Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 7:08:50 PM

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

Anyone know a third-party coverage map that shows AT&T's GSM1900 and GSM850
coverage (separately)? Should one have a world phone that only features
GSM1900 in the U.S., one would like to know where specifically GSM1900
coverage is with AT&T (not GSM850).

I am sure extensive research with their licenses for both cellular and PCS
would show this answer, but a quick fix would be nice.

Same for Cingular - do they have a map showing GSM1900 and GSM850 coverage
areas separately?

More about : gsm1900 gsm850 maps

Anonymous
May 9, 2004 8:01:39 PM

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

"News Hounding" <newshoundingREMOVETHIS@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6Qrnc.114$zO3.82@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> Anyone know a third-party coverage map that shows AT&T's GSM1900 and GSM850
> coverage (separately)? Should one have a world phone that only features
> GSM1900 in the U.S., one would like to know where specifically GSM1900
> coverage is with AT&T (not GSM850).
>
> I am sure extensive research with their licenses for both cellular and PCS
> would show this answer, but a quick fix would be nice.
>
> Same for Cingular - do they have a map showing GSM1900 and GSM850 coverage
> areas separately?

Third-party coverage maps are not simple to produce. Other than
required disclosure to the FCC regarding the satisfaction of certain
construction requirements, actual Cellular or PCS RF footprint can be
considered proprietary information. Wireless license maps, on the
other hand, can be readily produced w/ information that is a matter of
public record. On that latter count, you might find to your interest
the site that XFF & I have created.

http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/

Specifically, the following license maps hosted by the site are most
relevant to your question.

http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cing-attws_800_85...
http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cingular_cel.html
http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cingular_pcs.html
http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/attws_cel.html

As Cellular construction requirements are area-based, deployed
Cellular (800/850 MHz) coverage will closely mimic licensed coverage.
Conversely, as PCS (1900 MHz) construction requirements are
population-based, deployed PCS coverage will typically be confined to
concentrations of permanent or transient population - only a small
percentage of the licensed area.

The Cingular PCS map represents not only PCS licenses held by SBC or
BellSouth but also licenses controlled by Cingular affiliate Salmon
PCS & licenses acquired from NextWave - many of the latter two of
which are not yet in service.

As for AT&TWS, the AT&TWS PCS map is a task of overwhelming complexity
for me, hence is still yet forthcoming. However, it can be noted that
anywhere AT&TWS has a Cellular license, it also has an overlying PCS
license. Though the chronology is actually reversed, anywhere that
AT&TWS has deployed GSM 850 it also has GSM 1900. The latter, on the
other hand, is not necessarily true. In markets where AT&TWS controls
the PCS A or PCS B 30 MHz license, it is not a Cellular incumbent,
such that it lacks any 800/850 MHz spectrum.

In the regulatory filing seeking FCC approval of the Cingular-AT&TWS
merger, a combined coverage map was submitted that reflects the
deployed Cellular & PCS footprints of both companies. Bill Radio has
extracted that map from the filing & mirrored it on his site.

http://www.mountainwireless.com/cingular_att_coverage.h...

Though no distinction is made between 800/850 MHz or 1900 MHz, the
area-based construction of Cellular versus the population-based
construction of PCS is relatively manifest even on the macro scale of
the map.

Lastly, if you have questions about GSM 850, GSM 1900, or GSM 850/1900
deployment by either Cingular or AT&TWS in specific locations, please
just ask. Above & beyond the maps, my knowledge of what spectrum is
in operation where is fairly comprehensive.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/
May 10, 2004 2:49:54 PM

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

In article <33e89561.0405091501.33f690a6@posting.google.com>,
cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:

> Lastly, if you have questions about GSM 850, GSM 1900, or GSM 850/1900
> deployment by either Cingular or AT&TWS in specific locations, please
> just ask. Above & beyond the maps, my knowledge of what spectrum is
> in operation where is fairly comprehensive.
>
> Andrew
> --


Just read your post and have a beginner question.

My wife and I have ATT TDMA (I think that is right name, I'm no expert).

We are in Boston area but frequently travel to upper VT and NH and also
mid and Northern MI.

Over the years, 3 or 4 years, the ATT coverage has been good (digital
one rate). Now getting close to "needing" a new phone and trying to
decide whether to stay on TDMA or go to GSM. Anyway for a novice to
figure out GSM coverage in those areas (northern VT, NH and MI)?

Thanks.

--
Please send email to: nwhiii at yahoo dot com
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 3:53:24 PM

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

Wow,

Thanks Andrew - great response and exactly what I was looking for...not to
read over the information at your links at that of BillRdadio's.

Thanks again!


"Andrew Shepherd" <cinema@ku.edu> wrote in message
news:33e89561.0405091501.33f690a6@posting.google.com...
> "News Hounding" <newshoundingREMOVETHIS@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<6Qrnc.114$zO3.82@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > Anyone know a third-party coverage map that shows AT&T's GSM1900 and
GSM850
> > coverage (separately)? Should one have a world phone that only features
> > GSM1900 in the U.S., one would like to know where specifically GSM1900
> > coverage is with AT&T (not GSM850).
> >
> > I am sure extensive research with their licenses for both cellular and
PCS
> > would show this answer, but a quick fix would be nice.
> >
> > Same for Cingular - do they have a map showing GSM1900 and GSM850
coverage
> > areas separately?
>
> Third-party coverage maps are not simple to produce. Other than
> required disclosure to the FCC regarding the satisfaction of certain
> construction requirements, actual Cellular or PCS RF footprint can be
> considered proprietary information. Wireless license maps, on the
> other hand, can be readily produced w/ information that is a matter of
> public record. On that latter count, you might find to your interest
> the site that XFF & I have created.
>
> http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/
>
> Specifically, the following license maps hosted by the site are most
> relevant to your question.
>
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cing-attws_800_85...
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cingular_cel.html
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cingular_pcs.html
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/attws_cel.html
>
> As Cellular construction requirements are area-based, deployed
> Cellular (800/850 MHz) coverage will closely mimic licensed coverage.
> Conversely, as PCS (1900 MHz) construction requirements are
> population-based, deployed PCS coverage will typically be confined to
> concentrations of permanent or transient population - only a small
> percentage of the licensed area.
>
> The Cingular PCS map represents not only PCS licenses held by SBC or
> BellSouth but also licenses controlled by Cingular affiliate Salmon
> PCS & licenses acquired from NextWave - many of the latter two of
> which are not yet in service.
>
> As for AT&TWS, the AT&TWS PCS map is a task of overwhelming complexity
> for me, hence is still yet forthcoming. However, it can be noted that
> anywhere AT&TWS has a Cellular license, it also has an overlying PCS
> license. Though the chronology is actually reversed, anywhere that
> AT&TWS has deployed GSM 850 it also has GSM 1900. The latter, on the
> other hand, is not necessarily true. In markets where AT&TWS controls
> the PCS A or PCS B 30 MHz license, it is not a Cellular incumbent,
> such that it lacks any 800/850 MHz spectrum.
>
> In the regulatory filing seeking FCC approval of the Cingular-AT&TWS
> merger, a combined coverage map was submitted that reflects the
> deployed Cellular & PCS footprints of both companies. Bill Radio has
> extracted that map from the filing & mirrored it on his site.
>
> http://www.mountainwireless.com/cingular_att_coverage.h...
>
> Though no distinction is made between 800/850 MHz or 1900 MHz, the
> area-based construction of Cellular versus the population-based
> construction of PCS is relatively manifest even on the macro scale of
> the map.
>
> Lastly, if you have questions about GSM 850, GSM 1900, or GSM 850/1900
> deployment by either Cingular or AT&TWS in specific locations, please
> just ask. Above & beyond the maps, my knowledge of what spectrum is
> in operation where is fairly comprehensive.
>
> Andrew
> --
> Andrew Shepherd
> cinema@ku.edu
> cinema@sprintpcs.com
> http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/
May 10, 2004 4:22:00 PM

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:49:54 -0400, Norm <NOSPAM@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>We are in Boston area but frequently travel to upper VT and NH and also
>mid and Northern MI.

If you're not on GSM yet I'd say that you should *not* switch to GSM
if you think you will spend any amount of time in upstate Vermont or
New Hampshire. You'll want a phone that's capable of analog AMPS
which you won't get with GSM. I really don't believe that the GSM
coverage is equal to TDMA and AMPS coverage once you get into a rural
area.

>Over the years, 3 or 4 years, the ATT coverage has been good (digital
>one rate). Now getting close to "needing" a new phone and trying to
>decide whether to stay on TDMA or go to GSM. Anyway for a novice to
>figure out GSM coverage in those areas (northern VT, NH and MI)?

Your problem as far as getting a new handset is that you'll have a
very limited choice of handsets and they'll be pretty much plain Janes
with no neat features like you'll find with recent GSM phones. I
think the most modern Nokia phone offered is the 3560 with a color
screen. Other than that I'm not sure what AT&T is offering at the
moment. Keep in mind also that if someone has an AT&T model for sale
on ebay that may be another way to get another handset. You'll have
to realize though that the choice in really neat phones will not be
found in TDMA as that's a technology that has stopped being developed
with the major emphasis on bringing the GSM technology more up-to-date
and the choice of people with new service.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 5:31:25 AM

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

Not sure if AT&T would activate it, but a Nokia 6340i or SonyEricsson T62u
have AMPS, TDMA, and GSM all in one (albeit with no new snazzy features).
But for the utility of having a phone that does it all (at least on GSM -
the other two may be served just as well for backup purposes), these two
units appear to be the last hope.


"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
news:m7lv90hqkqdcslcv0op12b952gmmkfppgo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:49:54 -0400, Norm <NOSPAM@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> >We are in Boston area but frequently travel to upper VT and NH and also
> >mid and Northern MI.
>
> If you're not on GSM yet I'd say that you should *not* switch to GSM
> if you think you will spend any amount of time in upstate Vermont or
> New Hampshire. You'll want a phone that's capable of analog AMPS
> which you won't get with GSM. I really don't believe that the GSM
> coverage is equal to TDMA and AMPS coverage once you get into a rural
> area.
>
> >Over the years, 3 or 4 years, the ATT coverage has been good (digital
> >one rate). Now getting close to "needing" a new phone and trying to
> >decide whether to stay on TDMA or go to GSM. Anyway for a novice to
> >figure out GSM coverage in those areas (northern VT, NH and MI)?
>
> Your problem as far as getting a new handset is that you'll have a
> very limited choice of handsets and they'll be pretty much plain Janes
> with no neat features like you'll find with recent GSM phones. I
> think the most modern Nokia phone offered is the 3560 with a color
> screen. Other than that I'm not sure what AT&T is offering at the
> moment. Keep in mind also that if someone has an AT&T model for sale
> on ebay that may be another way to get another handset. You'll have
> to realize though that the choice in really neat phones will not be
> found in TDMA as that's a technology that has stopped being developed
> with the major emphasis on bringing the GSM technology more up-to-date
> and the choice of people with new service.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 12:54:06 PM

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

We have used this guide since his 4th edition. He is finally expanding to
updating monthly.


http://www.telecompublishing.com/WirelessTravelGuide.sh...

Very good book. Best $20 you can spend on the printed copy.




"News Hounding" <newshoundingREMOVETHIS@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6Qrnc.114$zO3.82@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Anyone know a third-party coverage map that shows AT&T's GSM1900 and
GSM850
> coverage (separately)? Should one have a world phone that only features
> GSM1900 in the U.S., one would like to know where specifically GSM1900
> coverage is with AT&T (not GSM850).
>
> I am sure extensive research with their licenses for both cellular and PCS
> would show this answer, but a quick fix would be nice.
>
> Same for Cingular - do they have a map showing GSM1900 and GSM850 coverage
> areas separately?
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 5:58:00 PM

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

In article <Rt2dnUc8weafUD3dRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:

> We have used this guide since his 4th edition. He is finally expanding to
> updating monthly.
>
>
> http://www.telecompublishing.com/WirelessTravelGuide.sh...
>
> Very good book. Best $20 you can spend on the printed copy.

Looks like the typical exagerated maps the carriers give away. Maps
drawn by the marketing department that paint over all the dead spots
like none exist.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 12:21:20 AM

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

No Switch!.. Just was the Tustin, CA retail store told me. I moved my line
and 2 others to GSM, and still keep 2 Digital (five total). If you're in a
city, GSM is a deal if you can live with a few dropped calls. 1000 peak
national for $39.99 got me.

When I go rural, I use Verizon. I have an older Single Rate West

"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
news:m7lv90hqkqdcslcv0op12b952gmmkfppgo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:49:54 -0400, Norm <NOSPAM@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> If you're not on GSM yet I'd say that you should *not* switch to GSM
> if you think you will spend any amount of time in upstate Vermont or
> New Hampshire. You'll want a phone that's capable of analog AMPS
> which you won't get with GSM.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 5:07:58 AM

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

Do you mean "Northern Maine?" You said mid and Northern Michigan.
Michigan's Lower Pennisula has pretty good GSM coverage; Michigan's Upper
Pennisula is just getting GSM and it is all 850mhz GSM.

Stu

"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
news:m7lv90hqkqdcslcv0op12b952gmmkfppgo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:49:54 -0400, Norm <NOSPAM@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> >We are in Boston area but frequently travel to upper VT and NH and also
> >mid and Northern MI.
>
> If you're not on GSM yet I'd say that you should *not* switch to GSM
> if you think you will spend any amount of time in upstate Vermont or
> New Hampshire. You'll want a phone that's capable of analog AMPS
> which you won't get with GSM. I really don't believe that the GSM
> coverage is equal to TDMA and AMPS coverage once you get into a rural
> area.
>
> >Over the years, 3 or 4 years, the ATT coverage has been good (digital
> >one rate). Now getting close to "needing" a new phone and trying to
> >decide whether to stay on TDMA or go to GSM. Anyway for a novice to
> >figure out GSM coverage in those areas (northern VT, NH and MI)?
>
> Your problem as far as getting a new handset is that you'll have a
> very limited choice of handsets and they'll be pretty much plain Janes
> with no neat features like you'll find with recent GSM phones. I
> think the most modern Nokia phone offered is the 3560 with a color
> screen. Other than that I'm not sure what AT&T is offering at the
> moment. Keep in mind also that if someone has an AT&T model for sale
> on ebay that may be another way to get another handset. You'll have
> to realize though that the choice in really neat phones will not be
> found in TDMA as that's a technology that has stopped being developed
> with the major emphasis on bringing the GSM technology more up-to-date
> and the choice of people with new service.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
May 12, 2004 5:07:59 AM

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

In article <ONeoc.6500$eH1.3239872@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
"Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote:

> Do you mean "Northern Maine?" You said mid and Northern Michigan.
> Michigan's Lower Pennisula has pretty good GSM coverage; Michigan's Upper
> Pennisula is just getting GSM and it is all 850mhz GSM.
>
> Stu

I did mean Northern MI; Traverse City, Petoskey, Harbor Springs to
Pellston.

The ATT GSM map shows coverage but when I called Customer Service they
said there was none. Strange.

Thanks for the info.

--
Please send email to: nwhiii at yahoo dot com
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 12:54:31 PM

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

This could not be further from the truth. We use these books daily and have
found his maps to be right on and an essential guide at least on the analog
side. I work for Cellemetry and we use these to help customers program
radios and troubleshoot installations on fixed and mobile units. Very good
book.

What you want is a very expensive topo map that updates itself when the RF
fields and conditions change. If you know anything about the systems you
already know that this is RF and far from exact.

I had a customer fire off a registration in East Louisiana (the toe) and it
popped up on the MOBILE AL Cingular switch (SID 81.2) once A 3watt analog
control channel signal to be sure but it shows what these things are capable
of on a good day. BTW he was using a 5db gain mag mount antenna on a 2
story building facing the gulf. He switched to a Yagi facing inland and
popped up on the local switch.


"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-8A1FFC.08580011052004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <Rt2dnUc8weafUD3dRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
> "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > We have used this guide since his 4th edition. He is finally expanding
to
> > updating monthly.
> >
> >
> > http://www.telecompublishing.com/WirelessTravelGuide.sh...
> >
> > Very good book. Best $20 you can spend on the printed copy.
>
> Looks like the typical exagerated maps the carriers give away. Maps
> drawn by the marketing department that paint over all the dead spots
> like none exist.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 6:01:07 PM

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

In article <mvCdnQj0oN9Pgj_d4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:

> This could not be further from the truth. We use these books daily and have
> found his maps to be right on and an essential guide at least on the analog
> side. I work for Cellemetry and we use these to help customers program
> radios and troubleshoot installations on fixed and mobile units. Very good
> book.

I note with interest that you do not deny that dead spots are painted
over and not shown in these maps.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 7:41:13 PM

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

You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There are always
going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If you think
that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not have
problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir. It
cannot be done.

There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact footprint of a
systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking about is
totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that kind of
accuracy.

"Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a building or
nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It happens
and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost effective.


"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-9BF184.09010712052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <mvCdnQj0oN9Pgj_d4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
> "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > This could not be further from the truth. We use these books daily and
have
> > found his maps to be right on and an essential guide at least on the
analog
> > side. I work for Cellemetry and we use these to help customers program
> > radios and troubleshoot installations on fixed and mobile units. Very
good
> > book.
>
> I note with interest that you do not deny that dead spots are painted
> over and not shown in these maps.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 11:09:19 PM

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

Hello Andrew (and all)-

Any word on when Oregon will 850Mhz GSM overlay? It's clearly not active
yet.
I say clearly not active because of the strong superiority of my TDMA AT&T
phones to the GSM phones I have access to.

-Dan


"Andrew Shepherd" <cinema@ku.edu> wrote in message
news:33e89561.0405091501.33f690a6@posting.google.com...
> "News Hounding" <newshoundingREMOVETHIS@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<6Qrnc.114$zO3.82@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > Anyone know a third-party coverage map that shows AT&T's GSM1900 and
GSM850
> > coverage (separately)? Should one have a world phone that only features
> > GSM1900 in the U.S., one would like to know where specifically GSM1900
> > coverage is with AT&T (not GSM850).
> >
> > I am sure extensive research with their licenses for both cellular and
PCS
> > would show this answer, but a quick fix would be nice.
> >
> > Same for Cingular - do they have a map showing GSM1900 and GSM850
coverage
> > areas separately?
>
> Third-party coverage maps are not simple to produce. Other than
> required disclosure to the FCC regarding the satisfaction of certain
> construction requirements, actual Cellular or PCS RF footprint can be
> considered proprietary information. Wireless license maps, on the
> other hand, can be readily produced w/ information that is a matter of
> public record. On that latter count, you might find to your interest
> the site that XFF & I have created.
>
> http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/
>
> Specifically, the following license maps hosted by the site are most
> relevant to your question.
>
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cing-attws_800_85...
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cingular_cel.html
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/cingular_pcs.html
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/attws_cel.html
>
> As Cellular construction requirements are area-based, deployed
> Cellular (800/850 MHz) coverage will closely mimic licensed coverage.
> Conversely, as PCS (1900 MHz) construction requirements are
> population-based, deployed PCS coverage will typically be confined to
> concentrations of permanent or transient population - only a small
> percentage of the licensed area.
>
> The Cingular PCS map represents not only PCS licenses held by SBC or
> BellSouth but also licenses controlled by Cingular affiliate Salmon
> PCS & licenses acquired from NextWave - many of the latter two of
> which are not yet in service.
>
> As for AT&TWS, the AT&TWS PCS map is a task of overwhelming complexity
> for me, hence is still yet forthcoming. However, it can be noted that
> anywhere AT&TWS has a Cellular license, it also has an overlying PCS
> license. Though the chronology is actually reversed, anywhere that
> AT&TWS has deployed GSM 850 it also has GSM 1900. The latter, on the
> other hand, is not necessarily true. In markets where AT&TWS controls
> the PCS A or PCS B 30 MHz license, it is not a Cellular incumbent,
> such that it lacks any 800/850 MHz spectrum.
>
> In the regulatory filing seeking FCC approval of the Cingular-AT&TWS
> merger, a combined coverage map was submitted that reflects the
> deployed Cellular & PCS footprints of both companies. Bill Radio has
> extracted that map from the filing & mirrored it on his site.
>
> http://www.mountainwireless.com/cingular_att_coverage.h...
>
> Though no distinction is made between 800/850 MHz or 1900 MHz, the
> area-based construction of Cellular versus the population-based
> construction of PCS is relatively manifest even on the macro scale of
> the map.
>
> Lastly, if you have questions about GSM 850, GSM 1900, or GSM 850/1900
> deployment by either Cingular or AT&TWS in specific locations, please
> just ask. Above & beyond the maps, my knowledge of what spectrum is
> in operation where is fairly comprehensive.
>
> Andrew
> --
> Andrew Shepherd
> cinema@ku.edu
> cinema@sprintpcs.com
> http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 12:14:36 AM

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

In article <LYSdnVsG0ZO54j_dRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:

> You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There are always
> going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If you think
> that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not have
> problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir. It
> cannot be done.
>
> There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact footprint of a
> systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking about is
> totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that kind of
> accuracy.
>
> "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a building or
> nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It happens
> and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost effective.

There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their maps.

Please don't try to pretend otherwise.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 2:41:01 PM

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

OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.

"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-5747A4.15143612052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <LYSdnVsG0ZO54j_dRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
> "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There are
always
> > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If you
think
> > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not have
> > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir. It
> > cannot be done.
> >
> > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact footprint
of a
> > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking
about is
> > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that kind
of
> > accuracy.
> >
> > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a building or
> > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It
happens
> > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost effective.
>
> There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their maps.
>
> Please don't try to pretend otherwise.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 6:54:50 PM

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

In article <OqWdnSqIstuvFj7dRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:

> OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.

Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
They are drawn by the marketing department

>
> "Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-5747A4.15143612052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <LYSdnVsG0ZO54j_dRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
> > "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There are
> always
> > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If you
> think
> > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not have
> > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir. It
> > > cannot be done.
> > >
> > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact footprint
> of a
> > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking
> about is
> > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that kind
> of
> > > accuracy.
> > >
> > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a building or
> > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It
> happens
> > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost effective.
> >
> > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their maps.
> >
> > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 6:54:51 PM

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

And your point would be?



"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-A9BAF2.09544913052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <OqWdnSqIstuvFj7dRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
> "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.
>
> Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
> They are drawn by the marketing department
>
> >
> > "Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:rmarkoff-5747A4.15143612052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <LYSdnVsG0ZO54j_dRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
> > > "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There
are
> > always
> > > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If
you
> > think
> > > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not
have
> > > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir.
It
> > > > cannot be done.
> > > >
> > > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact
footprint
> > of a
> > > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking
> > about is
> > > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that
kind
> > of
> > > > accuracy.
> > > >
> > > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a
building or
> > > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It
> > happens
> > > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost
effective.
> > >
> > > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their
maps.
> > >
> > > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 8:11:44 PM

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

In article <TMednaJe473FEj7dRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:

> And your point would be?


That all Carriers have violated their industry designed agreement to
make available maps showing where coverage is generally available.
>
>
>
> "Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-A9BAF2.09544913052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <OqWdnSqIstuvFj7dRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
> > "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other thread.
> >
> > Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
> > They are drawn by the marketing department
> >
> > >
> > > "Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:rmarkoff-5747A4.15143612052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > > > In article <LYSdnVsG0ZO54j_dRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
> > > > "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post. There
> are
> > > always
> > > > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems. If
> you
> > > think
> > > > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will not
> have
> > > > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land sir.
> It
> > > > > cannot be done.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact
> footprint
> > > of a
> > > > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are talking
> > > about is
> > > > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show that
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > accuracy.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a
> building or
> > > > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal. It
> > > happens
> > > > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost
> effective.
> > > >
> > > > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with their
> maps.
> > > >
> > > > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 4:36:04 AM

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

And that means what to anyone but you?


"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-B57F74.11114413052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <TMednaJe473FEj7dRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
> "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > And your point would be?
>
>
> That all Carriers have violated their industry designed agreement to
> make available maps showing where coverage is generally available.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:rmarkoff-A9BAF2.09544913052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <OqWdnSqIstuvFj7dRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
> > > "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK mr Troll. So what? The horse is beaten. Go to some other
thread.
> > >
> > > Throwing insults does not make the maps any better.
> > > They are drawn by the marketing department
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:rmarkoff-5747A4.15143612052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > > > > In article <LYSdnVsG0ZO54j_dRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
> > > > > "Ronny Julian" <k4rjj@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You are correct and I would have you read back at my post.
There
> > are
> > > > always
> > > > > > going to be dead spots as RF is always going to have problems.
If
> > you
> > > > think
> > > > > > that there is any system out there that is RF based that will
not
> > have
> > > > > > problems somewhere at sometime you are living in a dream land
sir.
> > It
> > > > > > cannot be done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no maps that can totally accurately show the exact
> > footprint
> > > > of a
> > > > > > systems signal. They are in constant change. What you are
talking
> > > > about is
> > > > > > totally impractical and on their best day no carrier can show
that
> > kind
> > > > of
> > > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Dead spots" are just that. Somewhere that someone put up a
> > building or
> > > > > > nature put up a darn tree that interferes with my cell signal.
It
> > > > happens
> > > > > > and no amount of hardware saturation will fix it and be cost
> > effective.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are known constant dead spots that carriers ignore with
their
> > maps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't try to pretend otherwise.
!