better than a cell phone (e.g., satellite phone, personal
EPIRB*, SSB, even VHF).

* <http://www.acrelectronics.com/PLB/palmhand.htm>

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Lg8%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <BS6%[email protected]> on Fri, 15 Aug
> 2003 15:20:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >My other favorite, which the salespeople of the poorer carriers often
use,
> >and
> >John has used as well, is the "no carrier provides 100% coverage"
argument.
> >This is an attempt to divide the carriers into two camps, ones with 100%
> >coverage
> >and ones with < 100% coverage. ...
>
> No, that "no carrier provides 100% coverage" simply means that there will
> *always* be places where your cell phone won't work, no matter what the
> technology (AMPS included) and no matter what the carrier (your buddy
Verizon
> included, notwithstanding misleading "Can you hear me now? ads). Thus,
here
> in the USA a cell phone isn't a terribly good *emergency* device,

Another classic from John. Who the heck was talking about an "emergency
device?" Another example of you twisting the subject around to avoid the
issue at hand.


--
Mike

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

In <b6b%[email protected]> on Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:09:43 GMT, "Michael
Lynch" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Lg8%[email protected]...

>> No, that "no carrier provides 100% coverage" simply means that there will
>> *always* be places where your cell phone won't work, no matter what the
>> technology (AMPS included) and no matter what the carrier (your buddy Verizon
>> included, notwithstanding misleading "Can you hear me now? ads). Thus, here
>> in the USA a cell phone isn't a terribly good *emergency* device,
>
>Another classic from John. Who the heck was talking about an "emergency
>device?" Another example of you twisting the subject around to avoid the
>issue at hand.

Just one of several such posts:

From: Steven M. Scharf ([email protected])
Subject: Re: GAIT in California (was Re: E-mailing Cingular)
Date: 2003-08-10 09:39:08 PST
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Actually, when I go off to get away from it all, I will turn my cell phone
off (partly to save the battery when AMPS roaming, partly to avoid
being annoyed). But if there was an EMERGENCY, I would be very glad
that I had coverage. [emphasis added]

[MORE]

Apology accepted.

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

Gee fellas, if you want to see POOR cell coverage of any type... Just go to
Western Montana. No doubt (due to terrain and few installations) some of
the worst in the country.

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

In <0Ac%a.4328$S_.3096@fed1read01> on Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:49:48 -0700, "Jim-G"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Gee fellas, if you want to see POOR cell coverage of any type... Just go to
>Western Montana. No doubt (due to terrain and few installations) some of
>the worst in the country.

We'd probably find Steven Scharf screaming futilely into his Verizon cell
phone, "CAN YOU HEAR ME *NOW*?!"

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

blackout photos


http://community.webshots.com/script...ecurity=GffrYg



http://community.webshots.com/user/blackoutphotos

"Jim-G" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<0Ac%a.4328$S_.3096@fed1read01>:
> Gee fellas, if you want to see POOR cell coverage of any type... Just go to
> Western Montana. No doubt (due to terrain and few installations) some of
> the worst in the country.

Gotta laugh when I look at the Sprint PCS map
for Montana. They have more alleged coverage
than even the FCC shows on AMPS A&B maps, yet
they have none of their own native coverage.
At least the GSM maps are not making claims like
that!.

You can see all the maps at:

"http://www.mountainwireless.com/maps.htm"

The FCC maps are PDF's from their web site.
"http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-B.pdf"

"http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-A.pdf"

Wouldn't want to be out in Montana without
AMPS! Of course if I go to Montana I don't want to
be bothered with a phone, so I guess it would be
okay to bring a GSM phone (or not, no difference).
For kicks, I should go to the Cingular or AT&T kiosk
and tell them that I often go to Montana and ask if
my phone will work there.

BTW, see "http://www.mountainwireless.com/cellmt.htm"
for information about Montana carriers and coverage.

You can see a detailed Montana map for Verizon at:
"http://www.mountainwireless.com/vzmtmap.htm"

I've added a section to my web sites for the best
non-responses by salespeople (and shills) to
questions.

Go to: "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/fraud.htm"
and scroll down to: "Salesperson's Non-Answers to
Customer's Questions"

If you have any more gems like these, please send
them to me.

Steve

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

Steven....gotta tell you that the mountainwireless site doesn't include
Missoula and the write up for Blackfoot telephone coverage is way toooo
generous. I had a lot of trouble with getting adequate analog service in
the city of Missoula let alone around the valley. Of course Blackfoot
offers pcs but not for Sprintpcs. Sprint admits no pcs coverage at all in
Montana when we got there.

The reality check from the Idaho line north to Butte had no coverage of any
type on I-15 and the analog only ran about 40 miles west on I-90 before
dieing out until you got inside the Missoula city limits. Just no signal at
all.

I was surprised 'cause I used to own a radio station there and had 2-way
coverage with my mobile for 120 miles around and cell was just plain non
existant.

? The Sprint PCS web site does not allege any coverage in MT.

Steven Scharf wrote:

> "Jim-G" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <0Ac%a.4328$S_.3096@fed1read01>:
>
>>Gee fellas, if you want to see POOR cell coverage of any type... Just go to
>>Western Montana. No doubt (due to terrain and few installations) some of
>>the worst in the country.
>
>
> Gotta laugh when I look at the Sprint PCS map
> for Montana. They have more alleged coverage
> than even the FCC shows on AMPS A&B maps, yet
> they have none of their own native coverage.
> At least the GSM maps are not making claims like
> that!.
>
> You can see all the maps at:
>
> "http://www.mountainwireless.com/maps.htm"
>
> The FCC maps are PDF's from their web site.
> "http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-B.pdf"
>
> "http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-A.pdf"
>
> Wouldn't want to be out in Montana without
> AMPS! Of course if I go to Montana I don't want to
> be bothered with a phone, so I guess it would be
> okay to bring a GSM phone (or not, no difference).
> For kicks, I should go to the Cingular or AT&T kiosk
> and tell them that I often go to Montana and ask if
> my phone will work there.
>
> BTW, see "http://www.mountainwireless.com/cellmt.htm"
> for information about Montana carriers and coverage.
>
> You can see a detailed Montana map for Verizon at:
> "http://www.mountainwireless.com/vzmtmap.htm"
>
> I've added a section to my web sites for the best
> non-responses by salespeople (and shills) to
> questions.
>
> Go to: "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/fraud.htm"
> and scroll down to: "Salesperson's Non-Answers to
> Customer's Questions"
>
> If you have any more gems like these, please send
> them to me.
>
> Steve
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newsuo%[email protected]...
> ? The Sprint PCS web site does not allege any coverage in MT.

The map shows almost the entire state as off-network service.
They show more off-network service than even the FCC AMPS
maps show.

"Coverage claims based on estimates derived from service area or network
coverage maps made publicly available by domestic wireless carriers."


"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<Otw%[email protected]>:
>
> "Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> newsuo%[email protected]...
> > ? The Sprint PCS web site does not allege any coverage in MT.
>
> The map shows almost the entire state as off-network service.
> They show more off-network service than even the FCC AMPS
> maps show.
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]