Integration in the Poconos

I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.

What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
310-380.

I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.

---

› See More: Integration in the Poconos

Any comments on how this affects phone performance since it will
technically be roaming all the time?

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:28:36 -0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>
>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>310-380.
>
>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.

There shouldn't be any effect. In general, roaming is only an issue when
there is a weak but still "usable" Home network signal.

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:40:37
-0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:

>Any comments on how this affects phone performance since it will
>technically be roaming all the time?
>
>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:28:36 -0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>
>>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>310-380.
>>
>>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.

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

mw wrote:

>Any comments on how this affects phone performance since it will
>technically be roaming all the time?
>
>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:28:36 -0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>
>>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>310-380.
>>
>>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.
>>
>>
Maybe for some reason it's easier to switch the 410 to 380 and then back
to 410 again. Whether you go 1 + 2 or 2 + 1, the result is still 3.

TH

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:13:55 -0400, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>mw wrote:
>
>>Any comments on how this affects phone performance since it will
>>technically be roaming all the time?
>>
>>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:28:36 -0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>>
>>>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>>310-380.
>>>
>>>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.
>>>
>>>
>Maybe for some reason it's easier to switch the 410 to 380 and then back
>to 410 again. Whether you go 1 + 2 or 2 + 1, the result is still 3.
>
>TH

You know, it's funny you mention that because my wife said her phone
says Cingular again today and mine is now missing the triangle.

Now that I see that they seem to have gone back to 310-410 I have a
couple of questions for you specifically since I believe you are near
SFO.

We just got back from a couple of weeks in Napa and I never saw
anything but Blue coverage so I was curious if you had both or if they
are in the middle of integration like here.

Second, have you ever been on Mt. Veeder road that runs west of Napa?
Wow, I thought the Poconos were miserable to cover but it's like
Nebraska compared to that area. I don't think I have ever been in a
twistier, narrow canyon before and I think you would almost have to
put up a tower every quarter mile to get full coverage. We rented a
house up there and I had to climb up to the road to make a call (at
least we had Direcway internet but that's kind of a pita in itself).
It's so sparsely populated it would never be economically feasable.

I was wondering how the fire department radios and pagers worked. I
didn't even think about AMPS at the time.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:33:40 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There shouldn't be any effect. In general, roaming is only an issue when
>there is a weak but still "usable" Home network signal.
>
>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:40:37
>-0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Any comments on how this affects phone performance since it will
>>technically be roaming all the time?
>>
>>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:28:36 -0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>>
>>>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>>310-380.
>>>
>>>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.

Following the merger with ATTWS, Cingular its interest in its prior joint
venture ("orange") network here in California to T-Mobile, buying back service
under a multi-year agreement, retaining only the "blue" (old ATTWS) network.
Thus there won't be any blue-orange integration here in California.

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:07:34
-0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:

>Now that I see that they seem to have gone back to 310-410 I have a
>couple of questions for you specifically since I believe you are near
>SFO.
>
>We just got back from a couple of weeks in Napa and I never saw
>anything but Blue coverage so I was curious if you had both or if they
>are in the middle of integration like here.

[SNIP]

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:33:40 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>There shouldn't be any effect. In general, roaming is only an issue when
>>there is a weak but still "usable" Home network signal.
>>
>>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:40:37
>>-0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Any comments on how this affects phone performance since it will
>>>technically be roaming all the time?
>>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:28:36 -0400, mw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>>>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>>>
>>>>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>>>310-380.
>>>>
>>>>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.

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

>>>>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>>>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>>>
>>>>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>>>310-380.
>>>>
>>>>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>Maybe for some reason it's easier to switch the 410 to 380 and then back
>>to 410 again. Whether you go 1 + 2 or 2 + 1, the result is still 3.
>>
>>TH
>>
>>
>
>You know, it's funny you mention that because my wife said her phone
>says Cingular again today and mine is now missing the triangle.
>
>
If AT&T Wireless had more towers, it would make sense. These are just
numbers for example. We'll assume that ATTWS had 2000 towers in the
area, and a greater number of switches, etc. Now we'll assume that
Cingular has 900 towers in the same area, maybe because it didn't have
the spectrum that ATTWS had. It would most likely be easier to take the
900 into the 2000 than the 2000 into the 900.

As long as you have coverage, that's the important thing.

TH

The number of antenna sites is not a function of how much spectrum a
carrier has. If you have more than one PCS license, it does not mean
that you have to have that many times more antenna sites.

Tropical Haven wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>>>> they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>>>>
>>>>> What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>>>> 310-380.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe for some reason it's easier to switch the 410 to 380 and then
>>> back to 410 again. Whether you go 1 + 2 or 2 + 1, the result is
>>> still 3.
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>
>>
>> You know, it's funny you mention that because my wife said her phone
>> says Cingular again today and mine is now missing the triangle.
>>
>>
> If AT&T Wireless had more towers, it would make sense. These are just
> numbers for example. We'll assume that ATTWS had 2000 towers in the
> area, and a greater number of switches, etc. Now we'll assume that
> Cingular has 900 towers in the same area, maybe because it didn't have
> the spectrum that ATTWS had. It would most likely be easier to take the
> 900 into the 2000 than the 2000 into the 900.
> As long as you have coverage, that's the important thing.
>
> TH

Jerome Zelinske wrote:

> The number of antenna sites is not a function of how much spectrum
> a carrier has. If you have more than one PCS license, it does not
> mean that you have to have that many times more antenna sites.

It wasn't definite, it was theoretical. I probably didn't word it
appropriately. The point was that it might be easier to take the system
with less infrastructure into the system with more infrastructure, even
though the system with less infrastructure will be the base system at
all's end.

TH

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:35:35 -0400, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>>>>>I don't know if they have finished the whole county here in PA but
>>>>>they have finished integration on the closest sites around me.
>>>>>
>>>>>What surprised me is that they are all using the ATTWS MCC-MNC of
>>>>>310-380.
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess I was expecting them to use the Cingular MNC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Maybe for some reason it's easier to switch the 410 to 380 and then back
>>>to 410 again. Whether you go 1 + 2 or 2 + 1, the result is still 3.
>>>
>>>TH
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You know, it's funny you mention that because my wife said her phone
>>says Cingular again today and mine is now missing the triangle.
>>
>>
>If AT&T Wireless had more towers, it would make sense. These are just
>numbers for example. We'll assume that ATTWS had 2000 towers in the
>area, and a greater number of switches, etc. Now we'll assume that
>Cingular has 900 towers in the same area, maybe because it didn't have
>the spectrum that ATTWS had. It would most likely be easier to take the
>900 into the 2000 than the 2000 into the 900.

Absolutely, and there were more AT&T sites, the others were recent
fill ins.

Using your analogy, what they did was roll the 900 up with the 2000,
and then turn around and take all 2900 back the other way.

As a programmer, I can see how that would probably still be easier in
the long run.

>As long as you have coverage, that's the important thing.

Sure but we're just a bunch of kibitzers in this forum anyway. :-0

It's a little more interesting than some of the daily ham radio
discussions I have heard about what one had for breakfast, in great
detail.