 |
 | 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 2004BellSouth To Divest of Cingular Interest?
It may sound crazy, but I think you will see BellSouth divest of its interest in Cingular to SBC, and buy Sprint PCS. > It may sound crazy, but I think you will see BellSouth divest of its > interest in Cingular to SBC, and buy Sprint PCS. That would be one of the stupidest things they could ever do. >It may sound crazy, but I think you will see BellSouth divest of its >interest in Cingular to SBC, and buy Sprint PCS. It does sound crazy. Not as crazy as RIMM's (Research in Motion) stock price right now, but that's another story. That is stupid. > It may sound crazy, but I think you will see BellSouth divest of its > interest in Cingular to SBC, and buy Sprint PCS. >That is stupid. ob AOL: me too >> It may sound crazy, but I think you will see BellSouth divest of its >> interest in Cingular to SBC, and buy Sprint PCS. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - add .com to reply > It may sound crazy, but I think you will see BellSouth divest of its > interest in Cingular to SBC, and buy Sprint PCS. The only way I can think of for this to happen is for BellSouth to buy Sprint FON (long distance), and to get Sprint PCS as well. They don't have separate stock yet, do they? BLS has walked away from T again. BellSouth International does run some CDMA in South America. John C. If they did that it would go a long way toward explaining some of the decisions made since the "merger". (doh!) Mark > It may sound crazy, but I think you will see BellSouth divest of its > interest in Cingular to SBC, and buy Sprint PCS. BellSouth is supposedly unhappy in Cingular, it being dominated by SBC. Plus, let's face it- GSM just does not have the coverage in the US. Even though Sprint's coverage is as bad as Cingular's (i.e., mostly along majort highways and in cities), the CDMA of Sprint would give BellSouth many more choices for other carriers for roaming agreements. > If they did that it would go a long way toward explaining some of the > decisions made since the "merger". (doh!) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/2003 >BellSouth is supposedly unhappy in Cingular, it being dominated by SBC. >Plus, let's face it- GSM just does not have the coverage in the US. Even >though Sprint's coverage is as bad as Cingular's (i.e., mostly along majort >highways and in cities), the CDMA of Sprint would give BellSouth many more >choices for other carriers for roaming agreements. And just how are you privy to this information? Why is it that this information is not in any press or other release from anyone? If you have a source please state it. Otherwise you are just rumormongering. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - add .com to reply Bell South started off as a minority partner, I can't imagine how they could have imagined it otherwise. From a nationwide perspective, Cingular's coverage is about the same as Verizon's....both are fully matured 850 MHz carriers. Cingular is both 1900 and 850, many GSM phones will swap bands as the situation requires. Sprint was a 1900 MHz-only "PCS" carrier, their coverage was mostly urban areas and highways. Since Sprint's FCC license doesn't allow them to run in the 850 band, they will never match Verizon or Cingular for coverage. Ditto for T-Mobile, which was probably a factor in their decision to go to war with Cingular recently in the NY market (very stupid executive decision-Cingular could easily buy T-Mob, axe the naughty and gain more TDMA/GSM licensing spectrum in the process). Cingular's running GSM on both 1900 and overflows to 850, so without knowing what band the poster's calls "set up" on he won't have an accurate picture of coverage. Local coverage may vary somewhat from tower locations, controlled largely by terrain, subscriber density and zoning. >>BellSouth is supposedly unhappy in Cingular, it being dominated by SBC. >>Plus, let's face it- GSM just does not have the coverage in the US. Even [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > add .com to reply 1. Minority partner going in- People go in with great expectations. "Marry in haste, regret at leisure." 2. Cingular network equivalent to Verizon- You have got to be kidding. A Cingular phone might as well be a brick in large parts of the country. Verizon's network and coverage is infinitely superior to Cingular's. > Bell South started off as a minority partner, I can't imagine how they could > have imagined it otherwise. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > add .com to reply >2. Cingular network equivalent to Verizon- You have got to be kidding. A >Cingular phone might as well be a brick in large parts of the country. >Verizon's network and coverage is infinitely superior to Cingular's. You have a point -- Cingular is actually a little better. Verizon has the same equipement they've been strapped with since the early 90's, Cingular had to revamp & standardized when they went public around 2000. That's a big reason why Verizon suffers from call latency problems. If you get in an objective mood, do a little research where Cingular came from. It's a consolidation of nearly all the "A" band 850 carriers nationwide. Also, there are online coverage charts. See for yourself. No carrier covers 100% of the continental US. Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and equipment being "older" for Verizon, all you have to do is look at consumer satisfaction surveys and look at problems with dropped calls, busy networks, etc. and Verizon is far better than Cingular in most areas of the country. I had Cingular in the Carolinas in its GSM variety and suffered repeatedly throughout the region from dropped calls and busy networks. I have only once, literally, had this problem with Verizon, and I have used it all over the country. As to the cellular spectrum Cingular has that you refer to so, so what? So does Verizon have 850MHz spectrum, along with 1900 MHz PCS spectrum. I do, however, agree that 850MHz is generally preferable due to its better ability to penetrate buildings. As to GSM technology that Cingular has, versus the CDMA of Verizon, I know many devotees on both sides can eloquently argue for one or the other. However, I personally believe CDMA is superior and provides the best upgrade path for carriers in the future to true 3G. It is no mystery that many GSM carriers are going to wCDMA to meet the 3G challenge. One advantage, though, of GSM is that the standards mean different makers of equipment can all work. This is a weakness of CDMA- if you have Lucent equipment, for example, you are stuck with it, giving you less bargaining clout as the wireless provider in trying to get the best price. My criticism of both Cingular, Verizon and most other carriers is the same- poor coverage in rural areas. If you get an analog signal it is next to useless on a small wattage digital phone- meant only for the bag phones of yesterday. The one carrier that really seems to shine in rural areas is Alltel. > >2. Cingular network equivalent to Verizon- You have got to be kidding. A > >Cingular phone might as well be a brick in large parts of the country. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > nationwide. Also, there are online coverage charts. See for yourself. No > carrier covers 100% of the continental US. > I had Cingular in the Carolinas in its GSM variety and suffered repeatedly > throughout the region from dropped calls and busy networks. I have only > once, literally, had this problem with Verizon, and I have used it all over > the country. You are comparing an infant Cingular GSM system with a mature Verizon 800/1900 CDMA system. I have no doubt which system would come out better. As to the cellular spectrum Cingular has that you refer to > so, so what? So does Verizon have 850MHz spectrum, along with 1900 MHz PCS > spectrum. I do, however, agree that 850MHz is generally preferable due to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > yesterday. The one carrier that really seems to shine in rural areas is > Alltel. "Mom, I got a C in English in the 12th grade because I am still at an 8th grade reading level (Cingular). That's why I couldn't get into a good college and my classmates (Verizon), who read at a 12th grade level, did. But be patient mom, because in 4 years I will be reading at a 12th grade level and then I will be able to get an A." (But by that time Junior's classmate, Verizon, will have graduated from college and be heading to graduate school, while Junion (Cingular) will just be starting college." So what if Cingular is more in its infancy? The question is whose network is a lot better now. The answer is Verizon. I don't want to wait 5 or 10 years until Cingular gets built out. All you are doing is admitting, in effect, that Cingular's network is inferior. The reasons don't matter to the customer. The customer cares about the network now, not when or if it will get to where it should be, especially when they can get better networks elsewhere now, such as Verizon's. And the comments elsewhere here are true also- Verizon won't just sit on its laurels and do nothing while Cingular continues to work on its network. This suggests a real possibility that the gap between the two may remain for many years to come, with Cingular an also ran well into the future. > > I had Cingular in the Carolinas in its GSM variety and suffered repeatedly > > throughout the region from dropped calls and busy networks. I have only [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > yesterday. The one carrier that really seems to shine in rural areas is > > Alltel. So what, Cingular effectively employs roaming partners so that I have excellent coverage with my Nation (GAIT) Plan Nokia 6340i 500/3500 $49.99 all over the country. While driving my 18-wheeler, in some truckstops I hear on the CB "anybody got a Verizon signal?" Invariably the answers are no and I pipe in that I have great coverage on my Cingular phone. So whoever has the biggest built-out network is not necessarily going to have coverage in more (or the same) areas. I have looked at Verizon's National Single Rate map and they have less coverage out west than Cingular. Just to set the record straight, I have had no problems in North or South Carolina in the last 4 years with Cingular (started w/Ameritech) TDMA or GSM. I would never have Verizon as their national coverage is less and their prices are higher. To correct, Cingular's GSM overlay system is in it's infancy. Their (Bell South and SBC) TDMA/AMPS systems are original legacy. Awhile ago, Cingular's GSM overlay system nationwide went dead for a number of hours. It didn't affect me as my phone just went to ATTWS and I had service just as if nothing was wrong, but a lot of people were complaining that they had no service on their GSM-only phones. I think that people that get Cingular's GSM-only plans and phones are very uninformed or short-sighted. They don't realize that if they go a little bit off the beaten path, they will have useless bricks just like T-Mobile (and most GSM carriers). Chris Please respond in the newsgroup > "Mom, I got a C in English in the 12th grade because I am still at an 8th > grade reading level (Cingular). That's why I couldn't get into a good [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > gap between the two may remain for many years to come, with Cingular an also > ran well into the future. > So what, Cingular effectively employs roaming partners so that I have > excellent coverage with my Nation (GAIT) Plan Nokia 6340i 500/3500 $49.99 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Chris > Please respond in the newsgroup I regard GSM as a toy. Cingular was pretty well built out with TDMA/AMPS, but the 6430i GAIT phone is not available where I am unless you buy a $35 plan, which I think is pricey. I bought a new TDMA phone 6 months ago for $85 while they were still available as I was not going to be forece fed GSM-only horseshit by the mall rats saying TDMA would be dead in 2004. The only problem I see with your course of action, TDMA is probably going to disappear before AMPS. That is not just my opinion, many others have posted the same thing. Cingular's course of action is to change the TDMA transceivers into GSM units as demand requires. Once there is a high concentration of GSM phones, I think then they will convert the remaining TDMA users over to GSM. Hopefully by then there will be a GSM/AMPS phone to really be useful. I don't know what kind of plan you have, but $35 is not a pricey plan. Also, I see the GAIT phones free or less than $20 in many markets. I know that here in the Detroit market, you can use a GAIT on any non-GSM only plan (Superhome, Superhome Family and (GAIT) Nation Plan) at any price point. You might want to check online for you particular market as you can't trust the mall kiosks for information. GSM is not horseshit, but it's not 'the best thing since sliced bread' like some people think it is. Already many GSM carriers are looking into WCDMA, a CDMA overly for GSM that will be superior to GSM and TDMA. > I regard GSM as a toy. Cingular was pretty well built out with > TDMA/AMPS, but the 6430i GAIT phone is not available where I am unless > you buy a $35 plan, which I think is pricey. I bought a new TDMA phone 6 > months ago for $85 while they were still available as I was not going to > be forece fed GSM-only horseshit by the mall rats saying TDMA would be > dead in 2004. TDMA is required to be around until 2008, which far exceeds the life expectancy of most of our phones. I use well under 1,000 minutes a month, so $35 is pricey to me, and I have no use for GSM when the radiator hose bursts out in God's country. > The only problem I see with your course of action, TDMA is probably going to > disappear before AMPS. That is not just my opinion, many others have posted [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>be forece fed GSM-only horseshit by the mall rats saying TDMA would be >>dead in 2004. I think you confused the FCC's sunset date on AMPS when it will be re-evaluated for further continuance in 2008. This had nothing to do with TDMA. Chris Please respond in the newsgroup > TDMA is required to be around until 2008, which far exceeds the life > expectancy of most of our phones. I use well under 1,000 minutes a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >>be forece fed GSM-only horseshit by the mall rats saying TDMA would be > >>dead in 2004. > Hopefully by then there will be a GSM/AMPS phone to > really be useful. Why wouldn't a Nokia 6340i work for this?  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273 "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of what we know." -- Richard Wilbur You snipped (w/o noting-bad netiquette) the part out the message where I said this would be necessary after Cingular goes all GSM. I have a 6340i and it is not a true GSM phone with all the bells and whistles of GSM phones. It works for voice calls and voicemail (the reason I got it 10/02) and more digital connections than just a TDMA/AMPS phone. Chris Please respond in the newsgroup > > Hopefully by then there will be a GSM/AMPS phone to > > really be useful. > > Why wouldn't a Nokia 6340i work for this? I won't argue with you on the GSM being "bricks" off tghe beaten path. I do agree, though, that Verizon has a lot to improve in rural areas. What do you think or know from your trucking friends about Alltel? I hear that their coverge in rural areas of NC and SC is the best. Any thoughts on that or knowledge to the contrary. Outside of its native network, Alltel users, though, are basically roaming on Verizon under a national roaming agreement. I am interested in getting better rural coverage in the Carolinas, which is where I travel the most, so I am interested if Alltel is the ticket there. > So what, Cingular effectively employs roaming partners so that I have > excellent coverage with my Nation (GAIT) Plan Nokia 6340i 500/3500 $49.99 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > also > > ran well into the future. The only experience that I've had with Alltell is that they were Cingular's roaming partner in OH before the ATTWS roaming agreement last spring. From the Ohio line on I-75 to about 40 miles North of Dayton and on I-80 to about 50 miles West of Cleveland was Alltel AMPS. This was absolutely the WORST AMPS system in the entire country. Constant hums, buzzes and noise were the normal situation. I've used many other AMPS systems around the country and Alltel had the worst. Chris Please respond in the newsgroup > I won't argue with you on the GSM being "bricks" off tghe beaten path. I do > agree, though, that Verizon has a lot to improve in rural areas. What do you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I am interested in getting better rural coverage in the Carolinas, which is > where I travel the most, so I am interested if Alltel is the ticket there. Thanks for the input. > The only experience that I've had with Alltell is that they were Cingular's > roaming partner in OH before the ATTWS roaming agreement last spring. From [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > where I travel the most, so I am interested if Alltel is the ticket > there. > Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is > much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and equipment > being "older" for Verizon, all you have to do is look at consumer > satisfaction surveys and look at problems with dropped calls, busy networks, > etc. and Verizon is far better than Cingular in most areas of the country. Has Verizon won many JD Powers awards? > I do, however, agree that 850MHz is generally preferable due to > its better ability to penetrate buildings. And increase coverage in rural areas. > As to GSM technology that Cingular has, versus the CDMA of Verizon, I know > many devotees on both sides can eloquently argue for one or the other. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yesterday. The one carrier that really seems to shine in rural areas is > Alltel. Well if you are willing to pay double what your paying now, Im sure C and V could upgrade their systems in the rural areas. Living in the big city does have its advantages. B. > Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is > much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and equipment [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>same equipement they've been strapped with since the early 90's, Cingular >>had to revamp & standardized when they went public around 2000. That's a One thing you have to remember, being with Cingular a couple of years ago, things have changed. Cingular has been expanding, upgrading, and changing. I can bet that Verizon's network has gotten better in the past couple of years, but is it expected that Verizon will get better while ALL their competitors deteriorate? No, it's not viable. Let's try one of Verizon's ALL digital phones, that do not support AMPS. Much of Verizon's home territory, including North Dakota, digital signal is weak. In fact, when you are within 15 miles of Canada, you will generally pick up a Canadian AMPS signal before you pick up a Verizon signal. I have even seen a few places where multiple Verizon phones get "No Network" or "No Service", where I dial *228 and get the message that my Verizon Wireless feature update was unsuccessful. And besides, much of Verizon's "coverage area" is coverage provided by roaming partners. ==AD || I had Cingular in the Carolinas in its GSM variety and suffered repeatedly | throughout the region from dropped calls and busy networks. I can say from experience with both, and knowing people on both, that Cingular is far better than Verizon in the upstate of SC, especially in rural areas. > Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is > much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and equipment > being "older" for Verizon, all you have to do is look at consumer > satisfaction surveys and look at problems with dropped calls, busy networks, > etc. and Verizon is far better than Cingular in most areas of the country. You are correct that for most areas, Verizon is better, or at least equal. But in the former Pac Bell Wireless areas, Cingular is far worse. Part of the reason is that they have no 800 Mhz spectrum, part of the reason is that they came in late as a player. However there are areas where Cingular is better, specifically in areas where Verizon is at 1900 Mhz PCS only, such as south Florida and parts of Texas. The two key criteria in the selection of a carrier should be that they operate on 800 Mhz and that they offer AMPS back-up. Verizon passes this test. AT&T GSM passes this test with a GAIT phone. Cingular passes this test with a GAIT phone in some areas of the country, fails it in others unless you know how to obtain a GAIT phone in the western region (I do). The industry analysts have been saying for a couple of years that BellSouth wants out of the Cingular venture, and that should they leave, they would buy Sprint PCS. No rush, as Sprint PCS's value continues to fall. The U.S. is not Europe or Asia. The large rural expanses will not be covered by digital service for decades, so AMPS is essential if you expect to have any chance of coverage outside of urban and suburban areas. One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas, as is done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there is some hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may be years. > > Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is > > much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > by digital service for decades, so AMPS is essential if you expect to have > any chance of coverage outside of urban and suburban areas. > One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and > receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to > subsidize them for improving and putting in coverage in rural areas, as is > done in the wireline industry to do the same thing. Therefore, there is some > hope that over time rural coverage will improve, but I agree it may be > years. Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bullshit fees added to our cell phone service soon? -Dave Very good question. I hope not. > > One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and > > receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bullshit fees added > to our cell phone service soon? -Dave We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for years-don't you ever look at your bill? Chris Please respond in the newsgroup > > One thought, though. Wireless carriers are now able to apply for and > > receive universal service fund fees, which are essentially meant to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bullshit fees added > to our cell phone service soon? -Dave > We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for Nice response dickhead. > We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for Nice response dickhead. What did you do, look in the mirror? Chris > > We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for > > Nice response dickhead. > What did you do, look in the mirror? uh, good one... ... "sit on it Potsie" ?? http://www.tvland.com/shows/happydays/character5.jhtml Not true, Chris Russell. I won't stoop to calling you the same thing. Whether you pay the USF charge in your bill depends on what carrier you have and if they applied for the USF support. I don't have Cingular so I don't know what is on your bill. My carrier does not charge it because they don't get USF support. > We already pay for the fee you moron. We've been paying for it for > years-don't you ever look at your bill? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Does that mean we're going to have a whole boatload of bullshit fees added > > to our cell phone service soon? -Dave You're paying the USF fee since every carrier is required to support the USF. What carrier do you have? Every one I've go to online has a USF fee disclosure that you will be paying X% of your bill. Most break it out, but some don't-either way you are now paying it. Chris > Not true, Chris Russell. I won't stoop to calling you the same thing. > Whether you pay the USF charge in your bill depends on what carrier you have [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > added > > > to our cell phone service soon? -Dave > Oh, I know no carrier covers the entire U.S. But Cingular's coverage is > much weaker than Verizon. As to your claim about call latency and equipment [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > nationwide. Also, there are online coverage charts. See for yourself. No > > carrier covers 100% of the continental US. Where I travel in South Texas and Louisiana, you Verizon phone will be dead most of the time. Cingular GSM worked great everywhere I went last month. Sorry Dickie, I have a Nokia 6340i on a Nation (GAIT) Plan and have service all over the country in my 18-wheeler as shown on the GAIT nation map: http://onlinestore.cingular.com/html/Maps/Midwest_GreatLakes/Michigan/nation_GAI T_map_11_03.htm Just so you know, I have been in a number of truckstops around the country and I've heard on the CB: "Anybody have service on their Verizon pnone?". Every time they ask, I have good service on my 6340i (whether it is Cingular or a roaming partner). As to GSM-only phones, they are bricks just like T-Mobile phones if you get off the beaten path. Chris Please respond on Usenet in the newsgroup > 1. Minority partner going in- People go in with great expectations. "Marry > in haste, regret at leisure." > > 2. Cingular network equivalent to Verizon- You have got to be kidding. A > Cingular phone might as well be a brick in large parts of the country. > Verizon's network and coverage is infinitely superior to Cingular's. Sprint PCS has built-out their network as much as they wanted to. Now they are going to start covering the interstates better out West. With a Free & Clear America Plan (or $5 option on a regular plan) you get the same coverage as any other national plan. It will include SPCS coverage, much Verizon roaming, other CDMA 1900 and 800 roaming and AMPS (mostly in areas everybody gets AMPS only). Cingular runs on T-Mobile's system in NYC and can go tit-for-tat in CA, as T-Mobile runs on Cingular's system. Cingular can't buy T-Mobile as DT wants too much money for T-Mobile in the US (they are making too much money to sell it now). If it happened, Cingular wouldn't add a drop of TDMA-it's speculated that TDMA will disapper before AMPS. The final question is if it would get Federal anti-trust approval as much of T-Mobile's coveage dovetails Cincular's. Chris Please respond on Usenet in the newsgroup Happy Holidays! >Since Sprint's FCC license doesn't allow them to run in the 850 > band, they will never match Verizon or Cingular for coverage. Ditto for > T-Mobile, which was probably a factor in their decision to go to war with > Cingular recently in the NY market (very stupid executive decision-Cingular > could easily buy T-Mob, axe the naughty and gain more TDMA/GSM licensing > spectrum in the process). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.