Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tech experts: Is there a real technical problem with CDMA ..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:42:39 PM

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

Considering that more and more new cars will offer bluetooth
capability, I really can't understand why Verizon doesn't offer more
phone models that are bluetooth capable - unless they can't, for
technical reasons I am not capable of understanding.

Bottom line - is there some inherent problem with bluetooth/CDMA
compatability? Seems to me that there must be. GSM providers all
provide far greater bluetooth phone selection. If there isn't a
CDMA/bluetooth compatability problem, then where are the Verizon
bluetooth phones? I don't particularly like the Moto 710 or Audiovox
6600. I am looking for a smaller, lighter phone. I am not interested
in camera phones, but would be willing to take one and just ignore the
camera.

Does anyone with some *real* technical knowledge know the answer? If
the answer is yes, and there is a current problem with CDMA/bluetooth,
is this a solvable problem in the near future (meaning that someday
soon Verizon might increase its bluetooth phone selection), or do I
need to switch to a GSM provider to get bluetooth? I would really like
to stay with Verizon if possible, but no prospects of significant
bluetooth selection would be a deal killer for me. Thanks in advance.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 6:53:34 PM

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

zwerl1@yahoo.com wrote:
> Considering that more and more new cars will offer bluetooth
> capability, I really can't understand why Verizon doesn't offer more
> phone models that are bluetooth capable - unless they can't, for
> technical reasons I am not capable of understanding.
>
> Bottom line - is there some inherent problem with bluetooth/CDMA
> compatability? Seems to me that there must be. GSM providers all
> provide far greater bluetooth phone selection. If there isn't a
> CDMA/bluetooth compatability problem, then where are the Verizon
> bluetooth phones? I don't particularly like the Moto 710 or Audiovox
> 6600. I am looking for a smaller, lighter phone. I am not interested
> in camera phones, but would be willing to take one and just ignore the
> camera.
>
> Does anyone with some *real* technical knowledge know the answer? If
> the answer is yes, and there is a current problem with CDMA/bluetooth,
> is this a solvable problem in the near future (meaning that someday
> soon Verizon might increase its bluetooth phone selection), or do I
> need to switch to a GSM provider to get bluetooth? I would really
> like to stay with Verizon if possible, but no prospects of significant
> bluetooth selection would be a deal killer for me. Thanks in advance.

No technical reason, bluetooth is sort of like AM radio in technical stuff,
CDMA is more like FM.. Ever notice that it is usually only available on
foriegn cars who's home countries have GSM?

Since It's a deal killer, switch now....
February 26, 2005 11:35:37 PM

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:53:34 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>No technical reason, bluetooth is sort of like AM radio in technical stuff,
>CDMA is more like FM.. Ever notice that it is usually only available on
>foriegn cars who's home countries have GSM?

It's also available on high end US manufactured vehicles (as much as
vehicles in the US are highly composed of foreign parts and have
partial assembly offshore.)

Verizon has its reasons for not offering more CDMA models with
Bluetooth, but they're not sharing what that reason is.

And Bluetooth is *hardly* like AM radio. You'll have to come up with
a better analogy than that one. Do you even know what you're talking
about or is this only just your own personal wacky speculation?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 2:31:27 AM

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

> Considering that more and more new cars will offer bluetooth
> capability, I really can't understand why Verizon doesn't offer more
> phone models that are bluetooth capable - unless they can't, for
> technical reasons I am not capable of understanding.
>
> Bottom line - is there some inherent problem with bluetooth/CDMA
> compatability? Seems to me that there must be. GSM providers all
> provide far greater bluetooth phone selection. If there isn't a
> CDMA/bluetooth compatability problem, then where are the Verizon
> bluetooth phones? I don't particularly like the Moto 710 or Audiovox
> 6600. I am looking for a smaller, lighter phone. I am not interested
> in camera phones, but would be willing to take one and just ignore the
> camera.
>
> Does anyone with some *real* technical knowledge know the answer? If
> the answer is yes, and there is a current problem with CDMA/bluetooth,
> is this a solvable problem in the near future (meaning that someday
> soon Verizon might increase its bluetooth phone selection), or do I
> need to switch to a GSM provider to get bluetooth? I would really like
> to stay with Verizon if possible, but no prospects of significant
> bluetooth selection would be a deal killer for me. Thanks in advance.


I am not an *expert* on CDMA or GSM, but I can give you a hint of what's
probably happening.

We all know comanies (especially corporations) are in business to make a
profit. Whether a phone be CDMA or GSM, I would imagine it takes a
certain amount of time and money through research and development to
create a new phone model. Now here's the bigger part of the equation:
market size. The next paragraph is an exerpt from GSM World.

The GSM Association (GSMA) is the global trade association that exists
to promote, protect and enhance the interests of GSM mobile operators
throughout the world. At the end of 2004, it consisted of 650 second and
third generation mobile operators and more than 150 manufacturers and
suppliers. The Association's members provide mobile services to
approaching 1.25 billion customers across more than 210 countries and
territories around the world.

http://www.gsmworld.com/about/index.shtml

Although there are possibly a couple of hundred million CDMA customers,
there are over 1.25 BILLION GSM customers. Because of the volume of
consumers on GSM, I would imagine GSM is more profitable for a company
than CDMA. Not only in terms of research and development, but also in
terms of royalties. Qualcomm developed the CDMAone standard, and has
since developed and deployed CDMA2000 in its various flavors. Because
of that, it still has many patents on CDMA technology. It would not be
unreasonable to assume that manufacturers of handsets have to pay
Qualcomm royalties for using CDMA. GSM (Group Speciale Mobile) started
as a group of European operators who wished to come up with a single
digital standard to replace the legacy (and incompatible) analogue
networks. While there are probably royalties for GSM as well, I would
imagine they would be much less than CDMA. For-profit companies usually
require more revenue than non-profit organizations.

In the United States, Cingular, the largest mobile operator, is GSM. In
Canada, Rogers, the larges mobile operator, is GSM. In Europe, it is
mandated that GSM be the standard (for compatibility). Many other
countries have chosen GSM as the standard (or a good portion of the
mobile community). Also, with GSM, which has also been dubbed "Global
Standard for Mobiles", there is one set of standards. With CDMA, there
are several. You have CDMAone, the legacy CDMA Network, you have the
CDMA2000 (including CDMA2000 1xrtt and CDMA2000 EV-DO), you have a CDMA
standard in South Korea that is compatible with GSM SIM cards, and you
have yet a different CDMA standard in Japan. Not to mention the wCDMA
version which is part of GSM.

If you wait long enough, I think we will see some king of CDMA
world-wide standard coming out, but it will not be any of the CDMA
flavors that are currently in use. Too many people like standards of
GSM (especially the SIM card and voice quality) for those to be given
up. But it will probably take a long time. The United States still
mandates its national standard of 1983. It's 2005.

TH
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 5:19:33 AM

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

Tropical Haven wrote:
> In Europe, it is
> mandated that GSM be the standard (for compatibility). Many other
> countries have chosen GSM as the standard (or a good portion of the
> mobile community). Also, with GSM, which has also been dubbed "Global
> Standard for Mobiles", there is one set of standards. With CDMA, there
> are several. You have CDMAone, the legacy CDMA Network, you have the
> CDMA2000 (including CDMA2000 1xrtt and CDMA2000 EV-DO), you have a CDMA
> standard in South Korea that is compatible with GSM SIM cards, and you
> have yet a different CDMA standard in Japan. Not to mention the wCDMA
> version which is part of GSM.

Just want to point out that the CDMA-one and the CDMA2000 protocols
(including the Korean version, but not the Japanese version) are
compatible with each other, down to being able to co-exist on the same
frequency band at the same time. An old CDMA-one phone will work fine on
a CDMA-2000-capable cell site, and a new CDMA-2000-capable phone will
work on an old CDMA-one cell site. Upgrading cell sites between CDMA
versions is often no more than a new software load, or at most, swapping
a few cards.

In the US, with IS-136 ("TDMA") and AMPS being phased out, and Nextel
possibly migrating to CDMA with the merger with SprintPCS, that leaves
CDMA and GSM as the two protocols in use. Hardly a proliferation of
incompatible standards. And there is the issue of GSM migrating to a
CDMA air interface (wCDMA), which requires lots of new hardware (both in
the cell sites and the mobile phones) and frequency allocation issues,
since it is incompatible with the current GSM air interface.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 8:22:17 AM

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

CharlesH wrote:
> Tropical Haven wrote:
>
>> In Europe, it is mandated that GSM be the standard (for
>> compatibility). Many other countries have chosen GSM as the standard
>> (or a good portion of the mobile community). Also, with GSM, which
>> has also been dubbed "Global Standard for Mobiles", there is one set
>> of standards. With CDMA, there are several. You have CDMAone, the
>> legacy CDMA Network, you have the CDMA2000 (including CDMA2000 1xrtt
>> and CDMA2000 EV-DO), you have a CDMA standard in South Korea that is
>> compatible with GSM SIM cards, and you have yet a different CDMA
>> standard in Japan. Not to mention the wCDMA version which is part of
>> GSM.
>
>
> Just want to point out that the CDMA-one and the CDMA2000 protocols
> (including the Korean version, but not the Japanese version) are
> compatible with each other, down to being able to co-exist on the same
> frequency band at the same time. An old CDMA-one phone will work fine on
> a CDMA-2000-capable cell site, and a new CDMA-2000-capable phone will
> work on an old CDMA-one cell site. Upgrading cell sites between CDMA
> versions is often no more than a new software load, or at most, swapping
> a few cards.

I wasn't trying to comment on compatibility between Qualcomm's CDMA
flavors, I was just using that to express royalties, making sure to
include CDMAone as some people think 1x is the first CDMA standard. I
guess I don't know much about the Korean version of CDMA, but I do know
that it requires SIM cards. Rogers (in Canada, of course) has extensive
roaming agreements with Korean operators to the point that you can rent
a handset and use your SIM card on either network (not sure if Korean
networks can suppport ESNs by configuration).


> In the US, with IS-136 ("TDMA") and AMPS being phased out, and Nextel
> possibly migrating to CDMA with the merger with SprintPCS, that leaves
> CDMA and GSM as the two protocols in use. Hardly a proliferation of
> incompatible standards. And there is the issue of GSM migrating to a
> CDMA air interface (wCDMA), which requires lots of new hardware (both in
> the cell sites and the mobile phones) and frequency allocation issues,
> since it is incompatible with the current GSM air interface.

When all other technologies (AMPS, iDEN, and TDMA) are phased out, it
will leave only 2 technologies. However, TODAY there are five running.

The handset issue is not different from a CDMAone handset needing to be
swapped out in order to take advantage of CDMA2000 EV-DO. And yes,
there are some issues with CDMA/GSM compatibility. They both have their
advantages and disadvantages. While CDMA based interfaces are generally
more spectrally efficient, TDMA based interfaces generally have higher
voice quality in terms of voice communications. While I currently use a
GSM service as my primary means of voice communications, if I had to
choose between CDMA or wireline, I would go back to wireline as I feel
that CDMA currently does not have the voice quality available that GSM
and wirelines do.

In fact, when I lived in rural areas and used CDMA, I found that
"digital" service was unreliable...calls dropped frequently even though
signal was strong, voice quality would sometimes be acceptable (not
good, but acceptable) and would go up and down during a call. I found
myself forcing analog before every call I made...that way it would be
less likely to drop. Analog with strong signal far outdoes the voice
quality of CDMA (and sometimes even GSM). While some of these problems
have probably worked themselves out as the carriers invested more into
their CDMA networks, some problems remain such as variable voice quality
and variable signal ("shrinking cell" effect?) remain. I also think the
idea of SIM cards is a big plus for the GSM operators, as it makes
changing of handsets for users much easier and more convenient (such as
phonebook following SIM instead of phone, the same text messaging and
other certaing system settings, like GPRS/EDGE).

As I think CDMA will be the wave of the future, I also feel there will
be a much different CDMA standard that wins out. If new developments
occur, it might not even be compatible with *any* current CDMA
standards. I also think SIM cards are the wave of the future. I guess
within the next 20 years, we'll probably find out.

TH
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 10:05:41 AM

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

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:22:17 +0000, Tropical Haven wrote:

> if I had to choose between CDMA or wireline, I would go back to wireline
> as I feel that CDMA currently does not have the voice quality available
> that GSM and wirelines do.

You really should compare apples to apples here. At least in most areas
of the US, the network quality is more important than the protocol.

I'll take three friends as examples. Friend A has a Sprint PCS phone
(CDMA), Friend B has a T-Mobile phone (GSM), and Friend C has a AT&T GSM
phone (now Cingular). By and large SPCS has the superior voice quality.
It's been a long time (I'm thinking 3-4 years) since I've gotten a
really distorted call from a SPCS customer. Friend B often sounds
distorted. Friend C was just awful the vast majority of the time, far more
distorted than Friend B ever was. AT&T finally sunk some money into
building out their network (before being assimilated back into SBC). Now
Friend C is on par with Friend A in terms of voice quality.

Of course phone choice makes a difference too.. with the 800mhz bands you
really do want an extendable antenna. The difference between my Nokia
5185i with the antenna fully extended, and the 6185 with its stubby
antenna has become significant now that I've moved to what seems like a
VZW black hole. Of course if I force the 6185 to Sprint, the coverage is
beautiful.

I will not even begin to rant about SBC and the quality of the landline
I've got from them (I'm behind a DAML).

--
alex
February 27, 2005 10:05:42 AM

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

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:05:41 GMT, Alex Zepeda
<usenet@blarf.homeip.net> wrote:

>Friend B often sounds
>distorted.

Which means absolutely nothing. He could have a different phone or he
could be in a marginal reception area or any host of other conditions
that do not make any kind of absolutes. And a lot of what you say is
purely your own personal preference and what you perceive. What one
person determines as "unnatural" sounding another may think is
perfectly fine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:59:26 PM

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

Joseph wrote:

> Verizon has its reasons for not offering more CDMA models with
> Bluetooth, but they're not sharing what that reason is.
>

Of course you are correct that Verizon has its reasons for not offering
more CDMA/bluetooth models - otherwise, they would. But I can't even
dream up a reasonable explanation (obviously, it has something to do
with money). But doesn't it seem logical that offering more desireable
handsets would attract more customers? I really don't get it at all.
Unless (again) there is some technical problem with the CDMA/bluetooth
phones - and that was my original question. If there is no such
problem, then I just can't conceive of any reasonable explanation for
not offering more of these phones - except that it must have something
to do with money. I wonder what real explanation is!
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 2:40:57 PM

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

zwerl1@yahoo.com wrote:

> Of course you are correct that Verizon has its reasons for not offering
> more CDMA/bluetooth models - otherwise, they would.

There simply aren't a ton of CDMA bluetooth handsets out there. I wonder why,
though I have my theories...

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 4:18:52 PM

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

> There simply aren't a ton of CDMA bluetooth handsets out there. I
wonder why,
> though I have my theories...
>

Why not? What do you think the reasons are? I'm very curious. There
HAS to be some reasonable answer.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 4:41:05 PM

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

zwerl1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>There simply aren't a ton of CDMA bluetooth handsets out there. I
>
> wonder why,
>
>>though I have my theories...
>>
>
>
> Why not? What do you think the reasons are? I'm very curious. There
> HAS to be some reasonable answer.

My guesses are:

1) because the CDMA carriers haven't asked for them or
2) because there is some engineering issue involved with putting BT in a CDMA
phone.

But they're just guesses.



--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
February 27, 2005 7:04:37 PM

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

Richard Ness wrote:
<cut>
> You pay your monthly bill not for the phone, but for access to the SYSTEM.
> No matter how feature laden or fancy a phone is, it is the SYSTEM that, in
> reality
> carries and delivers your calls, data, etc. The phone is a very minor part
> of the whole.
<cut>

Not to be disagreeable, but a poor phone will not work well with even
the best "SYSTEM." My first phone was a cheap Nokia which didn't work
worth a darn out in the sticks. I traded for a Moto T730 and get much
better results.

Tom
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:38:08 PM

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

Richard Ness wrote:
> anyone with a clue should know that the phone is only an access
> device.
> You pay your monthly bill not for the phone, but for access to the
SYSTEM.
> No matter how feature laden or fancy a phone is, it is the SYSTEM
that, in
> reality
> carries and delivers your calls, data, etc. The phone is a very minor
part
> of the whole.
>
> Mikey, your (fairly constant) assertion that Verizon won't last "much

> longer" is
> so moronic, it's hard to even address it. They are signing up
customers in
> droves.
> Why? Because, they have a good SYSTEM. They spend money on the
SYSTEM.
> It is their SYSTEM that is superior.

I agree with you. I currently use Verizon (I got rid of ATT a couple of
years ago because of too many dropped and garbled calls and far too
many dead areas - even in the NYC area; one of my children uses
T-Mobile and likewise has markedly worse service than I do (he is
waiting for his contract to lapse so he can switch to Verizon).
Verizon is definitely the best network, in my opinion, and it seems to
me that it is the best by a considerable margin. But their selection
of phones is probably the worst! Still, I fully agree that the system
is much more important than the phone. I'm staying with Verizon despite
their phones.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 12:15:57 PM

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

Steve Sobol wrote:
> zwerl1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> There simply aren't a ton of CDMA bluetooth handsets out there. I
>>
>> wonder why,
>>
>>> though I have my theories...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why not? What do you think the reasons are? I'm very curious. There
>> HAS to be some reasonable answer.
>
> My guesses are:
>
> 1) because the CDMA carriers haven't asked for them or
> 2) because there is some engineering issue involved with putting BT
> in a CDMA phone.
>
> But they're just guesses.

Neither is plausible IMO. The reason is likely that Verizon demands a
BT-enabled phone that is strictly locked into its proprietary
user-access technologies. The Moto v710 is a case in point: as
originally sold by Verizon/designed by Moto, one could upload ringtones
and pics only through the transflash card via cable. There is no way to
do anything with BREW apps outside of GIN. BT is completely unavailable
for data transfer. The only BT capability is restricted to BT headsets.
The current v710 software "upgrade" is reported to lock out even data
transfers via the transflash/cable, further locking the phone to
proprietary, costly access. Users are required to utilize only
Verizon's GIN, at cost to the user and profit for Verizon.

Verizon's business model requires every phone they sell to be locked
into their proprietary for-profit access methods. Every phone must be
specially modified by the manufacturer to meet Verizon's requirements.
No manufacturer can afford to modifiy each and every one of its phones
for Verizon, so only a few become Verizon phones. This includes BT
phones. There is nothing special about BT, it's simply another
technology that Verizon elects to lock down consistent with their
business model. Motorola "appears" to be flexible enough to modify a
few of their phones to meet Verizon's requirements. Given the dearth of
Verizon BT phones, other phone vendors must be reluctant to play the
game.

Now with BT there is the problem that linking with an auto BT system is
no different than linking to any other BT receiver. The phone
manufacturers must devise a way to make auto linking happen while at the
same time prohibiting the user from accessing phone functions via BT
that Verizon needs to lock out in order to support its for-profit access
model.

This is a sizeable and costly problem given that BT is designed to
provide more or less universal connectivity. If a given vendor wants to
sell into Verizon there is work required to modify its phones for what
is a small segment of its total market for a customer (Verizon) that
likely wants the mods at no cost. The manufacturers can do this
profitably with only one or two phones, thus limiting at the outset the
number of phones available to Verizon with the required mods to support
its business model.

It has nothing to do with CDMA technology; it has everything to do with
Verizon's rigid business model, the manufacturing economics of providing
phones that meet Verizons very restrictive connectivity requirements,
and the small total market for phones that Verizon's CDMA represents in
a very competetive, low margin manufacturing environment.

IMO, Verizon has locked itself into a business model that is
unsupportable in the long term. Users have expectations that their
phones will have the full range of BT connectivity. The BT mods for
Verizon have demonstrated problems with auto connectivity - a major
selling point for a cellular provider. Simple BT/cable synchronization
of phones with desktops is impossible. Users want third-party apps;
BREW is too costly for the developer and locks out independent
application developement thus limiting availability of apps compared to
Java. As phones in general become more capable, there is more work
required on the part of the manufacturer to work around open
accessibility to provide lock-downs for Verizon while leaving open
specific connectivity such as auto BT systems.

As customers expect more from technology that provides more, Verizon
provides less to support its restrictive business model. There is a
point where the customer will reject Verizon to get the full
capabilities, including BT, that he wants. There is a point where the
cost to Verizon of restrive access in both equipment costs and declining
growth will cause the company to rethink its business model. It is
likely that BT connectivity will be the battleground. History is
replete with examples proving that Verizon will lose the battle- the
customer is always right.

Q
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:43:03 AM

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

You know, I'm all for VZW having full-feature BT phones available.. but,
really, c'mon. This bleeding edge claim that everyone is demanding BT just
doesn't hold water. Someone, anyone.. show me some stat that even 5% of the
people with a BT phone on -any- carrier even know what the feature is.

I would bet that the odds are better than even money that Verizon saves more
money in CS hours by not having to support BT alone, than the revenue
generated by a few thousand consumer or even business users that potentially
up their plan anywhere from $0 for the casual tech-ish phone guy here all
the way up to even $150/month for a serious business user just because BT is
available.

Please, by all means, show me some hard and fast data showing the hundreds
of thousands of users and their revenue that would come flocking. I like new
tech stuff as much as anybody.. but no one's yet made an honest business
model case that BT would -really- bring any significant additional profit.
I've been listening to this no-BT complaint here in the newsgroups for 3+
years.. and what has it cost VZW so far? They've added 10M or so users!
Sounds to me like both business and consumer users have pretty much already
voted with their dollars whether they value general voice coverage or BT
more.

And yet still people insist that they should listen to 50 squeaky wheels on
the internet instead? Don't see that happening.. look how well that worked
out for AT&T, huh? ;) 


"Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
news:kIidnX8FTqIi3r7fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>> zwerl1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> There simply aren't a ton of CDMA bluetooth handsets out there. I
>>>
>>> wonder why,
>>>
>>>> though I have my theories...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not? What do you think the reasons are? I'm very curious. There
>>> HAS to be some reasonable answer.
>>
>> My guesses are:
>>
>> 1) because the CDMA carriers haven't asked for them or
>> 2) because there is some engineering issue involved with putting BT
>> in a CDMA phone.
>>
>> But they're just guesses.
>
> Neither is plausible IMO. The reason is likely that Verizon demands a
> BT-enabled phone that is strictly locked into its proprietary user-access
> technologies. The Moto v710 is a case in point: as originally sold by
> Verizon/designed by Moto, one could upload ringtones and pics only through
> the transflash card via cable. There is no way to do anything with BREW
> apps outside of GIN. BT is completely unavailable for data transfer. The
> only BT capability is restricted to BT headsets. The current v710 software
> "upgrade" is reported to lock out even data transfers via the
> transflash/cable, further locking the phone to proprietary, costly access.
> Users are required to utilize only Verizon's GIN, at cost to the user and
> profit for Verizon.
>
> Verizon's business model requires every phone they sell to be locked into
> their proprietary for-profit access methods. Every phone must be
> specially modified by the manufacturer to meet Verizon's requirements. No
> manufacturer can afford to modifiy each and every one of its phones for
> Verizon, so only a few become Verizon phones. This includes BT phones.
> There is nothing special about BT, it's simply another technology that
> Verizon elects to lock down consistent with their business model.
> Motorola "appears" to be flexible enough to modify a few of their phones
> to meet Verizon's requirements. Given the dearth of Verizon BT phones,
> other phone vendors must be reluctant to play the game.
>
> Now with BT there is the problem that linking with an auto BT system is no
> different than linking to any other BT receiver. The phone manufacturers
> must devise a way to make auto linking happen while at the same time
> prohibiting the user from accessing phone functions via BT that Verizon
> needs to lock out in order to support its for-profit access model.
>
> This is a sizeable and costly problem given that BT is designed to provide
> more or less universal connectivity. If a given vendor wants to sell into
> Verizon there is work required to modify its phones for what is a small
> segment of its total market for a customer (Verizon) that likely wants the
> mods at no cost. The manufacturers can do this profitably with only one
> or two phones, thus limiting at the outset the number of phones available
> to Verizon with the required mods to support its business model.
>
> It has nothing to do with CDMA technology; it has everything to do with
> Verizon's rigid business model, the manufacturing economics of providing
> phones that meet Verizons very restrictive connectivity requirements, and
> the small total market for phones that Verizon's CDMA represents in a very
> competetive, low margin manufacturing environment.
>
> IMO, Verizon has locked itself into a business model that is unsupportable
> in the long term. Users have expectations that their phones will have the
> full range of BT connectivity. The BT mods for Verizon have demonstrated
> problems with auto connectivity - a major selling point for a cellular
> provider. Simple BT/cable synchronization of phones with desktops is
> impossible. Users want third-party apps; BREW is too costly for the
> developer and locks out independent application developement thus limiting
> availability of apps compared to Java. As phones in general become more
> capable, there is more work required on the part of the manufacturer to
> work around open accessibility to provide lock-downs for Verizon while
> leaving open specific connectivity such as auto BT systems.
>
> As customers expect more from technology that provides more, Verizon
> provides less to support its restrictive business model. There is a point
> where the customer will reject Verizon to get the full capabilities,
> including BT, that he wants. There is a point where the cost to Verizon
> of restrive access in both equipment costs and declining growth will cause
> the company to rethink its business model. It is likely that BT
> connectivity will be the battleground. History is replete with examples
> proving that Verizon will lose the battle- the customer is always right.
>
> Q
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:43:04 AM

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

I concur and add....

In many circles, BT is considered a dying or "dead end" technology.
Looked down upon by the serious IT / geek community as a whole.
Thought of as more consumer toy(ish) than serious technology.

IBM and NEC both dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core
selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo
mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after
wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was
and how to plug the holes in it safely. Intel also isn't on board.

It's almost impossible to get a Bluetooth core from any IP dealer,
much less an ASIC vendor. And that's mostly the fault of Bluetooth
itself for not being sure what it is -- spec-compliant implementations
just weren't playing together well.

The spec never settled and was originated by under-qualified individuals.
Some of the braver, more vocal persons involved agree. Googling would
yield some interesting commentary pages from some of those involved/
de-involved in Bluetooth, if you're really interested.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you all probably bought phones
with an ASIC inside that includes a core that is no longer supported. That
means there will be no more updated models of your device, no big deal,
but it also means no new Bluetooth support in that line either. Which is
REALLY what we're discussing.

Maybe VZW is waaaay smarter than you all think, or give them credit for.




"byegiambi" <byegiambi2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42236bcb_3@news2.prserv.net...
> You know, I'm all for VZW having full-feature BT phones available.. but,
> really, c'mon. This bleeding edge claim that everyone is demanding BT just
> doesn't hold water. Someone, anyone.. show me some stat that even 5% of
> the people with a BT phone on -any- carrier even know what the feature is.
>
> I would bet that the odds are better than even money that Verizon saves
> more money in CS hours by not having to support BT alone, than the revenue
> generated by a few thousand consumer or even business users that
> potentially up their plan anywhere from $0 for the casual tech-ish phone
> guy here all the way up to even $150/month for a serious business user
> just because BT is available.
>
> Please, by all means, show me some hard and fast data showing the hundreds
> of thousands of users and their revenue that would come flocking. I like
> new tech stuff as much as anybody.. but no one's yet made an honest
> business model case that BT would -really- bring any significant
> additional profit. I've been listening to this no-BT complaint here in the
> newsgroups for 3+ years.. and what has it cost VZW so far? They've added
> 10M or so users! Sounds to me like both business and consumer users have
> pretty much already voted with their dollars whether they value general
> voice coverage or BT more.
>
> And yet still people insist that they should listen to 50 squeaky wheels
> on the internet instead? Don't see that happening.. look how well that
> worked out for AT&T, huh? ;) 
>
>
> "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:kIidnX8FTqIi3r7fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>> Steve Sobol wrote:
>>> zwerl1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> There simply aren't a ton of CDMA bluetooth handsets out there. I
>>>>
>>>> wonder why,
>>>>
>>>>> though I have my theories...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not? What do you think the reasons are? I'm very curious. There
>>>> HAS to be some reasonable answer.
>>>
>>> My guesses are:
>>>
>>> 1) because the CDMA carriers haven't asked for them or
>>> 2) because there is some engineering issue involved with putting BT
>>> in a CDMA phone.
>>>
>>> But they're just guesses.
>>
>> Neither is plausible IMO. The reason is likely that Verizon demands a
>> BT-enabled phone that is strictly locked into its proprietary user-access
>> technologies. The Moto v710 is a case in point: as originally sold by
>> Verizon/designed by Moto, one could upload ringtones and pics only
>> through the transflash card via cable. There is no way to do anything
>> with BREW apps outside of GIN. BT is completely unavailable for data
>> transfer. The only BT capability is restricted to BT headsets. The
>> current v710 software "upgrade" is reported to lock out even data
>> transfers via the transflash/cable, further locking the phone to
>> proprietary, costly access. Users are required to utilize only Verizon's
>> GIN, at cost to the user and profit for Verizon.
>>
>> Verizon's business model requires every phone they sell to be locked into
>> their proprietary for-profit access methods. Every phone must be
>> specially modified by the manufacturer to meet Verizon's requirements. No
>> manufacturer can afford to modifiy each and every one of its phones for
>> Verizon, so only a few become Verizon phones. This includes BT phones.
>> There is nothing special about BT, it's simply another technology that
>> Verizon elects to lock down consistent with their business model.
>> Motorola "appears" to be flexible enough to modify a few of their phones
>> to meet Verizon's requirements. Given the dearth of Verizon BT phones,
>> other phone vendors must be reluctant to play the game.
>>
>> Now with BT there is the problem that linking with an auto BT system is
>> no different than linking to any other BT receiver. The phone
>> manufacturers must devise a way to make auto linking happen while at the
>> same time prohibiting the user from accessing phone functions via BT that
>> Verizon needs to lock out in order to support its for-profit access
>> model.
>>
>> This is a sizeable and costly problem given that BT is designed to
>> provide more or less universal connectivity. If a given vendor wants to
>> sell into Verizon there is work required to modify its phones for what is
>> a small segment of its total market for a customer (Verizon) that likely
>> wants the mods at no cost. The manufacturers can do this profitably with
>> only one or two phones, thus limiting at the outset the number of phones
>> available to Verizon with the required mods to support its business
>> model.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with CDMA technology; it has everything to do with
>> Verizon's rigid business model, the manufacturing economics of providing
>> phones that meet Verizons very restrictive connectivity requirements, and
>> the small total market for phones that Verizon's CDMA represents in a
>> very competetive, low margin manufacturing environment.
>>
>> IMO, Verizon has locked itself into a business model that is
>> unsupportable in the long term. Users have expectations that their
>> phones will have the full range of BT connectivity. The BT mods for
>> Verizon have demonstrated problems with auto connectivity - a major
>> selling point for a cellular provider. Simple BT/cable synchronization
>> of phones with desktops is impossible. Users want third-party apps; BREW
>> is too costly for the developer and locks out independent application
>> developement thus limiting availability of apps compared to Java. As
>> phones in general become more capable, there is more work required on the
>> part of the manufacturer to work around open accessibility to provide
>> lock-downs for Verizon while leaving open specific connectivity such as
>> auto BT systems.
>>
>> As customers expect more from technology that provides more, Verizon
>> provides less to support its restrictive business model. There is a
>> point where the customer will reject Verizon to get the full
>> capabilities, including BT, that he wants. There is a point where the
>> cost to Verizon of restrive access in both equipment costs and declining
>> growth will cause the company to rethink its business model. It is
>> likely that BT connectivity will be the battleground. History is replete
>> with examples proving that Verizon will lose the battle- the customer is
>> always right.
>>
>> Q
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:50:07 AM

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

Quaoar wrote:

>>1) because the CDMA carriers haven't asked for them or
>>2) because there is some engineering issue involved with putting BT
>>in a CDMA phone.
>>
>>But they're just guesses.
>
>
> Neither is plausible IMO. The reason is likely that Verizon demands a
> BT-enabled phone that is strictly locked into its proprietary
> user-access technologies.

Certainly a logical argument. I bet you're more right than I am.

> As customers expect more from technology that provides more, Verizon
> provides less to support its restrictive business model. There is a
> point where the customer will reject Verizon to get the full
> capabilities, including BT, that he wants.

I'm sure some have already. I just thought it might be a CDMA issue because the
one or two BT phones Sprint sells/has sold (LG PM325 currently, SonyEricsson
T608 previously) seemed to have limited functionality too.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:31:41 AM

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

BTW, here's the cites for that 10M customer adds claim.. but what's a couple
of million extra customers between friends? ;) 

4Q 2004, 43.8M Customers: http://news.vzw.com/news/2005/01/pr2005-01-27.html
4Q 2001, 29.4M Customers: http://news.vzw.com/news/2002/01/pr2002-01-31.html


"byegiambi" <byegiambi2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42236bcb_3@news2.prserv.net...
> You know, I'm all for VZW having full-feature BT phones available.. but,
> really, c'mon. This bleeding edge claim that everyone is demanding BT just
> doesn't hold water. Someone, anyone.. show me some stat that even 5% of
> the people with a BT phone on -any- carrier even know what the feature is.
>
> I would bet that the odds are better than even money that Verizon saves
> more money in CS hours by not having to support BT alone, than the revenue
> generated by a few thousand consumer or even business users that
> potentially up their plan anywhere from $0 for the casual tech-ish phone
> guy here all the way up to even $150/month for a serious business user
> just because BT is available.
>
> Please, by all means, show me some hard and fast data showing the hundreds
> of thousands of users and their revenue that would come flocking. I like
> new tech stuff as much as anybody.. but no one's yet made an honest
> business model case that BT would -really- bring any significant
> additional profit. I've been listening to this no-BT complaint here in the
> newsgroups for 3+ years.. and what has it cost VZW so far? They've added
> 10M or so users! Sounds to me like both business and consumer users have
> pretty much already voted with their dollars whether they value general
> voice coverage or BT more.
>
> And yet still people insist that they should listen to 50 squeaky wheels
> on the internet instead? Don't see that happening.. look how well that
> worked out for AT&T, huh? ;) 
>
>
> "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:kIidnX8FTqIi3r7fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>> Steve Sobol wrote:
>>> zwerl1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> There simply aren't a ton of CDMA bluetooth handsets out there. I
>>>>
>>>> wonder why,
>>>>
>>>>> though I have my theories...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not? What do you think the reasons are? I'm very curious. There
>>>> HAS to be some reasonable answer.
>>>
>>> My guesses are:
>>>
>>> 1) because the CDMA carriers haven't asked for them or
>>> 2) because there is some engineering issue involved with putting BT
>>> in a CDMA phone.
>>>
>>> But they're just guesses.
>>
>> Neither is plausible IMO. The reason is likely that Verizon demands a
>> BT-enabled phone that is strictly locked into its proprietary user-access
>> technologies. The Moto v710 is a case in point: as originally sold by
>> Verizon/designed by Moto, one could upload ringtones and pics only
>> through the transflash card via cable. There is no way to do anything
>> with BREW apps outside of GIN. BT is completely unavailable for data
>> transfer. The only BT capability is restricted to BT headsets. The
>> current v710 software "upgrade" is reported to lock out even data
>> transfers via the transflash/cable, further locking the phone to
>> proprietary, costly access. Users are required to utilize only Verizon's
>> GIN, at cost to the user and profit for Verizon.
>>
>> Verizon's business model requires every phone they sell to be locked into
>> their proprietary for-profit access methods. Every phone must be
>> specially modified by the manufacturer to meet Verizon's requirements. No
>> manufacturer can afford to modifiy each and every one of its phones for
>> Verizon, so only a few become Verizon phones. This includes BT phones.
>> There is nothing special about BT, it's simply another technology that
>> Verizon elects to lock down consistent with their business model.
>> Motorola "appears" to be flexible enough to modify a few of their phones
>> to meet Verizon's requirements. Given the dearth of Verizon BT phones,
>> other phone vendors must be reluctant to play the game.
>>
>> Now with BT there is the problem that linking with an auto BT system is
>> no different than linking to any other BT receiver. The phone
>> manufacturers must devise a way to make auto linking happen while at the
>> same time prohibiting the user from accessing phone functions via BT that
>> Verizon needs to lock out in order to support its for-profit access
>> model.
>>
>> This is a sizeable and costly problem given that BT is designed to
>> provide more or less universal connectivity. If a given vendor wants to
>> sell into Verizon there is work required to modify its phones for what is
>> a small segment of its total market for a customer (Verizon) that likely
>> wants the mods at no cost. The manufacturers can do this profitably with
>> only one or two phones, thus limiting at the outset the number of phones
>> available to Verizon with the required mods to support its business
>> model.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with CDMA technology; it has everything to do with
>> Verizon's rigid business model, the manufacturing economics of providing
>> phones that meet Verizons very restrictive connectivity requirements, and
>> the small total market for phones that Verizon's CDMA represents in a
>> very competetive, low margin manufacturing environment.
>>
>> IMO, Verizon has locked itself into a business model that is
>> unsupportable in the long term. Users have expectations that their
>> phones will have the full range of BT connectivity. The BT mods for
>> Verizon have demonstrated problems with auto connectivity - a major
>> selling point for a cellular provider. Simple BT/cable synchronization
>> of phones with desktops is impossible. Users want third-party apps; BREW
>> is too costly for the developer and locks out independent application
>> developement thus limiting availability of apps compared to Java. As
>> phones in general become more capable, there is more work required on the
>> part of the manufacturer to work around open accessibility to provide
>> lock-downs for Verizon while leaving open specific connectivity such as
>> auto BT systems.
>>
>> As customers expect more from technology that provides more, Verizon
>> provides less to support its restrictive business model. There is a
>> point where the customer will reject Verizon to get the full
>> capabilities, including BT, that he wants. There is a point where the
>> cost to Verizon of restrive access in both equipment costs and declining
>> growth will cause the company to rethink its business model. It is
>> likely that BT connectivity will be the battleground. History is replete
>> with examples proving that Verizon will lose the battle- the customer is
>> always right.
>>
>> Q
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:48:57 PM

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

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:30:22 +0000, Tropical Haven wrote:

> When someone calls me using a CDMA phone, the voice just isn't right.
> For example, John calls me using VZW. I can tell it's a man. It is
> clear. But it doesn't sound like John. Later in the week, John's
> battery dies and uses a T-Mobile of one of his friends to call me, and I
> immediately recognize John's voice.

The coverage of the GSM carriers out here (SF Bay Area) is such that it's
not a matter of a lousy codec. T-Mobile calls are just chalk full of
digital artifacts from a lousy signal. I don't get that nearly as often
with the CDMA using friends. AT&T has really built out their network
enough where the voice quality is pretty good... but before they had sunk
all that money into the network, the quality was terrible.

To me a good CDMA provider sounds as good as a good GSM provider. All
things being equal, the phone will have a significant impact here. But
all things aren't equal. The big CDMA providers out here (VZW, SPCS) have
built out their network quite a bit more than the GSM providers
(Cingular/AT&T, T-Mobile). Even back in the days of AirTouch and GTE
MobileNet, GTE had significantly better coverage. Lousy GSM coverage will
not result in good audio quality.

Take a look at the T-Mobile coverage maps. They're extremely detailed.
Street level even. I plugged in my address and saw that they claimed good
to great coverage at my house, and about 50ft away pretty poor coverage.

If T-Mobile ever builds out their network out here, I'd consider
switching. The big advantage I see (perhaps the only one) for GSM
is the selection of phones. However I just bought a 6015i ($40), and
signed a 1 year contract (AC2/450).

I'm not so impressed with the 6015i's reception, maybe the coverage *is
that bad* out here. At least the battery life is terrific. Hopefully
it'll play nice with gnokii or gammu (where the old CDMA phones just
wouldn't).

--
alex
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:01:13 PM

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

50! When did it get up to 50? hihi
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:07:58 PM

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

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> 50! When did it get up to 50? hihi

At least a year ago, I think.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:35:16 AM

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

We'll have to just see what the future brings.

I'll still bet that VZW will be stronger than ever 5 yrs+ from now.


"Xman(AKA Mike)" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
news:112al8pt9lln9c@corp.supernews.com...
> History tells us Verizon can't last. It just can't and won't. If you
> completely disregard history then I certainly can't make you change your
> mind since doing that is ridiculous as it is already.
>
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:21:10 AM

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

I think the really interesting question will be if carriers (other than
small local companies) go to unlimited plans? Will they in essence cut
their own throat by eliminating that huge piece of competition and then
a customer will decide based on the ring tones, because everyone knows
that is the only way to pick a good phone. damn it pisses me off when
customers do that!
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:12:49 AM

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

On 2/28/05 9:00 PM, in article EbidnVMHJ8tFUb7fRVn-jw@comcast.com, "Richard
Ness" <richard.no@gamn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:


> In many circles, BT is considered a dying or "dead end" technology.
> Looked down upon by the serious IT / geek community as a whole.
> Thought of as more consumer toy(ish) than serious technology.

Not in my IT circles. We all love BT.

> IBM and NEC both dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core
> selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo
> mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after

Guess you better tell Qualcomm who makes the chipset for most, if not all
your CDMA devices. Better tell Motorola, Nokia, SonyEricsson, and even
Samsung. Especially since they all just released new phones with BT.

Better tell Apple who just shipped a line of computers with BT 2.0
installed. And who promotes BT technology heavily.

I waited for a BT phone for Verizon. Got tired of waiting. Went back to
ATTWS and then to Cingular. Have the same if not better coverage than VZW,
better rates, and all the toys.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.tech (More info?)

jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Don't forget that all the equipment suppliers (Lucent,
> Nortel, Motorola, etc.) have been cutting jobs for the
> last 4 years. So, the remaining engineers are under
> constant pressure (Local police showing up in the
> lobby on Thursday, job cut day). Ergo, the cell switches
> aren't as robust as you'd like.

"cell switch"? what's a cell switch?

-Quick
March 8, 2005 11:21:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.tech (More info?)

cell switches function as the device which connects the cell tower to
the cellular network

Quick wrote:
> jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Don't forget that all the equipment suppliers (Lucent,
>>Nortel, Motorola, etc.) have been cutting jobs for the
>>last 4 years. So, the remaining engineers are under
>>constant pressure (Local police showing up in the
>>lobby on Thursday, job cut day). Ergo, the cell switches
>>aren't as robust as you'd like.
>
>
> "cell switch"? what's a cell switch?
>
> -Quick
>
>
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:08:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.tech (More info?)

More specific please? I'm going to assume that "tower
to the cellular network" does not mean the radio interface.
So what is this "cellular network"? I kind of think it's T1s
that connect the "tower" to whatever on the land side
of the tower? Is there some sort of "cell switch" used
there? I mean is there something there that is in any
way specific to cellular networks? Or is this the same
stuff that's been used in PSTN network for years and
years.

-Quick

gene wrote:
> cell switches function as the device which connects the
> cell tower to the cellular network
>
> Quick wrote:
>> jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Don't forget that all the equipment suppliers (Lucent,
>>> Nortel, Motorola, etc.) have been cutting jobs for the
>>> last 4 years. So, the remaining engineers are under
>>> constant pressure (Local police showing up in the
>>> lobby on Thursday, job cut day). Ergo, the cell switches
>>> aren't as robust as you'd like.
>>
>>
>> "cell switch"? what's a cell switch?
>>
>> -Quick
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.tech (More info?)

>>cell switches function as the device which connects the
>>cell tower to the cellular network

Quick wrote:
> More specific please?

He is referring to the MTSO, the Mobile Telephone Switching Office. The
"switch," as on any circuit-switched telephone network, routes calls to
their appropriate destinations, and in the case of a cellular network,
ties the radio interface to the PSTN (public switched telephone network).

> I'm going to assume that "tower
> to the cellular network" does not mean the radio interface.
> So what is this "cellular network"?

Okay, now you're just being obtuse.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.tech (More info?)

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>>> cell switches function as the device which connects the
> >>cell tower to the cellular network
>
> Quick wrote:
>> More specific please?
>
> He is referring to the MTSO, the Mobile Telephone
> Switching Office. The "switch," as on any
> circuit-switched telephone network, routes calls to their
> appropriate destinations, and in the case of a cellular
> network, ties the radio interface to the PSTN (public
> switched telephone network).
>
> > I'm going to assume that "tower
>> to the cellular network" does not mean the radio
>> interface. So what is this "cellular network"?
>
> Okay, now you're just being obtuse.

So the point is that these "cell switches" are most
likely 5eSS's or dms100's with an extra feature or
two?

It was implied that crummy cell service was due
to crummy equipment (cell switches) being made/
maintained by people effected by the relatively recent
layoffs...

-Quick
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:26:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.tech (More info?)

Quick wrote:
> Isaiah Beard wrote:

>>Okay, now you're just being obtuse.
>
>
> So the point is that these "cell switches" are most
> likely 5eSS's or dms100's with an extra feature or
> two?

DMS-10's actually, but the Lucent markets are 5ESS switches.

> It was implied that crummy cell service was due
> to crummy equipment (cell switches) being made/
> maintained by people effected by the relatively recent
> layoffs...

Agreed that this is not a valid argument at all.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
!