AT&T seeks Verizon Wireless assets: report (Reuters)
News: Business
Reuters - AT&T Inc is among the bidders for Verizon Wireless' roughly
$3 billion in wireless assets the latter must divest as part of its
purchase of Alltel Corp, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people
familiar with the matter.
On 2009-02-04, iPhone 3Gold <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
> AT&T seeks Verizon Wireless assets: report (Reuters)
> News: Business
> Reuters - AT&T Inc is among the bidders for Verizon Wireless' roughly
> $3 billion in wireless assets the latter must divest as part of its
> purchase of Alltel Corp, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people
> familiar with the matter.
They've got some nice spectrum to sell. The cellular allocations
are the bright yellow areas on these two maps:
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2009-02-04, iPhone 3Gold <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> AT&T seeks Verizon Wireless assets: report (Reuters)
>> News: Business
>> Reuters - AT&T Inc is among the bidders for Verizon Wireless' roughly
>> $3 billion in wireless assets the latter must divest as part of its
>> purchase of Alltel Corp, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people
>> familiar with the matter.
>
> They've got some nice spectrum to sell. The cellular allocations
> are the bright yellow areas on these two maps:
>
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_A.html
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_B.html
>
> It'll be interesting if AT&T gets customers along with the towers,
> though, since they'll be CDMA customers.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
AT&T could really use some spectrum and towers in the Bay Area.
It was quite amusing last night when I was at a city council meeting
where the discussion was whether or not to allow cellular and PCS
companies to erect towers in public parks and on hillsides. One gem that
slipped out from the "Technology, Information, and Communication
Commission" (which has no real technical people on it) was about one of
the complaint areas of no coverage by AT&T customers, and how they
didn't understand the reason for the problem since AT&T's maps showed
excellent coverage in the area. Here is the area
"http://i40.tinypic.com/kd0gmf.jpg".
Personally, I tend to doubt that the results of their "survey" had any
validity at all, and that in fact the AT&T maps are correct and coverage
is fine there. I certainly see a lot of people walking around using
their iPhones in that area.
SMS wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2009-02-04, iPhone 3Gold <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> AT&T seeks Verizon Wireless assets: report (Reuters)
>>> News: Business
>>> Reuters - AT&T Inc is among the bidders for Verizon Wireless' roughly
>>> $3 billion in wireless assets the latter must divest as part of its
>>> purchase of Alltel Corp, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people
>>> familiar with the matter.
>>
>> They've got some nice spectrum to sell. The cellular allocations
>> are the bright yellow areas on these two maps:
>>
>> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_A.html
>> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_B.html
>>
>> It'll be interesting if AT&T gets customers along with the towers,
>> though, since they'll be CDMA customers.
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> AT&T could really use some spectrum and towers in the Bay Area.
>
> It was quite amusing last night when I was at a city council meeting
> where the discussion was whether or not to allow cellular and PCS
> companies to erect towers in public parks and on hillsides. One gem that
> slipped out from the "Technology, Information, and Communication
> Commission" (which has no real technical people on it) was about one of
> the complaint areas of no coverage by AT&T customers, and how they
> didn't understand the reason for the problem since AT&T's maps showed
> excellent coverage in the area. Here is the area
> "http://i40.tinypic.com/kd0gmf.jpg".
>
> Personally, I tend to doubt that the results of their "survey" had any
> validity at all, and that in fact the AT&T maps are correct and coverage
> is fine there. I certainly see a lot of people walking around using
> their iPhones in that area.
Yeah, go figure.
Probably self-induced, drawing down the network, clogging the app store.
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:50:13 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote:
>
>
>SMS wrote:
>> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 2009-02-04, iPhone 3Gold <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> AT&T seeks Verizon Wireless assets: report (Reuters)
>>>> News: Business
>>>> Reuters - AT&T Inc is among the bidders for Verizon Wireless' roughly
>>>> $3 billion in wireless assets the latter must divest as part of its
>>>> purchase of Alltel Corp, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people
>>>> familiar with the matter.
>>>
>>> They've got some nice spectrum to sell. The cellular allocations
>>> are the bright yellow areas on these two maps:
>>>
>>> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_A.html
>>> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_B.html
>>>
>>> It'll be interesting if AT&T gets customers along with the towers,
>>> though, since they'll be CDMA customers.
>>>
>>> Dennis Ferguson
>>
>> AT&T could really use some spectrum and towers in the Bay Area.
>>
>> It was quite amusing last night when I was at a city council meeting
>> where the discussion was whether or not to allow cellular and PCS
>> companies to erect towers in public parks and on hillsides. One gem that
>> slipped out from the "Technology, Information, and Communication
>> Commission" (which has no real technical people on it) was about one of
>> the complaint areas of no coverage by AT&T customers, and how they
>> didn't understand the reason for the problem since AT&T's maps showed
>> excellent coverage in the area. Here is the area
>> "http://i40.tinypic.com/kd0gmf.jpg".
>>
>> Personally, I tend to doubt that the results of their "survey" had any
>> validity at all, and that in fact the AT&T maps are correct and coverage
>> is fine there. I certainly see a lot of people walking around using
>> their iPhones in that area.
>
I've NEVER experienced any Cellular map being anything other than an
overly optimisitic, best case approximation.
>
>Yeah, go figure.
>
>Probably self-induced, drawing down the network, clogging the app store.
> I've NEVER experienced any Cellular map being anything other than an
> overly optimisitic, best case approximation.
The maps these days are pretty good, with circles of coverage emanating
out from the tower location, and hopefully the towers close enough
together to provide seamless coverage. If the topography doesn't involve
canyons and mountains, you can get a good idea of what coverage to
expect, though the maps won't tell you about capacity problems. I
suspect the problems near Apple were capacity issues, not coverage
issues, and that the design and interpretation of the survey didn't
distinguish between coverage issues and the ability to actually make or
receive a call.
In fact, the real problem areas of the city match the carrier's maps
very closely, with AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile lacking coverage in some
difficult areas, and their maps reflecting this. To me, the solution is
not putting up towers next to playgrounds, it's telling the people that
live in those areas which phone to buy. One of the well-off city council
members lives up in the foothills, and he freely admits that he doesn't
have an iPhone because he doesn't have AT&T up at his house, and he
needs coverage so he has Verizon. His daughter has AT&T and has no
at-home coverage. People are free to choose, they just need to face the
consequences.
Now, compare the two maps in SC. Notice the yellow Alltel areas that must
be divested are the LEAST wanted, VERY rural boondocks that Verizon didn't
even want on their own systems.....not the very lucrative urban areas where
Verizon now controls BOTH the Cellular 850Mhz A AND B systems......a
complete monopoly of the finest spectrum....
All other carriers are PCS carriers on the ****** 1900 Mhz band that has a
2 mile range.....unless there's a tree taller than 3' high.
ATT has towers in the cities and every few miles along the interstate.
Even there the coverage really sucks. We gots lots of trees.
SMS wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2009-02-04, iPhone 3Gold <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> AT&T seeks Verizon Wireless assets: report (Reuters)
>>> News: Business
>>> Reuters - AT&T Inc is among the bidders for Verizon Wireless' roughly
>>> $3 billion in wireless assets the latter must divest as part of its
>>> purchase of Alltel Corp, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people
>>> familiar with the matter.
>>
>> They've got some nice spectrum to sell. The cellular allocations
>> are the bright yellow areas on these two maps:
>>
>> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_A.html
>> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_B.html
>>
>> It'll be interesting if AT&T gets customers along with the towers,
>> though, since they'll be CDMA customers.
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> AT&T could really use some spectrum and towers in the Bay Area.
>
> It was quite amusing last night when I was at a city council meeting
> where the discussion was whether or not to allow cellular and PCS
> companies to erect towers in public parks and on hillsides. One gem that
> slipped out from the "Technology, Information, and Communication
> Commission" (which has no real technical people on it) was about one of
> the complaint areas of no coverage by AT&T customers, and how they
> didn't understand the reason for the problem since AT&T's maps showed
> excellent coverage in the area. Here is the area
> "http://i40.tinypic.com/kd0gmf.jpg".
>
> Personally, I tend to doubt that the results of their "survey" had any
> validity at all, and that in fact the AT&T maps are correct and coverage
> is fine there. I certainly see a lot of people walking around using
> their iPhones in that area.
Yeah, go figure.
Probably self-induced, drawing down network by clogging the app store.
> Now, compare the two maps in SC. Notice the yellow Alltel areas that must
> be divested are the LEAST wanted, VERY rural boondocks that Verizon didn't
> even want on their own systems.....not the very lucrative urban areas where
> Verizon now controls BOTH the Cellular 850Mhz A AND B systems......a
> complete monopoly of the finest spectrum....
Blame Bush's FCC rule changes. It used to be that two different carriers
had to own the A & B sides, but no more. In south Florida, AT&T now owns
both the A&B sides after the acquisition of AT&T Wireless by Cingular.
Verizon is stuck with 1900 MHz, though in the flat megalopolis it isn't
such a big deal and Verizon still manages to come out as the top carrier
in the greater Miami area year after year.
On 2009-02-05, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>
>> I've NEVER experienced any Cellular map being anything other than an
>> overly optimisitic, best case approximation.
>
> The maps these days are pretty good, with circles of coverage emanating
> out from the tower location, and hopefully the towers close enough
> together to provide seamless coverage. If the topography doesn't involve
> canyons and mountains, you can get a good idea of what coverage to
> expect, though the maps won't tell you about capacity problems. I
> suspect the problems near Apple were capacity issues, not coverage
> issues, and that the design and interpretation of the survey didn't
> distinguish between coverage issues and the ability to actually make or
> receive a call.
>
> In fact, the real problem areas of the city match the carrier's maps
> very closely, with AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile lacking coverage in some
> difficult areas, and their maps reflecting this. To me, the solution is
I like the maps but I don't think the maps from different companies
are equivalent, particularly when it comes to figuring out
whether the phone will work well inside (with the extra 10-14 dB loss)
or not.
T-Mobile's map is by far the best for this. My house is now in a
T-Mobile 4-bar area, and T-Mobile is the best of the bunch inside
my house. T-Mobile's map is in fact a little conservative; I used
to regularly make calls from my T-Mobile phone standing outside
on Skyline Blvd. above Portola Valley, even though that's about
3 miles from the nearest place T-Mobile claims to have any coverage.
With AT&T my house is right on the border between "good" and "moderate"
(I'm "moderate", the house across the street is "good"), but I often
need to step outside or go upstairs to be able to hear the caller
clearly. That's like T-Mobile was when I was in a 1-bar area, across
the street from 2 bars. Sprint and Verizon are better than AT&T inside
but worse than T-Mobile (my Verizon phone shows 1 or 2 bars inside, but
works) even though they both put my house in a "Best" area. I think
Sprint's map is way over-optimistic, certainly compared to T-Mobile;
the house is not only "Best" but isn't even close to a place the map
calls "Good", yet Sprint phones ran their batteries down in a hurry
in my house when I had them and I've noticed friends with Sprint
sometimes stepping outside to talk even now.
Verizon maps, on the other hand, don't even pretend to show you
much. They're red where Verizon thinks the phone might work, and
white where Verizon thinks it won't. While their phones are okay
at my house, in East Palo Alto a mile north of where I live Verizon
phones often don't work inside peoples' houses and are just dead
inside the big-box stores there (where AT&T and T-Mobile phones
work okay). It is a good thing Verizon doesn't have so many
coverage holes, since there is no way to tell where they are
weak from their map.
> not putting up towers next to playgrounds, it's telling the people that
> live in those areas which phone to buy. One of the well-off city council
> members lives up in the foothills, and he freely admits that he doesn't
> have an iPhone because he doesn't have AT&T up at his house, and he
> needs coverage so he has Verizon. His daughter has AT&T and has no
> at-home coverage. People are free to choose, they just need to face the
> consequences.
But your suggestion that people make their choice by looking
at each carrier's coverage map just favors those carriers whose
maps lie the most, or maybe reveal the least. The latter would
be Verizon.
> T-Mobile's map is by far the best for this. My house is now in a
> T-Mobile 4-bar area, and T-Mobile is the best of the bunch inside
> my house.
Yes, this is true. I used to have almost no coverage where I live, and
when T-Mobile finally got permission to put in a tower nearby their maps
quickly reflected the new tower and my neighborhood went to good
coverage. I think that T-Mobile's honesty in their coverage helps them
in the customer service department because they seem to have a corporate
policy of not encouraging sales to individuals that don't have coverage
where they live.
> Verizon maps, on the other hand, don't even pretend to show you
> much. They're red where Verizon thinks the phone might work, and
> white where Verizon thinks it won't. While their phones are okay
> at my house, in East Palo Alto a mile north of where I live Verizon
> phones often don't work inside peoples' houses and are just dead
> inside the big-box stores there (where AT&T and T-Mobile phones
> work okay).
I can't get AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon to work in the EPA Ikea on the
lower floor. I used to get AMPS coverage on Verizon downstairs, but no
more of course. The only place I found that my Verizon phone won't work
outside in the bay area is in part of Moraga (where no one has
coverage). When my sister-in-law lived in a house with no coverage, she
could get an AMPS signal outside, but most people in the neighborhood
drove down the hill to the school and sat in the parking lot in their
cars to talk.
In Big Basin last weekend there was no more Verizon coverage. Last time
I was there, more than a year ago, you could get some AMPS coverage at
least in some parts of the park.
AT&T seeks Verizon Wireless assets: report 
Linear Mode
