 |
 | 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 / August 2003Why are there no GSM AMPS phones?
Can anyone tell me why AT&T hasn't had a manufacturer make a GSM / AMPS phone? Is it possible to make a phone like that? I live in Arizona and AT&T's GSM coverage is only in the major cities (phoenix and tucson) and along some of the highways. Their TDMA coverage is not much better as far as I can tell. So that leaves most of the state covered by analog service. Since it seams that AT&T is pushing GSM so much (all of there new phones are GSM), why do they not push for a GSM/AMPS phone to provide better coverage? -neotrinity > Can anyone tell me why AT&T hasn't had a manufacturer make a GSM / > AMPS phone? Is it possible to make a phone like that? <snip> > Since it seams that AT&T is pushing GSM so much (all of there new > phones are GSM), why do they not push for a GSM/AMPS phone to provide > better coverage? Ever wonder why the phone companies are pushing GSM phones? Is the technology so much better? Is it cheaper to run? NO It's all about control. A TDMA/CDMA phone is pretty much that, a phone. It's a static piece of hardware that requires direct access to it to change parameters, and function. A GSM phone OTOH, is field "upgradable". They want to push a new line of phones? No prob, send a specific signal to the specific customers phone that makes it harder to hold a call, and then tell them that their phone is just worn out and sell them an upgrade. Want them to roam to a more profitable carrier this week, same thing. The key here is control. Do you really think just setting the e911 to only send location information when calling 911 means that they can't send a signal to your phone to find out exactly WHERE you are even if you have the function turned off completely? Go read 1984 again, it isn't a date, it's a concept. And for the record, I don't think the government or aliens are reading my brainwaves, and I haven't worn an aluminum foil hat for days now. :-) Seriously though, you don't really think GSM is better for YOU do you? It's better for THEM. Wake up! >Ever wonder why the phone companies are pushing GSM phones? Is the >technology so much better? Is it cheaper to run? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >phone to find out exactly WHERE you are even if you have the function turned >off completely? Go read 1984 again, it isn't a date, it's a concept. I want the drugs you're on! Where did you ever dream up this stuff about the carriers sending out signals to screw up your phone? Were you wearing your aluminum foil cap when this information was beamed to you from outer space? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com A. Top posters. Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? > >Ever wonder why the phone companies are pushing GSM phones? Is the > >technology so much better? Is it cheaper to run? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you wearing your aluminum foil cap when this information was beamed to > you from outer space? He's half right. A GSM phone can get a SIM update (PRL update, though there may be an official GSM term) over the air without the user touching it. I know this because I have sold hundreds of GSM phones and never had to lay a finger on them to program it. I have no way of knowing if it is impossible to do a similar thing on other systems, I do know that the CDMA carriers I have had experience with (Verizon and Sprint) don't, or at least didn't when I was using them. Sprint only does PRL updates when you dial CS and Verizon requires you to dial a special code for it. As for the rest, the guy is nuts. No surer sign of being a moron than to throw in the old "the carrier is tricking me into buying a new phone so they can make money" into a rant. On top of that stupidity, making your phone switch to the "wrong" roaming carrier is probably goping to cost the carrier a whole load of money. >>> Ever wonder why the phone companies are pushing GSM phones? Is the >>> technology so much better? Is it cheaper to run? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > user touching it. I know this because I have sold hundreds of GSM > phones and never had to lay a finger on them to program it. <snip> > As for the rest, the guy is nuts. No surer sign of being a moron > than to throw in the old "the carrier is tricking me into buying a > new phone so they can make money" into a rant. On top of that > stupidity, making your phone switch to the "wrong" roaming carrier is > probably goping to cost the carrier a whole load of money. Granted, My examples came off as nuts, they were meant to be, but the bottom line is the control aspect. GSM phones can be remotely controled without user knowledge or intervention. If you re-read my "switching roaming" point, you will see that I was pointing out that the phone company can work out a great roaming arrangement with a specific carrier next week, and update all the phones so that those roaming carriers are first on the list. If they are charging you a flat $1/minute roaming, it makes sense to want to push you toward the cheaper roam, to maximize their own profit. As far as the "carrier tricking me into buying a new phone" "rant", I was pointing out that it was something they "COULD" do with remote control. Just as they can turn "ON" the locator services even if you have them turned off. There are probably other things they can do with a GSM phone that they couldn't do with a CDMA/TDMA phone, with or without your knowledge, and THAT was the point. >Granted, My examples came off as nuts, they were meant to be, but the bottom >line is the control aspect. GSM phones can be remotely controled without [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >with a CDMA/TDMA phone, with or without your knowledge, and THAT was the >point. Be careful! They're out to get you!! Mind control too! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com A. Top posters. Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? >> Granted, My examples came off as nuts, they were meant to be, but >> the bottom line is the control aspect. GSM phones can be remotely [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > To send an email reply send to > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com Typical response when there is no valid rebuttal to the post, attack the poster. "GeoW" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in article <ya73b.7067$n94.5076@fed1read04>: > >>> Ever wonder why the phone companies are pushing GSM phones? Is the > >>> technology so much better? Is it cheaper to run? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > with a CDMA/TDMA phone, with or without your knowledge, and THAT was the > point. Between the Nokia Amps modules of some years back and current GAIT phones, few GSM handset makers have attempted to combine analog and GSM technologies. Even Cingular which owns both a GSM network, former Pacific Bell Mobile and Bell South TDMA/analog hasn't come up with a dual handset till GAIT. Analog uses a lot of scarce bandwith and extra battery power, while GSM is attempting to provide bandwith conserving advanced digital services, with very small phones. GSM seems directed at population centers or roadways where there is a competing cdma system, like Australia. Few carriers have even pursued setting up GSM AND analog roaming agreements. There seems to be no willingness at many levels to combine the two technologies. The big European GSM handset and network equipment suppliers have moved far beyond analog. Personally, I'd love to have a great sounding advanced GSM phone in the metro areas with analog backup for country rural coverage. Lots of people carry two specialized phones, instead of trying to make one phone do both jobs well. As far as control. It's well documented that carriers offer handsets that are capable of more subscription service extras (web, pictures ringtones) since cellular growth is slowing. By offering new plans/equipment they also get folks to gradually change habits. For example, moving off-peak to 9PM from the 6-7 PM nights of a few years ago. It's carrots and sticks. 40 cents/minute for exceeding the monthly allotment is pure punishment. The handset is the final link in very sophisticated network. Phones are getting so smart, it's only natural that more network controls be used to optimize service and costs. There is also more chances to use this smart network for mischief. Carriers could always tell what town a call was made in and to whom. Now they may be able to track which bar.... Hope this makes you feel better...or would that be worse;-) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2098193,00.html Virgin Mobile admits storing customer location records October 29, 2001 "Every Virgin Mobile phone call is tracked to within a few hundred metres. Virgin plans to keep the data 'indefinitely', and privacy advocates are not happy Virgin Mobile admitted late last week that has been storing information that records its customers' movements around the UK since November 1999, and has no plans to delete the data. According to a report in The Guardian on Saturday, Virgin Mobile has been saving user location records since it launched nearly two years ago. This information tells a mobile operator the location of a customer each time they made a call, and is accurate to a few hundred metres. As a virtual mobile phone operator, Virgin Mobile buys network capacity from One2One. A spokeswoman has explained that the customer location records are stored by One2One, and that there are no plans to delete them. - David <snip> > There is also more chances to use this smart network for mischief. > Carriers could always tell what town a call was made in and to whom. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > been storing information that records its customers' movements around > the UK since November 1999, and has no plans to delete the data. I personally have no problem with it, as I don't do anything illegal, and the data can also be used another way such as proving me being nowhere the scene of a crime, if it came up. The nut in me wonders that if they know what bar I am at, and are tracking me for some reason, they know when I leave, and which direction I am going in and how fast. Zoom in, pull me over, and try to get me for DUI or something. (They never would, but it's a thought). How such data is used is what is of concern. If real-time access became corporately available, what's to stop spamming my text messaging with restaurant ads if I happen to be near a mall around noon? Anyway I apologise for taking the original thread so far off topic. We are getting into subjects that are way beyond why there are so few GSM/AMPS phones these days. >He's half right. A GSM phone can get a SIM update (PRL update, though there >may be an official GSM term) over the air without the user touching it. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Sprint only does PRL updates when you dial CS and Verizon requires you to >dial a special code for it. Anyone with half a bit of reasoning could see that this would not be to the carrier's benefit. Why would a carrier purposely destroy the ability to make money of a subscriber? If the end user is unable to make calls they are not generating any revenue. >As for the rest, the guy is nuts. No surer sign of being a moron than to >throw in the old "the carrier is tricking me into buying a new phone so they >can make money" into a rant. On top of that stupidity, making your phone >switch to the "wrong" roaming carrier is probably goping to cost the carrier >a whole load of money. It's already been mentioned that carriers don't generally make a lot of money on end user equipment. Generally there's some form of subsidy on the equipment and in order for them to make this investment back they have to wait for the subscriber to generate revenue to offset the carrier's initial investment in that customer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com A. Top posters. Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? >Ever wonder why the phone companies are pushing GSM phones? Is the >technology so much better? Is it cheaper to run? >NO >It's all about control. A TDMA/CDMA phone is pretty much that, a phone. It's Where to start. GSM ends up putting the user in complete control. Effortless switching of providers via a SIM swap, virtually limitless hackability for those savvy users, easy purchase of new/used phones without needing to buy the provider's limited selection upgrade models, and no way for the provider to deny the phone's use ultimately. No, GSM allows us more freedom to pick and choose providers based strictly on plan cost, coverage, and minutes. With LNP, the competition among T-mo, Cingular, and ATTWS is going to be very intense, since their GSM customers can move so effortlessly. It'll be possible to have all three services at once for the same phone for a direct side by side comparison. Try that with TDMA or CDMA and AMPS. Sprint and Verizon switching is a hassle and not a given, depending on their control of phone models and codes, completely out of the user's hands. There is no comparison! You sound like a die hard conspiracy theorist. Doug Haven't you heard of the Ericsson T62U. It's a GSM/TDMA/AMPS phone. "NeoTrinity" <neotrinity@bigfoot.com> wrote in article <6%W2b.5354$3E.510@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>: > Can anyone tell me why AT&T hasn't had a manufacturer make a GSM / AMPS > phone? Is it possible to make a phone like that? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -neotrinity "NeoTrinity" <neotrinity@bigfoot.com> wrote in article <6%W2b.5354$3E.510@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>: > Can anyone tell me why AT&T hasn't had a manufacturer make a GSM / AMPS > phone? Is it possible to make a phone like that? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -neotrinity This a Cingular, GSM, TDMA, AMPs. All one needs is a carrier with the right roaming agreements/network. Not sure about ATTWS? Nokia 6340i (Phone Scoop) http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?id=201 - David OK, I'll give that there are a few out there. The Sony Ericsson T62U and the Nokia 6340i. Only the T62U is sold by AT&T, but not on their website (at least it doesn't show up in their list of phones for my zip). If you look at the new coverage maps that AT&T released a few weeks ago, you see that in AZ there seems to be a lot of coverage on the next generation network, until you look closer and see that most of the coverage requires a multi-band phone. Now AT&T only has two multiband phones that I know of, the T62U and the Siemens S46 (which may not give you the extended coverage anyway since I think it is analog coverage). So why does AT&T advertise a plan, but have only 1 maybe 2 phones that support it? Hence the question, why no GSM/AMPS. If GSM is where AT&T is heading (when was the last TDMA phone released?), but that system doesn't have much coverage, why not get manufactures to bridge the gap between their poor (in my opinion) GSM coverage and there good (IMO) AMPS coverage. -neotrinity > Can anyone tell me why AT&T hasn't had a manufacturer make a GSM / AMPS > phone? Is it possible to make a phone like that? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -neotrinity |
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.