 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / June 2004how is the new AT&T GSM Service?
how is the new AT&T GSM Service? how about in rural areas? >how is the new AT&T GSM Service? Same as before. >how about in rural areas? Still sucks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>how is the new AT&T GSM Service? > > Same as before. No, not really. They have added a lot of GSM850 over the past few months and that should enhance coverage greatly. Plus, AT&T Wireless has entered into a number of roaming agreements that should allow it customers to get much more seamless coverage. >>how about in rural areas? > > Still sucks. That all depends upon the user. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >That all depends upon the user. Is there a way of knowing what freq. is being used? When I first went with gsm, I couldn't use my phone in my house. Now I'm getting a full signal. I have a Moto T720. I don't know if I'm on 850 or 1900, but, withing the past month, there has been a change for the better. I'm in South FL. > Is there a way of knowing what freq. is being used? When I first went > with gsm, I couldn't use my phone in my house. Now I'm getting a full > signal. I have a Moto T720. I don't know if I'm on 850 or 1900, but, > withing the past month, there has been a change for the better. I'm in > South FL. Let sleeping dogs lie. >I don't know if I'm on 850 or 1900, but, >withing the past month, there has been a change for the better. I'm in >South FL. And if it is working well for you why could you possibly care one way or the other??? -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >>I don't know if I'm on 850 or 1900, but, >>withing the past month, there has been a change for the better. I'm in >>South FL. > >And if it is working well for you why could you possibly care one way or the >other??? Hey John, I'm just curious. Is it because of the switch in freq., a new tower put up near me, or is it because my whole family now wears aluminum foil on our heads. Do you know how to answer questions or are you one of the alien insurgents put here to start trouble??? >I'm just curious. That;s the answere I was looking for. >Do you know how to answer questions or are >you one of the alien insurgents put here to start trouble??? I can answer your questions. I am not looking to start any trouble in the news groups. It just striked me as funny what some people are curious about and what they "worry" about. Probably got a new tower near you. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net I don't think there is a way to find out what frequency is being use on your phone. You could however try a phone that just has 1900MHz (and not 850MHz) to see if it works. If it doesn't then chances are you're using the 850MHz frequency. Does your area have both 850MHz and 1900MHz frequencies? All my friends with AT&T Wireless have reported much improved coverage lately. Could be because AT&T have new roaming agreements to extend their coverage. For example, in San Diego, AT&T customers can use both the AT&T and Cingular networks, whichever has better reception. > Is there a way of knowing what freq. is being used? When I first went > with gsm, I couldn't use my phone in my house. Now I'm getting a full > signal. I have a Moto T720. I don't know if I'm on 850 or 1900, but, > withing the past month, there has been a change for the better. I'm in > South FL. > how is the new AT&T GSM Service? > > how about in rural areas? They just renogtiated the roaming agreement with Cingular, so in some few areas where one now will roam on Cingular GSM, things could be better. You still have to deal with the AT&T GSM billing service, and the same folks on the 800 numbers. Phillip <Phillip@gte.net> wrote: > They just renogtiated the roaming agreement with Cingular, so in some > few areas where one now will roam on Cingular GSM, things could be > better. They have negotiated roaming agreements with T-Mobile as well (probably due to the influence of Cingular, who already had such an agreement). That has added tremendous coverage in the Minnesota market. > You still have to deal with the AT&T GSM billing service, and the same > folks on the 800 numbers. So true. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > due to the influence of Cingular, who already had such an agreement). > That has added tremendous coverage in the Minnesota market. Actually, in Northern MN, the majority of coverage now comes from Dobson with their GSM850 overlay. As a secondary partner, T-Mo can provide roaming coverage as well, and does as a primary in south central and SW MN to some extent. Fairly soon, Western Wireless will start allowing ATTWS GSM users to roam on their 850 / 1900 GSM overlays in South central and SW MN, which will also fill in some big holes in those rural areas. SE MN is still a bit of a black hole, and I'm not sure when that will be resolved. -Jon > > You still have to deal with the AT&T GSM billing service, and the same > > folks on the 800 numbers. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > =9v7/ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >how is the new AT&T GSM Service? > >how about in rural areas? It's very good where they have service in rural areas. You ask a question that can't be answered as you don't tell us where your area of concern is. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >how is the new AT&T GSM Service? > > > >how about in rural areas? > > It's very good where they have service in rural areas. Which is just about no where. Phillip <Phillip@gte.net> wrote: > Which is just about no where. They have awesome rural coverage in Minnesota, and apprently the GSM is now a workable rural solution where TDMA was adequate before (which is the majority of this state). There are some severely rural areas in Northern MN that will not get digital coverage by any carrier. - - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Michael, I haven't been using AT&T GSM for long, but some markets are much better than others. Where they added 1900 MHz GSM service to their 800 MHz sites, GSM service does not work well. In areas where they were already 1900 MHZ, the GSM service is as good as TDMA. In rural areas off the interstates, it's non-existant. If you are in the west, AT&T GSM is good in NM and AZ. It's bad in CO, ID, UT, WA and most of CA. Some of the new rural corridors operate well, but the rural areas with 1900 MHz added at 800 MHz sites don't. So, much depends on where you'll be using your phone. Let me add, until recently, expansion was happening quickly. I doubt if it is now that AT&T Wireless is being sold. Bill Radio Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at: http://www.mountainwireless.com > how is the new AT&T GSM Service? > > how about in rural areas? >In rural areas off the interstates, >it's non-existant. Actually Bill, this isn't a blanket statement any more. I can point you to many places in the USA where there is good to great AT&T WS GSM service where you are WAY off an interstate. For instance Most of the surrounding country side near New York City is well covered. NJ virtually everywhere in the north and over to the PA state line. Conneticut in the southern part of the state. And Long Island is covered really well. More recently I have been in Alabama, TN and Arkansas and find that most of these states rural coverage is pretty good too on a GSM only phone. I realize that there are large areas that are not covered yet so your statement is partially true, but certainly not universal. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > For instance Most of the surrounding country side near New York City is well > covered. Coverage provided by Dobson Cellular Systems. > Conneticut in the southern part of the state. Coverage provided by Cingular Wireless. > More recently I have been in Alabama, TN and Arkansas and find that most of > these states rural coverage is pretty good too on a GSM only phone. Coverage provided by Cingular Wireless. > I realize that there are large areas that are not covered yet No kidding! The only states where AT&TWS provides good rural coverage are WA, OR, CA, PA, and FL. In TX, Cingular beats AT&TWS coverage in virtually every rural market. >> For instance Most of the surrounding country side near New York City is >well >> covered. > >Coverage provided by Dobson Cellular Systems. No, by AT&T WS from their own sites. >Coverage provided by Cingular Wireless. No, by AT&T WS from their own sites. >Coverage provided by Cingular Wireless. No, by AT&T WS from their own sites. >In TX, Cingular beats AT&TWS coverage in >virtually every rural market. I don't care any more what with the new roaming agreements that they have with almost all the gSM carriers. But things they are a changing! -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >Coverage provided by Dobson Cellular Systems. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > But things they are a changing! Nonsense! Look at the actual coverage map (http://www.mountainwireless.com/cingular_att_coverage.htm) and you'll see that ATTWS has extremely little if any rural coverage in AL, TN, and AR. So you're claim is unsustainable. John, I will agree with the "universal" statement. Here is a link of AT&T's actual coverage, as submitted to the FCC at the beginning of the year: http://www.mountainwireless.com/cingular_att_coverage.htm AT&T's GSM coverage is shown in the blue, and is also visible under Cingular's orange. What I see is a spider web of coverage corridors generally following interstate highways. Of course there are many well-covered areas, but I see far more areas located just off the interstates with nothing. It's also notable how much more robust Cingular's coverage is across their service area. -Bill > >In rural areas off the interstates, > >it's non-existant. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > John S. > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net Bill- Is that map just their GSM service, or is it TDMA/Analog as well? Also, a question probably best asked of XFF- I remember reading from you that ATT has built out GSM 850 in all of their old TDMA coverage areas. Is this true? Does doing this kind of overlay cause any degradation of the TDMA quality (other than channel availability)? Originally I had heard that all of ATT's GSM was 1900, I guess this is no longer the case? Why would they start their deployments at 1900 and then upgrade the same area's 850 gear to do GSM? -Eric > John, > I will agree with the "universal" statement. Here is a link of AT&T's [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > John S. > > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net Eric, The map was submitted by Cingular to the FCC. Compared to old AT&T maps, it is only 1900 MHz GSM coverage for AT&T, but Cingular coverage appears to be better, so their coverage could indeed include 800 MHz coverage. I have every reason to believe that this map is current, and it won't improve much in the near future (but should within a few years). Here in Colorado I can find no evidence of 800 MHz GSM coverage. My AT&T GSM and TDMA phones sitting side-by-side give different readings. The TDMA will rise and fall gradually, the GSM will drop rapidly and sometimes out of service. Maybe it's just here. Another detail is that half of the state is served by Cellular One (TDMA) who has agreed to add GSM roaming in rural areas, but I can't find any in our state. Only Commnet Wireless offers GSM roaming in some of these areas, and their service isn't shown on AT&T's or Cingular's maps. So, coverage can be better than the maps show. -Bill > Bill- > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > longer the case? Why would they start their deployments at 1900 and then > upgrade the same area's 850 gear to do GSM? Same scenario here in Oregon. I see no evidence that AT&T has completed 850Mhz overlay for GSM. We continue to see spots where TDMA is weak, but usable, where GSM has no signal. I have been told by the local AT&T stores that 850Mhz overlay should occur here by late summer or early fall. -Dan > Eric, > The map was submitted by Cingular to the FCC. Compared to old AT&T maps, it [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > longer the case? Why would they start their deployments at 1900 and then > > upgrade the same area's 850 gear to do GSM? >In rural areas off the interstates, >it's non-existant. ps: Bill, I wouldn't even think of giving up my Digital One Rate Plan yet though! I do far too much traveling to not have it. Others might not travel as much and to as varied of places as I do so it might be OK! -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.