TDMA Shutdown

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.]

---

› See More: TDMA Shutdown

"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.

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.

"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>

In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
have usable analog.

-Bill Radio
-Cellular Reviews and News at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com


>
> 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?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
> cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
> users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
> 2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.

Pretty strange. Most of the time I'm using AMPS it's in rural areas,
though I've also used Cingular AMPS in Florida and Verizon AMPS in the
Bay Area.

> Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
> their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog.

Their definition of identical coverage is that every analog tower also
has digital equipment. This does not make the coverage identical.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:47:15 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>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.

Actually been going on for the past several years. The FCC has shown no

>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.

Indeed, simply because there's no good reason for further government
interference -- politics have nothing to do with it.

>[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.]

Please stop this crap -- you're just polluting alt.cellular.attws with
unhelpful thread fragments.

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

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:59:26 GMT, "jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in
<iBELh.7712$dG.3332@trndny08>:

>"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. ...

Digital is actually capable of the same coverage as AMPS.

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

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:31:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>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. ...

Actually not -- digital OnStar works as well or better.

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

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:13:35 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>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.

No more or less than any other cellular service.

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

Bill Radio wrote:
> In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
> equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
> coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
> have usable analog.

I guess that they'll have to go to satellite service if AMPS goes away.

I just saw that REI is now selling satellite phones, the ultimate
backpacking accessory.