On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:15:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4559f9a9$0$88704$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>What John doesn't understand is that the FCC is not mandating that AMPS
>be shut down, it's merely _permitting_ it to be shut down.

I actually understand the matter quite well, thank you. I also
understand that carriers are eager to shut down AMPS service (due to
reasons of high cost, low demand/revenue, inefficiency, redeployment of
infrastructure and spectrum, etc.), and are expected to do so rapidly
following "sunset" of the AMPS mandate.

>One indicator of AMPS coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains are the
>roadside call boxes. While there is a program in place to convert the
>AMPS call boxes to CDMA, this would require a lot more towers, so it may
>be more economical, in the rural areas, to keep them as AMPS for now.

Simply untrue.

>In other areas, including parts of the Sierra Nevada, AMPS is the only
>coverage provided by the smaller carriers along long stretches of state
>highways. These carriers have little incentive, and no money, to convert
>these portions of their network to digital.

On the contrary -- these smaller carriers get most of their profits from
roaming, and thus are likewise eager to redeploy from AMPS to digital.

>John has been claiming that AMPS will degrade Verizon's coverage to the
>same level of Cingular's coverage for a couple of years now.

I said nothing of the kind. Cingular actually has better overall
coverage than Verizon here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

>In the long
>term he may be right, but it's more likely that a lot of AMPS will
>remain on, by choice, until there is something available to replace it.

I'll take that bet -- I don't think this forecast is going to be any
better than your prior forecasts.

>Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
>towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
>on the towers.

Terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the market only
serves to create *dis*incentives.

>No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
>investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.

Patently untrue.

AMPS "sunset" will stimulate improved digital coverage in rural areas,
part of why it's long overdue.

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