3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Pegleg wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:30:19 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The issue here is that Verizon has eliminated a lot of off-network
>> roaming with America's Choice II that existed in the original America's
>> Choice plan,
>
> If you kept your original AC plan it is still there.

I have kept it, for that specific reason.

> It was done
> because people were not paying attention to when they were roaming and
> then screamed when they saw their bill.

Yes, this is true. Too bad they couldn't come up with some other method
of managing this. You know when you go to an ATM and it informs you
about a fee for non-customers, and you have to press a button to agree
to the fee? Since Verizon can get whatever firmware they want into a
handset, maybe they could have had an option to enable off-network
roaming, with approval for off-network calls, both for outgoing and
incoming.

Or maybe they could have required that subscribers call them to enable
off-network roaming, just like you have to call to enable international
roaming, with the express agreement that you pay for the off-network
roaming calls.

Part of the problem is that the roaming indicator was back-asswards. It
would flash for on-network, and be steady for off-network. This was
counter-intuitive to anyone that actually paid attention to the roaming
indicator.

---

› See More: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, [email protected] wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Nessnet wrote:
>>> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.
>
> I've actually posted authoritative citations.
>
>>> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...
>
> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.

Physics says that RF path propagation loss consists of two components:
Free Space Loss, and loss caused by absorption and scattering from
buildings and vegetation (trees) in the path.

Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss

Using one of the commonly available online calculators, it is evident that
free space loss is increased approximately 7dB when changing the
operating frequency from 850MHz to 1900MHz:
http://www.terabeam.com/support/calc...space-loss.php

Loss attributed to trees in the RF path is also proportional to
operating frequency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissberger's_Model

I haven't researched RF loss attributed to buildings in the path, but
there is no reason to believe that it would be substantially different
than losses from trees in the path.

--
John Richards (retired RF engineer)

Johnny will now reply with "nonsense"....
Even when the facts are very clear.


"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, [email protected] wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Nessnet wrote:
>>>> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.
>>
>> I've actually posted authoritative citations.
>>
>>>> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...
>>
>> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.
>
> Physics says that RF path propagation loss consists of two components:
> Free Space Loss, and loss caused by absorption and scattering from
> buildings and vegetation (trees) in the path.
>
> Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss
>
> Using one of the commonly available online calculators, it is evident that
> free space loss is increased approximately 7dB when changing the operating frequency from 850MHz to 1900MHz:
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/calc...space-loss.php
>
> Loss attributed to trees in the RF path is also proportional to
> operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissberger's_Model
>
> I haven't researched RF loss attributed to buildings in the path, but
> there is no reason to believe that it would be substantially different
> than losses from trees in the path.
>
> --
> John Richards (retired RF engineer)

SMS wrote:
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>> That logic goes both ways. Sprint and T-Mobile might have towers in
>> place and Verizon and Cingular get denied.
>
> It's rarely the case, because in most cases Verizon and Cingular have
> the legacy 800 MHz networks (after a series of mergers, acquisitions,
> etc. (except in a few major metro areas like South Florida, and parts of
> Texas).

I mostly thinking of the 1900 MHz deployment that T-Mobile built out ten
years ago in California.

> because even if Sprint and T-Mobile could get
> approval for sufficient towers to equal the coverage of Cingular and
> Verizon, the cost of putting in so many towers would hurt their margins.

Getting approval is pretty much a trivial task now. Planning commissions
and home owners have no more recourses to deny an application.

John Richards wrote:
> Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss

Navas consistently refutes this fact.

decaturtxcowboy wrote:

> Getting approval is pretty much a trivial task now. Planning commissions
> and home owners have no more recourses to deny an application.

What the planning commission can't do, is to deny a cell tower permit on
the basis of the alleged _health effects_. That's all that the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 states. There are plenty of other reasons
to deny a permit, including asthetics, that are still fair game for
denying a permit.

decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> John Richards wrote:
> > Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss
>
> Navas consistently refutes this fact.

He has never refuted it. He has claimed that it isn't true, but has
never refuted it. There is a big difference.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:23:21 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>> That logic goes both ways. Sprint and T-Mobile might have towers in
>> place and Verizon and Cingular get denied.
>
>It's rarely the case, because in most cases Verizon and Cingular have
>the legacy 800 MHz networks (after a series of mergers, acquisitions,
>etc. (except in a few major metro areas like South Florida, and parts of
>Texas).
>
>So not only do Verizon and Cingular have towers in places where they
>were able to get them in before planning commissions knew what was
>happening, they also have the huge advantage of the better spectrum.
>It's an advantage that is nearly impossible to overcome, especially in
>suburban and rural areas, because even if Sprint and T-Mobile could get
>approval for sufficient towers to equal the coverage of Cingular and
>Verizon, the cost of putting in so many towers would hurt their margins.
>
>In the dense metro areas, the advantage is not as great, but in most
>metro areas you have a few dense cities surrounded by vast suburban areas.

Simply not true.

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

At 11 Nov 2006 20:34:30 +0000 John Richards wrote:

> Physics says that RF path propagation loss consists of two components:
> Free Space Loss, and loss caused by absorption and scattering from
> buildings and vegetation (trees) in the path.

Bah, what does physics know? ;-)>

> Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss
>
> Using one of the commonly available online calculators, it is evident
that
> free space loss is increased approximately 7dB when changing the
operating frequency from 850MHz to 1900MHz:
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/calc...space-loss.php

It think the point John Navas may be making (or, perhaps,
misinterpreting!) is that in most metro areas this is largely irrelevant,
since so many "extra" towers are needed to support the capacity load that
the propagation loss caused by distance of each individual tower is
generally moot.

Obviously in rural areas the 800MHz carriers have an advantage where
capacity isn't an issue, and distance is the limiting factor.

I remember in the late 80's a rural Nebraska cellular carrier (aptly
named "Nebraska Cellular") managed to provide excellent cellular service
along I-80 through almost the entire state with a minimal number of
towers thanks to 800MHz propagation and some VERY flat terrain!

Off topic, but interesting, one of their head honchos told me (back then)
that they made half of their total revenue from roamers (this was back
in the old $3/day + $1/minute roaming days) so highway coverage was more
important to them than covering the towns they serviced!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:04:54 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>SMS wrote:

>> because even if Sprint and T-Mobile could get
>> approval for sufficient towers to equal the coverage of Cingular and
>> Verizon, the cost of putting in so many towers would hurt their margins.
>
>Getting approval is pretty much a trivial task now. Planning commissions
>and home owners have no more recourses to deny an application.

Correct.

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

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:04:53 -0800, Yakov Chiu <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
>> Getting approval is pretty much a trivial task now. Planning commissions
>> and home owners have no more recourses to deny an application.
>
>What the planning commission can't do, is to deny a cell tower permit on
>the basis of the alleged _health effects_. That's all that the
>Telecommunications Act of 1996 states. There are plenty of other reasons
>to deny a permit, including asthetics, that are still fair game for
>denying a permit.

Not true. See the text of Section 704 at
<http://njpo.org/features/wireless/sec704.htm>
and the FCC Fact Sheet at <http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/fact1.html>

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

Todd Allcock wrote:

> It think the point John Navas may be making (or, perhaps,
> misinterpreting!) is that in most metro areas this is largely irrelevant,
> since so many "extra" towers are needed to support the capacity load that
> the propagation loss caused by distance of each individual tower is
> generally moot.

Perhaps, but this is demonstrably untrue in suburban areas, where the
tower placement is to cover a geographic area, and the capacity is not
the issue.

T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
address, and you can clearly see the gaps caused by insufficient towers
in many areas.

I don't think that anyone argues that 1900 MHz has as much range or as
much penetration as 800 MHz. Not even Navas would claim something like
that. The rule of thumb has always been 2x the distance, mathematically
it's more than 2x, but their are other factors (geologic features,
buildings, etc.) that make the increase in range less than ideal.

> Obviously in rural areas the 800MHz carriers have an advantage where
> capacity isn't an issue, and distance is the limiting factor.
>
> I remember in the late 80's a rural Nebraska cellular carrier (aptly
> named "Nebraska Cellular") managed to provide excellent cellular service
> along I-80 through almost the entire state with a minimal number of
> towers thanks to 800MHz propagation and some VERY flat terrain!

Yes, this is the big advantage of AMPS, at 800 MHz. The hope is that if
AMPS ever gets turned off in those rural areas, that something will take
its place, maybe something like Australia did with CDMA.

> Off topic, but interesting, one of their head honchos told me (back then)
> that they made half of their total revenue from roamers (this was back
> in the old $3/day + $1/minute roaming days) so highway coverage was more
> important to them than covering the towns they serviced!

This may be the reason why Verizon dropped so much coverage on America's
Choice II--those rural carriers saw no upside in a reciprocal roaming
agreement, yet Verizon was determined to not have any paid, off-network
roaming, anymore.

At 12 Nov 2006 00:52:00 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Perhaps, but this is demonstrably untrue in suburban areas, where the
tower placement is to cover a geographic area, and the capacity is not
the issue.
>
> T-Mobile is great how their web site lets you go down to a specific
address, and you can clearly see the gaps caused by insufficient towers
in many areas.

I was very impressed with the accuracy of T-Mo's maps. Cingular now has
a similar street-level map as well, which seems equally accurate,
including the large dead spot my house is in the center of! ;-)
>
> I don't think that anyone argues that 1900 MHz has as much range or as
much penetration as 800 MHz. Not even Navas would claim something like
that. The rule of thumb has always been 2x the distance, mathematically
it's more than 2x, but their are other factors (geologic features,
buildings, etc.) that make the increase in range less than ideal.
Ironically, neither major 800MHz carrier in Denver works at my house
(Cingular or Verizon) but T-Mo and Sprint and (as well as Nextel) do!

(I realize it's not a frequency thing, I just find it funny that the
nation's two largest carriers can't get a signal to my neighborhood but
everyone else does...)


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Todd Allcock wrote:

> (I realize it's not a frequency thing, I just find it funny that the
> nation's two largest carriers can't get a signal to my neighborhood but
> everyone else does...)

When Cingular was 1900 MHz only in my area, they were trying to put in a
tower near my house. About five years later, T-Mobile now has the site,
and they still have been turned down by the city to install a tower.
Contrary to what the carriers try to tell planning commissions, there is
no requirement to approve a tower, but you can't not approve it for the
wrong reasons, it has to be the right reasons.

Nessnet wrote:
> Johnny will now reply with "nonsense"....
> Even when the facts are very clear.
>
>

Somehow I picture that if you were to go to his house I think you would
find Cingular toothpaste, Cingular coffee creamer and him wearing a
Cingular cheerleader sweatshirt...