 |
 | 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 / Cingular / January 2006Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular
See: "http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_technolo gy/13330867.htm" >See: > >"http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_technolo gy/13330867.htm" Not very favorable for good ole' Cingular ... not favorable at all. And so it goes. >> See: >> >> "http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_technolo gy/13330867.htm" > > Not very favorable for good ole' Cingular ... not favorable at all. > And so it goes. The Radio Shack franchise owners are livid over losing Verizon and gaining Cingular. They now will be selling service from the most poorly rated carriers. They've gotten fat and happy converting unhappy Cingular users to Verizon, and now they've lost that sales angle. I'm anxious to see the full article, usually it's out in February, and it ranks the carriers in a lot of metro areas. >>> "http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_technolo gy/13330867.htm" >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carriers. They've gotten fat and happy converting unhappy Cingular users > to Verizon, and now they've lost that sales angle. Y'know, I don't get that one myself. I'm a current AND FORMER Verizon customer, and was also a CINGULAR customer for a couple years, up until a few days ago. I switched BACK to Verizon from Cingular (after previously switching from Verizon TO Cingular), but I did so very reluctantly. I've travelled all over the US except for California. My wife does a lot of travelling, also. Here is how I see the Cingular Vs. Verizon thing: Cingular GSM: Good network (just as good as verizon) Awesome selection of quality handsets Cheap pricing for service, even before rollover is considered Good customer service No billing errors Verizon: Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM) Poor selection of so-so quality handsets Expensive, compared to just about anybody else (especially Cingular or T-Mo) Iffy customer service Frequent billing errors Overall winner: CINGULAR!!! (it's not even close) Yes, I'm a verizon customer, but I'm not happy that I had to dump Cingular. I'm not happy at all about that. Now I get to baby-sit my cellular provider again, going through every bill with a fine tooth comb. Sigh . . . While I was a Cingular customer, I didn't even bother to READ most of my bills after the first few, as Cingular just always got it right, and it never varied more than a few bucks, so it wasn't worth my time to worry about where the variance was. (the few times I did bother to check, it was because of text or mms messages, and the charges were valid) I only switched back to Verizon as there is no service (with Cingular anyway) at either of our new work locations. The Cingular GSM network is great, but it obviously doesn't do us any good if there are blind spots where we need to use it often. Verizon's network has JUST AS MANY BLIND SPOTS, but Verizon's blind spots don't currently affect us where we need to use our cell phones most often. Thus we are reluctantly Verizon customers again. I know a lot of people dump Cingular for Verizon as they think Verizon has better coverage. That just shows the power of advertising. All those millions of dollars Verizon spends (Can you hear me now?) obviously is money well spent. Many people now MISTAKENLY believe that Verizon has better coverage than Cingular GSM. Neither network is better than the other. If you dump Cingular for Verizon, you won't get better coverage. The joke's on YOU in that case, as you just got the same coverage for a lot more money, PLUS you get the headache of having to deal with Verizon's screwed-up billing system. Radio Shack should be proud to offer Cingular service. But who would buy cellular service from the Rat Shack anyway? -Dave > I know a lot of people dump Cingular for Verizon as they think Verizon has > better coverage. That just shows the power of advertising. It isn't just advertising. Every survey, including the ones by Consumer Reports, and Consumer Checkbook magazine, confirm it. The advertising is effective because it's based on reality, and because people are so angry over poor coverage that they'll pay more money for good coverage. Many people will never see the difference in coverage if they don't travel a lot outside urban areas, or to states where off-network roaming is required. But just in my area, the SF Bay Area, it's just common knowledge that Verizon has the best coverage, by far. Even those people that switch to Sprint or Cingular, because of handset selection or price, acknowledge that Verizon's coverage is better. That said, Cingular has greatly improved their coverage since the AT&T Wireless acquisition, because they got that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum. But there are still many areas where with Cingular you'll not have coverage, where Verizon has it. I carry a GSM phone on Cingular's network, as well as a Verizon phone and an AT&T TDMA phone. Where Cingular does poorly is when you leave the urban and suburban areas, and go up into the hills and valleys. You often start roaming to AMPS on AT&T TDMA and Verizon CDMA, but there is no AMPS to roam to on Cingular, unless you have a GAIT phone (which almost no one has). These are areas where AMPS is likely to stay in service after 2008, because it's uneconomical to install a sufficient number of digital sites to cover the same amount of area. >> I know a lot of people dump Cingular for Verizon as they think Verizon >> has better coverage. That just shows the power of advertising. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > effective because it's based on reality, and because people are so angry > over poor coverage that they'll pay more money for good coverage. That's just it though . . . you don't have to pay more. I've travelled extensively over the past several years with Verizon and (Cingular GSM) handsets. They both have dead spots. In most cases, where one handset is dead, SO IS THE OTHER ONE. If one has signal and the other doesn't that does not mean that coverage is better on the one that DOES have signal. In many cases, you go a few miles or so down the road and the situation is exactly reversed. (so how can it be said that one is better than the other?) I know that there are going to be people who have bad experiences with coverage issues on Cingular AND people who have bad experiences with coverage issues on Verizon. HOWEVER, I've seen this issue from both sides, and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is better. It is ONLY hype. Verizon has good coverage. So does Cingular. I'd rate them both an 8/10, as they both have just as many dead areas, but are FOR THE MOST PART useful, when you need them to be. BOTH of them. On a side note, Consumer Reports is (more often than not) WRONG. I don't know how they manage to f.ck up so badly, but I've found major discrepancies in most articles written by Consumer Reports. Unfortunately, I have a relative who keeps giving me a subscription to it as a gift. It is good for a laugh now and then, if nothing else. I'm at the point now where I'd be inclined to read CR to see what they 'recommend' AND THEN CROSS THAT OFF MY LIST of items to consider buying. :) -Dave > and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is better. The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of 50,000 people. It's not hype. It's reality. Verizon's customer support is also far superior. I used to have Verizon. :-( >> and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is better. > > The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of 50,000 people. > It's not hype. It's reality. Verizon rules, all other drool. That is simply the facts. > Verizon's customer support is also far superior. I used to have Verizon. > :-( [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of 50,000 people. >> It's not hype. It's reality. Agent_C wrote: > Particularly frustrating is that virtually everything in the current line have > cameras. I frequently visit government contractors, where camera equipped > phones are forbidden. That's one of my main beefs with the cellular carriers. Only Nextel (before the Sprint merger) seemed unaffected. I used to have Nextel. I miss their selection of quality phones without cameras. It's too bad their data service was so far behind Verizon and Cingular, otherwise I probably wouldn't have switched. I will say that connection quality seems better with Cingular than it was with Nextel's IDEN service, but Nextel's (voice) service was acceptable for me. I was at a Nokia booth in the mall the other day. They had some nice GSM phones that I would really be interested in. Why won't Cingular sell them? I suspect it's because they are trying to impel the sending of pictures, so they can charge their customers more money. Cingular is not alone in this. However, if I was to buy a phone from Nokia directly I would have to pay top dollar, and would not get any breaks on the price. Again, I HATE IT that the cellular carriers will not offer a selection of quality phones without a camera! : ^ ( Agent_C wrote: >> Mike T. wrote: >>>Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM) > In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close. The Verizon network is > superior by a wide margin. I tend to believe the above statement that: 'In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close.' I spend a lot of time in the NYC area (although not really in Manhattan). When I am near Manhattan, I do have trouble making and keeping a connection. This is especially true regarding data service. Ask (almost) any NYC resident, and they will tell you that Verizon beats the other majors hands down as far as connection quality there. Perhaps it is the topography of Manhattan that favors CDMA over GSM, or maybe Verizon just has more and/or better placed towers. I can't really speak regarding LA, but I wouldn't be surprised that Verizon is superior there also in regards to connection quality. Perhaps in other areas without the proliferation of skyscrapers, hills, and population density, the various carriers have roughly simular connection quality, varying neighborhood by neighborhood. > Agent_C wrote: >>> Mike T. wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > surprised that Verizon is superior there also in regards to connection > quality. Remember, Cingular had no presence in NYC for a long time. Then they began using T-Mobile's network in exchange for letting T-Mobile use their west coast network. AT&T had terrible capacity problems in NYC, and now they are sharing their 800 Mhz spectrum with more users, after the acquisition by Cingular. CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses spectrum more efficiently. > Perhaps in other areas without the proliferation of skyscrapers, hills, > and population density, the various carriers have roughly simular > connection quality, varying neighborhood by neighborhood. This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with far, far better coverage, and coverage in many parts of the Bay Area where the other carriers have no coverage at all. >CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses >spectrum more efficiently. Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM are roughly the same. >This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In >the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with >far, far better coverage, and coverage in many parts of the Bay Area >where the other carriers have no coverage at all. Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a >rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon. John you keep on saying that, but other than your personal observations, what data can you point to? A_C John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and I suspect many others are having a different user experience. Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of one doesn't count. ; - ) I should have read the OP's original link! >John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little >isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and >I suspect many others are having a different user experience. I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't stay in one little spot -- just the opposite. >Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or >review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of >one doesn't count. ; - ) Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is to infer it. Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange SIMs (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best coverage currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which is assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis: Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell). Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available. In fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM coverage is much better than Verizon. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In article <eoElf.240593$zb5.162991@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > >John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little > >isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of > >one doesn't count. ; - ) > Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks > here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network > coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular > One/AirTouch). The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled them before being absorbed into the VZW morph. --Mike > The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in > the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled > them before being absorbed into the VZW morph. The two were very close in coverage, almost indistinguishable. What's hurt Cingular is that even though the AT&T AMPS network is still operating, GAIT phones (GSM/TDMA/AMPS) were never sold to the general public in Cingular's Western region (though other Cingular regions were selling them, and AT&T was selling them when they first deployed GSM). Cingular's position on GAIT, for the western region, was basically that since they had no TDMA or AMPS network there was no reason to promote GAIT since it would mean a lot of off-network roaming. In fact, GAIT phones were available from Cingular in the west, but you had to know exactly who to contact at Cingular's Western Regional Headquarters in Pleasanton in order to buy one. I happened to find out the contact due to one of my web sites, and my contacts with Cingular's spokesperson. I referred about eight people to the proper contact at Cingular, and most of them ended up with GAIT phones. > The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in > the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled > them before being absorbed into the VZW morph. The Blue Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS network was indeed very, very good. The reason that Cingular coverage, even with the combined Blue and Orange networks is now so much worse than Verizon, is because there are almost no phones that can access the AMPs part of the Blue network. This may not be an issue in some parts of the country, but in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are many isolated and remote areas where the only coverage is still AMPS. And most subscribers to a carrier never really understood that their phone was switching to the old analog network, they just knew that their phone worked. I go hiking a great deal, and in the Santa Cruz mountains, the East Bay Hills, and Marin county, there is often ONLY AMPS coverage, no GSM, no TDMA, no CDMA. There are vast areas of the U.S. (i.e. much of Alaska) that are covered only by AMPS (and that will continue to be covered only by AMPS into the foreseeable future due to sparse population and the expense of installing digital service which requires many more towers than AMPS)). It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog. Nokia used to offer an "analog sleeve" for some of their GSM phones, but it wasn't a popular product, and was never offered in the Cingular areas where Cingular lacked an AMPS network. Ironically, the evolution of the B side cellular network began with Pacific Bell's PacTel Cellular in 1984. Then Pacific Bell sold the B side network to AirTouch, then Vodafone bought AirTouch, then Cellular One was a brand from AT&T and Vodafone AirTouch until Vodafone AirTouch dropped out to become part of the newly formed Verizon Wireless on the A side. Verizon was comprised of Vodafone AirTouch, Bell Atlantic, and GTE. The Pacific Bell re-entered the cellular business with their 1900 Mhz GSM offering. I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or T-Mobile are probably just fine. > > The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in > > the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > deal, and in the Santa Cruz mountains, the East Bay Hills, and Marin > county, there is often ONLY AMPS coverage, no GSM, no TDMA, no CDMA. I'm very well aware of the reason why. I'm just stating the obvious: that Cingular's Bay Area foot print is vastly inferior to VXZ's CDMA/AMPS one. > There are vast areas of the U.S. (i.e. much of Alaska) that are covered > only by AMPS (and that will continue to be covered only by AMPS into the > foreseeable future due to sparse population and the expense of > installing digital service which requires many more towers than AMPS)). Preaching to the choir. > It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were > popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and > smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog. That and the fact that its cheaper for carriers to be things like "Pure Digital"...which is nothing more than marketing spin to make their primarily digital only service sound more attractive when it is in fact inferior...at least as far as coverage goes. > Ironically, the evolution of the B side cellular network began with > Pacific Bell's PacTel Cellular in 1984. Then Pacific Bell sold the B [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > GTE. The Pacific Bell re-entered the cellular business with their 1900 > Mhz GSM offering. That's not exactly what happened in all markets. in the SF Bay Area, C1 was THE A side carrier and GTE wireless was the B side one. On the East Coast, Bell Atlantic Mobile (BAM) was the B side carrier. A series or mergers with BAM, AirTouch, Vodaphone, and GTE Wireless (all B side CDMA...except for Vodaphone, which was E. Coast GSM) produced Verizon (from "veritas"). Because AirTouch held stake in the Bay Area A side carrier, C1/ATTWS Bay Area, they (Verizon) were forced to divest that interest in C1 due to their B side representation. At that point C1 Bay Area became part of ATTWS (ATTWS had already consolidated A side TDMA on the E. Coast). C1 Bay Area was never an ATTWS brand...although ATT were investors along with AirTouch. > I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't > care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or > T-Mobile are probably just fine. Precisely. I personally would not even consider having a phone not capable of AMPS and a provider not offering AMPS. There's just too many places with no digital signal (whether it be TDMA, CDMA, GSM or PCS [CDMA]). --Mike >> The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in >> the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled >> them before being absorbed into the VZW morph. > >The Blue Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS network was indeed very, very good. And still is. >The reason that Cingular coverage, even with the combined Blue and >Orange networks is now so much worse than Verizon, is because there are >almost no phones that can access the AMPs part of the Blue network. Nonsense. The blue network has been overlaid with GSM. >It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were >popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and >smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog. It actually relates to the fact that most people don't share your biases. >I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't >care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or >T-Mobile are probably just fine. It's also fine in rural areas. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:34:09 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything: >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's also fine in rural areas. Nonsense yourself. Take a look at Iowa. VZW has two large blobs of native coverage and the rest of the state is covered as Extended digital (free roaming) except for a few very small blips of no coverage. Cingular has one slightly larger blob, one smaller blob around Des Moines, and corridors along the interstates. More than half the state is no coverage. It's not even marked as Future coverage, meaning they have no plans to build there eventually. SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "Frank! Frank, you're doubletalking, I can always tell. Your upper lip disappears." - Hotlips Houlihan > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:34:09 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> > chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > coverage. It's not even marked as Future coverage, meaning they have no > plans to build there eventually. This is going to be how the vast rural areas end up, CDMA digital, some AMPS if the carriers keep it on, but little GSM. Look at the technical reasons for this: GSM 800 Mhz has a maximum distance between towers of about 25 miles (flat terrain without obstructions). Practically speaking, the sites are closer than that, 6-8 miles apart (unless more are needed for additional capacity). CDMA 800 Mhz has has a maximum distance between towers of about 39 miles (flat terrain without obstructions). Again, practically speaking, the sites are closer than that, 12-14 miles (unless more are needed for additional capacity). AMPS 800 Mhz has no distance limitation imposed by timing issues, but practically speaking you're looking at around 70 miles (flat terrain without obstructions). 1900 Mhz requires 4x to 5x the number of base stations as 800 Mhz. 1900 Mhz is also lower power than 800 Mhz, but the fact that you need more base stations anyway, eliminates any advantage of the higher power. In urban areas, the number of base stations is determined by capacity constraints, and as long as there is no problem placing the additional base stations required by 1900 Mhz, the advantage in terms of coverage, at least outdoor coverage disappears. The problem with 1900 Mhz is that it’s often difficult to place enough cells in suburban areas, due to NIMBY concerns. The other issue with 1900 Mhz is that it penetrates buildings much less well than 800 Mhz. In Australia, the range issue was a very big issue, and they ended up with a CDMA system for the extended range in the vast rural areas, and a GSM system for European compatibility. Now the CDMA carrier is trying to convert the CDMA voice network over to W-CDMA. Even though W-CDMA is primarily intended for data, nothing really stops it from being used for voice as well, even though it isn’t optimal in terms of latency. I don't know why Navas continues to lie about rural coverage. It's not a secret that rural coverage on GSM is very poor. > This is going to be how the vast rural areas end up, CDMA digital, some > AMPS if the carriers keep it on, but little GSM. Maybe but... Texas has a lot of those "vast rural areas" that are/were TDMA/AMPS (800mhz) and most of those rural carriers ARE (slowly) going GSM--not CDMA (with one major exception who's got a lot of CDMA elsewhere and is adding *both* GSM *and* CDMA). It may have to do with the ease of dropping in another card(s) at the tower versus a fairly major makeover--isn't GSM based on a TDMA architecture? Also most of the rural carriers have current DIGITAL and AMPS roaming agreements with Cingular/ATTWS where they have only analog roaming with Verizon--if that same agreement covers GSM without amendment that too may influence the decision. And I'm talking about areas that are served by Verizon land line service--didn't make a difference--they're still going GSM. > GSM 800 Mhz has a maximum distance between towers of about 25 miles > (flat terrain without obstructions). Practically speaking, the sites are > closer than that, 6-8 miles apart (unless more are needed for additional > capacity). Here's what's happening in Texas. Our towns--the ones over 1000 people--are almost exactly 33 miles apart ( I never have figured that out--must have been something at the turn of the century that needed that--rail or postal service maybe--or is that the distance a horse can walk in a day?). Anyway the early cellular antennas were hung about half way up the local cable towers in each town. They alone handled AMPS just fine. When TDMA was introduced only the towns had it for the first several years until ONE row of outlying towers were added between towns. So say at 15 to 18 miles apart. As a result TDMA reaches almost everywhere AMPS reaches--the differences are due to handset power and can pretty much be solved using a carkit and antenna and in some extreme cases using a booster. In the areas where carriers have completed their GSM conversion, MOST areas were completed *without* adding new towers *at all*. I've seen a few--a VERY few--new towers go up, probably to fix some specific problem area. Now while I don't go looking for towers there aren't that many hills in those areas :-) and they tend to build towers on the tallest spots. If they were having to build towers to meet an 8 mile rule there'd be new towers all over the place--and there aren't. So in "practice" I'd say in rural areas GSM, like TDMA, is working fine with towers in the 15-20 mile range. Remember, we're talking TALL towers and very low capacity needed at any one moment. You'll notice I didn't mention CDMA above. That's because for all practical purposes there IS NO CDMA in rural Texas once you get out of small cities with populations of 20,000 or more. Verizon's coverage of rural Texas is almost entirely via AMPS roaming. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA > You'll notice I didn't mention CDMA above. That's because for all > practical purposes there IS NO CDMA in rural Texas once you get out of > small cities with populations of 20,000 or more. Verizon's coverage of > rural Texas is almost entirely via AMPS roaming. I see on the Mountain Wireless site, and on roamer1.org, that there are quite a few small Texas carriers that have moved to CDMA, but I guess those must be the ones in the small cities. >This is going to be how the vast rural areas end up, CDMA digital, some >AMPS if the carriers keep it on, but little GSM. > >Look at the technical reasons for this: Let's. >GSM 800 Mhz has a maximum distance between towers of about 25 miles Actually 23 miles (35 km). Likewise GSM 1900. Standard GSM. Extended Range GSM has double that range. >(flat terrain without obstructions). Actually line of sight. >Practically speaking, the sites are >closer than that, 6-8 miles apart (unless more are needed for additional >capacity). Sometimes, and sometimes they are farther apart than that. >CDMA 800 Mhz has has a maximum distance between towers of about 39 miles >(flat terrain without obstructions). In fact it has no such distance limitation. <http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corporate/news/newsreleases/1999c/8_5_9999287_Boom er.html> Designed to improve the economics of rural digital cellular service, the Nortel Networks CDMA Rural Cell can provide a coverage radius up to 180 kilometers under suitable conditions, more than 10 times the range of a typical CDMA base station. Nicknamed "Boomer" Cell, this pioneering technology was first demonstrated in March at Nortel Networks' Wireless Solutions lab in Ottawa, Ontario. Recent field trials with Telstra in Australia have achieved coverage in excess of 120 kilometers on land and 130 kilometers for marine service under typical conditions, using standard CDMA handsets and car kits. >Again, practically speaking, the >sites are closer than that, 12-14 miles (unless more are needed for >additional capacity). More or less, just like GSM. >AMPS 800 Mhz has no distance limitation imposed by timing issues, Likewise CDMA. >but >practically speaking you're looking at around 70 miles (flat terrain >without obstructions). Not with small low-power handsets -- only with much higher power (e.g., bag phones), and even then range is usually much less than that. >1900 Mhz requires 4x to 5x the number of base stations as 800 Mhz. Unsupported and untrue. >1900 >Mhz is also lower power than 800 Mhz, but the fact that you need more >base stations anyway, eliminates any advantage of the higher power. Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts. Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts. It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for 1900, and then only when range is limited only by power. Current small handsets don't come close to those power levels, so those maximums are meaningless. >In >urban areas, the number of base stations is determined by capacity [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >its often difficult to place enough cells in suburban areas, due to >NIMBY concerns. No additional base stations are needed for 1900 MHz. >The other issue with 1900 Mhz is that it penetrates >buildings much less well than 800 Mhz. It's not that simple. While 1900 penetrates walls less well than 800/850, it does a better job of penetrating small openings (e.g., windows). Overall the difference is usually relatively small, with 800/850 better in some buildings, 1900 better in other buildings. >In Australia, the range issue was a very big issue, and they ended up >with a CDMA system for the extended range in the vast rural areas, Contradicting what you said above. ;) >and a >GSM system for European compatibility. Now the CDMA carrier is trying to >convert the CDMA voice network over to W-CDMA. Even though W-CDMA is >primarily intended for data, nothing really stops it from being used for >voice as well, even though it isnt optimal in terms of latency. W-CDMA is actually very good in terms of latency. >I don't know why Navas continues to lie about rural coverage. It's not a >secret that rural coverage on GSM is very poor. Anyone that disagrees with you based on actual experience is a liar? Cute. Rural GSM coverage here in Northern California compares well to rural CDMA coverage (apples to apples). SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:16:23 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything: >On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:34:09 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> >chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >coverage. It's not even marked as Future coverage, meaning they have no >plans to build there eventually. I see Mr. Navas has chosen not to respond to my post. Based on his reputation as it has carried over into a.c.v in this crossposted thread, it's probably because I posted easily-verifiable facts which he can't dismiss with a simple "nonsense." Certain trolls in a.c.v accuse the rest of us of being apologists for VZW. It has become obvious to me that Navas is an apologist troll in a.c.c. SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "Hang on, Barfo, we're gonna make space tracks!" - Lone Star >On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:16:23 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great >equation of life, the universe, and everything: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>Nonsense yourself. Take a look at Iowa. Take a look at other areas. One carrier may be better in one area, whereas another carrier may be better in another area. You can't generalize from just one area. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't > stay in one little spot -- just the opposite. And others have poor coverage- what's your point? >>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or >>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to > infer it. As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience. This would disqualify you as one who can infer. >Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular > coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is > assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis: They most certainly accurately reflect the current state of affoairs- that's why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story of how not to merge in the cellular industry. > Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) > networks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > coverage is > much better than Verizon. That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was opinion. No facts- no analysis. You'll have to do better than that. >>>John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little >>>isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >And others have poor coverage- what's your point? Just what I wrote, no more and no less. What part of that don't you understand? >>>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or >>>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience. >This would disqualify you as one who can infer. We'll just have to agree to disagree (as usual). >> Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular >> coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story of >how not to merge in the cellular industry. Nonsense. >> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) >> networks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> coverage is >> much better than Verizon. >That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was >opinion. No facts- no analysis. > >You'll have to do better than that. I did. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or >>>>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > We'll just have to agree to disagree (as usual). No we don't- you just need to provide some independent data to support your opinions. Problem is, you won't find any. >>> Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular >>> coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Nonsense. Not nonsense at all- they alienated almost half of their new subscriber base by charging additional unnecessary fees to have full network functionality and coverage available to them. Their customer satisfaction numbers have plummeted and their net adds pale in comparison to the competition. I haven't looked at churn numbers, but I would expect to see the highest in the industry. Even with two different paltforms to service, I'd be willing to be that the new Sprint has very few (if any) of these growing pains and shows a much better pattern of customer satisfaction and synergy at the same point in their merger. They are already showing much stronger finanacials. >>> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) >>> networks [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I did. Where? In another newsgroup? You sure didn't do it here. > No we don't- you just need to provide some independent data to support your > opinions. Problem is, you won't find any. Navas never has any data. That's his mode of operation. > Not nonsense at all- they alienated almost half of their new subscriber base > by charging additional unnecessary fees to have full network functionality > and coverage available to them. Their customer satisfaction numbers have > plummeted and their net adds pale in comparison to the competition. I > haven't looked at churn numbers, but I would expect to see the highest in > the industry. To be fair, it is not totally Cingular's fault that their numbers are so bad since the acquisition of AT&T. AT&T Wireless totally bungled the GSM conversion and WNP and there are several news stories that reported that if not for these two occurrences they would not have been acquired, in fact it well might have gone the other way. Cingular did make it worse by screwing existing AT&T customers when they wanted to convert fully to Cingular's network. It is just bad management. What on earth were they thinking, "let's help the net additions of T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon? It may seem like Cingular totally bungled the acquisition, but without much imagination, there are ways that they could have done it a lot worse. > To be fair, it is not totally Cingular's fault that their numbers are so > bad since the acquisition of AT&T. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It may seem like Cingular totally bungled the acquisition, but without > much imagination, there are ways that they could have done it a lot worse. I'm not saying that they bungled the acquisition- the purchase was the best thing they could hope for. However, as you have just stated, their actions since the acquisition have been anything but good for business. By the middle of 2008 they could be the #3 carrier and certainly #2 sometime next year. Sprint, even with two totally different platforms, might have the best chance of the big three- they are treating network swaps like a simple rate plan change and seem to have a concise plan for high-speed wireless data deployment, CDMA buildout and sunsetting the iDen network. In fact, once they consolidate billing systems, the dual networks become a total non-issue. Cingular is quickly becoming a joke. > I'm not saying that they bungled the acquisition- the purchase was the best > thing they could hope for. However, as you have just stated, their actions > since the acquisition have been anything but good for business. By the > middle of 2008 they could be the #3 carrier and certainly #2 sometime next > year. Yeah, I didn't realize just how close Sprint-Nextel is to Verizon and Cingular, and Sprint-Nextel is also adding subscribers at a much higher rate than Cingular. A lot may depend on whether or not Cingular can steal away many PTT customers from Sprint/Nextel. It's possible that Nextel subscribers can be persuaded to wait for Sprint's PTT product. > Cingular is quickly becoming a joke. Since most people don't pay any attention to J.D. Power or Consumer Reports, I wonder why it is that Cingular is doing so poorly in terms of net additions. I know that in the west, Cingular is still hurting over its reputation from all the problems a couple of years ago, but the rest of the country didn't experience the same thing AFAIK. >> I'm not saying that they bungled the acquisition- the purchase was the >> best thing they could hope for. However, as you have just stated, their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > away many PTT customers from Sprint/Nextel. It's possible that Nextel > subscribers can be persuaded to wait for Sprint's PTT product. Not likely, as you would need a mass migration to make it effective and with rumors of a dual mode phone later next year, there could be some pretty interesting incentives to stick around. Pricing is also a concern ofr Cingular- Sprint rolls it into many plans, it will be an add-on for Cingular Also, I really don't think that anybody can make a bnig splash in this area at this point- does the average cellular consumer really give a crap about this? I don't think so. >> Cingular is quickly becoming a joke. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reputation from all the problems a couple of years ago, but the rest of > the country didn't experience the same thing AFAIK. I haven't looked at their numbers in a while, but churn could be the answer. Last time I looked, they were significantly higher than Verizon and Sprint. A difference of a few tenths of a percent is all it would take. And while most people don't look at the survey numbers, the numbers do indicate how most feel. I don't put a lot of faith in the some of the surveys myself, but it is clear that such a dropin a particular can not go unnoticed. > I haven't looked at their numbers in a while, but churn could be the answer. > Last time I looked, they were significantly higher than Verizon and Sprint. > A difference of a few tenths of a percent is all it would take. Yes, Cingular churn is much higher than Sprint or Verizon, but it's much lower than T-Mobile. This means that the gross additions of T-Mobile must be very high, to offset the churn. I think the fact that T-Mobile has a much better prepaid plan than any of the other carriers must really be helping them. >> I haven't looked at their numbers in a while, but churn could be the >> answer. Last time I looked, they were significantly higher than Verizon [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > much better prepaid plan than any of the other carriers must really be > helping them. Cheap postpay plans and very strong prepaid. But you're also talking about a third of the subscriber base of Cingular as well- bigger percentage is still fewer subscribers to replace. >> No we don't- you just need to provide some independent data to support your >> opinions. Problem is, you won't find any. > >Navas never has any data. That's his mode of operation. You're projecting. ;) >> Not nonsense at all- they alienated almost half of their new subscriber base >> by charging additional unnecessary fees to have full network functionality [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >It may seem like Cingular totally bungled the acquisition, but without >much imagination, there are ways that they could have done it a lot worse. It's actually gone remarkably well. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > You're projecting. ;) No- I'm stating fact. I have Google archives to back me up. >>It may seem like Cingular totally bungled the acquisition, but without >>much imagination, there are ways that they could have done it a lot worse. > > It's actually gone remarkably well. It's actually gone quite badly for former ATTW customers. They are being treated like second class customers. > It's actually gone quite badly for former ATTW customers. They are being > treated like second class customers. Well Cingular really cares about ARPU, churn, net additions, and profit, they don't really care about what customers think about them, other than in relation to how it affects the key business indicators. ARPU, churn, and net additions have been very poor since the merger, but you really don't know if they would have been any better had their been no merger. AT&T had high ARPU, but they also had high churn and they were losing more customers than they were getting through new sign-ups, something that's been pretty rare among carriers thus far. It's hard to figure out the financials, because you have to somehow factor in the price that Cingular paid for AT&T Wireless. Cingular paid approximately $1,850 per AT&T subscriber. Remember that AT&T was in big trouble, hemorrhaging customers prior to the acquisition, due to their botched GSM conversion, and their botched WNP implementation. So you can't really put all the blame on Cingular for how poorly the acquisition appears to have been managed. Again, without much imagination, there are ways that Cingular could have done it a lot worse. But the way that Cingular treated the former AT&T customers seems counter-intuitive when you're trying to reduce churn. Since growth is slowing, it's very conceivable that we'll soon see carriers being unable to even break even in terms of gross additions offsetting churn. It's a virtual certainty that Verizon will pass Cingular as the carrier with the most subscribers, sometime in 2006, and Sprint may pass Cingular as well, sometime in 2007, if current trends continue. >> It's actually gone quite badly for former ATTW customers. They are being >> treated like second class customers. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >It's hard to figure out the financials, ... Not if you know how to read them. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Not if you know how to read them. Well, then let me address them once again- they had the third best quarter of the big three. Net adds, net income per subscriber, total revenue and churn were all below the competition. And John- you claimed they had a great quarter- the only person to do so. If you would like, I'd be glad to repost the finanacial analysis I did earlier that showed with their own numbers (facts) that they had a horrible quarter when compared to the competition. Of course, you fled from the thread the last time I did post it- why would expect anything different this time. Steve- you mentioned the acquisition of ATTW when comparing financials- the merger is far enough in the past to have no effect on the balance sheet. The only reason it does is because of th eway the comapny has handled its customers. verizon may some time have more subscribers than cingular, but that will become more difficult starting in Jan when RadioShack stops selling verizon and starts selling cingular. >> You're projecting. ;) > >No- I'm stating fact. I have Google archives to back me up. Empty claim. >>>It may seem like Cingular totally bungled the acquisition, but without >>>much imagination, there are ways that they could have done it a lot worse. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It's actually gone quite badly for former ATTW customers. They are being >treated like second class customers. We'll just the agree to disagree. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Empty claim. Empty claim? A quick search of the archives using your name shows opinion after opinion- facts are a rarity. Don't believe me? Take your own advice- Google is your friend. >>>>It may seem like Cingular totally bungled the acquisition, but without >>>>much imagination, there are ways that they could have done it a lot [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We'll just the agree to disagree. No, we won't- their financial numbers speak for themselves. Churn is higher than the competition and customers are fleeing almost as quickly as they did during the ATTW GSM migration. By this time next year Cingular could be the number three carrier and certainly won't be number one. > John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little > isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of > one doesn't count. ; - ) The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now, just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate and unbiased. At the time of the Consumer Checkbook poll, AT&T was still TDMA/AMPS and did very well. What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage, Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin. >The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now, >just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate >and unbiased. Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others. >What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay >Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or >AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often >not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage, >Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon. No they don't. --Mike > No they don't. > > --Mike Mike, why do you even respond? "You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up the facts." Eric Hauser, former press Secretary to Bill Bradley >> No they don't. >Mike, why do you even respond? Probably because he's more mature than you are. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others. True, but statements made in the articles accompanying the last three cellular surveys show an alarming lack of knowledge in cellular technology and business practices. They don't do cellular very well. >>What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay >>Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon. You have no proof, do you? >>Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a >>rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon. > >John you keep on saying that, but other than your personal >observations, what data can you point to? Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is to infer it. Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange SIMs (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best coverage currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which is assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis: Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell). Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available. In fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM coverage is much better than Verizon, including many spots here in the Tri-Valley East Bay. If you do some checking with Google Groups, you'll see that Steven has a personal vendetta against GSM based just on a coverage problem at his wife's workplace that really pissed him off. Since then, even though he's now on Verizon, he lurks here to keep beating his anti-GSM drum. My guess is that in addition to having an axe to grind he craves attention and/or validation of his switch to Verizon. You'll also find that I've documented objective examples of clear bias, and that I have no technology bias -- I've consistently stated that CDMA and GSM are comparably capable technologies. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Thanks for the clarification John. BTW, I recall your many appearances on TechTV; nice to have you here. Regards, A_C >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >examples of clear bias, and that I have no technology bias -- I've >consistently stated that CDMA and GSM are comparably capable technologies. > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > technology bias -- I've consistently stated that CDMA and > GSM are comparably capable technologies. Hmmm. I have no bias against GSM. I do have a personal vendetta against Cingular. Mine resulted from a lack of coverage at work and at home and the ETF. I probably would have only been disappointed until I got the same line from 2 different CSRs and one supervisor. (keep in mind I'm in Silicon Valley). "Do you have a lot of electrical equipment like PCs in your office building? Electrical equipment can interfere with the phone signal." and to address the other end "My phone doesn't work at my house either"... -Quick > Hmmm. I have no bias against GSM. I do have a personal > vendetta against Cingular. Mine resulted from a lack of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > address the other end "My phone doesn't work at my > house either"... When I canceled my Cingular service they were much more honest. I am also in Silicon Valley. I got the whole story about how AT&T and Verizon had been around much longer, and had had more time to install more cell sites than Cingular, and how they were working to improve coverage. Left unsaid by them, were the facts about the inherent advantages of 800 Mhz versus 1900 Mhz PCS in terms of both the number of sites required, and the penetration into buildings. But the bottom line was that in a very urban part of Silicon Valley, I had no coverage at home, and my wife had no coverage at work. I couldn't wait for them to catch up to the other carriers. At the time, they also had severe capacity issues, due to over-selling of their network through very attractive promotions. The acquisition of AT&T was especially good for Cingular in the west, where they didn't have any 800 Mhz spectrum. Coverage is much improved now, though the lack of AMPS on most GSM phones hurts coverage in remote areas of the Bay Area, as well as in places where AMPS is the only service available. I've been in some suburbs of the Bay Area, where the ONLY coverage was AMPS, and it only worked outside! This is out in Contra Costa county in Moraga. People from the neighborhood would drive down to the high school and park in the lot to use their cell phones. Of course these same people were probably fighting any cell sites in their area, while at the same time complaining about lack of coverage. >... I am >also in Silicon Valley. I got the whole story about how AT&T and Verizon >had been around much longer, and had had more time to install more cell >sites than Cingular, and how they were working to improve coverage. Left >unsaid by them, were the facts about the inherent advantages of 800 Mhz >versus 1900 Mhz PCS in terms of both the number of sites required, Urban myth. >and >the penetration into buildings. It's not that simple: While 1900 penetrates walls less well than 800/850, it does a better job of penetrating small openings (e.g., windows). In general the difference tends to be relatively small. >But the bottom line was that in a very >urban part of Silicon Valley, I had no coverage at home, and my wife had >no coverage at work. And there we have it -- the reason for your vendetta. >The acquisition of AT&T was especially good for Cingular in the west, >where they didn't have any 800 Mhz spectrum. Coverage is much improved >now, On 1900, not 800. Yet another clueless claim. >though the lack of AMPS on most GSM phones hurts coverage in remote >areas of the Bay Area, as well as in places where AMPS is the only >service available. Not really. But then you're on Verizon, so that's why you don't know how good the GSM coverage is. >I've been in some suburbs of the Bay Area, where the ONLY coverage was >AMPS, and it only worked outside! This is out in Contra Costa county in >Moraga. People from the neighborhood would drive down to the high school >and park in the lot to use their cell phones. Of course these same >people were probably fighting any cell sites in their area, while at the >same time complaining about lack of coverage. Rubbish. There is actually good GSM coverage there. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> PCS also reflects to fill in shadows better. > Hmmm. I have no bias against GSM. I do have a personal > vendetta against Cingular. Mine resulted from a lack of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Quick What a bunch of BS. (what the CSRs and supervisor told you). I've carried various makes/models of GSM phones on Cingular. I service computer networks. Not once have I seen a GSM phone that would lose signal because of electrical equipment, and I was often using GSM handsets near several running computers, some of which had the cases open. (ie MAXIMUM RF leakage) Ironically, our new Verizon LG VX5200 (CDMA?) handsets will lose signal if my wife's computer is turned on (if the handset is in the same room). Just THAT computer (homebuilt, 3GHz P4, 1Gig RAM, Geforce 6600 graphics . . . nothing unusual for a non-gaming system) . So I've seen that it can happen with CDMA handsets. But GSM handsets are not bothered at all by the same computer that will cripple the CDMA handsets. Not sure what it is about my wife's computer that is causing the VX5200 to lose signal, but I've deliberately tested the VX5200 near several other running computer systems, and it works just fine. -Dave >> Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a >> rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon. > > John you keep on saying that, but other than your personal > observations, what data can you point to? If you look at all the surveys, by all the companies that do surveys, Verizon has always been top-rated in terms of coverage. Cingular was dead last until T-Mobile came along. > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are > roughly the same. Shown with what? Your unprofessional, uncontrolled basic user "tests" that fall far short of even the most basic industry test? Your opinion as nothing more than a common user does not substitute for real numbers. >>This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In >>the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a > rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon. Quit whining. >>>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses >>>spectrum more efficiently. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Shown with what? ... Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about. Your own little user tests are far from authoritative. > Your own little user tests are far from authoritative. Every study, both on the technical and business side, has touted the advantages of CDMA in terms of spectral efficiency. For example, Business Week wrote, regarding the merger of AT&T Wireless and Cingular, "Verizon's 39.7% cash-flow margins are already 74% higher than those of Cingular and AT&T Wireless. Verizon can produce such fat margins because it has an efficient network that enables it to add network capacity without incurring huge costs. A first-rate network has helped Verizon lure customers at an impressive rate -- the 1.5 million net new subscribers added in the fourth quarter last year were twice the 770,000 won by Cingular and AT&T Wireless." Also, while Cingular has tried, in their advertising, to make much of the fact that they now have the largest number of subscribers in the U.S., this will not last long if the current trends of net additions continues. (1000's) 3Q 2005 Verizon: 49,291 with 1,918 additions, churn 1.3% Cingular: 52,300 867 additions, churn 2.3%, churn 1.2% 2Q 2005 Verizon: 47,373 with 1,921 additions, Cingular: 51,442 with around 1 million additions (Cingular revised their total subscriber number downward for 2Q, but didn't state if the reason was less additions than originally reported, or if it was due to some other error). In any case, Verizon is only 3 million subscribers below Cingular, but is adding around 1 million more new subscribers per quarter than Cingular. So by the second or third quarter of 2006, Verizon will likely once again be in the lead. Cingular is really hurt by their very high churn rate. While who is first or second doesn't mean much when they are so close, it does help in marketing and advertising because of free in-network calling. Subscribers want to be on a network where they can choose a plan with less peak minutes because they can make most of their calls in-network. It's no accident that CDMA is the leading digital network in the U.S., with far more users than GSM. >> Your own little user tests are far from authoritative. > >Every study, both on the technical and business side, has touted the >advantages of CDMA in terms of spectral efficiency. [sigh] Here we go again. The facts: CDMA with EVRC: up to 156 Erlangs per sector GSM with AMR: 142 Erlangs SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [sigh] Here we go again. The facts: > > CDMA with EVRC: up to 156 Erlangs per sector > GSM with AMR: 142 Erlangs Link please. >> [sigh] Here we go again. The facts: >> >> CDMA with EVRC: up to 156 Erlangs per sector >> GSM with AMR: 142 Erlangs > >Link please. "Google is your friend." SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > "Google is your friend." Sorry- you've already been proven unintelligent in this thread (with links and facts). You now need to back up your outrageous and often false claims with facts. Somewhere around Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:26:55 GMT, while reading alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>: >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about. How about: http://wbt.sys-con.com/read/41168.htm "Spectral efficiency is another important factor when considering the relative advantages of potential evolutionary pathways. While some have questioned the spectral efficiency performance of GSM/EDGE as compared to CDMA2000, in fact the introduction of GSM features such as adaptive multirate codec, frequency hopping, and automated planning have virtually eliminated any practical differences in spectral performance." May not be the last word, but it seems authoritative, judging from all the big words. :) SignatureMarty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx >May not be the last word, but it seems authoritative, judging from all the >big words. :) The big words are what gives me pause... A_C > How about: > http://wbt.sys-con.com/read/41168.htm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > May not be the last word, but it seems authoritative, judging from all the > big words. :) This sort of tripe has been circulating for a while. Look at the source! Yes, you _could_ equip all GSM phones with an adaptive rate CODEC that traded off voice quality for bandwidth, if you of course re-did your GSM network to work with these CODECs. Ditto for all the other tweak |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message