AT&T Wireless in play to be sold

>why is Cingular/AT&T GSM
>network quality so bad?

I can't speak to Cingular but my experience with AT&T's GSM is that where they
have GSM service it is great quality.

The "where" issue is simply that it is growing and doesn't cover what they now
have in TDMA. But it is getting much better!

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

---

› See More: AT&T Wireless in play to be sold

Doug Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> If true (and I have no reason to doubt it), why is Cingular/AT&T GSM
> network quality so bad?

I don't think that's a correct assumption (as a blanket statement
anyways). I think Cingular GSM network quality is bad mostly in PCS
markets, especially CA/WA/ID and the Carolinas. The vast majority of
Cingular markets are cellular markets where the existing TDMA/AMPS
network has been overlaid with GSM. Network quality in these markets
is not bad at all, in fact in many cases it's the best network in
those markets.

AT&T on the other hand has deployed GSM only on PCS and therefore
suffers from inferior coverage and robustness throughout.

Stanley Cline <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> In the Philadelphia area, Cingular has both 850 and 1900 spectrum, and
> has since way before the recent NextWave deal came along. Cingular
> started off with only TDMA at 850 (former Comcast/SBC CellOne) and now
> has GSM at both 850 and 1900;

Nice tidbit of information about the Philly market. I didn't know
Cingular was running GSM 1900 in Philly. Anyway, Philly is a rather
rare exception in that regard. Steven M. Scharf made it sound like it
was regular practice at Cingular to overlay GSM 1900 onto TDMA/AMPS
850 (the way AT&T is doing) and I just pointed out that the vast
majority of Cingular markets have either had GSM 850 overlaid onto
TDMA/AMPS 850 (and therefore retain the same general coverage area) or
were PCS markets all along (in which case the poor coverage is not an
effect of overlaying GSM).

[email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> [email protected] (XFF) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > "XFF" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > Where did Cingular overlay 1900 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA?
> > >
> > > In all of their 800 Mhz TDMA markets where they also owned 1900 Mhz
> > > spectrum.
> >
> > And WHICH markets would that be? Can you name at least one?
>
> Chicago

Nope, Cingular has no PCS licenses in Cook county.

> Dallas,

Nope, sorry, no PCS licenses for Cingular in Dallas county either.

> Boston,

Ah, no, check your facts again, no PCS licenses for Cingular in Suffolk county.

> ...... etc

Afraid not...

In article <[email protected]>,
XFF <[email protected]> wrote:
>Stanley Cline <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> In the Philadelphia area, Cingular has both 850 and 1900 spectrum, and
>> has since way before the recent NextWave deal came along. Cingular
>> started off with only TDMA at 850 (former Comcast/SBC CellOne) and now
>> has GSM at both 850 and 1900;
>
>Nice tidbit of information about the Philly market. I didn't know
>Cingular was running GSM 1900 in Philly. Anyway, Philly is a rather
>rare exception in that regard. Steven M. Scharf made it sound like it
>was regular practice at Cingular to overlay GSM 1900 onto TDMA/AMPS
>850 (the way AT&T is doing) and I just pointed out that the vast
>majority of Cingular markets have either had GSM 850 overlaid onto
>TDMA/AMPS 850 (and therefore retain the same general coverage area) or
>were PCS markets all along (in which case the poor coverage is not an
>effect of overlaying GSM).

In areas where "TDMA" providers are overlaying GSM on IS-136 in the
cellular band, is the band statically partitioned into GSM and IS-136
channels? Or is it dynamic based on instantaneous load? What happens
on CDMA/AMPS overlays, is that some number of AMPS channels are taken
out of service and used instead as a CDMA "carrier". Thus, AMPS users
are more likely to have calls fail due to the lack of a voice channel.
Does this happen to IS-136 users where a GSM overlay is in effect?

[email protected]lid wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> XFF <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Stanley Cline <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>
>>>In the Philadelphia area, Cingular has both 850 and 1900 spectrum, and
>>>has since way before the recent NextWave deal came along. Cingular
>>>started off with only TDMA at 850 (former Comcast/SBC CellOne) and now
>>>has GSM at both 850 and 1900;
>>
>>Nice tidbit of information about the Philly market. I didn't know
>>Cingular was running GSM 1900 in Philly. Anyway, Philly is a rather
>>rare exception in that regard. Steven M. Scharf made it sound like it
>>was regular practice at Cingular to overlay GSM 1900 onto TDMA/AMPS
>>850 (the way AT&T is doing) and I just pointed out that the vast
>>majority of Cingular markets have either had GSM 850 overlaid onto
>>TDMA/AMPS 850 (and therefore retain the same general coverage area) or
>>were PCS markets all along (in which case the poor coverage is not an
>>effect of overlaying GSM).
>
>
> In areas where "TDMA" providers are overlaying GSM on IS-136 in the
> cellular band, is the band statically partitioned into GSM and IS-136
> channels?

Yup

> Or is it dynamic based on instantaneous load?

Nope

> What happens
> on CDMA/AMPS overlays, is that some number of AMPS channels are taken
> out of service and used instead as a CDMA "carrier".

Yup

> Thus, AMPS users
> are more likely to have calls fail due to the lack of a voice channel.

Yup

> Does this happen to IS-136 users where a GSM overlay is in effect?

Yup

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

[email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> >AT&T on the other hand has deployed GSM only on PCS and therefore
> >suffers from inferior coverage and robustness throughout.
>
> Why would you say that? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. So
> why make false statements.
>
> AT&T is and has been installing GSM 800MHz in all their cellular markets for
> some time now.

What's your source for this assertion? ATTWS's coverage maps do not
support your claim.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:50:07 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> In areas where "TDMA" providers are overlaying GSM on IS-136 in the
>> cellular band, is the band statically partitioned into GSM and IS-136
>> channels?
>
>Yup
>
>> Or is it dynamic based on instantaneous load?
>
>Nope
>
>> What happens
>> on CDMA/AMPS overlays, is that some number of AMPS channels are taken
>> out of service and used instead as a CDMA "carrier".
>
>Yup
>
>> Thus, AMPS users
>> are more likely to have calls fail due to the lack of a voice channel.
>
>Yup
>
>> Does this happen to IS-136 users where a GSM overlay is in effect?
>
>Yup

Geez, you didn't have to write a novel about it.

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

> > AT&T is and has been installing GSM 800MHz in all their cellular markets
for
> > some time now.
>
> What's your source for this assertion? ATTWS's coverage maps do not
> support your claim.

At least in California, AT&T has been adding 800 Mhz GSM to their 1900 Mhz
GSM and is deactivating overlapping TDMA coverage (with a resultant increase
in dead spots, but theoretically still at 100% coverage for TDMA).

Cingular covets the sweet 800 Mhz spectrum owned by AT&T in places like NYC
and California. A well managed CinguATT could have very good coverage.