Tired of AT&T / Cingular Wireless?

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
> these zones they are getting no service.

What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
no digital service.

Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
coverage, plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).

It costs $2.35/month to keep a PagePlus account active, but if you do
travel off the beaten path it's well worth it to have the coverage that
you can only get with CDMA and AMPS. It really expands your options for
your "regular" phone and "regular" carrier, when you have a back-up
CDMA/AMPS phone.

There's an even cheaper back-up option if you just want a phone that can
make outgoing calls.

See "http://prepaiduswireless.com".

---

› See More: Tired of AT&T / Cingular Wireless?

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
>> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
>> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
>> these zones they are getting no service.
>
>What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>no digital service.

"Many" users = tiny fraction of users

>Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
>are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
>coverage,

In fact most have announced that they will be shutting down AMPS
rapidly.

>plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
>areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).

Simply not true.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
> CDMA is superior.

This is correct. For rural areas, you really want to have a CDMA phone,
at least as backup, with or without AMPS. I've been to many rural places
where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage. This occurs for two
reasons.

First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
because it requires less cells to cover the same area.

Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.

In these parks and open spaces there is often CDMA coverage but no GSM
coverage, and often AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage at
all. This is one of the reasons why you see the tremendous differences
in the ratings of carriers by subscribers in all the surveys of this
area, especially in terms of "no service." In the San Francisco Bay
Area, Verizon is far better in terms of coverage, and I suppose that a
Sprint phone forced to roam on Verizon would be equally good if all of
Verizon is included but few Sprint customers are aware of how to do this.

AT&T has an extensive AMPS network that will be turned off next week,
and it's going to result in a lot more "no service" for Verizon and
Sprint customers, but since AT&T hasn't sold AMPS capable handsets for
quite a while, and has very few remaining TDMA/AMPS customers, its own
GSM customers will see no decrease in coverage.

There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
>> CDMA is superior.
>
>This is correct.

Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
and GSM.

>I've been to many rural places
>where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage.

I've likewise been to many rural places where there is GSM coverage but
no CDMA2000 coverage.


>This occurs for two
>reasons.

This occurs for one reason: all carriers have coverage holes.

>Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
>great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
>allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
>and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.

Simply not true, given a reasonably current handset. You're probably
still using an ancient handset.

>There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
>but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.

Proof? But as usual, there are zero links in your post -- you just make
up whatever you need to fit your agenda.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> This is correct. For rural areas, you really want to have a CDMA phone,
> at least as backup, with or without AMPS. I've been to many rural places
> where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage. This occurs for two
> reasons.
>
> First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
> affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
> because it requires less cells to cover the same area.

"MOST?" Too broad. AFAIK with one exception all the rural TDMA/AMPS
carriers in Texas went/are going GSM--that exception being a carrier in
west Texas who had CDMA in other states--and that carrier is supporting
*BOTH* the last time I checked. Outside of that area and away from the
medium (20k) towns CDMA simply doesn't exist--often despite the fact
that the Verizon and Sprint maps show digital coverage. The maps may
reflect "licenced"--far cry from physically being there.
>
> AT&T has an extensive AMPS network that will be turned off next week,
> and it's going to result in a lot more "no service" for Verizon and
> Sprint customers, but since AT&T hasn't sold AMPS capable handsets for
> quite a while, and has very few remaining TDMA/AMPS customers, its own
> GSM customers will see no decrease in coverage.
>
Right, which is why AT&T can tell the news media that they have only a
handful of AMPS users "on their system". AT&T users 1) don't have AMPS
on their phones except for the few GAIT holdouts like me who 2) don't
use AMPS *on* AT&T systems because they've all got GSM also. The news
article one of the local papers printed this last week about the AMPS
sunset just spouted AT&T PR and was completely clueless AT&T failed to
mention either the number of non-AT&T AMPS users roaming on AT&T AMPS OR
the number of GAIT users roaming on non-AT&T systems.

So far I haven't received *any* notice from AT&T about my GAIT plan or
phone needing to change so I'm HOPING that means they haven't any plans
on changing the GAIT accounts to block roaming on other carriers' AMPS
and TDMA. I may have to run out to one of the non-GSM areas just to see
what happens--before I really need it.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> This is correct. For rural areas, you really want to have a CDMA phone,
>> at least as backup, with or without AMPS. I've been to many rural places
>> where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage. This occurs for two
>> reasons.
>>
>> First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
>> affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
>> because it requires less cells to cover the same area.
>
> "MOST?" Too broad. AFAIK with one exception all the rural TDMA/AMPS
> carriers in Texas went/are going GSM--that exception being a carrier in
> west Texas who had CDMA in other states--and that carrier is supporting

Were those rural carriers AT&T Wireless affiliates?

If you look at all the surveys, they always make a point of stressing
that CDMA has better rural coverage. However it probably varies by area.
If both of the original carriers in an area (A and B side) went to GSM,
then it's likely that the rural carriers would have followed, and I know
that's the case in Texas.

But you're right, "most" was too broad. I stand corrected.

> Right, which is why AT&T can tell the news media that they have only a
> handful of AMPS users "on their system".

The FCC probably doesn't require a carrier to keep AMPS in place if the
users of the AMPS network aren't their own customers. This is a loophole
in their policy.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:23:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>If you look at all the surveys, they always make a point of stressing
>that CDMA has better rural coverage. ...

Actually they don't. (No citations as usual of course.)

>The FCC probably doesn't require a carrier to keep AMPS in place if the
>users of the AMPS network aren't their own customers. This is a loophole
>in their policy.

The FCC is actually allowing any carrier to turn off analog with at most
a simple certification:

This is satisfied simply by converting all towers from analog to
digital.

<http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_cellular_coverage_certification&id=cellular>

Notwithstanding your many attempts to claim otherwise, AMPS is about to
sunset and get turned off.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:05:48 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>>> tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>>> no digital service.
>> "Many" users = tiny fraction of users
>
> You are correct here, John. The tech-saavy users who understand the
> significance of having a handset that supports AMPS is definitely a
> miniscule fraction of the majority of cellphone users.

Well to be fair, even a lot of tech-savvy users don't travel to places
where they need the coverage advantages of AMPS or CDMA. When I look at
most of my relatives and co-workers, they rarely go anywhere outside the
areas where GSM and CDMA coverage are just fine. OTOH, the friends I
hang out with are more likely to travel to and through areas where both
AMPS and CDMA are a big advantage.

I.e., when I went to Alaska a few years ago, there was no GSM, no iDEN,
some CDMA, a lot of TDMA, and a tremendous amount of AMPS, which both
TDMA/AMP and CDMA/AMPS users could access. Now with TDMA largely gone,
GSM (from Dobson) works in large cities of Alaska if you want coverage
in rural areas you have to get CDMA/AMPS since many, if not all, rural
areas of Alaska are still using AMPS, and it's totally impractical to
install enough GSM towers or CDMA towers for equivalent coverage.

I know that when I mentioned that the secondary all-season routes
through the Sierra had only AMPS or CDMA coverage, "he who must not be
named" explained how the solution to this was to plan your travel routes
so that you didn't go to places without GSM coverage. I guess this may
be the way some people like to plan things, but I'll pass on that
approach thank you very much.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:16:54 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:05:48 GMT, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>>>> tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>>>> no digital service.
>>> "Many" users = tiny fraction of users
>>
>> You are correct here, John. The tech-saavy users who understand the
>> significance of having a handset that supports AMPS is definitely a
>> miniscule fraction of the majority of cellphone users.
>
>Well to be fair, even a lot of tech-savvy users don't travel to places
>where they need the coverage advantages of AMPS or CDMA. ...

There is no coverage advantage to CDMA2000, likewise to AMPS with the
usual small handset. All that matters is what actual coverage exists.

>I know that when I mentioned that the secondary all-season routes
>through the Sierra had only AMPS or CDMA coverage, "he who must not be
>named" explained how the solution to this was to plan your travel routes
>so that you didn't go to places without GSM coverage. I guess this may
>be the way some people like to plan things, but I'll pass on that
>approach thank you very much.

I said nothing of the kind.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> In other words, they can't shut off an AMPS tower unless that area
> that was covered by this AMPS tower is now covered by digital towerS.
> In the middle of LA, they can do this because these areas are
> adequately covered by digital. In remote locations, they probably
> can't do this because shutting an AMPS tower down and coverting it to
> digital may result in places where you used to get an AMPS signal but
> can't get a digital signal because the new digital tower doesn't have
> the range of the old AMPS one.

The carriers are going to do exactly that. Their whole plan to turn off
AMPS was predicated on misleading maps, sales of non-AMPS capable
handsets, and changing plans. You can see what Verizon did in terms of
removing the maps that showed extended roaming coverage for their older
plans, leaving only the maps for their newer plans that have less
coverage because much of AMPS has been removed. Cingular/AT&T solved the
problem by not selling any AMPS capable handsets for several years,
while continuing to operate an extensive AMPS network that only
CDMA/AMPS customers of Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, and a bunch of smaller
carriers could use so Cingular/AT&T can proclaim that they have almost
no customers using AMPS.

The range of an AMPS tower is far greater than a digital tower, but in
reality most of the AMPS towers where digital isn't overlaid completely
are owned by rural carriers that are keeping AMPS up. Where the AMPS
shutdown sucks where I live is in the surrounding mountains, i.e. the
Santa Cruz mountains in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties,
where there are a lot of back roads in unpopulated areas where only AMPS
was available (and usually AT&T AMPS). When cycling or hiking in those
areas it was kind of nice to have coverage ICE, but that'll be gone next
week.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:01:15 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> In other words, they can't shut off an AMPS tower unless that area
>> that was covered by this AMPS tower is now covered by digital towerS.
>> In the middle of LA, they can do this because these areas are
>> adequately covered by digital. In remote locations, they probably
>> can't do this because shutting an AMPS tower down and coverting it to
>> digital may result in places where you used to get an AMPS signal but
>> can't get a digital signal because the new digital tower doesn't have
>> the range of the old AMPS one.

That's not how the rule works. Read the FCC link I provided earlier in
this thread. All that's required is to replace the analog radios with
digital radios. That an analog bag phone might have longer range than a
small digital handset is irrelevant because that's not how the rule is
written.

>The range of an AMPS tower is far greater than a digital tower,

Simply not true. Comparable handsets have comparable range.

>but in
>reality most of the AMPS towers where digital isn't overlaid completely
>are owned by rural carriers that are keeping AMPS up.

Not true either in most cases -- rural carriers have a strong incentive
to go digital -- roaming fees are far more lucrative than local
subscribers.

>Where the AMPS
>shutdown sucks where I live is in the surrounding mountains, i.e. the
>Santa Cruz mountains in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties,
>where there are a lot of back roads in unpopulated areas where only AMPS
>was available (and usually AT&T AMPS). When cycling or hiking in those
>areas it was kind of nice to have coverage ICE, but that'll be gone next
>week.

There are actually few such areas, as I've shown when you've made this
claim in the past.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On 2008-02-12, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> I.e., when I went to Alaska a few years ago, there was no GSM, no iDEN,
> some CDMA, a lot of TDMA, and a tremendous amount of AMPS, which both
> TDMA/AMP and CDMA/AMPS users could access. Now with TDMA largely gone,
> GSM (from Dobson) works in large cities of Alaska if you want coverage
> in rural areas you have to get CDMA/AMPS since many, if not all, rural
> areas of Alaska are still using AMPS, and it's totally impractical to
> install enough GSM towers or CDMA towers for equivalent coverage.

ACS WIreless is the CDMA/AMPS cellular operator with the biggest
network footprint in Alaska. Here's some quotes by or about them
from FCC 07-103 which suggest to me that your assertion about rural
AMPS use there doesn't match the operator's own view of it:

ACS Wireless (ACSW, a cellular provider in Alaska), for example, notes
that "maintenance and operation of obsolete analog technology will siphon
off funds which would otherwise go to ... deployment of advanced
services and technologies.

ACSW, for example, devotes forty percent of its annual operations
budget to operate a network serving 1,200 analog-only subscribers (one
percent of the company's subscriber base)."

ACSW Comments at 6-7 (these costs include circuits, space, power, and
maintenance/repair). ACSW consequently spends nearly $3,900 per analog
customer to maintain its analog network.

The high cost of maintaining analog systems will likely increase as
legacy analog systems age. In this regard, we note that "repair and
replacement parts are becoming more difficult to locate and expensive
to purchase, because analog equipment has been discontinued by
manufacturers."

ACSW confirms that analog systems are more prone to failure than
their digital counterparts. ACSW Comments at 7. ACSW also notes
that it has received a waiver of the analog requirement with respect
to seven sites that were unduly burdensome to serve.

It doesn't sound like the company thinks its AMPS network is a good
idea. And there's also the issue that AMPS doesn't support E911
positioning, even though it is rural areas where that is likely to be of
the greatest use:

We agree with APCO and IAFC that E911 deployment is vital to public
safety, and note that this is particularly true in sparsely populated
rural areas, where callers often may not know their precise location
or be able to obtain location information from a nearby party.

I don't think your assertion that "it's totally impractical to install
enough GSM towers or CDMA towers for equivalent coverage" is correct
at all. I do see a lot of evidence that it may be increasingly
impractical to try to continue to maintain AMPS service at all,
however, and that includes rural service.

Dennis Ferguson

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
>>> CDMA is superior.
>>
>>This is correct.
>
> Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
> and GSM.
>

There are plenty of CDMA2000 "boomer" towers out there in rural areas that
cover far more area than GSM towers do. AT&T [and roaming partners including
T-Mobile] have made up some of this gap by simply deploying more antennas].

> I've likewise been to many rural places where there is GSM coverage but
> no CDMA2000 coverage.
>

That is a stupid argument to be made on both sides. Of course there will be
cases for each technology where the other is not available. This is not a
technology limitation in most places but a logistical one.

>
>
>>Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
>>great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
>>allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
>>and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.
>
> Simply not true, given a reasonably current handset. You're probably
> still using an ancient handset.
>

CDMA will utilitze multipath MUCH better than GSM (which I believe is actually
affected negatively by this). Since moutains and buildings are two major
causes of multipath, it seems that CDMA get a natural advantage with all else
being equal [i.e. same towers, frequencies, power and positioning].

>>There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
>>but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.
>
> Proof? But as usual, there are zero links in your post -- you just make
> up whatever you need to fit your agenda.
>

John ... you are the ONLY one who has claimed extended GSM coverage in the US
.... and that was some lonely location out in the ocean.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
>>>> CDMA is superior.
>>> This is correct.
>> Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
>> and GSM.
>>
>
> There are plenty of CDMA2000 "boomer" towers out there in rural areas that
> cover far more area than GSM towers do. AT&T [and roaming partners including
> T-Mobile] have made up some of this gap by simply deploying more antennas].

This is true. But one thing you'll notice (or at least I've found) is
that linear coverage of GSM on a major road will be fine, but if you go
say 25 miles off the major road you'll lose GSM coverage by default, but
CDMA coverage will still exist, especially if you use a car kit with an
external antenna. I've gotten CDMA coverage 50 miles from the nearest
cell in flat areas.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This is true. But one thing you'll notice (or at least I've found) is
> that linear coverage of GSM on a major road will be fine, but if you go
> say 25 miles off the major road you'll lose GSM coverage by default, but
> CDMA coverage will still exist, especially if you use a car kit with an
> external antenna. I've gotten CDMA coverage 50 miles from the nearest
> cell in flat areas.

Yes, because it is not limitted by distance as GSM is [GSM is actually
limitted by time, not distance ... but light can only travel so fast in a
certain amount of time].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead