Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

All digital over Dig/analog?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
November 14, 2004 6:45:00 PM

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

I've been looking at some of the newer phones, and have noticed that they
seem to be going digital only (LG models). My current 730 Motorola will flop
back to analog if no digital signal can be found. Not sure how useful this
is, as when it does go to analog, it's not the best (and kills the battery).
Anyone drop the dual mode phone and go to digital only phones? Regret it?
Haven't noticed a difference? Thanks for any thoughts.

--

Mike

More about : digital dig analog

Anonymous
November 14, 2004 7:11:05 PM

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

Michael wrote:
> I've been looking at some of the newer phones, and have noticed that
> they seem to be going digital only (LG models). My current 730
> Motorola will flop back to analog if no digital signal can be found.
> Not sure how useful this is, as when it does go to analog, it's not
> the best (and kills the battery). Anyone drop the dual mode phone and
> go to digital only phones? Regret it? Haven't noticed a difference?
> Thanks for any thoughts.

My travels take me to areas not serviced well or consistently by digital.
In spite of the nice LG features, I will NOT own a duel mode (digital only)
phone. I still need analog and digital (tri-mode). In fact, there is an
area right in the middle of Orange County, CA (Tustin Ranch) where for some
unknown reason, my phone will sit there and switch back and forth between
analog and digital and back every couple of minutes on WEEKDAY evenings!
There there's another such pit in the hills overlooking Lake Elsinore on hwy
74. Each time digital signal fades, analog comes on for a couple of
minutes, then switches back to a full strength digital signal. This is a
weekend phenomenon. But usually the outer desert areas are where the phone
stays analog most of the time. Let me cite another example from this
past weekend. I was with a group out in Beatty, Nevada. With my phone and
Verizon service, I had 3-4 bars of BOTH digital and analog signal. One
friend with SPRINT had NO signal whatsoever for the entire weekend and
another with AT&T had a very transient digital signal. Both recieved a slug
of waiting voicemails and SMS messages by the time we traveled about 85
miles south toward Las Vegas, NV.

Stay with tri-mode phones and Verizon for the better fringe area service.
DON'T give you analog anytime soon. Digital coverage isn't nearly as
comprehensive as the charts would have you believe.

--

-Philip
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 7:11:06 PM

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:11:05 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:

for some
>unknown reason, my phone will sit there and switch back and forth between
>analog and digital and back every couple of minutes on WEEKDAY evenings!

Probably because that's about the busiest time for cell phone users?
Everyone is on their phone calling home, sitting in traffic.
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 7:29:55 PM

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:11:05 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>> I've been looking at some of the newer phones, and have noticed that
>> they seem to be going digital only (LG models). My current 730
>> Motorola will flop back to analog if no digital signal can be found.
>> Not sure how useful this is, as when it does go to analog, it's not
>> the best (and kills the battery). Anyone drop the dual mode phone and
>> go to digital only phones? Regret it? Haven't noticed a difference?
>> Thanks for any thoughts.
>
>My travels take me to areas not serviced well or consistently by digital.
>In spite of the nice LG features, I will NOT own a duel mode (digital only)
>phone. I still need analog and digital (tri-mode). In fact, there is an
>area right in the middle of Orange County, CA (Tustin Ranch) where for some
>unknown reason, my phone will sit there and switch back and forth between
>analog and digital and back every couple of minutes on WEEKDAY evenings!
>There there's another such pit in the hills overlooking Lake Elsinore on hwy
>74. Each time digital signal fades, analog comes on for a couple of
>minutes, then switches back to a full strength digital signal. This is a
>weekend phenomenon. But usually the outer desert areas are where the phone
>stays analog most of the time. Let me cite another example from this
>past weekend. I was with a group out in Beatty, Nevada. With my phone and
>Verizon service, I had 3-4 bars of BOTH digital and analog signal. One
>friend with SPRINT had NO signal whatsoever for the entire weekend and
>another with AT&T had a very transient digital signal. Both recieved a slug
>of waiting voicemails and SMS messages by the time we traveled about 85
>miles south toward Las Vegas, NV.
>
>Stay with tri-mode phones and Verizon for the better fringe area service.
>DON'T give you analog anytime soon. Digital coverage isn't nearly as
>comprehensive as the charts would have you believe.

I agree with your assessment of tri-mode vs. all digital. I would not
want a phone that "duels" either. Could be dangerous when in your
pocket :)  But seriously,here is some thing for one who may not need
analog to consider though.

In those areas where you say your phone alternates between digital and
analog would it be possible that an all digital phone would hold on to
the digital signal? It has been said in the forums that an all
digital phone is better at holding a digital signal.

I now have an Audiovox 9900 trimode which in a certain few places will
go into analog. My Motorola V60i trimode never did this. I seem to
have the same reception in those spotty places with both as well as
the LG VX 6000 (all digital) I once had. The 9900 is the best.

One thing I do reccomend though is a phone with an extendable antenna.
In my experience they have better reception than a stub.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 7:29:56 PM

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

"Teddeli" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:861fp09qlnsph602j4c1egaac31htaq142@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:11:05 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Michael wrote:
>>> I've been looking at some of the newer phones, and have noticed that
>>> they seem to be going digital only (LG models). My current 730
>>> Motorola will flop back to analog if no digital signal can be found.
>>> Not sure how useful this is, as when it does go to analog, it's not
>>> the best (and kills the battery). Anyone drop the dual mode phone and
>>> go to digital only phones? Regret it? Haven't noticed a difference?
>>> Thanks for any thoughts.
>>
>>My travels take me to areas not serviced well or consistently by digital.
>>In spite of the nice LG features, I will NOT own a duel mode (digital
>>only)
>>phone. I still need analog and digital (tri-mode). In fact, there is an
>>area right in the middle of Orange County, CA (Tustin Ranch) where for
>>some
>>unknown reason, my phone will sit there and switch back and forth between
>>analog and digital and back every couple of minutes on WEEKDAY evenings!
>>There there's another such pit in the hills overlooking Lake Elsinore on
>>hwy
>>74. Each time digital signal fades, analog comes on for a couple of
>>minutes, then switches back to a full strength digital signal. This is a
>>weekend phenomenon. But usually the outer desert areas are where the
>>phone
>>stays analog most of the time. Let me cite another example from this
>>past weekend. I was with a group out in Beatty, Nevada. With my phone
>>and
>>Verizon service, I had 3-4 bars of BOTH digital and analog signal. One
>>friend with SPRINT had NO signal whatsoever for the entire weekend and
>>another with AT&T had a very transient digital signal. Both recieved a
>>slug
>>of waiting voicemails and SMS messages by the time we traveled about 85
>>miles south toward Las Vegas, NV.
>>
>>Stay with tri-mode phones and Verizon for the better fringe area service.
>>DON'T give you analog anytime soon. Digital coverage isn't nearly as
>>comprehensive as the charts would have you believe.
>
> I agree with your assessment of tri-mode vs. all digital. I would not
> want a phone that "duels" either. Could be dangerous when in your
> pocket :)  But seriously,here is some thing for one who may not need
> analog to consider though.
>
> In those areas where you say your phone alternates between digital and
> analog would it be possible that an all digital phone would hold on to
> the digital signal? It has been said in the forums that an all
> digital phone is better at holding a digital signal.
>
> I now have an Audiovox 9900 trimode which in a certain few places will
> go into analog. My Motorola V60i trimode never did this. I seem to
> have the same reception in those spotty places with both as well as
> the LG VX 6000 (all digital) I once had. The 9900 is the best.
>
> One thing I do reccomend though is a phone with an extendable antenna.
> In my experience they have better reception than a stub.

I have a LG VX4400 tri-mode. There were areas where it would switch back
and forth between digital and analog. I set the phone to digital only mode.
In those areas where it would sometimes go to analog it now keeps the
digital signal.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 7:52:59 AM

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

Teddeli wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:11:05 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> My travels take me to areas not serviced well or consistently by
>> digital. In spite of the nice LG features, I will NOT own a duel
>> mode (digital only) phone. I still need analog and digital
>> (tri-mode). In fact, there is an area right in the middle of Orange
>> County, CA (Tustin Ranch) where for some unknown reason, my phone
>> will sit there and switch back and forth between analog and digital
>> and back every couple of minutes on WEEKDAY evenings! There there's
>> another such pit in the hills overlooking Lake Elsinore on hwy
>> 74. Each time digital signal fades, analog comes on for a couple of
>> minutes, then switches back to a full strength digital signal. This
>> is a weekend phenomenon. But usually the outer desert areas are
>> where the phone stays analog most of the time. Let me cite
>> another example from this past weekend. I was with a group out in
>> Beatty, Nevada. With my phone and Verizon service, I had 3-4 bars
>> of BOTH digital and analog signal. One friend with SPRINT had NO
>> signal whatsoever for the entire weekend and another with AT&T had a
>> very transient digital signal. Both recieved a slug of waiting
>> voicemails and SMS messages by the time we traveled about 85 miles
>> south toward Las Vegas, NV.
>>
>> Stay with tri-mode phones and Verizon for the better fringe area
>> service. DON'T give up your tri-mode anytime soon. Digital coverage
>> isn't nearly as comprehensive as the charts would have you believe.
>
>
> I agree with your assessment of tri-mode vs. all digital. I would not
> want a phone that "duels" either. Could be dangerous when in your
> pocket :)  But seriously,here is some thing for one who may not need
> analog to consider though.
>
> In those areas where you say your phone alternates between digital and
> analog would it be possible that an all digital phone would hold on to
> the digital signal? It has been said in the forums that an all
> digital phone is better at holding a digital signal.

Here's what happens at a friend's house (Tustin Ranch) who also has Verizon
but only a dual mode phone: LOT's of dropped calls. Of course, with my
tri-mode, I get just as many dropped calls but then in the alternate mode, I
can dial back and finish up the call (usually). Tustin Ranch is just a
particularly poor serviced area and yet, everybody has a cellphone and is on
it!


> I now have an Audiovox 9900 trimode which in a certain few places will
> go into analog. My Motorola V60i trimode never did this. I seem to
> have the same reception in those spotty places with both as well as
> the LG VX 6000 (all digital) I once had. The 9900 is the best.
> One thing I do reccomend though is a phone with an extendable antenna.
> In my experience they have better reception than a stub.


I currently have an Audiovox 9155 (has extendable antenna). Am looking
forward to a 9900 at the end of this month when I can utilize my "new every
two" allowance. :-)
~Philip
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 7:53:00 AM

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

Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:11:05 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> for some
>> unknown reason, my phone will sit there and switch back and forth
>> between analog and digital and back every couple of minutes on
>> WEEKDAY evenings!
>
> Probably because that's about the busiest time for cell phone users?
> Everyone is on their phone calling home, sitting in traffic.

Obviously. :-) Sitting on I-5 between Tustin and Mission Viejo ... what is
a poor SUV driving yuppie supposed to do in traffic? LOL There's this
NotInMyBackyard attitude regarding any more cell towers, disguised as palm
trees, pine trees, or whatever.

--

-Philip
November 15, 2004 2:22:56 PM

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

I keep an old analog phone, and when
I go to an out-of-the-way area, I go to
the My Accounts area and punch in the
ESN. On return I go back to the digital
phone.
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 12:37:19 AM

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

The coverage maps don't generally reflect reality in rural areas. All the
carriers "lie" about their coverage area. They'll show you an area as a big
block of coverage when in reality, only the main roads in that area have any
coverage. If you travel here in Oregon on country roads, you'll frequenltly
find yourself with zero cellular service. You can travel for hundreds of
miles in this state without signal-- albeit mostly in places few travel. If
you have an analog capable phone, you have the best chance of having
something you can use (and better with an external antenna).

Anyway, for folks in the West, analog can be very important, if you travel
outside urban areas. Why not get a phone that at least has this capability?
"All-digital" phones make zero sense to me. I pay the same monthly fee with
a reduced coverage area-- now that sounds appealing (not!). For example,
our closest ski area called Willamette Pass has analog coverage included for
AC customers, but only if they have analog capable phone. Same is true
through hundreds of miles across the mountain from there and down hwy 97
over to Crater Lake. You get very good analog signal, but no digital.
There's other examples in my state, but you get the idea.

The only legitimate claim I've heard is that sometimes the PRL prefers an
analog carrier over a digital one that's also included (this occurs in Coos
Bay, OR for example-- Ramcell is analog, and preferred over US Cellular
which is digital but also included.)

My simple solution to this is to only purchase tri-mode phones with a
"digital-only" setting. I can set "digital-only" for best performance in
town, or in situations like Coos Bay, and simply enable analog when in an
area with no signal otherwise. Verizon Tri-Mode phones that have
"digital-only" in the menus include Kyocera (all), LG 4400, 3200 etc., Nokia
3589i, 6015. Choose one that can do this, and you'll get the best of both
worlds.

The idea that all-digital phones have a real advantage is total hogwash,
when compared to a tri-mode phone with a "digital-only" menu selection.

-Dan

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 6:31:42 PM

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

Good post, Dan. I happen to be one of those who often finds the fringes of
digital service or roam on digital (no SMS or voicemail notification ...
often), so analog is important to me. I did not know about the
"digital-only" mode available on some of Verizon's phones. Thanks.

--

-Philip

Dan Albrich wrote:
> The coverage maps don't generally reflect reality in rural areas. All
> the carriers "lie" about their coverage area. They'll show you an
> area as a big block of coverage when in reality, only the main roads
> in that area have any coverage. If you travel here in Oregon on
> country roads, you'll frequenltly find yourself with zero cellular
> service. You can travel for hundreds of miles in this state without
> signal-- albeit mostly in places few travel. If you have an analog
> capable phone, you have the best chance of having something you can
> use (and better with an external antenna).
>
> Anyway, for folks in the West, analog can be very important, if you
> travel outside urban areas. Why not get a phone that at least has
> this capability? "All-digital" phones make zero sense to me. I pay
> the same monthly fee with a reduced coverage area-- now that sounds
> appealing (not!). For example, our closest ski area called
> Willamette Pass has analog coverage included for AC customers, but
> only if they have analog capable phone. Same is true through
> hundreds of miles across the mountain from there and down hwy 97 over
> to Crater Lake. You get very good analog signal, but no digital.
> There's other examples in my state, but you get the idea.
>
> The only legitimate claim I've heard is that sometimes the PRL
> prefers an analog carrier over a digital one that's also included
> (this occurs in Coos Bay, OR for example-- Ramcell is analog, and
> preferred over US Cellular which is digital but also included.)
>
> My simple solution to this is to only purchase tri-mode phones with a
> "digital-only" setting. I can set "digital-only" for best
> performance in town, or in situations like Coos Bay, and simply
> enable analog when in an area with no signal otherwise. Verizon
> Tri-Mode phones that have "digital-only" in the menus include Kyocera
> (all), LG 4400, 3200 etc., Nokia 3589i, 6015. Choose one that can do
> this, and you'll get the best of both worlds.
>
> The idea that all-digital phones have a real advantage is total
> hogwash, when compared to a tri-mode phone with a "digital-only" menu
> selection.
>
> -Dan
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 6:31:43 PM

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

Thanks Philip-

The other case I forgot to mention is places at high elevation where
distance from the tower or pilot pollution make a digital connection
impossible. Analog will still work in these instances.

I've made an analog call with a handheld cellular phone 67 miles from the
nearest
Verizon tower. Cape Arago with line of sight to just south of Florence
Oregon
ocean in between. (Cape Arago is relatively further west, but not a
peninsula)

-Dan

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 3:06:06 AM

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

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message news:<hYKdnRz4MfmWsAfcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>...
> Thanks Philip-
>
> The other case I forgot to mention is places at high elevation where
> distance from the tower or pilot pollution make a digital connection
> impossible. Analog will still work in these instances.
>
> I've made an analog call with a handheld cellular phone 67 miles from the
> nearest
> Verizon tower. Cape Arago with line of sight to just south of Florence
> Oregon
> ocean in between. (Cape Arago is relatively further west, but not a
> peninsula)
>
> -Dan

Good info.
I agree out west analog is a must for any off the beaten path
traveler.
Burning question...What's going to happen to analog coverage in those
remote areas served by distant towers in the future?

Nothern CA and OR have got to be 5 or (10?) years behind some areas of
the country. I just don't see anyway to use digital to fill in what is
covered by distantly (3watt) spaced towers. I don't see cutting
coverage to the local farmer, rancher, rural users as an option, no
matter how many ringtones the new phones offer.

You think modified range CDMA boomer towers will ever replace the
current analog system? Ever seen any succesful long digital
replacements or big analog coverage losses?

Thanks,
David
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 8:32:55 AM

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

I have a Audiovox 9155GPX and standing at Point Loma tidepools here in San Diego digital won't complete a call-too far away and too many conflicts. Forced analog and then was able to hit LA sid 2 and make a call over the water all the way up toward Dana Point over 50 miles away! That my friends is a lifesaving feature. I feel you should have a phone that has Analog & Digital just to increase your chances of completing a call!
What if a life was in danger and digital just wouldn't complete? I'd sure like that second chance of trying analog to make that call!
JOHN
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 8:59:19 AM

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

In article <hYKdnRz4MfmWsAfcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
>Thanks Philip-
>
>The other case I forgot to mention is places at high elevation where
>distance from the tower or pilot pollution make a digital connection
>impossible. Analog will still work in these instances.
>
>I've made an analog call with a handheld cellular phone 67 miles from the
>nearest
>Verizon tower. Cape Arago with line of sight to just south of Florence
>Oregon
>ocean in between. (Cape Arago is relatively further west, but not a
>peninsula)

I had the same experience at the Grand Canyon North Rim. My StarTac could
pick up a good Verizon digital signal from Williams 50-some miles over the
canyon and then flat land to the south, but could not register. Switched
to analog, and it worked fine. (Yes, I verified that I was getting the
Verizon SID.) The maximum range of a CDMA site with default configuration
is about 35 miles, due to timing delays. There is no inherent distance
limit with AMPS; if the tower and the phone can hear each other, you
are in business. In the Australian OutBack, they set the CDMA cell site
to accept more delay, and get quite a bit more range, without having to
change the software in the phone. They went with CDMA rather than GSM
in the Outback due to long distances involved, which GSM cannot handle.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 5:59:22 PM

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

> Burning question...What's going to happen to analog coverage in those
> remote areas served by distant towers in the future?

--> No one knows. We do know that the FCC has allowed carriers to drop
analog
service after 2006, so that gets us about two more years of guarenteed
analog at least
in the places where analog exists today.

I've seen very remote cellular sites, in places like Millican Oregon where
there's
a concrete bunker for cellular equipment on a hill-top. A huge amount of
propane
and a propane electric generator which is completely fenced. The caretaker
literally
has to snow mobile to this location in the winter time. I can imagine what
it costs
to maintain this site.

Let's see, there's maybe a few hundred people a year that use this site,
what do you think the
carrier is going to do when the requirement is dropped?

Others on this list don't believe analog is in any danger, but I sincerely
think most
of the remote rural coverage we enjoy today will evaporate. Those sites
were
built in a time when folks paid *real money* for cellular service and those
days
do not exist anymore. Obviously, populated areas will continue to have
coverage
including anywhere a business case can be made to keep it.

Here's to hoping I'm wrong, and that analog will still exist after the FCC
requirement
ends.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:57:58 PM

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

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

>Here's to hoping I'm wrong, and that analog will still exist after the FCC
>requirement


GM is going to have a bunch of pissed off On-Star customers if analog cell
service goes away. Many homes and businesses have analog cell phones as backup
in burgular alarms as well.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 3:13:12 AM

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

Dan Albrich wrote:
>> Burning question...What's going to happen to analog coverage in those
>> remote areas served by distant towers in the future?
>
> --> No one knows. We do know that the FCC has allowed carriers to
> drop analog
> service after 2006, so that gets us about two more years of guarenteed
> analog at least
> in the places where analog exists today.
>
> I've seen very remote cellular sites, in places like Millican Oregon
> where there's
> a concrete bunker for cellular equipment on a hill-top. A huge
> amount of propane
> and a propane electric generator which is completely fenced. The
> caretaker literally
> has to snow mobile to this location in the winter time. I can
> imagine what it costs
> to maintain this site.
>
> Let's see, there's maybe a few hundred people a year that use this
> site, what do you think the
> carrier is going to do when the requirement is dropped?
>
> Others on this list don't believe analog is in any danger, but I
> sincerely think most
> of the remote rural coverage we enjoy today will evaporate. Those
> sites were
> built in a time when folks paid *real money* for cellular service
> and those days
> do not exist anymore. Obviously, populated areas will continue to
> have coverage
> including anywhere a business case can be made to keep it.
>
> Here's to hoping I'm wrong, and that analog will still exist after
> the FCC requirement
> ends.


Make a POINT to use analog when your digital bars are down to one or none.
:-)
--

-Philip
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 5:07:17 AM

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

There are places now that do not have any wireless service, digital or
analog, because there are not enough people using wireless service in
those areas. When the FCC mandate expires, populated areas will
continue to have service, but it will not be analog. Not only is it too
expensive to operate, it is not secure.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 7:10:42 AM

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

In article <8r3op0da2qkgqgvlmavo77g0fkor3le1j9@4ax.com>,
Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <spamtrap100@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
>
>>Here's to hoping I'm wrong, and that analog will still exist after the FCC
>>requirement
>
>GM is going to have a bunch of pissed off On-Star customers if analog cell
>service goes away. Many homes and businesses have analog cell phones as backup
>in burgular alarms as well.

New OnStar systems are digital. I believe someone posted an advisory
from GM telling customers about the eventual demise of AMPS.

There are also all of those cellular roadside callboxes in states like
California....
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 7:10:43 AM

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

hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:

>New OnStar systems are digital. I believe someone posted an advisory
>from GM telling customers about the eventual demise of AMPS.

Found it. Here's the FAQ:

http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/faq/not_faq_main.j...
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 8:13:55 AM

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:59:22 -0800, "Dan Albrich"
<junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

>
>Let's see, there's maybe a few hundred people a year that use this site,
>what do you think the
>carrier is going to do when the requirement is dropped?

Let's say it's 300 users a year, at $30 per user, per month. That's
$108k a year that this site is enabling. I don't think that it costs
them $108k a year to *maintain* that site. Why take down the site and
loose that $108k per year income. I'd say it's likely that every
remote analog site more than pays for itself in use fees, and if one
company takes down their analog antennas then those customers will
flock to the other company that keeps their antennas up, essentially
doubling their income, just by leaving existing equipment in place.

In addition, the estimate of 300 users per remote analog antenna may
be conservative. I know a lot of people in remote areas that have
setup residence "off grid" and they rely on their cell phones, they
don't HAVE land-line access to their property. I bet that analog
usage is higher in these remote areas than you might initially guess.

jc
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 8:47:14 AM

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

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> There are places now that do not have any wireless service, digital or
> analog, because there are not enough people using wireless service in
> those areas. When the FCC mandate expires, populated areas will
> continue to have service, but it will not be analog. Not only is it
> too expensive to operate, it is not secure.


Define "expensive to operate." To whom?

"Secure?" To whom is it more important to have a secure line than no line
at all?

--

-Philip
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 3:55:07 PM

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

Most of those 300 probably make most of their calls digitally.
Definitely most of verizon's, cingular's, uscellular's, etc. customers
make most of their calls digitally. Most of that $30 should be
accounted to maintaining the digital system. What is left is not enough
to maintain the analog system. When the FCC mandate expires, the
providers will move quickly to cut costs.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 4:25:24 PM

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

Too expensive to operate for those who operate the system of course,
the carriers.
Important to the customers who don't want to be cloned. A very small
percentage of wireless service areas are analog only. There are more
square miles in this country that have no service at all, than there are
square miles that are analog only.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 7:18:32 PM

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

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Most of those 300 probably make most of their calls digitally.
> Definitely most of verizon's, cingular's, uscellular's, etc. customers
> make most of their calls digitally. Most of that $30 should be
> accounted to maintaining the digital system. What is left is not
> enough to maintain the analog system. When the FCC mandate expires,
> the providers will move quickly to cut costs.

When there are 300 persons (the example) in a fringe/remote area who must
use analog because there is no digital signal, how can you say "....probably
make most of their calls digitally." ?? Do you have any idea how much
money it costs to put up digital hardware to cover a remote area vs. analog
coverage? Probably not. "Providers" will not "move quickly" to lose
customers to competition who continue to support analog.
--

-Philip
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 7:18:34 PM

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

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Too expensive to operate for those who operate the system of course,
> the carriers.
> Important to the customers who don't want to be cloned. A very small
> percentage of wireless service areas are analog only. There are more
> square miles in this country that have no service at all, than there
> are square miles that are analog only.

You're speaking of UNINHABITED square miles. When I was driving line haul,
it was rare that even analog vaporized upon leaving an Interstate.
--

-Philip
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 9:37:06 AM

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

Because those 300 customers that have accessed that antenna site during
the year, probably do not spend all their time near it. They probably
spend most of their time in a digital area or away from that analog site
using another analog site that also has to be maintained.
The carriers know how much it costs to overlay digital on analog. They
have done almost all of it. The competition will be moving to drop
analog too, so there will be no one to lose customers to.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 1:40:19 PM

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

OK - how many tri-mode PDA phones has Verizon introduced lately?
Last I looked, they weren't selling ANY such phones.
--
Chuck Forsberg caf@omen.com www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 1:35:08 AM

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

So what are you infering? I see an ulterior motive for not supporting AMPS
.... and it's not in my best interest as one who travels to outlying areas.

Chuck Forsberg wrote:
> OK - how many tri-mode PDA phones has Verizon introduced lately?
> Last I looked, they weren't selling ANY such phones.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:14:01 PM

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

In the course of learning more about wireless internet access on Verizon, I
ran across this:

There are still a lot of "Analog" areas around the country and
you can not even call 911 if in an Analog area with a
"Digital Only" phone. Therefore, I suggest you only consider
"Tri Mode" phones which support "AMPS 800", "CDMA 800 & CDMA
1900", as well being "CDMA 2000 1XRTT" compliant for the high
speed National Access network.

Seems to me this should be another consideration to prefer a tri-mode phone
over 'all digital' if one is a traveler.

--
- Philip
In observance of Pear Harbor, feel free to
Zero in on any Mitsubishi driver and cut him off!

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mwgnd.2610$Tq6.1067@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Because those 300 customers that have accessed that antenna site during
> the year, probably do not spend all their time near it. They probably
> spend most of their time in a digital area or away from that analog site
> using another analog site that also has to be maintained.
> The carriers know how much it costs to overlay digital on analog. They
> have done almost all of it. The competition will be moving to drop analog
> too, so there will be no one to lose customers to.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:15:21 PM

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

I am not saying that someone should not buy a tri-mode phone. Tri-mode
phones purchased today would likely be replaced before the mandate for
maintaining analog expires. But much closer to that date and especially
after that date, it would be largely a waste of money to buy a phone
that has the extra cost of analog circuitry.
December 7, 2004 9:12:23 PM

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

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:14:01 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:

>- Philip
>In observance of Pear Harbor, feel free to
>Zero in on any Mitsubishi driver and cut him off!

What a nasty thing to end your posts with. You truly have 0 tact.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:14:32 AM

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

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:12:23 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:14:01 GMT, "Philip"
><1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>- Philip
>>In observance of Pear Harbor, feel free to
>>Zero in on any Mitsubishi driver and cut him off!
>
>What a nasty thing to end your posts with. You truly have 0 tact.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>


Agree about 0 tact but truth is that his signature brought more
attention to this anniversary than the President or the rest of the
country!
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:08:48 AM

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

Joseph wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:14:01 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> - Philip
>> In observance of Pear Harbor, feel free to
>> Zero in on any Mitsubishi driver and cut him off!
>
> What a nasty thing to end your posts with. You truly have 0 tact.

I did misspell 'Pearl' , didn't I. Shame. It's only for today. LOL

--
- Philip
In observance of Pearl Harbor, feel free to
Zero in on a Mitsubishi driver and cut him off!
!