THe winner with the fewest dropped calls is.....

....not Cingular:

http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44

"Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
reliable network. "


Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
report?

Scott wrote:
> ...not Cingular:
>
> http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44
>
> "Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
> claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
> provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
> Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
> January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
> Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
> nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
> reliable network. "

I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
not a metric that indicates which network is the best.

> Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
> report?

Who cares?

On Feb 22, 7:44 pm, Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
> ...not Cingular:

I'll attest to that. I used to have AT&T TDMA, and almost never had a
dropped call. Cingular GSM I get dropped calls occasionally. And
choppy calls frequently.

At 22 Feb 2007 21:22:12 -0700 SMS wrote:

> I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
> not a metric that indicates which network is the best.

Depends what you use your phone for. My phone is primarily used for
business calls in a few fixed locations in urban/suburban Denver. Not
dropping a customer's call mid-conversation is FAR more important to me
than having seamless coverage in, say, Rocky Mountain National Park.

My "metrics" for the best network fr my needs are call clarity and
reliability. Dropped calls, poor audio, or overloaded towers sendng my
calls straight to voicemail without my phone ringing are unacceptable
even if I have coverage "everywhere."

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:44:25 -0600, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>...not Cingular:
>
>http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44
>
>"Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
>claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
>provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
>Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
>January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
>nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
>reliable network. "
>
>
>Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
>report?


Absolute numbers is not the number anyone cares about, it's percentage
of calls. T-Mobile advertises fewest dropped calls in Houston, and
having the fewest customers, and therefore the fewest calls they may
well be correct.

"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1172217247.311179.301640@z35g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 22, 7:44 pm, Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>> ...not Cingular:
>
> I'll attest to that. I used to have AT&T TDMA, and almost never had a
> dropped call. Cingular GSM I get dropped calls occasionally. And
> choppy calls frequently.
>

My experiences exactly.
Old ATT/Suncom never a dropped call and excellent clarity. After switch to
Cingular (3 different handsets) now get some dropped calls and constant
complaints from party at other end that I sound all 'choppy'. I have only
stayed with them due to the carry over of my old SunCom UnPlan. The contract
expires in a month and unless they are willing to extend the 'UnPlan' I will
most likely go elsewhere.

T-mobile has fewer dropped calls then everyone but Verizon. And they are not
far behind Verizon.


"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:vNmdnbJsfamE_kPYnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> ...not Cingular:
>
> http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44
>
> "Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) - With all major wireless carriers
> claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
> provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the
> scale.
> Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
> January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
> Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
> calls,
> nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
> reliable network. "
>
>
> Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
> report?

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:22:12 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45de6bef$0$27220$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>> ...not Cingular:
>>
>> http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44
>>
>> "Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
>> claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
>> provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
>> Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
>> January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>> Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
>> nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
>> reliable network. "
>
>I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
>not a metric that indicates which network is the best.

The more important issue is that this _isn't_ a measurement of dropped
calls -- it's a measurement of _duplicate_ calls to the same number,
which may or may not mean a dropped call. It's also old data. In other
words, interesting, but not terribly meaningful.

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

John Navas wrote:
> The more important issue is that this _isn't_ a measurement of dropped
> calls -- it's a measurement of _duplicate_ calls to the same number,
> which may or may not mean a dropped call.

The most important issue is that this is the closest measurement you get
for dropped calls. How often does the normal person hangup and call the
number right back compared to dropping the call can calling right back.

And yes, you're going to say, "Actually, I do this quite often". But you're
not normal.

On 3/5/2007 4:14 AM, DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> The more important issue is that this _isn't_ a measurement of dropped
>> calls -- it's a measurement of _duplicate_ calls to the same number,
>> which may or may not mean a dropped call.
>
> The most important issue is that this is the closest measurement you get
> for dropped calls. How often does the normal person hangup and call the
> number right back compared to dropping the call can calling right back.
>
> And yes, you're going to say, "Actually, I do this quite often". But
> you're not normal.
And how often does the called party call back instead? And the
harassing ex call back when you hang up on her? And the wrong numbers
from blonds (Oops I did it again!)? Dupes aren't necessarily dropped.
Close but no cigar.

What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
count against my carrier?

It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data. It
would not surprise me if the carriers had a method of detecting dropped
calls. It would not surprise me if they did not.

Regards
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent,
but you'd be a fool to withhold that from your superiors.

xPosTech wrote:

> What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
> count against my carrier?

No, but presumably that happens at about the same rate across all the
carriers so it balances out. Same as when you forget to tell the person
on the other end something and call right back again. It would show up
as a dropped call, but since this would happen on all carriers it
cancels out.

> It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data.

Alas, as with many surveys and studies, you measure what's possible to
measure, and draw reasonable conclusions.

The problem with this metric is that it ignores the fact that with some
carriers, i.e. Verizon, you're going to have much wider coverage, but in
some cases the edges of the coverage are going to be marginal. So you're
able to make calls in areas where Cingular and T-Mobile users can't, but
the likelihood of it dropping and having to place it again is higher
than normal.

For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
AMPS signal. So a dropped call might be preferable to not being able to
make a call at all. It's extremely rare to find an area that has GSM
coverage but no CDMA coverage, and there is probably almost nowhere that
you'd have GSM and not have at least AMPS.

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:27:48 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45eca777$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
>areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
>AMPS signal. ...

Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
Verizon's own coverage data.

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

xPosTech wrote:

> What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
count against my carrier?

No, but presumably that happens at about the same rate across all the
carriers so it balances out. Same as when you forget to tell the person
on the other end something and call right back again. It would show up
as a dropped call, but since this would happen on all carriers it
cancels out.

> It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data.

Alas, as with many surveys and studies, you measure what's possible to
measure, and draw reasonable conclusions.

The problem with this metric is that it ignores the fact that with some
carriers, i.e. Verizon, you're going to have much wider coverage, but in
some cases the edges of the coverage are going to be marginal. So you're
able to make calls in areas where Cingular and T-Mobile users can't, but
the likelihood of it dropping and having to place it again is higher
than normal.

For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
AMPS signal. So a dropped call might be preferable to not being able to
make a call at all. It's extremely rare to find an area that has GSM
coverage but no CDMA coverage, and there is probably almost nowhere that
you'd have GSM and not have at least AMPS.


[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.]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45ecb4fa$0$27247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
>areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
>AMPS signal. ...

Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
Verizon's own coverage data.

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

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:c3epu2thbe9daepsrj7fmhbjhpk9s1gdqi@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45ecb4fa$0$27247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
>>areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
>>AMPS signal. ...
>
> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
> Verizon's own coverage data.
>

Nice try, Skippy- Verizon data would not address the lack of GSM in the
area.

At 06 Mar 2007 00:40:45 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45ecb4fa$0$27247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
> Verizon's own coverage data.

"Proved?" That takes the huge leap of faith that the Verizon maps are
accurate. Regardless of the accuracy, they also lack the detail level of
Cingular's maps, making direct comparisons between the two carriers
difficult.

Also, Verizon's site shows different maps for different rate plans .
There seemed to be plenty of AMPS coverage on the NSR plans, as well as
some on AC I.

xPosTech wrote:
> And how often does the called party call back instead? And the
> harassing ex call back when you hang up on her?

Good point...never even thought of that!

DTC wrote:
> xPosTech wrote:
>> And how often does the called party call back instead? And the
>> harassing ex call back when you hang up on her?
>
> Good point...never even thought of that!

It would all cancel out when comparing carriers, unless harassing exes
prefer one carrier over another.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 00:40:45 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <45ecb4fa$0$27247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
>> Verizon's own coverage data.
>
> "Proved?" That takes the huge leap of faith that the Verizon maps are
> accurate. Regardless of the accuracy, they also lack the detail level of
> Cingular's maps, making direct comparisons between the two carriers
> difficult.
>
> Also, Verizon's site shows different maps for different rate plans .
> There seemed to be plenty of AMPS coverage on the NSR plans, as well as
> some on AC I.

LOL, Navas's definition of "proof" is certainly amusing. Don't forget
his "proof" of extended range GSM.

However you did point out a major issue with Verizon, in that
non-Verizon AMPS coverage is very limited for subscribers that are not
on AC1 or NSR, two plans that new subscribers can't get.

When Verizon accidentally (or accidentally on-purpose) moved me to AC2
for a while, they acknowledged the AMPS advantages of AC1 when they
switched me back. What prompted AC2 with no off-extended-network roaming
was that subscribers were complaining about roaming charges on AC1.
Personally I'm perfectly happy to pay roaming charges when the
alternative is no coverage other than 911 coverage.

There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45ed9726$0$27191$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,

But almost entirely in areas that also have digital coverage, as shown
by Verizon's own coverage maps, as I noted in "Steven's Myth of Verizon
AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area"
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizon/msg/d8c71beb2d9e5179?hl=en&>.

>and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
>coverage replaces it,

AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
actions and their words.

>though unfortunately there is no way that digital
>will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.

Also not true -- what matters is handset power, not technology --
digital has as much range as analog.

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

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45ed9726$0$27191$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area, and
> it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital coverage
> replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital will cover
> the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.

Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
bag phone.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:44:38 GMT, "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in
<aMhHh.7852$Tf.4940@trndny03>:

>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:45ed9726$0$27191$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net.. .
>>
>> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area, and
>> it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital coverage
>> replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital will cover
>> the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.
>
>Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
>bag phone.

You can still get AMPS with CDMA (presumably until sunset early next
year), but you couldn't use an AMPS bag phone. Motorola makes both GSM
and CDMA bag phones that have comparable range to AMPS bag phones, and
the CDMA version includes AMPS. For the GSM version, see the Cingular
FAQ below.

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

jeremy wrote:

> Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
> bag phone.

You can't get AMPS-only service from Verizon. It's still available from
some rural carriers, especially up in Alaska.

At 06 Mar 2007 16:36:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
> are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
> spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
> actions and their words.


I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
with additional unneeded digital capacity?

Sure, removing any traces of AMPS in urban/suburban areas MIGHT make
sense for increasing capacity (but even then, not much- most
urban/suburban installations are down to one or two channels of AMPS
anyway- digital can get what, 3 or 4 calls per channel instead of one?
So shutting off the last two AMPS channels adds a 6 call capacity? "Wow!
Let's pay the techs time and half and double-shift them all to rip all
of this obsolete stuff out- it's killing us!")

Realistically, rural AMPS equipment will likely be phased out as it dies
of natural causes and not before. There is no real cost benefit to
rolling out a fleet of trucks and technicians to tear down the AMPS
network just because the Feds say you're allowed to.

AMPS equipment will be like the 5-1/4" floppy drives sitting in stacks of
older computers in businesses nationwide. No one uses them, they
aren't hurting anyone, and we're certainly not going to pay anyone to
remove them unless they're already servicing the equipment for a more
important reason anyway... ;-)

At 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800 SMS wrote:

> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
> and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
> coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
> will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.

Why do you think that? I understand that the distance limitation of GSM
makes overlay a bit of a challenge, but why would CDMA overlay be
difficult? Even in the rural midwest, where flat terrain and low usage
are ideal for AMPS, I've found very few areas with AMPS-only service,
although I've USED AMPS due to technology incompatiblities (i.e. roaming
on Verizon or Alltel AMPS with a TDMA phone, etc.) but I believe we've
reached a point where a dual-band 800/1900 CDMA phone has 99% of the
coverage of a tri-mode, (certainly in POPs if not in actual geography.)

It's not like all of these rural carriers with AMPS service are still
selling Nokia 100s and Motorola MicroTACs to their customers. They've
all migrated to digital and overlaid substantially portions of their
networks. Their AMPS coverage is for roamers and their older "bagphone"
users.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
>> and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
>> coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
>> will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.
>
> Why do you think that? I understand that the distance limitation of GSM
> makes overlay a bit of a challenge, but why would CDMA overlay be
> difficult? Even in the rural midwest, where flat terrain and low usage
> are ideal for AMPS, I've found very few areas with AMPS-only service,
> although I've USED AMPS due to technology incompatiblities (i.e. roaming
> on Verizon or Alltel AMPS with a TDMA phone, etc.) but I believe we've
> reached a point where a dual-band 800/1900 CDMA phone has 99% of the
> coverage of a tri-mode, (certainly in POPs if not in actual geography.)

Yes it's the "actual geography" that's the issue. I doubt if there are
any non-rural AMPS towers that don't have some sort of digital. But just
in the past three months I've been in several areas of North America
where there is no GSM or CDMA coverage, just AMPS coverage. One AMPS
network I used was a Cingular AMPS network in Florida. One was a Telus
AMPS network in Canada. One was Golden State Cellular in California.

When I go around the Santa Cruz mountains and East Bay hills I can often
get AMPS but no CDMA or GSM. Sometimes this is away from the road, but
often it's on the backroads in remote areas.

At 06 Mar 2007 08:21:33 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
> > Good point...never even thought of that!
>
> It would all cancel out when comparing carriers, unless harassing exes
> prefer one carrier over another.
>

Boy, wouldn't that be an interesting target market for an MVNO! ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 16:36:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
>> are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
>> spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
>> actions and their words.
>
>
> I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
> usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
> working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
> with additional unneeded digital capacity?

For rural carriers, the loss of AMPS coverage will be costly because of
roaming revenue. In several industries, including trucking, AMPS is
still widely used.

In urban areas the carriers will likely remove the little remaining AMPS
capacity when their crews are at a cell site for some other reason.
There is very little AMPS capacity left at each site, and replacing it
with digital or just removing it, isn't going to affect capacity very
much at all.

Cingular has an incentive to turn off AMPS as after TDMA is shut down
the only users using AMPS will be subscribers from CDMA carriers. No
sense improving the network coverage of your competitors. So I'm sure
that I'll lose that nice AMPS coverage out in the Everglades where
Cingular has both the A and B side 800 MHz networks. Maybe Cingular will
install Extended Range GSM, LOL.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:16:13 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eskbgq$uj0$1@aioe.org>:

>At 06 Mar 2007 16:36:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
>> are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
>> spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
>> actions and their words.
>
>I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
>usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
>working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
>with additional unneeded digital capacity?

The carrier simply can't afford to do that due to negative backlash from
users. If the AMPS network is to be left up, then it has to be fully
maintained, a process that becomes more costly as it ages, components
become more difficult and expensive to get, and trained personnel become
less available.

As AMPS revenues go down, and the opportunity for digital revenues goes
up, the case for shutting down and migrating the AMPS spectrum becomes
ever more compelling. Spectrum is an expensive and finite resource.

>Sure, removing any traces of AMPS in urban/suburban areas MIGHT make
>sense for increasing capacity (but even then, not much- most
>urban/suburban installations are down to one or two channels of AMPS
>anyway- digital can get what, 3 or 4 calls per channel instead of one?

Eight with GSM. Roughly the same with CDMA. The difference is almost
an order of magnitude. Huge.

>Realistically, rural AMPS equipment will likely be phased out as it dies
>of natural causes and not before. There is no real cost benefit to
>rolling out a fleet of trucks and technicians to tear down the AMPS
>network just because the Feds say you're allowed to.

I disagree -- both carriers and major users (e.g. AlarmNet, OnStar) have
already announced plans to rapidly phase out AMPS.

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

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:21:30 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eskbgs$uj0$2@aioe.org>:

>At 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
>> and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
>> coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
>> will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.
>
>Why do you think that? I understand that the distance limitation of GSM
>makes overlay a bit of a challenge,

There's no real challenge because the distance limitation of GSM just
isn't an issue. Range is primarily a matter of handset power and line
of sight.

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