GSM1900 and GSM850 - maps?

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?
20 answers Last reply
More about gsm1900 gsm850 maps
  1. 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_850.html
    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.htm

    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/
  2. 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
  3. 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_850.html
    > 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.htm
    >
    > 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/
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.shtml

    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?
    >
    >
  7. 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.shtml
    >
    > 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.shtml
    > >
    > > 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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_850.html
    > 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.htm
    >
    > 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/
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Cingular At&T Internet Service Providers