Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Loss of analog?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 12:26:14 AM

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

If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.

Is this something I should care about?

Thanks... Paul

More about : loss analog

Anonymous
July 21, 2004 3:31:03 AM

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

Paul Simon wrote:
> If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
> it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
> and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>
> Is this something I should care about?
>
> Thanks... Paul
>
>
Well I just got a vx4500 in a insurance replacement for a trimode
vx4400, unless you travel in alot of rurual areas, you wont miss the
analog signal one bit. In L.A. county verizons anlog service is a
complete farse (btw Ive never sucessfully compleated a analog call on
verizon during the 2 hellish years with my vd4400 oops vx 4400). So it
depends were you use your phone if you a long haul trucker and deep in
middle america you might miss it but in major metro areas I seriously
doubt it
July 21, 2004 4:40:09 AM

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

Only if you want to make or receive a call where there is not digital
signal. This also includes 911 calls.

Paul Simon wrote:
> If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
> it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
> and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>
> Is this something I should care about?
>
> Thanks... Paul
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 5:10:57 AM

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

Why would not get a phone that does not have analog, then worry about it?


"Paul Simon" <psimon38@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o dCdnb7jdeS6JWDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
> it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
> and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>
> Is this something I should care about?
>
> Thanks... Paul
>
>
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 5:25:55 AM

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

StevenK wrote:
>
> Why would not get a phone that does not have analog, then worry about it?

Huh?

Notan
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 8:48:14 AM

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

The whole reason I use a CDMA tri-mode digital phone is that there is always
analog to fall back on when there is poor coverage (unlike GSM). Plus, I am
old enough to remember the old 3-watt analog bricks people used to call
"mobile" phones.


"Dave" <davids1955@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JXiLc.7348$f4.3589@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Only if you want to make or receive a call where there is not digital
> signal. This also includes 911 calls.
>
> Paul Simon wrote:
> > If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really
miss
> > it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has
it
> > and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
> >
> > Is this something I should care about?
> >
> > Thanks... Paul
> >
> >
>
July 21, 2004 12:20:18 PM

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

"Paul Simon" <psimon38@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o dCdnb7jdeS6JWDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
> it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
> and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>
> Is this something I should care about?
>
> Thanks... Paul
>
I travel mainly in the NE and I have been using a vx4500 (digital only) for
at least a month. Has your phone been used to make or receive a call while
on analog in the past year? Do you spend any time in analog only areas that
have good signal (just because you get signal from an analog site that is
eight miles away doesn't mean it can hear your phone)?
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 9:36:56 PM

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:26:14 -0400, "Paul Simon"
<psimon38@comcast.net> wrote:

>If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
>it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
>and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>
>Is this something I should care about?

It's something everyone should consider before going all digital.

You will miss it in those times/areas where your current phone goes
into AMPS mode. Generally, the major metro areas are pretty well
covered by digital. And you would be surprised how much of the
boonies are, too. If 911 access is your chief concern, then keep the
old 4400 and use it to call 911 if you cannot get a digital signal on
the new phone. 911 calls must be passed along for free, even from
deactivated phones.
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 3:04:41 AM

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

I live in a suburb of Philadelphia... I would call this a major metro area,
yet I have seen the phone go to analog!... with 4 bars! Can't figure it out.

Guess from this discussion if I fall into that mode, even rarely at home, I
should probably stick with a tri-mode. But they are getting harder to find.
Not all phones are tri-mode anymore. Is it just because they are cheaper to
make? Even if they are cheaper, since we pay for them, why should the mfgs
care! Why get rid of the analog mode?


"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:tM2dncC_VqkcwmPdRVn-oQ@adelphia.com...
>
> "Paul Simon" <psimon38@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o dCdnb7jdeS6JWDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> > If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really
miss
> > it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has
it
> > and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
> >
> > Is this something I should care about?
> >
> > Thanks... Paul
> >
> I travel mainly in the NE and I have been using a vx4500 (digital only)
for
> at least a month. Has your phone been used to make or receive a call
while
> on analog in the past year? Do you spend any time in analog only areas
that
> have good signal (just because you get signal from an analog site that is
> eight miles away doesn't mean it can hear your phone)?
>
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 5:51:07 AM

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

"Paul Simon" asked...
> If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
> it? I travel predominently along the east coast.

At the present time, I would not dream of acquiring anything other than a
tri-mode cell phone. I may feel differently in, say, two years.

I've recently been in places (last Sunday in Sanford NC, for instance) where
I had four bars of signal--analog. Period. Ditto for yesterday in and around
Wilmington NC, and along the Outer Banks. Also ditto for some parts of
Houston, Texas and several spots east of Indianopolis.

To get specific features, you might have to settle for dual-mode. Blackberry
and the Trio come to mind. However, you can substitute the K-7135, spend 15
minutes learning Graffiti, and you're in business. Yeah, no camera in the
phone. But hey, you have a digital camera, anyway. Right?

Paul
Cary NC
________________________
P.S. A year ago while shopping for
national calling plans, a tri-mode phone
was a requirement. This may have changed
since I looked--but you get the point. VZW
was hinting that having analog aboard might
be a good idea!
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 5:51:08 AM

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

Real Estate Agent wrote:
> "Paul Simon" asked...
>
>>If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
>>it? I travel predominently along the east coast.
>
>
> At the present time, I would not dream of acquiring anything other than a
> tri-mode cell phone. I may feel differently in, say, two years.
>
> I've recently been in places (last Sunday in Sanford NC, for instance) where
> I had four bars of signal--analog. Period. Ditto for yesterday in and around
> Wilmington NC, and along the Outer Banks. Also ditto for some parts of
> Houston, Texas and several spots east of Indianopolis.

If you went analog in Houston you were either exposed to a hell of a lot
of industrial interference, or you *NEED* a new phone... The only weak
spot that I know of is north of Lake Conroe in the national forest - its
usable for EN, but the signal is too weak when the phone is near your
head and/or in your hand.

I'm also suprised you could get an AMPS channel, making AMPS calls in
Houston was getting impossible back in 2000 (either lots of
interference/other conversations or waiting many minutes redialing)

JS
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:03:38 AM

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

"Jacob Suter" >
> If you went analog in Houston you were either exposed to a hell of a lot
> of industrial interference, or you *NEED* a new phone...

Q-860 in 2000. K-6035 in 2002 and 2004.

I confess that I used the Motorola Brick several times and got through right
away. Perhaps everyone finally went digital, leaving analog circuits idle.
:-)

It appears that Verizon is not on the same channels in Houston as in North
Carolina. (A and B side reversal, perhaps?) On a trip in 2003, I used a
tri-mode Alltel phone and it was in digital mode all the time.

Most of my travel was between I-10 @ Federal Road and Humble, with one
excursion to Missouri City to visit a ham operator.

Paul K5PF
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:03:39 AM

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

Real Estate Agent wrote:
> "Jacob Suter" >
>
>>If you went analog in Houston you were either exposed to a hell of a lot
>>of industrial interference, or you *NEED* a new phone...
>
>
> Q-860 in 2000. K-6035 in 2002 and 2004.

Hmm, weird. My digital experience here started with a 5185i, then
audiovox 9155gpx and now a v120e. I've maintained a single EN call from
essentially 59S @ BW8 (far southwest houston) to Grapeland, TX (about
140 driving miles). I've also done a single EN call from Grapeland, TX
to downtown Austin, crossing SIDs, and never dropped. running ping.exe
the whole time I showed I lost ~25 packets out of that 210 mile drive,
and the average turn-around was 280ms or so.

> I confess that I used the Motorola Brick several times and got through right
> away. Perhaps everyone finally went digital, leaving analog circuits idle.
> :-)

Maybe. I might have dropped my Startac 3000 a time or two too many,
also ;) .

> It appears that Verizon is not on the same channels in Houston as in North
> Carolina. (A and B side reversal, perhaps?) On a trip in 2003, I used a
> tri-mode Alltel phone and it was in digital mode all the time.

Yeah, VZW is 800/B in Houston, SID 12. I hear they're starting a 1.9ghz
overlay on congested towers.

> Most of my travel was between I-10 @ Federal Road and Humble, with one
> excursion to Missouri City to visit a ham operator.

Hmm Federal Rd... isn't that out near Katy? Traffic on I10 is usually
awful so I avoid it like the plague. Plus the lanes are >narrow< and my
Dodge halfton is _WIDE_...

Now, I will admit my Houston coverage experience is kinda odd - I try to
avoid being down there during high traffic (as in road traffic) times,
so maybe there is a peak time interference/congestion issue I'm missing
- the 1.9 overlay should fix any of that though.

JS
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 7:22:17 AM

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

"Jacob Suter" wrote:>
> Now, I will admit my Houston coverage experience is kinda odd - I try to
> avoid being down there during high traffic (as in road traffic) times,
> so maybe there is a peak time interference/congestion issue I'm missing
> - the 1.9 overlay should fix any of that though.
>
> JS
>
Good info. Thanks.

Paul
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 12:40:39 AM

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

A friend travels extensively within my county as a work requirement.
He tells me the moment that school lets out in the afternoon all the digital
connections are used up which forces him to use analog mode.

This is in Orange County, NY

Steve
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 11:40:28 AM

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

Analog will be pretty much gone in a few years when carriers are no longer
required to support it (2006, I think). That being the case, I think you
will find the times your phone goes into "A" mode will be less and less in
the next couple of years. Even OnStar is now digital in the new cars. You
can still be tri-mode phone, though. I just bought 3 (Samsung SCH-a650).
Unless the phone you really want is digital only, you don't have to worry
about this for a couple years.
I would say no analog will be a minor inconvenience now, becoming less-so
pretty soon.
"Paul Simon" <psimon38@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o dCdnb7jdeS6JWDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
> it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
> and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>
> Is this something I should care about?
>
> Thanks... Paul
>
>
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:24:24 AM

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

OK - does this mean that when carriers are no longer required to support
analog in 2006, that we can expect wider digital coverage areas -
including those areas which are now only analog?

Chris

Prilosec wrote:

> Analog will be pretty much gone in a few years when carriers are no longer
> required to support it (2006, I think). That being the case, I think you
> will find the times your phone goes into "A" mode will be less and less in
> the next couple of years. Even OnStar is now digital in the new cars. You
> can still be tri-mode phone, though. I just bought 3 (Samsung SCH-a650).
> Unless the phone you really want is digital only, you don't have to worry
> about this for a couple years.
> I would say no analog will be a minor inconvenience now, becoming less-so
> pretty soon.
> "Paul Simon" <psimon38@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o dCdnb7jdeS6JWDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
>>If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really miss
>>it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has it
>>and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>>
>>Is this something I should care about?
>>
>>Thanks... Paul
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:24:25 AM

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

Check again.. it's 2008, not 2006. Unfortunately Verizon and the FCC are on
the east coast, but out west, most of the area is analog, and almost all of
states like Nevada and Alaska are analog (and much of the low population
density areas in the mountains and forests... yup there are BIG mountains
out west... not those dinky little molehill things like back east, and there
are forests, that's how they can have forest fires! :) .



"USENET READER" <usenetreader.biteme@earthlink.biteme.net> wrote in message
news:s7bYc.2772$JT3.6@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> OK - does this mean that when carriers are no longer required to support
> analog in 2006, that we can expect wider digital coverage areas -
> including those areas which are now only analog?
>
> Chris
>
> Prilosec wrote:
>
> > Analog will be pretty much gone in a few years when carriers are no
longer
> > required to support it (2006, I think). That being the case, I think you
> > will find the times your phone goes into "A" mode will be less and less
in
> > the next couple of years. Even OnStar is now digital in the new cars.
You
> > can still be tri-mode phone, though. I just bought 3 (Samsung SCH-a650).
> > Unless the phone you really want is digital only, you don't have to
worry
> > about this for a couple years.
> > I would say no analog will be a minor inconvenience now, becoming
less-so
> > pretty soon.
> > "Paul Simon" <psimon38@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:o dCdnb7jdeS6JWDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> >
> >>If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really
miss
> >>it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400 has
it
> >>and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
> >>
> >>Is this something I should care about?
> >>
> >>Thanks... Paul
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:14:05 AM

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

Not necessarily, some of those carriers that have added digital service
may just drop analogue only service areas completely. As I understand
it, analogue will still be legal for carriers to keep using. It will be
that they are not required to keep it running. Therefore if an analogue
only area is not profitable, they may just turn that area off. And in
the areas that they do have digital, it is almost a certainty that
analogue will be dropped. Then analogue only phones will be of limited
usability, area wise. The carriers that have added digital may then
stop offering phones that have an analogue mode. The carriers that are
analogue only will then have income from their subscribers, but little
roaming income. Which might force them to either add digital or go out
of business.


USENET READER wrote:
> OK - does this mean that when carriers are no longer required to support
> analog in 2006, that we can expect wider digital coverage areas -
> including those areas which are now only analog?
>
> Chris
>
> Prilosec wrote:
>
>> Analog will be pretty much gone in a few years when carriers are no
>> longer
>> required to support it (2006, I think). That being the case, I think you
>> will find the times your phone goes into "A" mode will be less and
>> less in
>> the next couple of years. Even OnStar is now digital in the new cars. You
>> can still be tri-mode phone, though. I just bought 3 (Samsung SCH-a650).
>> Unless the phone you really want is digital only, you don't have to worry
>> about this for a couple years.
>> I would say no analog will be a minor inconvenience now, becoming less-so
>> pretty soon.
>> "Paul Simon" <psimon38@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:o dCdnb7jdeS6JWDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>>
>>> If I upgrade my phone to one that doesn't have analog, will I really
>>> miss
>>> it? I travel predominently along the east coast. My current VX4400
>>> has it
>>> and I see that it does kick over to analog once in a while.
>>>
>>> Is this something I should care about?
>>>
>>> Thanks... Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 10:22:04 PM

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

In article <hjuYc.2178$8d1.353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Not necessarily, some of those carriers that have added digital service
>may just drop analogue only service areas completely. As I understand
>it, analogue will still be legal for carriers to keep using. It will be
>that they are not required to keep it running. Therefore if an analogue
>only area is not profitable, they may just turn that area off. And in
>the areas that they do have digital, it is almost a certainty that
>analogue will be dropped. Then analogue only phones will be of limited
>usability, area wise. The carriers that have added digital may then
>stop offering phones that have an analogue mode. The carriers that are
>analogue only will then have income from their subscribers, but little
>roaming income. Which might force them to either add digital or go out
>of business.

Specifically, note that with AT&T/Cingular moving to GSM, where almost
none of the phone include analog, the value of Verizon providing analog
service to pick up roamers will drop to essentially zero in a few years.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 8:23:38 AM

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

hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote in message news:<cgvr8c1vg@news2.newsguy.com>...
> In article <hjuYc.2178$8d1.353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Not necessarily, some of those carriers that have added digital service
> >may just drop analogue only service areas completely. As I understand
> >it, analogue will still be legal for carriers to keep using. It will be
> >that they are not required to keep it running. Therefore if an analogue
> >only area is not profitable, they may just turn that area off. And in
> >the areas that they do have digital, it is almost a certainty that
> >analogue will be dropped. Then analogue only phones will be of limited
> >usability, area wise. The carriers that have added digital may then
> >stop offering phones that have an analogue mode. The carriers that are
> >analogue only will then have income from their subscribers, but little
> >roaming income. Which might force them to either add digital or go out
> >of business.
>
> Specifically, note that with AT&T/Cingular moving to GSM, where almost
> none of the phone include analog, the value of Verizon providing analog
> service to pick up roamers will drop to essentially zero in a few years.

Yes but by the same token, those users who still need analog because
of where they live or the type of work they do, have moved over to
Verizon or kept TDMA/Analog phones.
Those cusomers who got taken by the promise of "lots of bars" on GSM,
will be moving to a provider who offers the type of service they need.

Gets on "soap box"...
Australia went from AMPS to CDMA in the outback by a national decree.
So a larger scale conversion has been done before.
I don't care about the technology just the coverage. Luckily there's
still the ability to boost digital signal beyond the "normal"
standards, with new antenna designs and advanced digital equipment to
use in rural and marine areas.

The FCC tends to turn a sumpathetic ear towards rural communications
providers of all sorts. Apparent at recent congressional hearings,
where rural providers simply could not implement GPS triangulation
deadlines, without going broke. When their network covers a straight
line down a rural highway, with towers spaced at maximum intervals,
any reasonable person would conclude there needs to be some
flexibility for rural cellular providers and new technological
mandates.
Otherwise only people in the cities would even get telephones or
cellular service, since it's not cost effective in much of the western
US to deploy a network, in sparsely populated areas.
States with very small populations still get 2 senators to represent
their interests as well.
We also subsidize telephone networks in rural areas on every phone
bill. Is there a cellular version?

Sure is nice to have cellular coverage on vacation, but farmers,
foresters and country folk are going to have to live with AMPS, or a
suitable replacement technology, every day. Not to mention, all those
old towers are spaced and deployed with specific limits. There's
little chance for strapped, small providers to "fill in", with million
dollar towers, in an arguably critical, safety/service wise, rural
commnicatons chain.

Anyway, I hope the big carriers are forced to at least keep the
current level of basic voice coverage, geographically, across the
nation. While their spending billions, to reap commensurate rewards,
on advanced cellular data networks. While feeding games, ringtones and
fast data, to the dense cherry picked urban markets, cellular service
across rural America, should continue to receive whatever kind of
support is required, to remain a viable service throughout future
technological upgrades.

-
David
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 9:01:27 AM

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

hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote in message news:<cgvr8c1vg@news2.newsguy.com>...
> In article <hjuYc.2178$8d1.353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Not necessarily, some of those carriers that have added digital service
> >may just drop analogue only service areas completely. As I understand
> >it, analogue will still be legal for carriers to keep using. It will be
> >that they are not required to keep it running. Therefore if an analogue
> >only area is not profitable, they may just turn that area off. And in
> >the areas that they do have digital, it is almost a certainty that
> >analogue will be dropped. Then analogue only phones will be of limited
> >usability, area wise. The carriers that have added digital may then
> >stop offering phones that have an analogue mode. The carriers that are
> >analogue only will then have income from their subscribers, but little
> >roaming income. Which might force them to either add digital or go out
> >of business.
>
> Specifically, note that with AT&T/Cingular moving to GSM, where almost
> none of the phone include analog, the value of Verizon providing analog
> service to pick up roamers will drop to essentially zero in a few years.

Yes but by the same token, those users who still need analog because
of where they live or the type of work they do, have moved over to
Verizon or kept TDMA/Analog phones.
Those cusomers who got taken by the promise of "lots of bars" on GSM,
will be moving to a provider who offers the type of service they need.

Gets on "soap box"...
Australia went from AMPS to CDMA in the outback by a national decree.
So a larger scale conversion has been done before.
I don't care about the technology just the coverage. Luckily there's
still the ability to boost digital signal beyond the "normal"
standards, with new antenna designs and advanced digital equipment to
use in rural and marine areas.

The FCC tends to turn a sumpathetic ear towards rural communications
providers of all sorts. Apparent at recent congressional hearings,
where rural providers simply could not implement GPS triangulation
deadlines, without going broke. When their network covers a straight
line down a rural highway, with towers spaced at maximum intervals,
any reasonable person would conclude there needs to be some
flexibility for rural cellular providers and new technological
mandates.
Otherwise only people in the cities would even get telephones or
cellular service, since it's not cost effective in much of the western
US to deploy a network, in sparsely populated areas.
States with very small populations still get 2 senators to represent
their interests as well.
We also subsidize telephone networks in rural areas on every phone
bill. Is there a cellular version?

Sure is nice to have cellular coverage on vacation, but farmers,
foresters and country folk are going to have to live with AMPS, or a
suitable replacement technology, every day. Not to mention, all those
old towers are spaced and deployed with specific limits. There's
little chance for strapped, small providers to "fill in", with million
dollar towers, in an arguably critical, safety/service wise, rural
commnicatons chain.

Anyway, I hope the big carriers are forced to at least keep the
current level of basic voice coverage, geographically, across the
nation. While their spending billions, to reap commensurate rewards,
on advanced cellular data networks. While feeding games, ringtones and
fast data, to the dense cherry picked urban markets, cellular service
across rural America, should continue to receive whatever kind of
support is required, to remain a viable service throughout future
technological upgrades.

-
David
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 3:43:20 PM

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

With all of verizon's coverage being digital, when they no longer have
to keep analogue up, I think they will soon turn off all of their
analogue system and stop selling phones that have analogue capability.
It is those small analogue only systems that I was talking about that
will then have little roaming income. Then those sticks residents will
complain that whenever they travel to civilization they will lose their
wireless service.


CharlesH wrote:
> In article <hjuYc.2178$8d1.353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily, some of those carriers that have added digital service
>>may just drop analogue only service areas completely. As I understand
>>it, analogue will still be legal for carriers to keep using. It will be
>>that they are not required to keep it running. Therefore if an analogue
>>only area is not profitable, they may just turn that area off. And in
>>the areas that they do have digital, it is almost a certainty that
>>analogue will be dropped. Then analogue only phones will be of limited
>>usability, area wise. The carriers that have added digital may then
>>stop offering phones that have an analogue mode. The carriers that are
>>analogue only will then have income from their subscribers, but little
>>roaming income. Which might force them to either add digital or go out
>>of business.
>
>
> Specifically, note that with AT&T/Cingular moving to GSM, where almost
> none of the phone include analog, the value of Verizon providing analog
> service to pick up roamers will drop to essentially zero in a few years.
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 2:20:41 AM

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

Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:svZYc.3515$w%6.3266@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> With all of verizon's coverage being digital, when they no longer
> have
> to keep analogue up, I think they will soon turn off all of their
> analogue system and stop selling phones that have analogue capability.
> It is those small analogue only systems that I was talking about that
> will then have little roaming income. Then those sticks residents
> will complain that whenever they travel to civilization they will lose
> their wireless service.
>
You need to take a closer look where that food on your table comes from.
It doesn't come from Brooklyn.....It comes from "those sticks residents".

Well, it will until we start feeding the cities Soilent Green, made from
recycled city dwellers....(c;

McDonald's doesn't have a cow factory....yet.
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 3:16:47 AM

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

"Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns9556BAF602C3Cw4csc@63.223.5.244...
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:svZYc.3515$w%6.3266@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> With all of verizon's coverage being digital, when they no longer
>> have
>> to keep analogue up, I think they will soon turn off all of their
>> analogue system and stop selling phones that have analogue capability.
>> It is those small analogue only systems that I was talking about that
>> will then have little roaming income. Then those sticks residents
>> will complain that whenever they travel to civilization they will lose
>> their wireless service.
>>
> You need to take a closer look where that food on your table comes from.
> It doesn't come from Brooklyn.....It comes from "those sticks residents".
>
> Well, it will until we start feeding the cities Soilent Green, made from
> recycled city dwellers....(c;
>
> McDonald's doesn't have a cow factory....yet.
>
>

Careful, Larry.
Jerome is in Milwaukee, where my beer comes from! :-)
---JRC---
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 9:03:31 AM

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

You do not want to know what the beer is recycled from! :p )

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns9556BAF602C3Cw4csc@63.223.5.244...
>
>>Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>news:svZYc.3515$w%6.3266@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>
>>> With all of verizon's coverage being digital, when they no longer
>>> have
>>>to keep analogue up, I think they will soon turn off all of their
>>>analogue system and stop selling phones that have analogue capability.
>>>It is those small analogue only systems that I was talking about that
>>>will then have little roaming income. Then those sticks residents
>>>will complain that whenever they travel to civilization they will lose
>>>their wireless service.
>>>
>>
>>You need to take a closer look where that food on your table comes from.
>>It doesn't come from Brooklyn.....It comes from "those sticks residents".
>>
>>Well, it will until we start feeding the cities Soilent Green, made from
>>recycled city dwellers....(c;
>>
>>McDonald's doesn't have a cow factory....yet.
>>
>>
>
>
> Careful, Larry.
> Jerome is in Milwaukee, where my beer comes from! :-)
> ---JRC---
>
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 9:42:17 PM

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

The beer couldn't be more disgusting than the cheese, could it?
---JRC---

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:D KcZc.4290$w%6.2552@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You do not want to know what the beer is recycled from! :p )
>
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>>
>> Careful, Larry.
>> Jerome is in Milwaukee, where my beer comes from! :-)
>> ---JRC---
>>
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 9:42:18 PM

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

John R. Copeland wrote:

> The beer couldn't be more disgusting than the cheese, could it?

Wisconsin's dairy products can't be as good as ours.

As the California Dairy Board states: "The best milk comes from happy cows, and
the happiest cows come from California."

Milwaukee probably does have an edge over any city out here for beer, though.
California's known for its whine, not its beer.

Whoops. I meant "wine." ;) 

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 8:32:09 AM

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

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:02:17 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>John R. Copeland wrote:
>
>> The beer couldn't be more disgusting than the cheese, could it?

Nothing is more disgusting than beer, with the possible exception of
coffee[1].

>Wisconsin's dairy products can't be as good as ours.
>
>As the California Dairy Board states: "The best milk comes from happy cows, and
>the happiest cows come from California."

Did you believe that a year ago? O-HI!-o is largely farmland too...

>Milwaukee probably does have an edge over any city out here for beer, though.
>California's known for its whine, not its beer.
>
>Whoops. I meant "wine." ;) 

No you didn't, and on that I agree with you.

[1] Nah, beer's worse.

--
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.
"They say 90 percent of TV is junk. But 90 percent of *everything* is
junk." - Gene Roddenberry
!