What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >> What is the best phone available now for reception in rural areas.
> >
> > The pay phone in front of the general store.
>
> What's a payphone? LOL

Its like a regular phone except it doesn't have a crank on the side and
it has a coin slot on the front.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

---

› See More: What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:06:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:08:55 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>AMPS usage is declining. Digital coverage is expanding. Carriers are
>>free to shut down AMPS whenever they want after sunset, and will
>>probably do so rapidly.
>
>Some will, some won't.
>
>In rural areas with sparse population, it makes little financial sense
>to add a bunch of digital towers to replace/supplement functional
>digital towers.

Much depends on how much roaming is going on, since roaming revenue is
usually the dominant profit generator for rural carriers, and with the
demand for AMPS roaming continuing to fall, conversion to digital looks
more and more attractive. Another big factor is the decreasing
availability of AMPS equipment.

Conversion from analog to digital is typically more a matter of tower
conversion than of adding towers. In most areas, line of sight is the
controlling factor, with towers nowhere near free space range limits.

>It is unrealistic to think that every AMPS tower will be shut down
>immediately on the date the FCC says they can be.

Perhaps, but I personally think shutdowns will be more rapid than you
currently expect. I expect carriers to start the process in about a
year, if not sooner.

>And, I believe it would "be nice" for the big carriers to offer
>handsets that allows its users to make calls on these AMPS networks
>when they are in a location where that's all there is.
>
>For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
>Cingular & TMobile do not.

Even if they agreed with you, GSM carriers couldn't possibly justify the
huge cost of developing, producing, and marketing such handsets,
particularly given the lack of demand for them, and the short remaining
timeframe of the AMPS mandate.

GAIT never got any real traction, a lesson that hasn't been lost on
carriers. In retrospect, the cost and hassle of GAIT, operation as well
as equipment, simply wasn't worth it.

Bottom line is that there's just not enough demand for AMPS to matter.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:30:52 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:33:49 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>>
>>> For some reason, Verizon & Sprint thinks this still makes sense, but
>>> Cingular & TMobile do not.
>>
>>It's not that these carriers don't think that it makes sense for the
>>customer, is that there aren't any GSM/AMPS handsets available
>
>That's a carrier problem. If the carriers told the handset makers to
>make them (GSM+AMPS), they would.

Not quite a bit of money, which carriers aren't interested in spending.
The painful lesson of GAIT is still fresh in the minds of both carriers
and handset makers.

>>as well as the fact that Cingular certainly doesn't want to encourage
>>use of AMPS because increased usage would push out the sunset date.
>
>What I think we all want is not to extend the sunset date.
>
>Turn off/convert the AMPS towers in places where there is digital
>coverage for all I care.
>
>What I think we all want (John Navas excepted) is for us to be able to
>make/receive calls where all there is is an AMPS signal.

The great majority of people I know have no interest in AMPS.

>>Verizon is not selling many tri-mode phone models--it's only to the few
>>people that understand that "All-Digital" is a negative, not a positive.
>>Verizon doesn't want to encourage AMPS usage either
>
>But why Verizon and not Cingular?
>
>Because Verizon offers service in a lot of places Cingular does not?
>And the reason they do is because in some of these areas, a lot of it
>is covered solely by AMPS?
>
>>but if they drop all AMPS capable models, that's a reason for a lot of
>>customers to bail.
>
>To where? Some regional podunk cellular company ran out of a barn?

It's a silly claim.

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

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> What I think we all want is not to extend the sunset date.
>
> Turn off/convert the AMPS towers in places where there is digital
> coverage for all I care.

Fine with me, for the most part. I'll still miss the AMPS coverage on
the periphery of urban areas, that's there just because the AMPS range
is so much greater than the digital range.

> What I think we all want (John Navas excepted) is for us to be able to
> make/receive calls where all there is is an AMPS signal.

Yes, that's a fair statement.

>> Verizon is not selling many tri-mode phone models--it's only to the few
>> people that understand that "All-Digital" is a negative, not a positive.
>> Verizon doesn't want to encourage AMPS usage either
>
> But why Verizon and not Cingular?
>
> Because Verizon offers service in a lot of places Cingular does not?
> And the reason they do is because in some of these areas, a lot of it
> is covered solely by AMPS?

I think that it's also due to the fact that Verizon has a lot more
influence with handset makers. A GSM handset maker has a huge world
market with no AMPS, while CDMA handset makers have mainly the U.S. and
South Korea. Look how Nokia is losing market share year after year
because of their inability to succeed with CDMA. Motorola is going
gangbusters, as are LG and Samsung.

> To where? Some regional podunk cellular company ran out of a barn?

Without AMPS, a lot of CDMA users that stayed with CDMA only because of
the much wider coverage will have less reason to stay. Many of these
people may prefer a GSM phone that can also be used for international
travel.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:21:36 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>... A GSM handset maker has a huge world
>market with no AMPS, while CDMA handset makers have mainly the U.S. and
>South Korea. Look how Nokia is losing market share year after year
>because of their inability to succeed with CDMA. Motorola is going
>gangbusters, as are LG and Samsung.

Your (mis)use of "CDMA" is misleading. Nokia is actually pulling out of
CDMA2000 because the CDMA2000 market is "shrinking" and not a good
opportunity. Instead, in addition to GSM, Nokia will focus on
UMTS/W-CDMA. Motorola is doing better (but still a long way from its
former glory) because of clever handset design, not CDMA2000. What's
"gangbusters" is the new deal to supply Sprint as it migrates to WiMAX,
a big loss for CDMA2000.

>> To where? Some regional podunk cellular company ran out of a barn?
>
>Without AMPS, a lot of CDMA users that stayed with CDMA only because of
>the much wider coverage will have less reason to stay. Many of these
>people may prefer a GSM phone that can also be used for international
>travel.

There clearly aren't enough of such people to matter, and that "logic"
doesn't hold up in any event.

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

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>The great majority of people I know have no interest in AMPS.

Q: And this is why?
A: Because the great majority of people are unaware of the benefit of
having a handset with AMPS capabilites.

And the only way they'll probably be aware it's a problem if they are
out somewhere "in the boonies" and their buddy (with the AMPS capable
handset) can make calls, but they can't.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Not quite a bit of money, which carriers aren't interested in spending.
>The painful lesson of GAIT is still fresh in the minds of both carriers
>and handset makers.

"Painful lesson of GAIT"?

GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The great majority of people I know have no interest in AMPS.
>
> Q: And this is why?
> A: Because the great majority of people are unaware of the benefit of
> having a handset with AMPS capabilites.
>
> And the only way they'll probably be aware it's a problem if they are
> out somewhere "in the boonies" and their buddy (with the AMPS capable
> handset) can make calls, but they can't.

LOL, the great majority of people don't have the slightest idea what
AMPS is. Or GSM or CDMA for that matter. What they care about is
coverage. Every survey of cell phone users shows that coverage is the
number one issue. Not customer service, not ringtones, not data, not
international roaming, but coverage.

When it's explained to someone that they will get far more coverage in
non-urban areas, if they have a phone that supports AMPS, then they have
a lot of interest in it.

Part of the reason Cingular does so poorly in terms of all the surveys
regarding coverage is because of the lack of ability to use all the AMPS
networks in the country.

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Not quite a bit of money, which carriers aren't interested in spending.
>> The painful lesson of GAIT is still fresh in the minds of both carriers
>> and handset makers.
>
> "Painful lesson of GAIT"?
>
> GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.

GAIT was a win for customers, but a pain in the butt for carriers.

Cingular's western region never officially offered GAIT, because
Cingular had no TDMA or AMPS network, and their GSM network was so bad
that they knew there would be a great deal of AMPS and TDMA roaming if
they offered it. You _could_ get it, but not at a store or on-line, you
had to figure out how to reach someone at the head office that would
screen you for it, and then sell you a handset at full price.

Here is an e-mail I received from Cingular:


"Dear Mr. Scharf,

I have been contacted by Lauren Garner regarding your questions
concerning California network and GAIT phones. I would be more than
happy to discuss the network and GAIT phones with you.

Please reply to this email with contact information, or contact me at
1-800-653-xxxx.

Sincerely,

xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
Customer Relations Specialist
Office of the President
Cingular Wireless West Region"



I called, and talked to this person at length regarding GAIT. The policy
was that you could buy a GAIT phone, direct from Cingular's corporate
office, it would be programmed so it wouldn't work on TDMA or AMPS in
Cingular's Western Region (or you'd pay for roaming when within the
region), and you had to explain why you needed a GAIT phone.

SMS wrote:
> Every survey of cell phone users shows that coverage is the
> number one issue. Not customer service, not ringtones, not data, not
> international roaming, but coverage.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but merely pointing out a different twist.

We know that Cingular has one business model that looks at their
customer base in terms of minutes used, not in the actual number of
subscribers. This was from a Cingular news release when GSM was being
rolled out. I don't recall the term itself, but it described the
percentage of users that would begin getting served by GSM. The
percentage of users was something like 90%.

When I commented on the article, I pointed out it was misleading as it
had no relation to the actual number of subscribers nor the geographical
coverage area. In other words, if Cingular had say one fourth
penetration of the cellular market (population wise), 40% of the
population would be covered in the three major metropolitan areas of
only 2% of the geographic area of the state. Lets also pick a number
like 10 times as much air time was used in the cities compared to every
where else.

Therefore Cingular could make some very impressive numeric claims for
GSM coverage. The point here is they are looking at a landscape where
coverage area is not an issue and thus concentrate on other selling factors.

I also commented tongue-in-cheek that Cingular could shut down all the
towers in the state except for the three major metropolitan areas and
still come out ahead.

--------------------------

We also know that AT&T Wireless had a on-line survey on their website (I
commented on this some time back) where they asked how important
ringtones, changeable faceplates, or a flip phone was....but nothing was
asked how important call quality, battery life, amount of dropped calls
was.

Bottom line here is Cingular (and mostly likely the other carriers also)
have a different perspective of looking at things than we do.

Network build-out may not be so much based on the actual number of
subscribers, but how much they use their phones. One hundred ranchers in
fifty time the geographic area calling their wives once a day to let
them know they got that cows in is a lot less network traffic than
teenagers in a city would use. And those farmers don't care what color
of the phone they use, but teenagers need to have the most fashionable
phones.

Disclaimer - other than my references to the news release and on-line
survey, everything else is a personal observation. Anyone is welcome to
call it rubbish, provided they has citations to prove otherwise.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:17:00 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The great majority of people I know have no interest in AMPS.
>
>Q: And this is why?
>A: Because the great majority of people are unaware of the benefit of
>having a handset with AMPS capabilites.

Your opinion. My opinion, and those of people I've specifically asked,
is that they see no need for it.

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

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:35:45 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The great majority of people I know have no interest in AMPS.
>>
>> Q: And this is why?
>> A: Because the great majority of people are unaware of the benefit of
>> having a handset with AMPS capabilites.
>>
>> And the only way they'll probably be aware it's a problem if they are
>> out somewhere "in the boonies" and their buddy (with the AMPS capable
>> handset) can make calls, but they can't.
>
>LOL, the great majority of people don't have the slightest idea what
>AMPS is. Or GSM or CDMA for that matter. What they care about is
>coverage. Every survey of cell phone users shows that coverage is the
>number one issue. Not customer service, not ringtones, not data, not
>international roaming, but coverage.

Actually the ability to make calls, which is actually more a function of
dead spots, call quality, and dropped calls in the places where they
make most of their calls.

>When it's explained to someone that they will get far more coverage in
>non-urban areas, if they have a phone that supports AMPS, then they have
>a lot of interest in it.

Not in my experience. They actually care about places were they make
most of their calls. They see no value in being able to make calls on a
certain hilltop instead of being able to make calls at the local
shopping center.

>Part of the reason Cingular does so poorly in terms of all the surveys
>regarding coverage is because of the lack of ability to use all the AMPS
>networks in the country.

Nonsense.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:18:09 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Not quite a bit of money, which carriers aren't interested in spending.
>>The painful lesson of GAIT is still fresh in the minds of both carriers
>>and handset makers.
>
>"Painful lesson of GAIT"?
>
>GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.

Only if you ignore cost and market penetration. GAIT was actually a
market flop with consumers, and a large expense and hassle for carriers.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:18:09 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:02 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Not quite a bit of money, which carriers aren't interested in spending.
>>>The painful lesson of GAIT is still fresh in the minds of both carriers
>>>and handset makers.
>>
>>"Painful lesson of GAIT"?
>>
>>GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.
>
> Only if you ignore cost and market penetration. GAIT was actually a
> market flop with consumers, and a large expense and hassle for carriers.
>
And yet CDMA/AMPS has been a success for a number of carriers. None of the
technological problems that GAIT had and more of a willingness by carriers
and handset makers to support the technology. Does this point the inherent
technological, philosophical or economical shortcomings of the companies
that could not make GAIT succeed?

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

>
>>Part of the reason Cingular does so poorly in terms of all the surveys
>>regarding coverage is because of the lack of ability to use all the AMPS
>>networks in the country.
>
> Nonsense.
>

Perfect- now you can explain why they perform so poorly in the surveys.
After all, you have shot down this chain of logic. If you believe this not
to be the reason, tell us what the reason is.

Of course, we will never see an answer to the request.