Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Confused: San Francisco coverage

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Darth Jeff - 06 Mar 2007 00:59 GMT
I am Verizon subscriber who is considering moving to Cingular. I
realize coverage between any carrier is different, and depends on the
user and where he lives. I have been hearing the Cingular is really
trying to build their network out to match Verizon. From reading both
newsgroups some questions:

1. Does the claim that Verizon has superior coverage include AMPs?
Because I would assume when AMPs gets turned off, or if I move off my
tri-mode phone(I am always in digital areas) that the coverage between
the two carriers may be more equal? Am I off-base here?

2. I am always seeing some flamewar about no Cingular coverage in San
Francisco. Cingular's coverage map seems to have it covered. So I am
confused there.
John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 01:47 GMT
>I am Verizon subscriber who is considering moving to Cingular. I
>realize coverage between any carrier is different, and depends on the
>user and where he lives.

Indeed.

>I have been hearing the Cingular is really
>trying to build their network out to match Verizon. From reading both
>newsgroups some questions:
>
>1. Does the claim that Verizon has superior coverage include AMPs?

Depends on who is making the claim, but often yes.

>Because I would assume when AMPs gets turned off, or if I move off my
>tri-mode phone(I am always in digital areas) that the coverage between
>the two carriers may be more equal? Am I off-base here?

No, you are correct.

>2. I am always seeing some flamewar about no Cingular coverage in San
>Francisco. Cingular's coverage map seems to have it covered. So I am
>confused there.

These flames are from Verizon trolls.  Cingular actually has very good
coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area, arguably the best of any
carrier, although coverage with any carrier can and does vary by area,
so you should check out the coverage in areas you care about.  Cingular
has quite detailed coverage maps available, but I still think it's a
good idea to actually test the coverage before making the commitment,
ideally during the free trial period while leaving your Verizon coverage
intact.

Signature

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

Kurt - 06 Mar 2007 02:02 GMT
> >I am Verizon subscriber who is considering moving to Cingular. I
> >realize coverage between any carrier is different, and depends on the
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> ideally during the free trial period while leaving your Verizon coverage
> intact.

Yes, because as I discovered recently, the Cingular coverage map for the
Sequoias was pretty much a joke.

Signature

To reply by email, remove the word "space"

John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 02:10 GMT
>> >I am Verizon subscriber who is considering moving to Cingular. I
>> >realize coverage between any carrier is different, and depends on the
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>Yes, because as I discovered recently, the Cingular coverage map for the
>Sequoias was pretty much a joke.

I've found it to be pretty good (albeit not perfect) in the several
areas I've checked here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Signature

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

Kurt - 06 Mar 2007 03:16 GMT
> >> >I am Verizon subscriber who is considering moving to Cingular. I
> >> >realize coverage between any carrier is different, and depends on the
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> I've found it to be pretty good (albeit not perfect) in the several
> areas I've checked here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I travel a bit more, so my impressions might be different from yours.

Signature

To reply by email, remove the word "space"

John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 04:27 GMT
>> I've found it to be pretty good (albeit not perfect) in the several
>> areas I've checked here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

>I travel a bit more, so my impressions might be different from yours.

Fair enough.  I travel too, but I care most about coverage in places
I use everyday, and I don't expect as much accuracy in rural areas.
Different strokes and all that sort of thing?  ;)

Signature

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

Todd Allcock - 06 Mar 2007 05:51 GMT
> Fair enough.  I travel too, but I care most about coverage in places
> I use everyday, and I don't expect as much accuracy in rural areas.
> Different strokes and all that sort of thing?  ;)

Have you noticed the Cingular map becoming more "generous" in your area
lately?  It has in mine.

When the street-level detail maps first went on-line, they reported the
Cingular dead spots in my area that I was familiar with with a great deal
of accuracy.  Today on the maps, these dead-spots now show as having
"moderate" coverage although nothing seems to have changed in reality-
those dead spots (including the cul-de-sac I live on) are still dead
spots!
John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 06:27 GMT
>> Fair enough.  I travel too, but I care most about coverage in places
>> I use everyday, and I don't expect as much accuracy in rural areas.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>those dead spots (including the cul-de-sac I live on) are still dead
>spots!

I hadn't noticed anything like that -- I'll do some checking -- thanks!

Signature

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

SMS - 06 Mar 2007 16:20 GMT
>> Fair enough.  I travel too, but I care most about coverage in places
>> I use everyday, and I don't expect as much accuracy in rural areas.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> those dead spots (including the cul-de-sac I live on) are still dead
> spots!

It's not good for business to be honest about your products faults!

OTOH, T-Mobile continues to be very honest about their network's coverage.
Todd Allcock - 06 Mar 2007 18:56 GMT
> It's not good for business to be honest about your products faults!
>
> OTOH, T-Mobile continues to be very honest about their network's
> coverage.

True, but my point was that the Cingular maps were more accurate for my
area until recently- if anything, they were understated.  I wonder if
they've changed their algorhythms too far in the other direction in an
attempt to be more accurate.  I honestly don't believe they're trying to
"snow-job" us with their coverge maps.  I was a Cingular customer for a
decade in Kansas City prior to moving to Denver, and found their CS to be
pretty honest about coverage issues even then.
SMS - 06 Mar 2007 20:12 GMT
>> It's not good for business to be honest about your products faults!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> decade in Kansas City prior to moving to Denver, and found their CS to be
> pretty honest about coverage issues even then.

When I had Cingular CS was very honest about coverage issues. The online
maps are more of a marketing tool, where it may not pay to be
excessively honest.
John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 20:34 GMT
>>> It's not good for business to be honest about your products faults!
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>maps are more of a marketing tool, where it may not pay to be
>excessively honest.

Yet another of your fantasies/fabrications: Online coverage maps are
actually covered by consent decrees, and thus must be accurate.

Signature

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

Kurt - 07 Mar 2007 02:52 GMT
> >>> It's not good for business to be honest about your products faults!
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Yet another of your fantasies/fabrications: Online coverage maps are
> actually covered by consent decrees, and thus must be accurate.

Not from my experience. Why not admit that they now may not be as
accurate as they purport?
What's the BFD?

Signature

To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Todd Allcock - 06 Mar 2007 20:51 GMT
> When I had Cingular CS was very honest about coverage issues. The
> online maps are more of a marketing tool, where it may not pay to be
>excessively honest.

I don't necessarily see stret-level detail maps as a marketing tool.
Vague Verizon-style area maps, with too low a resolution to show small
gaps in coverage, are marketing tools.  Marketing types deal with
"strongest network" and "fewest dropped calls"- not "look, you'll have
two bars on the corner of Industrial and Rio..."

In fact, the Cingular maps have been so accurate up until recently, when
I saw that my neighborhood was now "covered"  I immediately fired up the
network search on my phones to find the signal, but failed to find it.
(I was also curious to see if the network ID was Orange or Blue since my
market is an old ATTWS one!)
John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 21:20 GMT
>(I was also curious to see if the network ID was Orange or Blue since my
>market is an old ATTWS one!)

Network integration is now largely complete.

Signature

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

Todd Allcock - 06 Mar 2007 22:32 GMT
> Network integration is now largely complete.

So all of the old 'blue' areas are 310-380 now?

Thanks for the info...
John Navas - 07 Mar 2007 06:09 GMT
>> Network integration is now largely complete.
>
>So all of the old 'blue' areas are 310-380 now?

That I don't know.

Signature

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

Kurt - 06 Mar 2007 16:10 GMT
> >> I've found it to be pretty good (albeit not perfect) in the several
> >> areas I've checked here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I use everyday, and I don't expect as much accuracy in rural areas.
> Different strokes and all that sort of thing?  ;)

No, just disappointed with the Cingular map. Was hoping it would be more
accurate.

Signature

To reply by email, remove the word "space"

SMS - 06 Mar 2007 15:11 GMT
> I am Verizon subscriber who is considering moving to Cingular. I
> realize coverage between any carrier is different, and depends on the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> 1. Does the claim that Verizon has superior coverage include AMPs?

It's unclear if Verizon's claim of "Most Reliable Network" includes
AMPS, but since they started making that claim back when most of their
handsets were tri-mode, I would think that it does.

Since the Consumer Reports and J.D. Power surveys are done every year,
and the number of AMPS handsets has been steadily decreasing, it's safe
to say that AMPS didn't play a huge part in the survey results. In some
cities there weren't big differences between carriers, but in the San
Francisco Bay Area, Verizon was rated far better than Cingular, and has
been leading them every year. It was believed that following the merger
with AT&T Wireless that Cingular would improve in its results, but
surprisingly this hasn't happened.

If the survey respondents were like me, and often travel to the nether
regions of the Bay Area and northern California, then AMPS coverage
would definitely figure into the results, though since Verizon isn't
selling many tri-mode phones anymore, AMPS was not a big factor. Of
course if they were mostly subscribers with digital-only phones, or
subscribers that never left the cities, then AMPS would not figure much
into the equation (though even in the major cities of the Bay Area there
are still areas with no digital coverage of any kind).

In the San Francisco Bay Area there are vast areas with no GSM coverage
at all, where you can get at least a Verizon AMPS signal. Of course a
lot of people never go hiking, bicycling, camping, boating, etc., and
never would know the difference.

> Because I would assume when AMPs gets turned off, or if I move off my
> tri-mode phone(I am always in digital areas) that the coverage between
> the two carriers may be more equal? Am I off-base here?

The Verizon CDMA coverage is better than the Cingular or T-Mobile GSM
coverage, but as you stated, Cingular is working on building out their
network. It seems like almost every day for the past couple of years
Cingular has issued a press release about coverage that they've added.
If you take AMPS out of the equation, Cingular will likely be close to
Verizon in the San Francisco Bay Area within a couple of years, though
due to the inherent advantages of CDMA they will never catch up.

Don't think that AMPS coverage is immediately going away the instant the
FCC allows AMPS to be turned off. In the urban areas, where there is
digital coverage, it'll be turned off, but in areas with no digital
coverage it'll stay on until Verizon can cover those areas (at least the
road areas) with digital. The roadside call boxes are all AMPS, and
these need to be converted to CDMA. There was an article a while back
stating that the spacing of call boxes would be widened at the same time
they convert to CDMA. Verizon has committed to their corporate customers
to not worsen coverage when AMPS can be turned off, but this only
applies to areas served by roads. So we'll lose a lot of coverage in
open space areas. The rural carriers will keep AMPS on because it's the
only service in vast areas of the U.S..

> 2. I am always seeing some flamewar about no Cingular coverage in San
> Francisco. Cingular's coverage map seems to have it covered. So I am
> confused there.

I haven't seen such a war. One poster continually tries to attack all
the independent surveys that show Verizon to have a wide lead over
Cingular in coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area, but this is just one
poster, with his own agenda, and no evidence to support his claims.

J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, and Bay Area Consumer Checkbook all had
surveys that ranked Verizon as far better than Cingular, and these
surveys all had very large sample sizes and extremely low margins of
error. This has also been the experience of every person that has ever
experienced both carriers.

As to moving to Cingular, only do it if you must have a single handset
and phone number to use in the U.S., and the parts of Europe and Asia
that are GSM only. In North America, CDMA service is much better than
GSM service, and Verizon's high speed data service has much better
coverage than Cingular's (Sprint also has much wider coverage with high
speed data than Cingular).

[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 15:45 GMT
>In the San Francisco Bay Area there are vast areas with no GSM coverage
>at all, where you can get at least a Verizon AMPS signal. ...

Not true, as shown by Verizon's own coverage maps, as I noted in "
Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area"
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizon/msg/d8c71beb2d9e5179?hl=en&>.

>> Because I would assume when AMPs gets turned off, or if I move off my
>> tri-mode phone(I am always in digital areas) that the coverage between
>> the two carriers may be more equal? Am I off-base here?
>
>The Verizon CDMA coverage is better than the Cingular or T-Mobile GSM
>coverage, ...

Not true -- the combined Cingular/T-Mobile network and old ATTWS network
provide the best digital coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area.

>Don't think that AMPS coverage is immediately going away the instant the
>FCC allows AMPS to be turned off. ...

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

>... In North America, CDMA service is much better than
>GSM service,

Again, simply not true -- GSM has the best digital coverage in the USA.

>and Verizon's high speed data service has much better
>coverage than Cingular's (Sprint also has much wider coverage with high
>speed data than Cingular).

Again, simply not true -- Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) has the widest high speed
coverage of any carrier, and even higher speed UMTS/HSDPA coverage is
now available in most major markets.

>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. ...

Stop.  You are badly mangling that newsgroup with these rude partial
threads, shooting yourself in the foot.

Signature

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

Dennis Ferguson - 06 Mar 2007 21:52 GMT
>> 1. Does the claim that Verizon has superior coverage include AMPs?
>
> It's unclear if Verizon's claim of "Most Reliable Network" includes
> AMPS, but since they started making that claim back when most of their
> handsets were tri-mode, I would think that it does.

I don't believe that, in the Bay area at least.  I've yet to be anywhere
in the Bay area which had *Verizon* AMPS coverage but which lacked
Verizon CDMA coverage.  It may be I've not been everywhere yet, but
I've been a lot of places so areas where Verizon has AMPS but hasn't
added CDMA must be fairly rare.

I have seen reasonably large areas, however, which have AT&T AMPS coverage
but no digital service detectable to me (no GSM at least; there might
be TDMA).  An example of this is the area in the vicinity of 94020.
You can get analog service on a Sprint phone some places here.  The
problem for Verizon users is that, unless things have changed recently,
with Verizon's current plans their phones no longer roam onto Cingular
AMPS, so a new Verizon customer gets no service here.  I lost this
coverage when I switched from Sprint to Verizon.

So I doubt that Verizon makes any claims based on AMPS coverage in
the Bay area since Verizon doesn't seem to have much AMPS-only coverage
and they don't (officially) allow roaming on Cingular AMPS, and that's
all the AMPS there is in the Bay area.

I have heard a rumor, however, that Verizon has recently started to
allow free roaming on Cingular AMPS for AC2 customers, but I've not
been places where I could test this recently.

Dennis Ferguson
SMS - 06 Mar 2007 22:50 GMT
>>> 1. Does the claim that Verizon has superior coverage include AMPs?
>> It's unclear if Verizon's claim of "Most Reliable Network" includes
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I've been a lot of places so areas where Verizon has AMPS but hasn't
> added CDMA must be fairly rare.

I could give you a list of a lot of places! Parts of Mount Tam, parts of
Big Basin, parts of Tilden park, parts of Forest of Nisene Marks state
park, areas north of Pescadero on Pescadero Road in San Mateo County,
much of Old La Honda Road, actually quite a bit of rural San Mateo County.

Verizon AMPS is widely used in the Bay Area, including for the roadside
call boxes on many of the roads.
John Navas - 06 Mar 2007 23:15 GMT
>>>> 1. Does the claim that Verizon has superior coverage include AMPs?
>>> It's unclear if Verizon's claim of "Most Reliable Network" includes
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>park, areas north of Pescadero on Pescadero Road in San Mateo County,
>much of Old La Honda Road, actually quite a bit of rural San Mateo County.

None of those are true.

>Verizon AMPS is widely used in the Bay Area, including for the roadside
>call boxes on many of the roads.

Also not true.

Signature

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

Dennis Ferguson - 06 Mar 2007 23:46 GMT
>>>> 1. Does the claim that Verizon has superior coverage include AMPs?
>>> It's unclear if Verizon's claim of "Most Reliable Network" includes
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> park, areas north of Pescadero on Pescadero Road in San Mateo County,
> much of Old La Honda Road, actually quite a bit of rural San Mateo County.

I haven't been to Mount Tam for a long time, and it was all roaming
when I had a Sprint phone.  For the Santa Cruz mountain bits, however,
the Verizon coverage map agrees with me, not you.  For AC2 the Verizon
coverage map shows no AMPS-only coverage anywhere around the big white spot
including 94020; I have personal experience that a Verizon phone on the
AC2 plan gets no AMPS coverage there either, even though I can use Verizon
AMPS anywhere it is available (tested by forcing the phone to analog
since there's always CDMA).  This area only shows roaming coverage under
AC1, or on the Sprint map, and my Sprint phone did indeed get service
in there.  That is because the AMPS towers are Cingular, not Verizon.
And if your phone is such that you are mistaking this for Verizon AMPS
I'm not sure I can trust your evaluation of the other spots you mention.

I have a friend who lives in La Honda who was an AT&T customer for
a long time, and who now has Sprint service for the above reason.  If there
are people in the Santa Cruz mountains who prefer Verizon they must
live further south, closer to Highway 9, where Verizon does have coverage.

Dennis Ferguson
SMS - 07 Mar 2007 01:26 GMT
> have a friend who lives in La Honda who was an AT&T customer for
> a long time, and who now has Sprint service for the above reason.  If there
> are people in the Santa Cruz mountains who prefer Verizon they must
> live further south, closer to Highway 9, where Verizon does have coverage.

My experience is all with AC1. I do a lot of cycling and hiking
throughout the Santa Cruz mountains, and the southern part of San Mateo
county. In many of these areas I get only AMPS coverage. I have no
handset with AC2, so I can't comment on AC2 coverage. I presume that its
Verizon AMPS and not AT&T AMPS since I've never been charged roaming,
and because I know that Verizon AMPS is used on most of the roadside
call boxes on the roads that have call boxes.

What you have to realize about coverage maps is that if the tower has
both digital and AMPS, then they will show that area as digital. However
you'll get AMPS service for a much longer distance away from the tower
than you'll get CDMA service (or GSM service for that matter).

My wife's company had been using Nextel, which was an extremely foolish
thing to do because they send their field people out to every niche and
corner of the Bay Area (though not Santa Cruz county). In fact the
nature of the business is that the rural residents are more likely to
use the service than the urban residents that could more easily come in
for service. So all the field people had to have a personal phone that
had AMPS service for the areas with no Nextel service. Sometimes the
call they needed to make was as mundane as calling the homeowner to tell
them to come out and restrain their dogs so the field person could get
out of the car! They're now switching to Verizon with the V325i,
partially for AMPS, and partially for the GPS capability, neither of
which is available on Cingular or Nextel.
John Navas - 07 Mar 2007 01:39 GMT
>What you have to realize about coverage maps is that if the tower has
>both digital and AMPS, then they will show that area as digital. However
>you'll get AMPS service for a much longer distance away from the tower
>than you'll get CDMA service (or GSM service for that matter).

What matters is handset power, not technology -- digital has as much
range as analog -- range is primarily a matter of handset power and line
of sight.

Signature

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

Dennis Ferguson - 07 Mar 2007 04:04 GMT
>> have a friend who lives in La Honda who was an AT&T customer for
>> a long time, and who now has Sprint service for the above reason.  If there
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> and because I know that Verizon AMPS is used on most of the roadside
> call boxes on the roads that have call boxes.

Yes, I remember you also saying you weren't charged for roaming
on Cingular AMPS in Florida too.  I don't know if you lead a charmed
life or if there's something wrong with my phone or PRL, but when
I've tried I got no service from Cingular AMPS on my AC2 Verizon phone
where my Sprint phone got it.  I also have a friend who I think is a
Verizon customer who told me he once had to phone 911 back there when
is phone was getting service with no bars.  He dialed 911 and the call
connected, but when he was done he said he now had an "Emergency Only"
all-bar analog signal.  The only way he could get rid of it and make the
phone search for native service again was by powering the phone
off and on.  I think his phone also didn't roam on Cingular AMPS.
I'd been assuming that anywhere Verizon (or Airtouch or PacTel)
didn't have towers the state just got AT&T (or Cellular One?) to
provide call box service instead, which might also explain why Cingular
would keep towers on that most of their customers can't use.

Note that I haven't had a phone for a while that would tell me who
the service is coming from, and my friend's use of Sprint service
doesn't necessarily prove anything since Sprint is fairly promiscuous
about roaming these days.  I know for sure that my friend used to
use AT&T service back there, even though there's no digital Cingular
service now, that I lost service in there when I moved from Sprint to AC2
Verizon, and that the Verizon AC2 coverage map has big areas of white
where AC1 (and Sprint) think (and I know) there might be analog service.
If it were all Verizon AMPS, AC1 and AC2 wouldn't be different.  I can
see no assumption that explains this better than that this is AT&T,
not Verizon, AMPS.

> What you have to realize about coverage maps is that if the tower has
> both digital and AMPS, then they will show that area as digital. However
> you'll get AMPS service for a much longer distance away from the tower
> than you'll get CDMA service (or GSM service for that matter).

This we'll probably need to disagree on, since I can't see a way it
could possibly be true.  I have a paper somewhere from people at Qualcomm
which does a theoretical analysis to find that CDMA has an 11 db Eb/No
power advantage over FM AMPS (6 db for CDMA versus 17 db for FM); that
is (assuming not much sharing of the CDMA channel to boost No) a
200 mW CDMA phone should operate over the same distance as a >2W AMPS phone.
I admit this result is convenient for Qualcomm since we've all given up
2W phones for 200 mW phones.  I also freely admit that Qualcomm has probably
made at least one other over-optimistic assertion about CDMA performance,
that FM is useable with less than perfect signal where CDMA might not be and
that I don't understand enough about the theory to critically evaluate
the assumptions which lead to 11 db.  What I can tell you with great
certainty, however, is that a 200 mW CDMA phone will always get better
distance that a 200 mW AMPS phone, which is what we're comparing here.
+11 db is a huge enough theoretical difference that there is just no way
it could actually be a negative number in real life.

You might want to consider the possibility that, when you are getting
AMPS service but have lost the digital service, that what you are seeing
isn't the longer reach AMPS but rather AMPS from a different company,
like in the Santa Cruz mountains.  Your phone seems to roam freely
to Cingular, Cingular clearly has sites with no GSM yet, and I think
your explanation disagrees with the physics.

Dennis Ferguson
SMS - 07 Mar 2007 05:01 GMT
> Yes, I remember you also saying you weren't charged for roaming
> on Cingular AMPS in Florida too.  I don't know if you lead a charmed
> life or if there's something wrong with my phone or PRL, but when
> I've tried I got no service from Cingular AMPS on my AC2 Verizon phone
> where my Sprint phone got it.

I went back and looked at the call details for the time I was out in the
Everglades and there were no roaming charges for those calls (I had
assumed there were none since the monthly charges hadn't changed, but I
had never checked the call details, and thought that maybe those calls
would be billed later). It's been three months now, so I don't think any
roaming calls are going to show up. I did some international roaming in
February, and those charges showed up right away, so they're good about
quick billing even though they claim that such calls may not appear on
the bill right away.

> I also have a friend who I think is a
> Verizon customer who told me he once had to phone 911 back there when
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> provide call box service instead, which might also explain why Cingular
> would keep towers on that most of their customers can't use.

On my old Motorola 270C I could manually switch to the alternate AMPS
network, and I'd get "American Roaming Network" and be prompted for a
credit card. When I try my old DPC550 AMPS phone, it goes to Verizon's
AMPS network, and they tell me I have no service and to contact Verizon
to set up a temporary account. So I know that both AMPS networks are
still operating in my area (of course they are because they aren't
allowed to be turned off until 2008).

> Note that I haven't had a phone for a while that would tell me who
> the service is coming from, and my friend's use of Sprint service
> doesn't necessarily prove anything since Sprint is fairly promiscuous
> about roaming these days.

Yeah, the only way I know what AMPS network I'm on is if I use an
unactivated Verizon AMPS phone and switch between A and B. One side is
Verizon, one side is ARN (but I assume that this would be AT&T if I was
using an old AT&T AMPS phone, but I don't have one.
 
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.