View Single Post
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2006, 08:52 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

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.

Reply With Quote