In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
have usable analog.
>
> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment to
> the procrastinators?
On 2007-03-22, Bill Radio <wireless@mountainwirelessNOOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
>> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment to
>> the procrastinators?
>
> In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
> equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
> coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
> have usable analog.
>
It is true they had GSM equipment, and found GSM coverage didn't match analog,
but they also said there was no available CDMA hardware that they could use
so they couldn't get service in places where the AMPS operator was CDMA.
And they only wanted to use 850 MHz operators too, which probably limited
them further.
It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.
Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog. This included
AT&T Wireless which, I'm pretty sure, has analog(/TDMA?) towers in the vicinity
of 94020 with no GSM coverage showing on their coverage map or detectable
on a phone, so I think they told a bit of a fib. Verizon reported that
in their in-person meeting with FCC people they were asked about higher
power phones for rural areas (they didn't report how they answered), which
maybe suggests people at the FCC might not think 200 mW CDMA is quite up
to the coverage of full-power AMPS, despite the company's protestations
otherwise.
> It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
> cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
> users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
> 2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.
Pretty strange. Most of the time I'm using AMPS it's in rural areas,
though I've also used Cingular AMPS in Florida and Verizon AMPS in the
Bay Area.
> Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
> their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog.
Their definition of identical coverage is that every analog tower also
has digital equipment. This does not make the coverage identical.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:47:15 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45fd34d7$0$27215$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jer wrote:
>
>> I don't think Cing^H^H^H^H at&t is actively informing customers about
>> any hard date yet, but the FCC "must carry AMPS" rule sunsets in Feb
>> 2008, and continuing to carry AMPS beyond that sunset date doesn't make
>> business sense.
>
>There is currently a petition before the FCC to extend the AMPS sunset
>date to 2010 because of concerns of all the automated equipment that
>uses AMPS, such as security systems, as well as roadside call boxes.
Actually been going on for the past several years. The FCC has shown no
>Verizon and Cingular are opposed to an extension of course, and they
>have more political clout than the companies and individuals that will
>benefit from continued AMPS service. These companies and governments
>have had plenty of time to switch their equipment out, so it's really a
>stretch to think that the FCC will grant another extension.
Indeed, simply because there's no good reason for further government
interference -- politics have nothing to do with it.
>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service.]
Please stop this crap -- you're just polluting alt.cellular.attws with
unhelpful thread fragments.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:59:26 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in
<iBELh.7712$dG.3332@trndny08>:
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:45fe286a$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net.. .
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
>>> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
>>> to the procrastinators?
>>
>> It's not that simple. It's not a question of the cost, it's that in many
>> cases there is just not equivalent digital equipment available for the
>> specialized applications. They had sufficient notice to design such
>> equipment, but now they're claiming that the equipment either won't be
>> ready, or that they can't replace all the AMPS stuff in time.
>
>Digital requires more towers than AMPS. ...
Digital is actually capable of the same coverage as AMPS.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:31:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45ff1d63$0$27155$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>jeremy wrote:
>
>> Digital requires more towers than AMPS. The mere fact that one switches
>> over to digital does not guarantee the same level of reliable coverage,
>> especially in outlying areas. For OnStar, AMPS was a better choice, and
>> their ability to provide service will be diminished in many areas.
>
>Yes, an AMPS shutdown greatly reduces the appeal of On-Star. ...
Actually not -- digital OnStar works as well or better.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:13:35 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45ff6d82$0$27194$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jer wrote:
>
>> Seems like the choice of AMPS only of AMPS/CDMA would be a decision for
>> the carrier rather than GM. But I could be wrong.
>
>Onstar roams onto different carriers, it's the nature of the beast to be
>able to use just about any available compatible network.
No more or less than any other cellular service.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Bill Radio wrote:
> In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
> equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
> coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
> have usable analog.
I guess that they'll have to go to satellite service if AMPS goes away.
I just saw that REI is now selling satellite phones, the ultimate
backpacking accessory.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:56:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4603dca9$0$27203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Bill Radio wrote:
>> In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
>> equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
>> coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
>> have usable analog.
>
>I guess that they'll have to go to satellite service if AMPS goes away.
Or engineer better hardware (instead of making lame excuses).
>I just saw that REI is now selling satellite phones, the ultimate
>backpacking accessory.
Too old to qualify. PLB better fits the category of ultimate
backpacking accessory.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 2007-03-23, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
>> cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
>> users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
>> 2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.
>
> Pretty strange. Most of the time I'm using AMPS it's in rural areas,
> though I've also used Cingular AMPS in Florida and Verizon AMPS in the
> Bay Area.
It makes sense if you realize their main concern is not really coverage,
but rather the number of analog radios they need to replace with digital
by 2008. If there are hardly any customers in rural areas then there are
only a small number of radios which need to be replaced.
>> Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
>> their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog.
>
> Their definition of identical coverage is that every analog tower also
> has digital equipment. This does not make the coverage identical.
Actually their definition seems to be that the usable signal contours
are identical (US Cellular said this explicitly).
> It makes sense if you realize their main concern is not really coverage,
> but rather the number of analog radios they need to replace with digital
> by 2008. If there are hardly any customers in rural areas then there are
> only a small number of radios which need to be replaced.
Yeah, looking at it from the view of ADT that makes sense. I guess they
just drop those rural customers, or tell them that they only get land
line connectivity.
> Actually their definition seems to be that the usable signal contours
> are identical (US Cellular said this explicitly).
Then they are not being truthful, at least if Verizon and Cingular are
claiming this. I have direct experience that contradicts that claim.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:01:59 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46040816$0$27166$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
[restoring some parts you snipped]
>>>> Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
>>>> their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog.
It is.
>>> Their definition of identical coverage is that every analog tower also
>>> has digital equipment. This does not make the coverage identical.
>> Actually their definition seems to be that the usable signal contours
>> are identical (US Cellular said this explicitly).
Correct. Worth repeating. All other things being equal, AMPS and
digital have the same coverage.
>Then they are not being truthful, at least if Verizon and Cingular are
>claiming this. I have direct experience that contradicts that claim.
That "direct experience" is directly contradicted not only by Verizon
coverage maps, but also by how these radios actually work.
The only way you get more range with AMPS versus digital (assuming
you're not just making things up) is by comparing apples and oranges,
either mobile devices with much different power and/or antennas, or
coverage in areas with one service but not the other.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
In article <t04803lenfq4sn0q4d2uf2vqgjda9nsf75@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> Correct. Worth repeating. All other things being equal, AMPS and
> digital have the same coverage.
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> >Then they are not being truthful, at least if Verizon and Cingular are
> >claiming this. I have direct experience that contradicts that claim.
>
> That "direct experience" is directly contradicted not only by Verizon
> coverage maps, but also by how these radios actually work.
>
> The only way you get more range with AMPS versus digital (assuming
> you're not just making things up) is by comparing apples and oranges,
> either mobile devices with much different power and/or antennas, or
> coverage in areas with one service but not the other.
>
>
But in this case we NEED to compare apples and oranges *IF* OnStar and
ADT and other fixed AMPS users ARE USING 3 WATT UNITS and they most
likely are. 3 watt AMPS transceivers with external antennas *DO* have a
larger coverage area than low power digital units--there is no way you
can deny that.
Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
And many times there was only the ONE tower involved--AMPS and TDMA were
clearly coming from the same tower/same carrier/both 8xx mhz--but the
AMPS connected further out. You can quote theory all day long but in
practice *something* allowed the same low power handset to connect to
AMPS at distances where it could not connect TDMA. Maybe it's a case of
digital dropping a weak signal where analog allowed it as a noisy call.
But it's was definately happening--and too often to be an isolated case.
And no doubt still is.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
> Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
> thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
> back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
> digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
I have the same experience with Verizon and a tri-band phone. Most
recently (Monday) it was in San Benito county. I was traveling with
someone that had a Verizon all-digital PDA phone. He lost all coverage
about 20 miles sooner than I did with my tri-band. The coverage map
showed "Roaming or No Service." On the way back, I got a signal back
about 20 miles sooner than he did. There was no GSM coverage.
What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater, even
on a low power handset, and on coverage maps they will always show
digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing the
additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
As you stated, there's a big difference between being "officially
covered by digital" and actually being covered by digital.
One down side of all the AMPS coverage that I've found while hiking and
bicycling in the Bay Area is that my phone will switch to AMPS without
warning, and in a couple of hours the battery is dead. I have to
remember to turn it off when not in use, unless I'm expecting a call.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
> What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater,
> even on a low power handset, and on coverage maps they will always
> show digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing
> the additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
Maybe CDMA is an entirely different beast, butin a decade with TDMA on
Cingular, AT&TWS (and now both!) a phone TELLING you it has AMPS
coverage, and the ability to actually make or receive a call are entirely
different things. It's been pretty rare that I has enough signal to
actually make a call when the "D" for digital indicator disappeared from
my TDMA phones (unless I was roaming on a non-TDMA carrier like Verizon
and had no TDMA coverage but lots of signal.)
So a lot of this AMPS coverage you speak of is likely unusable service.
An, in my experience (again, with TDMA) I've never seen a tower lose
digital signal 20 miles before the analog service craps out, and that
includes service in rural Kansas and Nebraska. I have to believe you
were analog roaming on some partner's service that your friend's PRL
denied him access to.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater,
>> even on a low power handset, and on coverage maps they will always
>> show digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing
>> the additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
>
> Maybe CDMA is an entirely different beast, butin a decade with TDMA on
> Cingular, AT&TWS (and now both!) a phone TELLING you it has AMPS
> coverage, and the ability to actually make or receive a call are entirely
> different things. It's been pretty rare that I has enough signal to
> actually make a call when the "D" for digital indicator disappeared from
> my TDMA phones (unless I was roaming on a non-TDMA carrier like Verizon
> and had no TDMA coverage but lots of signal.)
>
> So a lot of this AMPS coverage you speak of is likely unusable service.
I've often made calls on the AMPS service, including in Tilden Park
(above Berkeley), Sanborn County Park, along the far northern California
coast between Fort Bragg and Mendocino, as well as along highway 88
between Kirkwood and Lake Tahoe.
I didn't try making a call on Monday when I was down in San Benito
County, so I don't know if it would have gone through or not.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:23:38 -0500, Jud Hardcastle
<I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
<MPG.206e0f64963439009899c4@news.dallas.sbcglobal. net>:
>> The only way you get more range with AMPS versus digital (assuming
>> you're not just making things up) is by comparing apples and oranges,
>> either mobile devices with much different power and/or antennas, or
>> coverage in areas with one service but not the other.
>>
>But in this case we NEED to compare apples and oranges *IF* OnStar and
>ADT and other fixed AMPS users ARE USING 3 WATT UNITS and they most
>likely are.
I doubt that, but then the relevant comparison would be high-power GSM
units.
>3 watt AMPS transceivers with external antennas *DO* have a
>larger coverage area than low power digital units--there is no way you
>can deny that.
Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
>thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
>back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
>digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
That's probably a function of not all legacy AMPS towers having been
augmented with digital coverage. In many cases digital was only added
on roads and in other high-demand areas, leaving some other towers as
AMPS-only. Now that AMPS will soon go away, and also due to increasing
digital demand, digital coverage is being added to more legacy AMPS
towers.
>And many times there was only the ONE tower involved--AMPS and TDMA were
>clearly coming from the same tower/same carrier/both 8xx mhz--but the
>AMPS connected further out.
Only with legacy high-power AMPS phones, so-called bag phones, car
phones, and old large and heavy handsets. In an apples to apples
comparison of current small low-power handsets, range is comparable.
>You can quote theory all day long but in
>practice *something* allowed the same low power handset to connect to
>AMPS at distances where it could not connect TDMA. Maybe it's a case of
>digital dropping a weak signal where analog allowed it as a noisy call.
>But it's was definately happening--and too often to be an isolated case.
>And no doubt still is.
Not at the same low power levels. Modern digital systems with robust
codecs are actually capable of delivering a usable call at weaker signal
levels than AMPS.
If you've got any real evidence to the contrary, of AMPS having
significantly more range than digital at comparable power levels (and
antennas), then by all means post it.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:bcoa03h38i3p8p2bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@4ax.com:
>
> Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>
Resorting to vaporware again, Johnny? No proof of any "high-power" GSM
units in use in this country. You've been asked for proof countless times
and have yet to provide any.
Why don't you try to stay within the realm of reality for a change. We
really don't care about the technology available on your home planet- only
things that apply here need to be discussed.
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:23:38 -0500, Jud Hardcastle
> <I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
> <MPG.206e0f64963439009899c4@news.dallas.sbcglobal. net>:
>
>
>> In article <t04803lenfq4sn0q4d2uf2vqgjda9nsf75@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
>> @navasgroup.com says...
>>
>
>
>>> The only way you get more range with AMPS versus digital (assuming
>>> you're not just making things up) is by comparing apples and oranges,
>>> either mobile devices with much different power and/or antennas, or
>>> coverage in areas with one service but not the other.
>>>
>>>
>> But in this case we NEED to compare apples and oranges *IF* OnStar and
>> ADT and other fixed AMPS users ARE USING 3 WATT UNITS and they most
>> likely are.
>>
>
> I doubt that, but then the relevant comparison would be high-power GSM
> units.
>
>
>> 3 watt AMPS transceivers with external antennas *DO* have a
>> larger coverage area than low power digital units--there is no way you
>> can deny that.
>>
>
> Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>
>
Where are these high power GSM Units ?
>> Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
>> thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
>> back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
>> digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
>>
>
> That's probably a function of not all legacy AMPS towers having been
> augmented with digital coverage. In many cases digital was only added
> on roads and in other high-demand areas, leaving some other towers as
> AMPS-only. Now that AMPS will soon go away, and also due to increasing
> digital demand, digital coverage is being added to more legacy AMPS
> towers.
>
>
>> And many times there was only the ONE tower involved--AMPS and TDMA were
>> clearly coming from the same tower/same carrier/both 8xx mhz--but the
>> AMPS connected further out.
>>
>
> Only with legacy high-power AMPS phones, so-called bag phones, car
> phones, and old large and heavy handsets. In an apples to apples
> comparison of current small low-power handsets, range is comparable.
>
>
>> You can quote theory all day long but in
>> practice *something* allowed the same low power handset to connect to
>> AMPS at distances where it could not connect TDMA. Maybe it's a case of
>> digital dropping a weak signal where analog allowed it as a noisy call.
>> But it's was definately happening--and too often to be an isolated case.
>> And no doubt still is.
>>
>
> Not at the same low power levels. Modern digital systems with robust
> codecs are actually capable of delivering a usable call at weaker signal
> levels than AMPS.
>
> If you've got any real evidence to the contrary, of AMPS having
> significantly more range than digital at comparable power levels (and
> antennas), then by all means post it.
>
>
In addition, there are of course lots of amps available that can be used
with standard low-power units; e.g.,
<http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/cellphone_signal_boosters.htm>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Motorola makes a high powered GSM Bag Phone and a higher than normal power
handset phone (Non Flip)
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:z_ednVh1kMu29JjbnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:bcoa03h38i3p8p2bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@4ax.com:
>
>
> >
> > Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
> >
>
> Resorting to vaporware again, Johnny? No proof of any "high-power" GSM
> units in use in this country. You've been asked for proof countless times
> and have yet to provide any.
>
> Why don't you try to stay within the realm of reality for a change. We
> really don't care about the technology available on your home planet- only
> things that apply here need to be discussed.
>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46045689$0$27221$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jud Hardcastle wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I'm not convinced about your same coverage all things being equal
>> thing. When I was travelling a lot with the Nokia 6340i I saw it fall
>> back to analog many times in areas that "officially" were covered by
>> digital and then switch back to digital once it got closer to a tower.
>
>I have the same experience with Verizon and a tri-band phone. Most
>recently (Monday) it was in San Benito county. I was traveling with
>someone that had a Verizon all-digital PDA phone. He lost all coverage
>about 20 miles sooner than I did with my tri-band. The coverage map
>showed "Roaming or No Service." On the way back, I got a signal back
>about 20 miles sooner than he did. There was no GSM coverage.
You really are a piece of work, Steven -- you rant about Bay Area
coverage, but go far afield to try and discredit GSM -- San Benito
County isn't in what most people think of as the Bay Area.
That said, your claims (as usual) simply don't hold up:
* Verizon's coverage map
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController> shows
_no_ areas of analog-only coverage in that area.
* Cingular's coverage map <http://cingular.com/coverageviewer> shows
digital (GSM) coverage through most of that area.
My own experience in that area is consistent with the coverage maps, not
your claims.
>What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater, even
>on a low power handset,
Range is actually comparable.
>and on coverage maps they will always show
>digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing the
>additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
The coverage map actually shows AMPS only areas.
>As you stated, there's a big difference between being "officially
>covered by digital" and actually being covered by digital.
Not true.
>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service.]
You are badly mangling that newsgroup with these rude partial threads,
shooting yourself in the foot.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Indeed. And there are amps that can be used with low-power handsets.
Scott is one of the very few posters worth filtering out -- he almost
never posts anything of any value -- just the same old same old childish
attacks.
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:52:06 -0400, "Chuck" <Chuckk2nospam@cox.net>
wrote in <SbgNh.147838$_w.24530@newsfe13.lga>:
>Motorola makes a high powered GSM Bag Phone and a higher than normal power
>handset phone (Non Flip)
>"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>news:z_ednVh1kMu29JjbnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@adelphia.co m...
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:bcoa03h38i3p8p2bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@4ax.com:
>> > Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>> Resorting to vaporware again, Johnny? No proof of any "high-power" GSM
>> units in use in this country. You've been asked for proof countless times
>> and have yet to provide any.
>>
>> Why don't you try to stay within the realm of reality for a change. We
>> really don't care about the technology available on your home planet- only
>> things that apply here need to be discussed.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:26:06 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eu1tpa$8fg$1@aioe.org>:
>At 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater,
>> even on a low power handset, and on coverage maps they will always
>> show digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing
>> the additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
>
>Maybe CDMA is an entirely different beast, butin a decade with TDMA on
>Cingular, AT&TWS (and now both!) a phone TELLING you it has AMPS
>coverage, and the ability to actually make or receive a call are entirely
>different things. It's been pretty rare that I has enough signal to
>actually make a call when the "D" for digital indicator disappeared from
>my TDMA phones (unless I was roaming on a non-TDMA carrier like Verizon
>and had no TDMA coverage but lots of signal.)
>
>So a lot of this AMPS coverage you speak of is likely unusable service.
>An, in my experience (again, with TDMA) I've never seen a tower lose
>digital signal 20 miles before the analog service craps out, and that
>includes service in rural Kansas and Nebraska. I have to believe you
>were analog roaming on some partner's service that your friend's PRL
>denied him access to.
Either Steven has a very very old phone, or he just makes it up.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:46:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46049f0d$0$27245$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 23 Mar 2007 15:36:41 -0700 SMS wrote:
>>
>>> What John doesn't understand is that the range of AMPS is greater,
>>> even on a low power handset,
For the record, you keep making that claim (like other claims) without
anything at all to back it up, so it just can't be taken seriously.
>>> and on coverage maps they will always
>>> show digital service where it co-exists with AMPS, without showing
>>> the additional coverage area provided by AMPS.
In fact AMPS-only areas _are_ shown on the coverage maps.
>> Maybe CDMA is an entirely different beast, butin a decade with TDMA on
>> Cingular, AT&TWS (and now both!) a phone TELLING you it has AMPS
>> coverage, and the ability to actually make or receive a call are entirely
>> different things. It's been pretty rare that I has enough signal to
>> actually make a call when the "D" for digital indicator disappeared from
>> my TDMA phones (unless I was roaming on a non-TDMA carrier like Verizon
>> and had no TDMA coverage but lots of signal.)
>>
>> So a lot of this AMPS coverage you speak of is likely unusable service.
>
>I've often made calls on the AMPS service, including in Tilden Park
>(above Berkeley), Sanborn County Park, along the far northern California
>coast between Fort Bragg and Mendocino, as well as along highway 88
>between Kirkwood and Lake Tahoe.
Those claims don't hold up to Verizon's own coverage maps.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 2007-03-24, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:bcoa03h38i3p8p2bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@4ax.com:
>>
>> Sure, but then so do high-power GSM units.
>>
>
> Resorting to vaporware again, Johnny? No proof of any "high-power" GSM
> units in use in this country. You've been asked for proof countless times
> and have yet to provide any.
I have inlaws in San Angelo, Texas, and my wife says you can actually buy
an M900 bag phone (2W GSM) here:
In article <bcoa03h38i3p8p2bo0vab67jp2batrc5to@4ax.com>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> That's probably a function of not all legacy AMPS towers having been
> augmented with digital coverage. In many cases digital was only added
> on roads and in other high-demand areas, leaving some other towers as
> AMPS-only. Now that AMPS will soon go away, and also due to increasing
> digital demand, digital coverage is being added to more legacy AMPS
> towers.
Nope, see next sentence.
> > [quoted text muted]
> >And many times there was only the ONE tower involved--AMPS and TDMA were
> >clearly coming from the same tower/same carrier/both 8xx mhz--but the
> >AMPS connected further out.
I knew these towns very well--and in a few cases the people operating
the cellular system. Usually there was ONE repeat ONE tall rural tower
serving the entire area--most often the cellular antennas about half way
up the local cable TV tower. Only after they started the GSM conversion
have they slowing been adding additional towers. By the way, in all the
time down there I never saw a bag phone but every handset I bothered to
ask about was TDMA/AMPS.
>
> Only with legacy high-power AMPS phones, so-called bag phones, car
> phones, and old large and heavy handsets. In an apples to apples
> comparison of current small low-power handsets, range is comparable.
>
>
No again. Same 6340i handheld. Depending on which vehicle I was in,
sometimes alone in a cupholder, sometimes in a Nokia handsfree cradle
that added an external antenna but no power boost. All the carkit did
was move the changeover further out. Haven't had a carkit with booster
since my Startac days (except now with the RV and that's via a Signal
Reach active booster paired to a Wilson trucker antenna at the top of a
22' telescoping mast--since getting that rig I've been able to go GSM-
only).
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:56:36 -0500, Jud Hardcastle
<I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
<MPG.206f68a0f97adaa99899c5@news.dallas.sbcglobal. net>:
>> That's probably a function of not all legacy AMPS towers having been
>> augmented with digital coverage. In many cases digital was only added
>> on roads and in other high-demand areas, leaving some other towers as
>> AMPS-only. Now that AMPS will soon go away, and also due to increasing
>> digital demand, digital coverage is being added to more legacy AMPS
>> towers.
>
>Nope, see next sentence.
Your disagreement is noted, but I nonetheless stand by what I wrote, as
further explained below.
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >And many times there was only the ONE tower involved--AMPS and TDMA were
>> >clearly coming from the same tower/same carrier/both 8xx mhz--but the
>> >AMPS connected further out.
>
>I knew these towns very well--and in a few cases the people operating
>the cellular system. Usually there was ONE repeat ONE tall rural tower
>serving the entire area--most often the cellular antennas about half way
>up the local cable TV tower. Only after they started the GSM conversion
>have they slowing been adding additional towers. By the way, in all the
>time down there I never saw a bag phone but every handset I bothered to
>ask about was TDMA/AMPS.
Checking such things is a difficult and tricky business -- you can't
simply assume you know about all towers and how they are configured --
it's all to easy to be mistaken, and even seemingly small differences
can result in major variations in results. For example, one tower
I checked originally had an essentially omni AMPS antenna pattern, but
digital was added with sector antennas that resulted, as compared to
AMPS, in much improved signal in certain directions (along major roads),
but reduced signal in other directions. The bottom line was a clear
difference in results that wasn't related to any difference between AMPS
and digital. I've discussed this with several experienced field techs,
and their takes are essentially the same as mine. Also, I note that you
(like Steven) haven't supported your claim with authoritative citations.
If there really is such a difference, it would undoubtedly be easy to
find in the literature.
>> Only with legacy high-power AMPS phones, so-called bag phones, car
>> phones, and old large and heavy handsets. In an apples to apples
>> comparison of current small low-power handsets, range is comparable.
>>
>No again. Same 6340i handheld. Depending on which vehicle I was in,
>sometimes alone in a cupholder, sometimes in a Nokia handsfree cradle
>that added an external antenna but no power boost. All the carkit did
>was move the changeover further out. Haven't had a carkit with booster
>since my Startac days (except now with the RV and that's via a Signal
>Reach active booster paired to a Wilson trucker antenna at the top of a
>22' telescoping mast--since getting that rig I've been able to go GSM-
>only).
That your 6340i got a better AMPS signal is easily explained by factors
other than technology, as I explain above.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:du3b035ps54ri3rhp2nq76880k8iv6fk0u@4ax.com:
> Indeed. And there are amps that can be used with low-power handsets.
Indeed, but the bagphone is not for sale by any major US GSM provider and
the "amps" that you talk about are available on all platforms and provide
limited value. Try again, Novice.
>
> Scott is one of the very few posters worth filtering out -- he almost
> never posts anything of any value -- just the same old same old
> childish attacks.
>
Only because you fear those that actually know what they are talking about
and have proven experience in the field. Unlike you, we don't have to rely
on Google for all of our pertinent information. Only a pompous ass such as
yourself would fail to see the no-win situation you are in here- you have
nothing more than a normal consumer's knowledge base and are extremely
behind the times in the changing business environment Your posts and lack
of legitimate information proves out both of these points quite well. Why
don't you go back to playing with your 56k modems?
If by saying that I don't post anything of value you really mean that I
never agree with you- too bad. Your information is laughable and your
ability to back anything up with reliable sources or something other than
your own words is non-existent.
John Navas wrote:
> If you've got any real evidence to the contrary, of AMPS having
> significantly more range than digital at comparable power levels (and
> antennas), then by all means post it.
If you've got any *real evidence* of Extended GSM, then by all means post it.
Re: TDMA Shutdown 
Linear Mode
