Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Verizon/Quest merger cell list list

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 9:36:36 PM

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

Hope this is not a repetitive question for the group.

I am located in Southern Idaho and would like to find a list of Quest cell
tower sites, hoping that the Verizon merger will bring online a site I can
use.

Any advice from the group.

---------------
Pahoo
South Central Idaho
September 23, 2004 9:36:37 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:36:36 GMT, "Pahoo" <Pahoo@nospam.net> wrote:

>Hope this is not a repetitive question for the group.
>
>I am located in Southern Idaho and would like to find a list of Quest cell
>tower sites, hoping that the Verizon merger will bring online a site I can
>use.

http://www.berkana.com/tower.php3 is one such site. If you're looking
for Verizon try looking for Airtouch.

http://www.wispnotes.com/articles/4





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 9:38:35 PM

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

Joseph wrote:

> http://www.berkana.com/tower.php3 is one such site. If you're looking
> for Verizon try looking for Airtouch.

Uh...

If they still list AirTouch then the data is probably way out of date.

AirTouch hasn't been AirTouch since about four years ago.

--
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.
Related resources
September 24, 2004 12:42:17 AM

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

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:38:35 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Joseph wrote:
>
>> http://www.berkana.com/tower.php3 is one such site. If you're looking
>> for Verizon try looking for Airtouch.
>
>Uh...
>
>If they still list AirTouch then the data is probably way out of date.
>
>AirTouch hasn't been AirTouch since about four years ago.

Steve, you need to get with the program! Have you looked at the
listings at NANPA.com? Maybe you need to complain to NANPA that they
are doing it wrong! The companies are listed the way they want to be
listed. If they want to be listed as Bell Atlantic they are every bit
within their rights to do so. If they want to be listed as Verizon
they can as well. I do not know the reason why the different
companies are listed the way they are but the fact remains that they
are listed that way. T-Mobile may be listed as Omnipoint, Aerial, or
Powertel in addition to T-Mobile. It's what the company wishes to be
listed as. Before you say that something is "way out of date" you
should get your ducks in a row.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 1:25:24 AM

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

Joseph wrote:
>>If they still list AirTouch then the data is probably way out of date.
>>
>>AirTouch hasn't been AirTouch since about four years ago.
>
>
> Steve, you need to get with the program! Have you looked at the
> listings at NANPA.com?

Alright, I *know* AirTouch may still be listed as the the licensee. Hell, the
FCC says my local Clear Channel radio stations are licensed to Capstar, and
Clear Channel bought Capstar several years ago. In both cases, it's likely that
the new licensee wanted to avoid paperwork and continued to file under the old
name. No legal issues, since Clear Channel bought Capstar outright and owns all
of their licenses, and Verizon maintains all of the old Airtouch licenses that
weren't sold off. In fact, some of the Cleveland-area Verizon Wireless
exchanges are still listed as being allocated to Newpar Cellular! (Newpar used
to be CellularONE in Cleveland many years ago, and subsequently flipped over to
become Northeast Ohio's AirTouch franchise).

My issue isn't with the companies holding the licenses, my issue is with the
site listing them as Primeco, or AirTouch, or Bell Atlantic. They *SHOULD*
cross-reference it as Verizon too...

> they can as well. I do not know the reason why the different
> companies are listed the way they are but the fact remains that they
> are listed that way.

Probably to avoid extra paperwork and expenses to switch the licenses over. I
can understand why they'd want to do that ESPECIALLY in the case of Verizon
where literally hundreds of different chunks of network were involved.

> T-Mobile may be listed as Omnipoint, Aerial, or
> Powertel in addition to T-Mobile.

Or VoiceStream. At any rate, it looks like they have updated the data recently,
it says the last update was this past March; but if so, they should have some
sort of cross-reference pointing out that if the licensee is AirTouch, for
example, that it is currently maintained by VZW.

And yes, I'd love to see the FCC AM/FM/TV database show the same sort of xrefs,
though that is never gonna happen. Do you know how many smaller broadcasters
Clear Channel has snapped up? Back to Cleveland again for an example - there
are a few stations that changed hands three or four times in the latter part of
the 1990s... I could name them, but I'd prefer to stay on-topic :) 

--
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 24, 2004 3:20:09 AM

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

Some of Qwest's towers are registered with the FCC (www.fcc.gov), and many
of them have been transferred to Sprint PCS. See:

http://www.mountainwireless.com/mw_news.shtml

Of all the Qwest territory taken over by Verizon, Verizon has indicated that
only 3 Qwest markets will provide new service for Verizon, in WA and NE.
See:

http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/07/pr2004-07-01j.html

So, in areas where there is existing Verizon service, they imply any use of
Qwest spectrum there is unlikely. The except is large cities where they may
need the additional capacity, probably part of their new Broadband service.
We can only hope Verizon will converrt some of those Qwest sites to
immediate Verizon use. They may use their limited manpower to bring new
areas online that would make more econimic sense.

Bill Radio
Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com


"Pahoo" <Pahoo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:EQD4d.1226$zG1.969@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Hope this is not a repetitive question for the group.
>
> I am located in Southern Idaho and would like to find a list of Quest cell
> tower sites, hoping that the Verizon merger will bring online a site I can
> use.
>
> Any advice from the group.
>
> ---------------
> Pahoo
> South Central Idaho
>
>
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 9:37:25 AM

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

In article <ei57l09okps1b4ipu8cjjke89emktq3i86@4ax.com>,
JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com says...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:38:35 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Joseph wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.berkana.com/tower.php3 is one such site. If you're looking
> >> for Verizon try looking for Airtouch.
> >
> >Uh...
> >
> >If they still list AirTouch then the data is probably way out of date.
> >
> >AirTouch hasn't been AirTouch since about four years ago.
>
> Steve, you need to get with the program! Have you looked at the
> listings at NANPA.com? Maybe you need to complain to NANPA that they
> are doing it wrong! The companies are listed the way they want to be
> listed. If they want to be listed as Bell Atlantic they are every bit
> within their rights to do so. If they want to be listed as Verizon
> they can as well. I do not know the reason why the different
> companies are listed the way they are but the fact remains that they
> are listed that way. T-Mobile may be listed as Omnipoint, Aerial, or
> Powertel in addition to T-Mobile. It's what the company wishes to be
> listed as. Before you say that something is "way out of date" you
> should get your ducks in a row.

It's not a matter of how the company wants to be listed. It's the legal
name of the entity that is obtaining the number (in the case of NANPA)
or that owns the tower. Often, the entity has not changed its legal
name even though it has been through numerous reorganizations, mergers,
divestitures, and acquisitions.

For example, at least some of Cingular's New York service is provided
through a subsidiary called PacTel Mobile Services. Pacfic Telesis was
the California/Nevada RBOC, and it created a wireless subsidiary named
PacTel Mobile Services for its California operations after spinning off
its prior wireless operations (under the name of PacTel Mobile Access)
to AirTouch. As a result of an acquisition, PTMS became a PCS licensee
in NYC. SBC acquired Pacific Telesis, and merged its wireless holdings
with BellSouth's under the Cingular Wireless partnership, and PTMS
remains the legal holder of a New York PCS license.
--
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD, USA
Delete nospam from my address and it won't work.
September 24, 2004 1:01:48 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:37:25 GMT, Michael D. Sullivan
<nospam@camsul.com> wrote:

>It's not a matter of how the company wants to be listed. It's the legal
>name of the entity that is obtaining the number (in the case of NANPA)
>or that owns the tower. Often, the entity has not changed its legal
>name even though it has been through numerous reorganizations, mergers,
>divestitures, and acquisitions.

But Steve's claim that the listings are "out of date" is erroneous.
He never admitted as such though.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 11:10:03 AM

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

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:42:17 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>listed. If they want to be listed as Bell Atlantic they are every bit
>within their rights to do so. If they want to be listed as Verizon
>they can as well. I do not know the reason why the different
>companies are listed the way they are but the fact remains that they
>are listed that way. T-Mobile may be listed as Omnipoint, Aerial, or
<snip>

It's not because they "want" to be listed a certain way; it's because
most phone companies are a jumble of various subsidaries and legal
entities, and whatever legal entity requests the number is what's
listed on the NANPA files, even if the name doesn't at all resemble
the "familiar" name of the company. (For instance, unless you
research it, you'd never know that "Atlanta Athens MSA LP" is really
Cingular, or that "Concord Telephone Exchange" near Knoxville, TN is
really TDS Telecom.)

I wrote a script (~500 lines of sed code) that translates the "legal"
name of telcos in the NANPA records to more familiar names; you can
download my version, which has the "familiar" names, at:

http://www.roamer1.org/downloads/nanpa-clean.zip

As for the original request re: Qwest cell sites, given that Qwest
Wireless was (and still is) exclusively 1900, such data is going to be
hard to find and minimal at best.

-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
....
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 3:17:26 AM

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

Joseph wrote:

> But Steve's claim that the listings are "out of date" is erroneous.
> He never admitted as such though.

I did point out that berkana.com seems to have been updated recently (though
according to the site itself, not in the last six months, so it might still be
somewhat out of date).

If it makes you happy, I'll come out and say directly that I was incorrect....

I was incorrect.

--
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 26, 2004 6:38:16 AM

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

Thank you for the web links and the "heads up" on the names. Very
interesting. I could not find one cell site even "registered" to Verizon in
a 100 mile radius. The long list included: United States Cellular,
Cleartalk, American Tower, Commnet and a host of small rural companies that
are now by the wayside.

Thanks to all for the information.

----------------
Pahoo


"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rdm6l014bps4jqr9hp5gaf1l5v1tf3vh2k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:36:36 GMT, "Pahoo" <Pahoo@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >Hope this is not a repetitive question for the group.
> >
> >I am located in Southern Idaho and would like to find a list of Quest
cell
> >tower sites, hoping that the Verizon merger will bring online a site I
can
> >use.
>
> http://www.berkana.com/tower.php3 is one such site. If you're looking
> for Verizon try looking for Airtouch.
>
> http://www.wispnotes.com/articles/4
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 12:12:52 PM

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

For all practical purposes, I don't care what legal name a provider
chooses to list his towers under. I care about whether a tower that was
originally part of a rival network will be "converted" to offer full
Verizon service.

For instance, if Verizon merges with Qwest, will connections to *all*
Qwest-affiliated towers be considered IN-NETWORK and not roaming? Will
all Verizon data services be available?
September 26, 2004 1:09:33 PM

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

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:38:16 GMT, "Pahoo" <Pahoo@nospam.net> wrote:

>Thank you for the web links and the "heads up" on the names. Very
>interesting. I could not find one cell site even "registered" to Verizon in
>a 100 mile radius. The long list included: United States Cellular,
>Cleartalk, American Tower, Commnet and a host of small rural companies that
>are now by the wayside.

Odds are that American Tower is an aggregator and hosts multiple
companies at one location.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 10:34:06 PM

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

Joseph wrote:

> Odds are that American Tower is an aggregator and hosts multiple
> companies at one location.

I know they lease towers to Verizon and AT&T. Or at least they used to. Pretty
sure they do the other carriers too, except perhaps Sprint - a large majority
of Sprint's towers are actually owned by Sprint and they have a website where
they solicit people looking to lease space on those towers.

--
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 27, 2004 12:18:20 AM

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

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:09:33 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>>a 100 mile radius. The long list included: United States Cellular,
>>Cleartalk, American Tower, Commnet and a host of small rural companies that
>>are now by the wayside.
>
>Odds are that American Tower is an aggregator and hosts multiple
>companies at one location.

In most cases American Tower sites do serve multiple carriers.

As for "Commnet": that could be VZW (former CommNet Cellular), or
that could be the completely unrelated carrier Commnet Wireless.

-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
....
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune
!