Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 03 Aug 2005
16:03:19 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <4WiHe.6712$p%[email protected]>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...
>>
>> >and it includes building new rural towers to support systems that don't
>> >reach as far--
>>
>> They do reach as far.
>
>As TDMA maybe but not 3watt AMPS

1. Most AMPS handsets aren't 3W.
2. GSM range can be extended with a booster amp, external antenna, and/or ER
cells.

>and there are lots of analog users
>still.

Not all that many in terms of the overall market, and only a small fraction of
those with 3W devices.

>> On the contrary -- GSM will coexist with W-CDMA for many years to come.
>>
>True but they did'nt NEED to convert and could have waited for the next
>wave--personally I think Cingular could/should have waited also.

Actually they did need to convert -- GSM is much more efficient (has more
capacity) than IS-136 (D-AMPS, aka TDMA).

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

---

› See More: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:38:51 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great
equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>The point is, the big cities, small towns, and rural farms are all parts of
>a comprehensive whole, all interdependent on each other, and the people in
>all of them have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>happiness -- and cellular coverage.

P.S. But apparently not to cable TV service. My boss is from a town in
Iowa, pop. about 600, ~60 miles from Des Moines. A couple years ago,
Comcast notified everyone that on such and such a date, they were turning
off the cable -- and they did. Just abandoned the system and the franchise.
AFAIK, the town still has no cable service. (Someone did install a
community satellite internet system; as I understand it, downloads come via
satellite and uploads go via phone line.)

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I'm not Mother Teresa, but I'm not Charles Manson either." - Mike Tyson

> http://www.solectek.com/techlib/tech...t-howhard.html
> shows a chart for wireless comm at 2.4GHz, and indicates that for
> a range of 25 miles you'd need transmitting antenna height of
> 150 feet. Most cell towers I've seen are not that high.
>

On the prairies of North and South Dakota, you can probably see the blinking
beacon further than the signal can travel. It all depends on where *you* are.

TH

On 8/4/05 1:00 PM, in article [email protected],
"David S" wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:38:51 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great
> equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>> The point is, the big cities, small towns, and rural farms are all parts of
>> a comprehensive whole, all interdependent on each other, and the people in
>> all of them have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>> happiness -- and cellular coverage.
>
> P.S. But apparently not to cable TV service. My boss is from a town in
> Iowa, pop. about 600, ~60 miles from Des Moines. A couple years ago,
> Comcast notified everyone that on such and such a date, they were turning
> off the cable -- and they did. Just abandoned the system and the franchise.
> AFAIK, the town still has no cable service. (Someone did install a
> community satellite internet system; as I understand it, downloads come via
> satellite and uploads go via phone line.)

The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems to be
taking hold in this country....

The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
"right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....

PC

Proconsul wrote:
> The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems to be
> taking hold in this country....
>
> The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
> "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
> These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
> on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
> companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
> chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
> into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
> endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....

On one hand, your argument makes sense.
On the other hand, there was a time when electricity and telephone
service were considered luxuries also...

--
John Richards

John Richards wrote:
>
> Proconsul wrote:
> > The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems to be
> > taking hold in this country....
> >
> > The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
> > "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
> > These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
> > on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
> > companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
> > chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
> > into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
> > endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>
> On one hand, your argument makes sense.
> On the other hand, there was a time when electricity and telephone
> service were considered luxuries also...

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have been?

Notan

John Richards wrote:
> Proconsul wrote:
>
>> The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems
>> to be
>> taking hold in this country....
>>
>> The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
>> "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone
>> coverage.
>> These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for
>> sale"
>> on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
>> companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual
>> who
>> chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
>> into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All
>> this
>> endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>
>
> On one hand, your argument makes sense.
> On the other hand, there was a time when electricity and telephone
> service were considered luxuries also...
>


.... and indoor plumbing. There are still some areas in the U.S. people
are expected to live "off the grid".

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:19:38 -0400,
Tropical Haven <[email protected]> wrote:

>> http://www.solectek.com/techlib/tech...t-howhard.html
>> shows a chart for wireless comm at 2.4GHz, and indicates that for
>> a range of 25 miles you'd need transmitting antenna height of
>> 150 feet. Most cell towers I've seen are not that high.
>
>On the prairies of North and South Dakota, you can probably see the blinking
>beacon further than the signal can travel. It all depends on where *you* are.

The signal can work up to roughly 20 miles, which is a lot farther than most
people could see a blinking beacon.

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

On 8/4/05 8:08 PM, in article [email protected],
"John Richards" wrote:

> Proconsul wrote:
>> The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems to be
>> taking hold in this country....
>>
>> The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
>> "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
>> These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
>> on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
>> companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
>> chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
>> into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
>> endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>
> On one hand, your argument makes sense.
> On the other hand, there was a time when electricity and telephone
> service were considered luxuries also...

Those two commodities are now public utilities - but even so, NO ONE has a
"right" to electricity and/or telephone service. You buy it. There are
places where there is no electricity and no phone service. If you choose to
live there, you make other arrangements....

It's the "notion" of having some "right" that is the issue, not whether or
not a commodity is a luxury. It's the common thread among too many posts
here that are hostile to Verizon and/or other carriers because the hostile
poster perceives that he or she is entitled to coverage whenever and
wherever he or she happens to be - which is, IMO, arrant nonsense.....!

PC

On 8/5/05 5:08 AM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
wrote:

> John Richards wrote:
>> Proconsul wrote:
>>
>>> The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems
>>> to be
>>> taking hold in this country....
>>>
>>> The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
>>> "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone
>>> coverage.
>>> These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for
>>> sale"
>>> on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
>>> companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual
>>> who
>>> chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
>>> into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All
>>> this
>>> endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>>
>>
>> On one hand, your argument makes sense.
>> On the other hand, there was a time when electricity and telephone
>> service were considered luxuries also...
>>
>
>
> ... and indoor plumbing. There are still some areas in the U.S. people
>
> are expected to live "off the grid".

Another example of the thinking that anyone is entitled to a commodity -
people aren't "expected" to live off the grid, they CHOOSE to live off the
grid. No one is forced to live anywhere - they can vote with their feet and
they can obtain commodities the old fashioned way, by paying for them......

PC

> >On the prairies of North and South Dakota, you can probably see the blinking
> >beacon further than the signal can travel. It all depends on where *you* are.
>
> The signal can work up to roughly 20 miles, which is a lot farther than most
> people could see a blinking beacon.

On a good day, you can easily see tall structures for about 45 miles around.
That's part of what makes travelling there so long...you can see your destination
long before you come close to it.

TH

> > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:38:51 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great
> > equation of life, the universe, and everything:
> >
> >> The point is, the big cities, small towns, and rural farms are all parts of
> >> a comprehensive whole, all interdependent on each other, and the people in
> >> all of them have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> >> happiness -- and cellular coverage.
> >
> > P.S. But apparently not to cable TV service. My boss is from a town in
> > Iowa, pop. about 600, ~60 miles from Des Moines. A couple years ago,
> > Comcast notified everyone that on such and such a date, they were turning
> > off the cable -- and they did. Just abandoned the system and the franchise.
> > AFAIK, the town still has no cable service. (Someone did install a
> > community satellite internet system; as I understand it, downloads come via
> > satellite and uploads go via phone line.)
>
> The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems to be
> taking hold in this country....
>
> The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
> "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
> These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
> on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
> companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
> chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
> into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
> endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>
> PC

The federal government seems to think residents have a right to telephone
service...net necessariy cellular though. However, it is being found that in some
areas it is much cheaper to come up with a cellular solution than to come up with
a wired solution. I remember a company that offered service called "Telular",
which was a local cellular solution for residents that were too far from the
wireline grid to utilize it.

TH

> Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers in
> cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies. The
> problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
> and thus is taking longer.

I don't think it's more expensive, I think it's just less profitable.

TH

Jer <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> ... and indoor plumbing. There are still some areas in the U.S. people
> are expected to live "off the grid".
>
>

Here's some:
http://www.otherpower.com/

They make so much power they have to run loads all the time or they'll
overcharge their banks!...

Don't miss the webpage on the hamster-powered generator they made for the
kids at school...(c;

3 trees, an old disk brake, some exotic/dangerous magnets and some magnet
wire. Who'da Thunk?...

--
Larry

Proconsul wrote:
> On 8/4/05 8:08 PM, in article [email protected],
> "John Richards" wrote:
>
>> Proconsul wrote:
>>> The novel notion that anyone has a "right" to consumer services seems to be
>>> taking hold in this country....
>>>
>>> The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
>>> "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
>>> These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
>>> on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
>>> companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
>>> chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
>>> into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
>>> endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>>
>> On one hand, your argument makes sense.
>> On the other hand, there was a time when electricity and telephone
>> service were considered luxuries also...
>
> Those two commodities are now public utilities - but even so, NO ONE has a
> "right" to electricity and/or telephone service. You buy it. There are
> places where there is no electricity and no phone service. If you choose to
> live there, you make other arrangements....

No one is suggesting that any electricity or telephone service be given
out for free. The question is, how much to subsidize such services so
that they can be extended out to small villages.
I take it you are not familiar with the government's Rural Electrification
initiative of the 1930's, or the fact that the FCC mandates surcharges
on telephone bills such that rural folk can afford telephone service.

--
John Richards