New Every Two program question (long, sorry)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

My two years are up. Due to the poor digital coverage at my home, I
had been seriously considering going with another carrier, but a
couple of things have happened.

About 3 or 4 weeks ago, the signal quality improved noticeably. It's
not perfect, but it's a lot better than it was. If it holds, it would
be enough for me to stay with VZW. After all, I've been with this
carrier (through several name changes) for over 9 years. They've
always treated me well, especially at my local store.

One of the recent "Where can I find a tower?" threads got me to doing
some research. I discovered that the tower 1.75 miles from me that
was erected about three years ago has VZW hanging at the 290' mark.
It's always had two sets, The top set, according to NWC, is Cingular.
There is a tower down the road the other way that had Alltell on it,
so I was considering going with them. I had been routinely hitting
towers 10-20+ miles away, so I figured terrain was an issue. I do
live in a modest valley of sorts.

This improvement leads me to think they've finally re-adjusted an
antenna on the local tower more towards me. That's great, until
someone else bitches, it gets adjusted again, and leaves me with the
spotty service again. So just to be on the safe side, I'd like to
renew my contract for only 1 year.

My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.
32 answers Last reply
More about program question long sorry
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    > My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
    > for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
    > so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
    > sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.
    >


    New Every Two requires resigning for another 2 year agreement to get it. So
    yes, you will have to do a 2 year.


    KC
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:43:47 GMT, "_KC_" <kc@kc.com> wrote:

    >
    >> My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
    >> for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
    >> so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
    >> sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.
    >>
    >
    >
    >New Every Two requires resigning for another 2 year agreement to get it. So
    >yes, you will have to do a 2 year.

    Thanks, KC. I'll just remain month to month for now, especially since
    I have the extended warranty coverage on the 3035. That should give
    time to see if the signal strength holds, and maybe I can wrangle my
    way into speaking with a network engineer before signing on for
    another 2 year hitch.

    Now, if Kyocera would come out with some new phones for VZW. I'm not
    quite sold on the new slider yet.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:s40be0l5q6379tdltaeudbrljhv8at9khr@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:43:47 GMT, "_KC_" <kc@kc.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >> My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
    > >> for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
    > >> so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
    > >> sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >New Every Two requires resigning for another 2 year agreement to get it.
    So
    > >yes, you will have to do a 2 year.
    >
    > Thanks, KC. I'll just remain month to month for now, especially since
    > I have the extended warranty coverage on the 3035. That should give
    > time to see if the signal strength holds, and maybe I can wrangle my
    > way into speaking with a network engineer before signing on for
    > another 2 year hitch.
    >
    > Now, if Kyocera would come out with some new phones for VZW. I'm not
    > quite sold on the new slider yet.
    >


    I like the Slider, seems to be a pretty solid phone. I wouldn't carry it
    myself due to the keypad buttons being too small and close together for me.
    Other than that, I think its a neat phone.


    KC
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    news:ona9e01mfflp6q98k4samkf6ajc0rbcr4v@4ax.com:

    >
    > One of the recent "Where can I find a tower?" threads got me to doing
    > some research. I discovered that the tower 1.75 miles from me that
    > was erected about three years ago has VZW hanging at the 290' mark.
    > It's always had two sets, The top set, according to NWC, is Cingular.
    > There is a tower down the road the other way that had Alltell on it,
    > so I was considering going with them. I had been routinely hitting
    > towers 10-20+ miles away, so I figured terrain was an issue. I do
    > live in a modest valley of sorts.

    When they came up with the "digital" toyphone scam to increase revenues-
    per-square-mile, those trusty old 500' towers you used 9 years ago had to
    be scrapped, either by abandoning them completely or moving the antennas
    down from the 10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels to a
    smaller antenna with lots less gain at 150'. If you go look at the old
    towers, you'll also notice they have the goddamned panels POINTING AT THE
    GROUND specifically to prevent them from having any range beyond a mile or
    two....to that little toyphone minicell-on-a-stick, which doubles revenue-
    per-square-mile every time they put one up and point more antennas at the
    ground below the towers.

    When they do this, of course, they have to choose which neighborhoods (rich
    with lawyers and doctors) get the new minicells FIRST and which
    neighborhoods (lower classes like us) get to WAIT until they get around to
    putting up enough minicells to cover the DEAD ZONE holes created by
    pointing the antennas at the ground. Your house was, obviously, in one of
    the newly-created DEAD ZONES, until recently.

    Then they wait..........and wait.........and count the number of complaints
    they get about the new DEAD ZONES. When the data piles up, this determines
    what areas get the next round of minicells, the ones that create the
    greatest number of complaints/dropped calls/etc.

    Our efforts to create a firestorm of complaints in MY newly-created DEAD
    ZONE was rewarded with a new minicell on a shared tower with one of the PCS
    companies, about 1/2 mile from my house. Good signals, of course, returned
    to the delight of those involved in the firestorm of 611 calls. It works,
    no matter what the bullshit supporters of the company will tell you here.
    I can SHOW you ours....(c;

    >
    > This improvement leads me to think they've finally re-adjusted an
    > antenna on the local tower more towards me. That's great, until
    > someone else bitches, it gets adjusted again, and leaves me with the
    > spotty service again. So just to be on the safe side, I'd like to
    > renew my contract for only 1 year.
    >

    I doubt it. I don't know how many times you took the time to RAISE HELL
    over the denial-of-service handed you, but you must not have been
    alone....(c; They'll fill the next Black Hole with another minicell as
    soon as the complaints roll in. EVERY time you drop a call or have no
    service, CALL 611 IMMEDIATELY....it works.

    Why are you renewing your contract? You probably have a better plan than
    is now offered in the newer, tighter-assed offerings Verizon has....so why
    screw yourself out of more minutes in the older plan? My plan has 700
    minutes, unlimited n/w, all the "features" including voicemail, etc., FREE
    LONG DISTANCE that's only offered on more expensive plans, now for $39/mo.
    New contract my ass! Dangling a new toyphone with a LOWER POWERED
    TRANSMITTER in front of me that DOESN'T ROAM TO ANALOG with even LESS
    SERVICE AREA doesn't make me froth at the mouth to sign a new contract even
    if it has a DVD player with free movies on it. Neither does a GPS-equipped
    phone so the government bureaucrats can pinpoint my location within a 3
    meter circle for target acquisition, either......no thanks.

    You don't NEED a new contract if your current contract works for you. They
    won't cancel service, especially now with you being able to take your
    NUMBER PORTABILITY over to Alltel....(c; There's no contract forcing me to
    stay any more. I'll buy my own phone, at wholesale, thank you.

    Larry
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:26:58 -0000, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
    wrote:

    >If you go look at the old
    >towers, you'll also notice they have the goddamned panels POINTING AT THE
    >GROUND specifically to prevent them from having any range beyond a mile or
    >two....to that little toyphone minicell-on-a-stick

    Which should be all I need. I truly believe that when I was getting
    poor service inside my home, there was probably an excellent signal
    not more than 10-20 feet above my house. If I was on a call as I came
    down my driveway, I could almost predict the spot where the call would
    drop. The topographic maps I've looked at show a definite ridge line
    between me and the tower.

    If all stays as is, great. But you know if the fix was a panel
    realignment, it won't last forever. It'll get moved again some day.
    Considering the terrain situation and proximity of the tower, I was
    wondering if it was worth putting up a truly passive repeater system.
    I was trying to avoid the expense of a powered repeater. I don't need
    to boost my signal, I just need to redirect it down a few feet.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry is very well 'versed' in electronics and RF theory. At least analog
    RF and ham radio, etc. That is why his ad nauseam rants and endless
    campaign of mis-information are all the more pathetic.

    He knows better....


    "Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ko75bF4l6jqU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > If you haven't noticed by now, to Larry, everything in life is a
    > conspriracy designed to extract an extra dollar from him. He is one
    > ofhte leading sighters of black helicopters in usenet, and typically is
    > laughed off one newsgroup after another. It's too bad, because I think
    > at heart he really is a pretty decent guy.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    news:oJWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:

    > Bla, bla, bla....
    > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > BS rant.
    >
    > So again.....

    The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!

    The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!

    Bullshit...
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

    They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
    A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
    growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
    > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
    > news:oJWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > Bla, bla, bla....
    > > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
    > > BS rant.
    > >
    > > So again.....
    >
    > The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
    >
    > The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
    >
    > Bullshit...
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:


    >Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    >cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    >
    >HOWEVER....
    >
    >Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    >coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    >keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    >command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    >or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    >even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    >with the noise.

    This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    arrays per tower and higher tower density.

    They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.

    gerry

    --

    Personal home page - http://gogood.com

    gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:20 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    ><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    >>cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    >>
    >>HOWEVER....
    >>
    >>Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    >>coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    >>keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    >>command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    >>or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    >>even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    >>with the noise.
    >
    >This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    >increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    >arrays per tower and higher tower density.
    >
    >They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    >Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.

    Did you read the part of my post before the "HOWEVER...."?

    It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    and antennae.

    And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    transmits at full power.

    --
    David 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.
    "A bit of lusting after someone does wonders for you and is good for your
    skin." - Elizabeth Hurley
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    AMPS does have the ability to control the power levels on a phone
    Some carriers didn't use it however, but it is part of the protocol.


    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message news:2b1oe05cqjl9fuprlau9qmqtml46a4fm64@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:20 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    > add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    > >[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    > >On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    > ><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    > >>cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    > >>
    > >>HOWEVER....
    > >>
    > >>Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    > >>coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    > >>keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    > >>command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    > >>or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    > >>even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    > >>with the noise.
    > >
    > >This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    > >increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    > >arrays per tower and higher tower density.
    > >
    > >They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    > >Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.
    >
    > Did you read the part of my post before the "HOWEVER...."?
    >
    > It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    > bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    > since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    > and antennae.
    >
    > And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    > transmits at full power.
    >
    > --
    > David 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.
    > "A bit of lusting after someone does wonders for you and is good for your
    > skin." - Elizabeth Hurley
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    In article <HamdnRNshI_gR3HdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
    Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    >AMPS does have the ability to control the power levels on a phone
    >Some carriers didn't use it however, but it is part of the protocol.
    >
    >"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    >news:2b1oe05cqjl9fuprlau9qmqtml46a4fm64@4ax.com...
    >> It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    >> bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    >> since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    >> and antennae.
    >>
    >> And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    >> transmits at full power.

    A given cellular antenna covers the whole cellular band (A-side or B-side,
    anyway), and can be designed to additionally handle the PCS band (or you
    can have PCS-only antennas). There are generally separate transmit and
    receive antennas. CDMA and AMPS will be deployed on distinct channels
    on a given cellular band, so they use the same antenna. The fact that
    on some channels the modulation is analog FM, and on others is digital
    spread-spectrum, is irrelevant.

    Concerning power, I think most cellular companies used the AMPS power
    control protocol. But the transmitter is on for the entire duration of
    the call, whether you are talking or not.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:04:24 GMT, David S
    <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

    >On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:20 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    >add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    >>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    >><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    >>>cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    >>>
    >>>HOWEVER....
    >>>
    >>>Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    >>>coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    >>>keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    >>>command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    >>>or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    >>>even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    >>>with the noise.
    >>
    >>This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    >>increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    >>arrays per tower and higher tower density.
    >>
    >>They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    >>Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.
    >
    >Did you read the part of my post before the "HOWEVER...."?
    >
    >It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    >bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    >since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    >and antennae.
    >
    >And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    >transmits at full power.

    Others posted the power issue, but digital and analog DO NOT need
    different transceivers (complete) and share antennae. It's just how
    fractions of the frequency allotment (channels) are used.

    AMPS is divided into a number of channels, CDMA just uses several of these
    channels (portion of the transceiver and system's bandwidth). Only the
    modulator/demodulator methods vary. A number of channels treated as CDMA
    and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.

    gerry


    --

    Personal home page - http://gogood.com

    gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    <snip>

    > spread-spectrum, is irrelevant.
    >
    > Concerning power, I think most cellular companies used the AMPS power
    > control protocol. But the transmitter is on for the entire duration of
    > the call, whether you are talking or not.

    -->Exactly. Speaking from Verizon experience, I haven't seen any area of
    theirs, where they have not used AMPS or CDMA and not used 'power control'.
    It benefits battery life as well as sound quality of the end user(s).

    It's not like it's and "add-on" option the carriers have to buy, nor am I
    sure you can even turn it off if you wanted to.

    Scotty.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:04:24 GMT, David S
    ><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:20 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    >>add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >>
    >>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >>>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    >>><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    >>>>cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    >>>>
    >>>>HOWEVER....
    >>>>
    >>>>Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    >>>>coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    >>>>keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    >>>>command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    >>>>or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    >>>>even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    >>>>with the noise.
    >>>
    >>>This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    >>>increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    >>>arrays per tower and higher tower density.
    >>>
    >>>They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    >>>Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.
    >>
    >>Did you read the part of my post before the "HOWEVER...."?
    >>
    >>It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    >>bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    >>since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    >>and antennae.
    >>
    >>And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    >>transmits at full power.
    >
    >Others posted the power issue, but digital and analog DO NOT need
    >different transceivers (complete) and share antennae. It's just how
    >fractions of the frequency allotment (channels) are used.
    >
    >AMPS is divided into a number of channels, CDMA just uses several of these
    >channels (portion of the transceiver and system's bandwidth). Only the
    >modulator/demodulator methods vary. A number of channels treated as CDMA
    >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.

    So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    to.

    And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is better
    than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    engineered.

    --
    David 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.
    "Fate -- protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise."
    - Cdr. William Riker
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.

    New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    So when Verizon or any other Cellular company ( Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile,
    Cingular, etc. ) puts in new sites, they just keep adding sites between
    existing sites, which only improves handheld phone coverage as the sites get
    closer and closer to the user(s) and the coverage gets better and better.
    Since AMPS isn't installed in the new sites or being actively, improved, the
    perception is that AMPS is getting worse and worse when in reality, it's
    staying the same and ( insert digital protocol here such as CDMA, TDMA, GSM,
    etc ) is just adding more and more coverage and actively filling in holes
    with smaller cells. If they filled in smaller cells and used AMPS
    technology, you would see a lot of the better coverage that "digital" only
    sites are seeing now with smaller areas and more frequency reuse.

    So, your are both correct to a large degree.

    Sorry for the rambling.......... ;-)

    Scotty


    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:po9te0tnp9fd0sr1eb6iupo6uoikmeqefh@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to

    <snip>

    > >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.
    >
    > So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    > areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    > ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    > mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    > to.
    >
    > And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is
    better
    > than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    > engineered.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

    >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >
    >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    it off then, no matter what?
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    They can just turn it off no matter what.

    Scotty


    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >
    > >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >
    > >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing
    AMPS
    > >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    >
    > Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > it off then, no matter what?
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    And it will start saving them a lot of money.


    Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:

    > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    >
    > Scotty
    >
    >
    >
    > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >>>
    >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing
    >
    > AMPS
    >
    >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    >>
    >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    >>it off then, no matter what?
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Not really.
    What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    voice channels/capacity.
    There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    maintenance costs are minimal.
    Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    nowadays.

    Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    tuned.
    AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    off.
    Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    thing.

    I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    for a lot longer.
    I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.

    My .02 worth........ ;-)

    Scotty


    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:PhcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >>>
    > >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing
    > >
    > > AMPS
    > >
    > >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    > >>
    > >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > >>it off then, no matter what?
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
  21. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.


    Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:

    > Not really.
    > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    > voice channels/capacity.
    > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    > maintenance costs are minimal.
    > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    > nowadays.
    >
    > Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    > tuned.
    > AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    > Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    > off.
    > Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    > thing.
    >
    > I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    > for a lot longer.
    > I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    > the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.
    >
    > My .02 worth........ ;-)
    >
    > Scotty
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:PhcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >> And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    >>
    >>
    >>Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>They can just turn it off no matter what.
    >>>
    >>>Scotty
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    >>>news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    >>>><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >>>>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing
    >>>
    >>>AMPS
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    >>>>
    >>>>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    >>>>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    >>>>it off then, no matter what?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.

    As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    that isn't available for digital services.


    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    > may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    > that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    > It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    > Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > Not really.
    > > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    > > voice channels/capacity.
    > > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    > > maintenance costs are minimal.
    > > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    > > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    > > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    > > nowadays.
    > >
    > > Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    > > tuned.
    > > AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    > > Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    > > off.
    > > Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    > > thing.
    > >
    > > I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    > > for a lot longer.
    > > I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    > > the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.
    > >
    > > My .02 worth........ ;-)
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:PhcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > >> And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>They can just turn it off no matter what.
    > >>>
    > >>>Scotty
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > >>>news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > >>>><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >>>>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing
    > >>>
    > >>>AMPS
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > >>>>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > >>>>it off then, no matter what?
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >
    > >
  23. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> chose to add this to the great equation of life,
    the universe, and everything:

    >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >
    >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    I never said they were legally required.

    >So when Verizon or any other Cellular company ( Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile,
    >Cingular, etc. ) puts in new sites, they just keep adding sites between
    >existing sites, which only improves handheld phone coverage as the sites get
    >closer and closer to the user(s) and the coverage gets better and better.

    Right, for digital.

    >Since AMPS isn't installed in the new sites or being actively, improved, the
    >perception is that AMPS is getting worse and worse when in reality, it's
    >staying the same and ( insert digital protocol here such as CDMA, TDMA, GSM,
    >etc ) is just adding more and more coverage and actively filling in holes
    >with smaller cells. If they filled in smaller cells and used AMPS
    >technology, you would see a lot of the better coverage that "digital" only
    >sites are seeing now with smaller areas and more frequency reuse.

    But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae, and
    if Larry is right about those antennae being aimed downward to avoid
    digital overlap between towers (I know, there has to be some overlap), then
    in fact AMPS coverage *is* deteriorating, at least in terms of "toyphones"
    being able to use it.

    --
    David 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.
    "It's been so long since I made love I can't remember who gets tied up."
    - Joan Rivers
  24. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    But, IIRC, the 1.25Mhz CDMA channels don't fit perfectly into the bandwidth
    of the cellular A and B channels -- there is some left over that they might
    as well use for AMPS service.

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:31:55 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this top-post to the great
    equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.
    >
    >As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    >that isn't available for digital services.
    >
    >"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >> Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    >> may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    >> that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    >> It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    >> Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.
    >>
    >> Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >>
    >> > Not really.
    >> > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    >> > voice channels/capacity.
    >> > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    >> > maintenance costs are minimal.
    >> > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    >> > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    >> > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    >> > nowadays.

    --
    David 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.
    "[T]he fish of Vermont remain tragically vulnerable to terrorist lampreys."
    - Dave Barry
  25. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

    >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae

    They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    sticks.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    And this includes AMPS.


    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S

    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
  27. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    BZZZZZ, wrong. ;-)

    I have setup both kinds. Depends on the traffic for that site.
    Back in the 80's, there were a lot of sites in Los Angeles that were 60deg
    sector sites around heavy traffic areas.
    Wash DC is no different. Got AMPS sector/sector sites today all over. (
    receive/transmit and can also be sector/omni or omni/omni )

    Scotty


    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    > <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    > >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae
    >
    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
  28. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:08:02 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    >You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    >Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    >And this includes AMPS.

    When they went digital around here several years ago, they never
    swapped out the AMPS sticks. They put up digital panels on existing
    towers, and put up a lot more new digital only sites. The AMPS sticks
    that were here 7-8 years ago are for the most part still in place.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    The exception, definitely not the rule....
    Do you live in out in the boonies?
    Or a low cell 'traffic' area?

    And..... most all of the carriers sectorized their AMPS sites WAY
    before digital was even implemented, in most all urban areas.


    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message news:hoqaf0dg201totievnvec9mnnu68u5ja3b@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:08:02 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    > <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    >
    > >You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    > >Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    > >And this includes AMPS.
    >
    > When they went digital around here several years ago, they never
    > swapped out the AMPS sticks. They put up digital panels on existing
    > towers, and put up a lot more new digital only sites. The AMPS sticks
    > that were here 7-8 years ago are for the most part still in place.
    >
  30. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    True but they may have just left/abandoned the Omni's in place as
    well........
    Ya never know, he could be right. Maybe they only have a couple of channels
    now and an OMNI is all they need to maintain the AMPS requirement. Sounds
    kind of logical from an engineering sort of view.

    Scotty


    "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
    news:fdidna9GTodD6mjdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
    > The exception, definitely not the rule....
    > Do you live in out in the boonies?
    > Or a low cell 'traffic' area?
    >
    > And..... most all of the carriers sectorized their AMPS sites WAY
    > before digital was even implemented, in most all urban areas.
    >
    >
    > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:hoqaf0dg201totievnvec9mnnu68u5ja3b@4ax.com...
    > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:08:02 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    > > <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > >You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    > > >Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    > > >And this includes AMPS.
    > >
    > > When they went digital around here several years ago, they never
    > > swapped out the AMPS sticks. They put up digital panels on existing
    > > towers, and put up a lot more new digital only sites. The AMPS sticks
    > > that were here 7-8 years ago are for the most part still in place.
    > >
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:13:33 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    >The exception, definitely not the rule....
    >Do you live in out in the boonies?
    >Or a low cell 'traffic' area?

    I guess you could have called it a rural, low traffic area when I
    moved here in '91 and signed up with BAM in '95. But it has become
    quiter more suburban and the traffic is up greatly Most of the rural
    towers they have added around here in the past 6-7 years are digital
    only.

    >And..... most all of the carriers sectorized their AMPS sites WAY
    >before digital was even implemented, in most all urban areas.

    Then if I lived in an "urban area" I wouldn't be seeing all the AMPS
    sticks, right?
  32. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 04:43:07 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

    >True but they may have just left/abandoned the Omni's in place as
    >well........
    >Ya never know, he could be right. Maybe they only have a couple of channels
    >now and an OMNI is all they need to maintain the AMPS requirement. Sounds
    >kind of logical from an engineering sort of view.

    My guess (from repeated failed attempts to reach 911 on AMPS in
    certain spots) that there is only one or two active AMPS channels left
    around here. Where I live, I certainly get a much better digital
    signal than when I force it to AMPS. I doubt our AMPS service was
    ever sectorized.
Ask a new question

Read More

Verizon Internet Service Providers