BellSouth To Divest of Cingular Interest?

One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and
receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to
subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas, as is
done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there is some
hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may be
years.


"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RichardMNixon, Jr. wrote:
> > Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is
> > much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and
> equipment
> > being "older" for Verizon, all you have to do is look at consumer
> > satisfaction surveys and look at problems with dropped calls, busy
> networks,
> > etc. and Verizon is far better than Cingular in most areas of the
country.
>
> You are correct that for most areas, Verizon is better, or at least equal.
> But in the former Pac Bell Wireless areas, Cingular is far worse. Part of
> the reason is that they have no 800 Mhz spectrum, part of the reason is
that
> they came in late as a player.
>
> However there are areas where Cingular is better, specifically in areas
> where Verizon is at 1900 Mhz PCS only, such as south Florida and parts of
> Texas.
>
> The two key criteria in the selection of a carrier should be that they
> operate on 800 Mhz and that they offer AMPS back-up. Verizon passes this
> test. AT&T GSM passes this test with a GAIT phone. Cingular passes this
test
> with a GAIT phone in some areas of the country, fails it in others unless
> you know how to obtain a GAIT phone in the western region (I do).
>
> The industry analysts have been saying for a couple of years that
BellSouth
> wants out of the Cingular venture, and that should they leave, they would
> buy Sprint PCS. No rush, as Sprint PCS's value continues to fall.
>
> The U.S. is not Europe or Asia. The large rural expanses will not be
covered
> by digital service for decades, so AMPS is essential if you expect to have
> any chance of coverage outside of urban and suburban areas.
>
>

---

› See More: BellSouth To Divest of Cingular Interest?

"RichardMNixon, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is
> much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and
equipment
> being "older" for Verizon, all you have to do is look at consumer
> satisfaction surveys and look at problems with dropped calls, busy
networks,
> etc. and Verizon is far better than Cingular in most areas of the country.
> I had Cingular in the Carolinas in its GSM variety and suffered repeatedly
> throughout the region from dropped calls and busy networks. I have only
> once, literally, had this problem with Verizon, and I have used it all
over
> the country. As to the cellular spectrum Cingular has that you refer to
> so, so what? So does Verizon have 850MHz spectrum, along with 1900 MHz
PCS
> spectrum. I do, however, agree that 850MHz is generally preferable due to
> its better ability to penetrate buildings.
>
> As to GSM technology that Cingular has, versus the CDMA of Verizon, I know
> many devotees on both sides can eloquently argue for one or the other.
> However, I personally believe CDMA is superior and provides the best
upgrade
> path for carriers in the future to true 3G. It is no mystery that many
GSM
> carriers are going to wCDMA to meet the 3G challenge. One advantage,
> though, of GSM is that the standards mean different makers of equipment
can
> all work. This is a weakness of CDMA- if you have Lucent equipment, for
> example, you are stuck with it, giving you less bargaining clout as the
> wireless provider in trying to get the best price.
>
> My criticism of both Cingular, Verizon and most other carriers is the
same-
> poor coverage in rural areas. If you get an analog signal it is next to
> useless on a small wattage digital phone- meant only for the bag phones of
> yesterday. The one carrier that really seems to shine in rural areas is
> Alltel.
>
>
> "John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >2. Cingular network equivalent to Verizon- You have got to be kidding.
A
> > >Cingular phone might as well be a brick in large parts of the country.
> > >Verizon's network and coverage is infinitely superior to Cingular's.
> >
> > You have a point -- Cingular is actually a little better. Verizon has
the
> > same equipement they've been strapped with since the early 90's,
Cingular
> > had to revamp & standardized when they went public around 2000. That's a
> big
> > reason why Verizon suffers from call latency problems.
> >
> > If you get in an objective mood, do a little research where Cingular
came
> > from. It's a consolidation of nearly all the "A" band 850 carriers
> > nationwide. Also, there are online coverage charts. See for yourself. No
> > carrier covers 100% of the continental US.
> >
> >
>
>
Where I travel in South Texas and Louisiana, you Verizon phone will be dead
most of the time. Cingular GSM worked great everywhere I went last month.

"RichardMNixon, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and
> receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to
> subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas, as is
> done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there is
some
> hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may be
> years.
>

Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bull**** fees added
to our cell phone service soon? -Dave

Very good question. I hope not.

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RichardMNixon, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and
> > receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to
> > subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas, as
is
> > done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there is
> some
> > hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may be
> > years.
> >
>
> Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bull**** fees added
> to our cell phone service soon? -Dave
>
>

We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for
years-don't you ever look at your bill?

Chris
Please respond in the newsgroup

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RichardMNixon, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and
> > receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to
> > subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas, as
is
> > done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there is
> some
> > hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may be
> > years.
> >
>
> Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bull**** fees added
> to our cell phone service soon? -Dave
>
>

"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:PSILb.23932$P%[email protected]...
> We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for


Nice response dickhead.

"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:PSILb.23932$P%[email protected]...
> We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for


Nice response dickhead.

Not true, Chris Russell. I won't stoop to calling you the same thing.
Whether you pay the USF charge in your bill depends on what carrier you have
and if they applied for the USF support. I don't have Cingular so I don't
know what is on your bill. My carrier does not charge it because they don't
get USF support.


"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:PSILb.23932$P%[email protected]...
> We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for
> years-don't you ever look at your bill?
>
> Chris
> Please respond in the newsgroup
>
> "Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "RichardMNixon, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and
> > > receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to
> > > subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas,
as
> is
> > > done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there
is
> > some
> > > hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may be
> > > years.
> > >
> >
> > Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bull**** fees
added
> > to our cell phone service soon? -Dave
> >
> >
>
>

What did you do, look in the mirror?

Chris

"G R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:PSILb.23932$P%[email protected]...
> > We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for
>
>
> Nice response dickhead.
>
>

You're paying the USF fee since every carrier is required to support the
USF. What carrier do you have? Every one I've go to online has a USF fee
disclosure that you will be paying X% of your bill. Most break it out, but
some don't-either way you are now paying it.

Chris

"RichardMNixon, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not true, Chris Russell. I won't stoop to calling you the same thing.
> Whether you pay the USF charge in your bill depends on what carrier you
have
> and if they applied for the USF support. I don't have Cingular so I don't
> know what is on your bill. My carrier does not charge it because they
don't
> get USF support.
>
>
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:PSILb.23932$P%[email protected]...
> > We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for
> > years-don't you ever look at your bill?
> >
> > Chris
> > Please respond in the newsgroup
> >
> > "Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "RichardMNixon, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for
and
> > > > receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to
> > > > subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas,
> as
> > is
> > > > done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there
> is
> > > some
> > > > hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may
be
> > > > years.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bull**** fees
> added
> > > to our cell phone service soon? -Dave
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ronMb.25204$P%[email protected]...
> What did you do, look in the mirror?
>

uh, good one...

.... "sit on it Potsie" ??

http://www.tvland.com/shows/happydays/character5.jhtml