Signal coverage--truth in advertising

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

For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
Coverage Check.

They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.

I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
84 answers Last reply
More about signal coverage truth advertising
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >
    > For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
    > Coverage Check.
    >
    > They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
    >
    > I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
    > Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
    > what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....

    C'mon, Elmo... It's nothing but an "overview."

    T-Mobile, like every other carrier, has dead spots all over
    their "covered" areas.

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

    Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's plan
    pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and offer more
    instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More flexible + more
    features + better pricing = happy customer.

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    news:elmop-552B82.21264430072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
    > For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
    > Coverage Check.
    >
    > They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
    >
    > I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
    > Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
    > what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Viper" <user@user.net> wrote in news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72:

    > Now why can't Verizon have features like that?

    How could they lie if there was a REAL RF coverage map just sitting there
    exposing the truth? Don't hold your breath.

    These maps exist. They are filed with the FCC, who does nothing to force
    the companies to actually cover the territory they are licensed to provide
    real service for. All companies have poor coverage, some poorer than
    others. If a broadcast station provided this type of coverage, FCC would
    fine them $10,000/day until they complied with filling their coverage area
    with a good level of signal.

    FCC used to tell us "it's because it's new and they're still in the
    buildout phase". It's kind of hard to swallow this BS, now, so far in the
    future, any more. FCC needs to provide coverage, one way or the
    other....you either put up the towers necessary or you are forced to share
    (allow company-paid roaming) on other systems IN MARKET. FCC also needs to
    inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
    this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
    have now.


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

    Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
    metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
    down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
    the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
    awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
    have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
    Queen on the television solving all those problems with family members
    talking to each other I notice they don't even mention how great or even
    mediocre the coverage is. But they girl is beautiful so that is what really
    matters.
    Thanks for listening,
    Daniel Cairns

    "Viper" <user@user.net> wrote in message
    news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72...
    > Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's plan
    > pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and offer more
    > instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More flexible +
    > more features + better pricing = happy customer.
    >
    > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    > news:elmop-552B82.21264430072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
    >> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
    >> Coverage Check.
    >>
    >> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
    >>
    >> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
    >> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
    >> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
    >>
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    daniel cairns wrote:
    > Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    > they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
    > metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
    > down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
    > the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
    > awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
    > have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
    > Queen

    Ok, as a guy, would you rather watch Catherine Zeta-Jones or the Sprint PCS
    dude? :P

    (of course, in asking that question, I'm assuming you're heterosexual) :)


    --
    Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Company website: http://JustThe.net/
    Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
    E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:dchd1g$r85$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
    > daniel cairns wrote:
    >> Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    >> they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
    >> metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
    >> down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.
    >> Heres the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that
    >> was awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00.
    >> What I have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the
    >> Beauty Queen
    >
    > Ok, as a guy, would you rather watch Catherine Zeta-Jones or the Sprint
    > PCS dude? :P
    >
    > (of course, in asking that question, I'm assuming you're heterosexual) :)
    You are correct sir! The "skirt" is attractive fer sure, I honestly see
    right through the BS though. There is so much riding on any kind of ad
    campaign I guess. It's just that T-Mobile has a ton of phones that work with
    their service, they are literally so easy to come by, that I do miss that
    company. And I would still be with them and not even be paying any attention
    to this group if they had a working cell tower right smack in the heart of
    downtown Dearborn Michigan. Am still stumped with all the retoric from the
    CSR about trying a different phone(tried 4 different phones) maybe a new SIM
    card, or maybe the proverbial Trouble Report would get me a signal. What did
    me in was when went to a TM store in Dearborn and within 4 seconds the dude,
    after knowing right where I worked, said " you are in a dead spot". I said
    good day and within 30 Mins I had new service with Sprint with my # from TM.
    Oops, I did not answer your question. I like watching the dude better 'cause
    he conveys a smart assey sarcasm that I have not yet mastered.
    DC

    >
    >
    > --
    > Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    > Company website: http://JustThe.net/
    > Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
    > E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    daniel cairns wrote:
    >
    > <snip>

    YO, DANIEL!

    Check your system clock... You're ~1 day behind!!!

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

    I've been with T-Mobile for ten days. So far the service is great. No
    dropped calls. 1000 minute family plan for $69.99.

    "daniel cairns" <cutmedan@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:bZOdnUymjf3Ar3HfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
    > Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    > they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
    > metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
    > down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
    > the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
    > awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
    > have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
    > Queen on the television solving all those problems with family members
    > talking to each other I notice they don't even mention how great or even
    > mediocre the coverage is. But they girl is beautiful so that is what
    > really matters.
    > Thanks for listening,
    > Daniel Cairns
    >
    > "Viper" <user@user.net> wrote in message
    > news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72...
    >> Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's
    >> plan pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and
    >> offer more instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More
    >> flexible + more features + better pricing = happy customer.
    >>
    >> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    >> news:elmop-552B82.21264430072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
    >>> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
    >>> Coverage Check.
    >>>
    >>> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
    >>>
    >>> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
    >>> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
    >>> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    In article <bZOdnUymjf3Ar3HfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
    "daniel cairns" <cutmedan@comcast.net> wrote:

    > Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    > they have serious dead spots all over the place.

    Absolutely--but notice that they spell it out for you in their coverage
    check maps.

    Other carriers should be so open about it.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Per daniel cairns:
    >Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    >they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
    >metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
    >down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.

    That's almost exactly where I am right now - but I'm still on T-Mob until the
    contract runs out.

    It's almost like there are "shadows" in the coverage... Won't work inside of
    building "A", won't work immediately outside either.... but when you walk
    another 75 feet in a certain direction, there'll be a couple of bars.
    --
    PeteCresswell
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per daniel cairns:
    >
    >>Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    >>they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
    >>metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
    >>down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.
    >
    >
    > That's almost exactly where I am right now - but I'm still on T-Mob until the
    > contract runs out.

    Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?

    Also, I'm on a nationwide FamilyTime share plan. I can roam onto other
    carriers, including Cingular (at no extra charge!) if I happen to hit a
    T-Mobile dead spot or travel somewhere where they don't have coverage, and
    apparently that includes the area where I live even though T-Mobile has
    native coverage here. Do you have a local or regional plan, or a nationwide
    plan?

    --
    Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Company website: http://JustThe.net/
    Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
    E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <elmop-552B82.21264430072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005
    21:26:44 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

    >For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
    >Coverage Check.
    >
    >They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
    >
    >I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
    >Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
    >what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....

    T-Mobile and Cingular are using the same infrastructure in some, but not all,
    areas; e.g., here in California, Cingular sold its old orange network to
    T-Mobile, but is buying back time for the next few years.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  13. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:dcj5fv$8p0$3@ratbert.glorb.com...
    > (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    >> Per daniel cairns:
    >>
    >>>Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
    >>>they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
    >>>metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
    >>>down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.
    >>
    >>
    >> That's almost exactly where I am right now - but I'm still on T-Mob until
    >> the
    >> contract runs out.
    >
    > Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
    Dearborn, Michigan.
    DC

    >
    > Also, I'm on a nationwide FamilyTime share plan. I can roam onto other
    > carriers, including Cingular (at no extra charge!) if I happen to hit a
    > T-Mobile dead spot or travel somewhere where they don't have coverage, and
    > apparently that includes the area where I live even though T-Mobile has
    > native coverage here. Do you have a local or regional plan, or a
    > nationwide plan?
    >
    > --
    > Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    > Company website: http://JustThe.net/
    > Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
    > E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    daniel cairns wrote:
    >
    > <snip>

    A suggestion, Daniel... Learn to edit and snip your responses,
    so your one-liners don't get lost in a mess of top and bottom
    posts.

    See ya!

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

    daniel cairns wrote:

    >>Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
    >
    > Dearborn, Michigan.
    > DC

    I have to wonder how Cingular (former Ameritech Cellular) is in your area. I
    don't know if T-Mobile lets you switch plans without penalizing you, but if
    they do, perhaps you should try switching to a nationwide plan. See if being
    able to roam when your T-Mo signal fades will help at all.


    --
    Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Company website: http://JustThe.net/
    Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
    E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Because those features must not be sufficiently compelling to subscribers. If
    those features were sufficiently compelling, presumably more subscribers would
    migrate from Verizon to T-Mobile (aided by number portability), and Verizon
    would have to respond. That's how the free market works, and that's not
    happening -- Verizon continues to have low churn.

    In <65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:47:46 GMT,
    "Viper" <user@user.net> wrote:

    >Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's plan
    >pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and offer more
    >instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More flexible + more
    >features + better pricing = happy customer.
    >
    >"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    >news:elmop-552B82.21264430072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
    >> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
    >> Coverage Check.
    >>
    >> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
    >>
    >> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
    >> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
    >> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  17. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns96A3E134CFE54noone@63.223.7.253> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:04:33 -0400,
    Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

    >"Viper" <user@user.net> wrote in news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72:
    >
    >> Now why can't Verizon have features like that?
    >
    >How could they lie if there was a REAL RF coverage map just sitting there
    >exposing the truth? Don't hold your breath.
    >
    >These maps exist. They are filed with the FCC,

    They are? Then presumably they are available to the public, under Freedom of
    Information if nothing else. Form or Docket Number please.

    >who does nothing to force
    >the companies to actually cover the territory they are licensed to provide
    >real service for.

    Under what statute or regulation?

    >All companies have poor coverage,

    Actually pretty good in my experience.

    >some poorer than
    >others.

    True.

    >If a broadcast station provided this type of coverage, FCC would
    >fine them $10,000/day until they complied with filling their coverage area
    >with a good level of signal.

    Huh? Then why is broadcast radio and TV coverage so bad here in the East Bay
    part of the San Francisco Bay Area? Cellular coverage is better by far!

    >FCC used to tell us "it's because it's new and they're still in the
    >buildout phase". It's kind of hard to swallow this BS, now, so far in the
    >future, any more. FCC needs to provide coverage, one way or the
    >other....you either put up the towers necessary or you are forced to share
    >(allow company-paid roaming) on other systems IN MARKET.

    No need for that -- let the market continue to work.

    >FCC also needs to
    >inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
    >this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
    >have now.

    Really Bad Idea! The "hodge-podge" has now sorted itself out in the market
    into two principal standards, which fosters competition.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:35:21 GMT, John Navas wrote:
    >In <Xns96A3E134CFE54noone@63.223.7.253> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:04:33 -0400,
    >Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
    >>FCC also needs to
    >>inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
    >>this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
    >>have now.
    >
    >Really Bad Idea! The "hodge-podge" has now sorted itself out in the market
    >into two principal standards, which fosters competition.

    In the past, the FCC has adopted and enforced standards. NTSC is a
    good example where the different manufacturers in the TV industry
    cooperated (eventually, and not without some politics) to come up with
    a very elegant broadcast standard that has served the industry well
    for 50 years. Why wouldn't such an approach work with the cellular
    industry?

    Joe Huber
    huber.joseph@comcast.net
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
    news:Yh6He.6609$p%3.33070@typhoon.sonic.net:

    > Really? What specific (paragraph and section of) law?
    >

    http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html#rules

    The rules are rampant with it...

    Ever read the FCC rules on wireless?
    http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr24_04.html
    http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/

    "Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
    Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
    providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
    is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
    competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
    such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
    standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
    review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers."
    From the FCC webpages....

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

    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
    news:Zc6He.6608$p%3.33089@typhoon.sonic.net:

    > Under what statute or regulation?
    >

    Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
    Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
    providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
    is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
    competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
    such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
    standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
    review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers.

    http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
    FCC rules, Part 22 is cellular.

    Want your own license?
    http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/licensing/index.html


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

    "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in
    news:15bqe192egnae8a1q42scajkanaofbhisd@4ax.com:

    > It's almost like there are "shadows" in the coverage... Won't work
    > inside of building "A", won't work immediately outside either.... but
    > when you walk another 75 feet in a certain direction, there'll be a
    > couple of bars.
    >

    A great indication of multipath signals. You walk a few feet and signals
    improve, markedly. The signals are weak from lack of cells and what you
    are receiving from far off is bouncing off buildings, bridges and other
    reflective things like airplanes and mountains, causing many signal paths
    to the poorly covered cells.

    Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
    the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!

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

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <jr9qe1hlc7jl6645755k22l1fl1r15q7rl@4ax.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:33:27
    -0500, Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:

    >On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:35:21 GMT, John Navas wrote:
    >>In <Xns96A3E134CFE54noone@63.223.7.253> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:04:33 -0400,
    >>Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
    >>>FCC also needs to
    >>>inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
    >>>this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
    >>>have now.
    >>
    >>Really Bad Idea! The "hodge-podge" has now sorted itself out in the market
    >>into two principal standards, which fosters competition.
    >
    >In the past, the FCC has adopted and enforced standards. NTSC is a
    >good example where the different manufacturers in the TV industry
    >cooperated (eventually, and not without some politics) to come up with
    >a very elegant broadcast standard that has served the industry well
    >for 50 years. Why wouldn't such an approach work with the cellular
    >industry?

    NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
    probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
    benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  23. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
    >probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
    >benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.

    NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
    the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
    was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
    We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
    was the standard actually approved by the FCC, but covertly derailed
    by the rest of the industry because of its many problems. As a
    result, the NTSC standard evolved and was adopted by the FCC.

    What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
    and CDMA? Aren't the benefits really coming because of what the
    providers are doing with any given technology (i.e. Verizion vs.
    Sprint on CDMA)?

    Joe Huber
    huber.joseph@comcast.net
  24. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
    news:jIaHe.6665$p%3.33081@typhoon.sonic.net:

    > NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that
    > standard we'd probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS),
    > rather than enjoying the benefits of vigorous competition between GSM
    > and CDMA.
    >
    >

    True....But I bet before this conversion to digital TV is over, the
    politicians will wish they'd never heard of digital TV.

    I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
    which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....

    BBC graciously refused my offer to pay their radio tax to support the
    servers they provide me for the great BBC radio programmes I'm listening to
    as I type this. I'm hoping to see BBC-TV, the home channels, on the
    internet in the future and am willing to PAY for the priviledge of watching
    it.....spam free.

    My friend Werner is from Thun, Switzerland. He buys European TV channels
    from Dish Network to get the German TV. Great programs on German TV, too!

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

    Per Larry:
    >Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
    >the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!

    Actually, we're probably the only people in the neighborhood without cable TV.

    Rabbit ears all the way.

    Reception has never been wonderful, but it was a *lot* better say, 15, years
    ago.

    No ghosting, but lots of snow and other wierdnesses. We can get different
    qualities of picture by walking around in the room - or even raising an arm or
    moving a leg. Some channels are hopeless in one room, but pretty good in
    another.

    But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it another
    indication of geographic factors?
    --
    PeteCresswell
  26. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Per Larry:
    >I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
    >which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....

    Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current administration
    is in the process of remedying that particular irritant..
    --
    PeteCresswell
  27. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <kaeqe1taslealrjmvhr68m3r9l7d93ifcv@4ax.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:05:28
    -0500, Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:

    >On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >>NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
    >>probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
    >>benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.
    >
    >NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
    >the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
    >was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
    >We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
    >was the standard actually approved by the FCC, ...

    I rest my case.

    >What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
    >and CDMA?

    Surely you must be joking. We've seen rapid advances in handset shrinkage,
    sophistication, battery life, call quality, data transmission speed, PoC, and
    rapidly falling prices, to name just a few.

    >Aren't the benefits really coming because of what the
    >providers are doing with any given technology (i.e. Verizion vs.
    >Sprint on CDMA)?

    My own assessment is that the biggest competitive force is the battle between
    GMS (as the standard bearer for TDMA) and CDMA. Without that battle, I think
    3G would be much farther off.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  28. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:19:37 GMT, John Navas wrote:
    > Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas wrote:
    >>>NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
    >>>probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
    >>>benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.
    >>NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
    >>the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
    >>was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
    >>We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
    >>was the standard actually approved by the FCC, ...
    >
    >I rest my case.

    So you think it would have been better in the long run to have
    competing systems from RCA, CBS, CTI, GE, Philco, Hazeltine, (and
    whoever else) duke it out in the market, rather than have them all
    combine their efforts to develop a standard? There are various
    theories as to why the FCC initially chose FSS after earlier rejecting
    it and several others (industry/political pressure to pick something
    and they picked the "best" thing available, or perhaps they knew such
    a choice would motivate the various factions into uniting to develop a
    better standard).

    >>What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
    >>and CDMA?
    >Surely you must be joking. We've seen rapid advances in handset shrinkage,
    >sophistication, battery life, call quality, data transmission speed, PoC, and
    >rapidly falling prices, to name just a few.

    I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
    GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
    took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
    increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
    particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
    standard.

    Joe Huber
    huber.joseph@comcast.net
  29. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:27:05 GMT, John Navas wrote:
    0500, Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>So you think it would have been better in the long run to have
    >>competing systems from RCA, CBS, CTI, GE, Philco, Hazeltine, (and
    >>whoever else) duke it out in the market, rather than have them all
    >>combine their efforts to develop a standard?
    >Yep. As in so many other products. The market has a way of sorting such
    >things out efficiently and effectively, whereas the government has a way of
    >mucking them up.

    That would have been something to see. Of course, such a battle was
    economically unfeasible for most of those companies, and the standards
    proposed by the companies that probably could afford the fight was
    flawed. Working together, the companies developed a robust standard
    that allowed the manufacturers to concentrate on mass producing and
    improving hardware, instead of fighting over the underlying standard.

    >I think it's quite clear that competitive pressure from CDMA has greatly
    >spurred innovation in GSM, and vice versa. Had we all rallied around GSM (or
    >worse, government-mandated IS-136), there wouldn't have been anything like the
    >same pressure to innovate.

    From a Sprint end-user standpoint, the only CDMA-related innovation
    that I see over my years with Sprint has been the addition and
    improvement of data capability, and you still can't simultaneously use
    the data capability and make a voice call, despite the fact that the
    voice call is really data. What kind of innovation is that??? This
    is possible with GSM, but that sure hasn't prompted the CDMA side to
    deal with that shortcoming in a timely manner.

    When I first joined Sprint, I could make calls. Now I can make calls
    and work with data. The underlying engineering might have improved
    radically, but from the end-user perspective, the innovation hasn't
    been all that impressive. It's certainly not impressive when I need
    to place a call and I'm standing 100 yards away from a GSM tower, but
    have to switch over to analog AMPS to make the call because there is
    no CDMA tower nearby. The handsets are much more advanced, but that
    is primarily due to the improvement in electronics, not the CDMA/GSM
    network.


    Joe Huber
    huber.joseph@comcast.net
  30. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns96A4CB9D85505noone@63.223.7.253> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:57:47 -0400,
    Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
    >news:Yh6He.6609$p%3.33070@typhoon.sonic.net:
    >
    >> Really? What specific (paragraph and section of) law?
    >>
    >
    >http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html#rules
    >
    >The rules are rampant with it...
    >
    >Ever read the FCC rules on wireless?

    Yep. Also the actual enabling legislation, and relevant court decisions.
    And you? ;)

    >http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr24_04.html
    >http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
    >
    >"Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
    >Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
    >providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
    >is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
    >competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
    >such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
    >standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
    >review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers."
    >From the FCC webpages....

    Interesting, but not even close to supporting your claims.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  31. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Great map but if I were to switch to T-Mobile in my town, I'd probably have
    bad service right where I live. LOTS of dead spots in my area. Strange
    though that just a 1 1/2 miles away is a tower (I'm guessing about that far,
    maybe a bit closer) but the signal is less than fair by my house. Shouldn't
    the signal travel further than that? Is this the same for all carriers?
    How far do the signals travel anyway? I suppose it depends on land
    topography and the height of the tower.

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    news:elmop-552B82.21264430072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
    > For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
    > Coverage Check.
    >
    > They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
    >
    > I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
    > Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
    > what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
    >
  32. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <nu6re1h1s81g0ti4ubpra7083tp1ghhks3@4ax.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:50:41
    -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote:

    >Per Larry:

    >>I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
    >>which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....
    >
    >Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current administration
    >is in the process of remedying that particular irritant..

    PBS has already gone to way of commercial TV -- the difference now is only a
    matter of degree, and the gap is closing.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  33. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns96A4CC43772F5noone@63.223.7.253> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:01:37 -0400,
    Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
    >news:Zc6He.6608$p%3.33089@typhoon.sonic.net:
    >
    >> Under what statute or regulation?
    >
    >Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
    >Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
    >providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
    >is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
    >competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
    >such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
    >standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
    >review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers.
    >
    >http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
    >FCC rules, Part 22 is cellular.
    >
    >Want your own license?
    >http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/licensing/index.html


    Interesting, but not even close to supporting your claims.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  34. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <uo3re15c4v4mih73fiqe057mjsedpgkv9r@4ax.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:21:50
    -0500, Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:

    >On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:27:05 GMT, John Navas wrote:

    >>Yep. As in so many other products. The market has a way of sorting such
    >>things out efficiently and effectively, whereas the government has a way of
    >>mucking them up.
    >
    >That would have been something to see. Of course, such a battle was
    >economically unfeasible for most of those companies, and the standards
    >proposed by the companies that probably could afford the fight was
    >flawed. Working together, the companies developed a robust standard
    >that allowed the manufacturers to concentrate on mass producing and
    >improving hardware, instead of fighting over the underlying standard.

    The market at work. ;)

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  35. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:usgqe1do3hhmidbg17mobun66gkon0vcf6@4ax.com:

    > I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
    > GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
    > took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
    > increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
    > particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
    > standard.
    >
    > Joe Huber
    > huber.joseph@comcast.net
    >
    >

    He wouldn't be singing the same tune, Joe, if his new digital TV only
    picked up NBC because CBS and ABC and CNN and HBO all had DIFFERENT digital
    modulation schemes. It's way past time the FCC chose which scheme the
    country was going to use and forced ALL OF THEM to use it and forced all of
    them to put YOUR phone on their systems....

    This latest bullshit about "You can't Verizon's phone on Alltel's system"
    is just another scheme to prevent churning and sell multiyear contracts.
    Remember when you couldn't put YOUR telephone on Bell's telephone system
    because it might damage the system? The same thing is now happening to the
    cellular system and FCC needs to stop it.

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

    Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:uo3re15c4v4mih73fiqe057mjsedpgkv9r@4ax.com:

    > you still can't simultaneously use
    > the data capability and make a voice call

    Whoa! Waitaminit! If you could do that, we'd only be charging you 20
    minutes to make both calls. If we prevent you from doing that, we can
    squeeze 20 minutes out of you for the data call and another 20 minutes out
    of you for the voice call, right?

    Follow the money trail....(c;

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

    "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in
    news:nu6re1h1s81g0ti4ubpra7083tp1ghhks3@4ax.com:

    > Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current
    > administration is in the process of remedying that particular
    > irritant..
    >

    PBS is like Air America in its political slant. Is it any wonder the
    conservatives in the White House would cut them off?

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

    "J" <J@J.com> wrote in news:YQeHe.1960$2y2.332@trndny02:

    > Great map but if I were to switch to T-Mobile in my town, I'd probably
    > have bad service right where I live. LOTS of dead spots in my area.
    > Strange though that just a 1 1/2 miles away is a tower (I'm guessing
    > about that far, maybe a bit closer) but the signal is less than fair
    > by my house. Shouldn't the signal travel further than that? Is this
    > the same for all carriers? How far do the signals travel anyway? I
    > suppose it depends on land topography and the height of the tower.
    >

    http://www.wirelessmapping.com/Sample_Visual_street_level_with_rings.jpg

    As you can see from this map, there are LOTS of areas with no coverage
    caused by terrain and buildings well within the 1 mile range ring on this
    map. If the company doesn't have enough cells to fill in these holes, you
    get what you have, easily within 1 mile of the tower...

    Propagation isn't about cellular sales hype, fancy modulation schemes and
    magic. It hasn't changed a bit since Nikola Tesla lit off the first
    transmitter...(c;

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

    "J" <J@J.com> wrote in news:YQeHe.1960$2y2.332@trndny02:

    > Great map but if I were to switch to T-Mobile in my town, I'd probably
    > have bad service right where I live. LOTS of dead spots in my area.

    PRECISELY why FCC should FORCE them all to SHARE or PROVIDE coverage.

    Imagine how your phone would work if Verizon and T-Mobile and all the
    others were FORCED, by law, to let your phone work on any system it could
    find.

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

    On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:08:18 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

    >There's lots of good stuff on commercial TV if you take the time to seek it
    >out; e.g., West Wing, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, The
    >Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Over There, ...

    You actually regard those shows as "good stuff"?


    Pegleg
    U.S. Navy Retired
    Support Our Troops

    All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words:
    freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
    Sir Winston Churchill
  41. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    In article <dcjd6b$9l4$4@ratbert.glorb.com>,
    Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
    > daniel cairns wrote:
    >
    >>>Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
    >>
    >> Dearborn, Michigan.
    >> DC
    >
    > I have to wonder how Cingular (former Ameritech Cellular) is in your area.
    [snip]

    I'm in S.E. MI. as well, Steve. Used to be, back in analog days,
    Ameritech (now p/o Cingular) and AirTouch (absorbed by Verizon) had
    the best coverage by far. But now it would appear to be SprintPCS
    and Verizon vying for #1, Cingular in 2nd place (by a good margin, I
    think), then T-Mobile and Nextel (not sure about their order).

    SprintPCS *appears* to me to have better coverage, but I must admit
    much of that impression is based on the performance of my wife's
    phone, which hasn't had a PRL update since she first got it, when
    AirTouch still existed, so that impression is likely invalid.

    --
    Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
    jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
    http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
  42. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    In article <oo6re1p8k8mtm9cphe5ig3ac8ie1ain6f9@4ax.com>,
    "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> writes:
    > Per Larry:
    >>Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
    >>the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!
    >
    > Actually, we're probably the only people in the neighborhood without cable TV.
    >
    > Rabbit ears all the way.
    >
    > Reception has never been wonderful, but it was a *lot* better say, 15, years
    > ago.
    >
    > No ghosting, but lots of snow and other wierdnesses. We can get different
    > qualities of picture by walking around in the room - or even raising an arm or
    > moving a leg. Some channels are hopeless in one room, but pretty good in
    > another.
    >
    > But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it another
    > indication of geographic factors?

    FSVO "geographic." Have you had lots of new construction,
    particularly relatively tall structures (high-rise buildings, antenna
    towers) in that 15 years? Or are you possibly in a minor geographic
    depression and there's been build-up on high ground around you?

    Are you in the north and, if so, does this problem persist in the
    winter-time?

    --
    Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
    jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
    http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
  43. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Per Jim Seymour:
    >FSVO "geographic." Have you had lots of new construction,
    >particularly relatively tall structures (high-rise buildings, antenna
    >towers) in that 15 years? Or are you possibly in a minor geographic
    >depression and there's been build-up on high ground around you?

    Huge development in this area.

    Corn fields have become corporate plazas and upscale developments.

    Dunno about the "tall" part, but certainly plenty of new structures.

    Antenna towers? At least one humongous one that is decked out as a faux
    redwood tree.
    --
    PeteCresswell
  44. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns96A568D04B77Cnoone@63.223.7.253> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:16:13 -0400,
    Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

    >Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
    >news:uo3re15c4v4mih73fiqe057mjsedpgkv9r@4ax.com:
    >
    >> you still can't simultaneously use
    >> the data capability and make a voice call
    >
    >Whoa! Waitaminit! If you could do that, we'd only be charging you 20
    >minutes to make both calls. If we prevent you from doing that, we can
    >squeeze 20 minutes out of you for the data call and another 20 minutes out
    >of you for the voice call, right?
    >
    >Follow the money trail....(c;

    Nonsense. It's simply a matter of practicality -- small, inexpensive handsets
    just don't have enough processing power to do both at the same time.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  45. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns96A5686F7AC83noone@63.223.7.253> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:13:59 -0400,
    Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

    >Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
    >news:usgqe1do3hhmidbg17mobun66gkon0vcf6@4ax.com:
    >
    >> I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
    >> GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
    >> took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
    >> increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
    >> particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
    >> standard.
    >
    >He wouldn't be singing the same tune, Joe, if his new digital TV only
    >picked up NBC because CBS and ABC and CNN and HBO all had DIFFERENT digital
    >modulation schemes.

    Indeed, because the market almost certainly wouldn't let that happen -- either
    the industry would get behind one standard, or we'd have multi-standard TVs.
    Even a very inexpensive DVD player can play both NTSC and PAL DVDs.

    >It's way past time the FCC chose which scheme the
    >country was going to use and forced ALL OF THEM to use it and forced all of
    >them to put YOUR phone on their systems....

    Really, really bad idea, and zero prospect of it happening fortunately.

    >This latest bullshit about "You can't Verizon's phone on Alltel's system"
    >is just another scheme to prevent churning and sell multiyear contracts.
    >Remember when you couldn't put YOUR telephone on Bell's telephone system
    >because it might damage the system? The same thing is now happening to the
    >cellular system and FCC needs to stop it.

    Nonsense. Phones are essentially free with new service, and frequently
    "upgraded" by consumers, and thus aren't an impediment to switching carriers.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  46. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns96A4CD197A77Enoone@63.223.7.253> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:06:32 -0400,
    Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
    >news:jIaHe.6665$p%3.33081@typhoon.sonic.net:
    >
    >> NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that
    >> standard we'd probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS),
    >> rather than enjoying the benefits of vigorous competition between GSM
    >> and CDMA.
    >
    >True....But I bet before this conversion to digital TV is over, the
    >politicians will wish they'd never heard of digital TV.
    >
    >I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
    >which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....

    There's lots of good stuff on TV *if* you take the time to seek it out; e.g.,
    West Wing, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, The Sopranos,
    Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Over There, ...

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  47. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns96A56912BFF4Anoone@63.223.7.253> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:17:45 -0400,
    Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

    >"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in
    >news:nu6re1h1s81g0ti4ubpra7083tp1ghhks3@4ax.com:
    >
    >> Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current
    >> administration is in the process of remedying that particular
    >> irritant..
    >
    >PBS is like Air America in its political slant.

    Utter nonsense. PBS is one of the few relatively balanced broadcasters left
    in America, as shown by study after study.

    >Is it any wonder the
    >conservatives in the White House would cut them off?

    The neo-cons just want to live in a world where the only "choice" is Fox News,
    their idea of "balanced" coverage.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  48. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Rabbit ears all the way.
    >
    > Reception has never been wonderful, but it was a *lot* better say, 15, years
    > ago.
    >
    > No ghosting, but lots of snow and other wierdnesses. We can get different
    > qualities of picture by walking around in the room - or even raising an arm or
    > moving a leg. Some channels are hopeless in one room, but pretty good in
    > another.

    And you put up with that?
    Why not put a decent antenna on your roof or in your attic, and distribute
    that signal to the various rooms that need it.


    > But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it another
    > indication of geographic factors?

    Yep, sure is.

    --
    John Richards
  49. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Joseph Huber wrote:
    > When I first joined Sprint, I could make calls. Now I can make calls
    > and work with data. The underlying engineering might have improved
    > radically, but from the end-user perspective, the innovation hasn't
    > been all that impressive. It's certainly not impressive when I need
    > to place a call and I'm standing 100 yards away from a GSM tower, but
    > have to switch over to analog AMPS to make the call because there is
    > no CDMA tower nearby. The handsets are much more advanced, but that
    > is primarily due to the improvement in electronics, not the CDMA/GSM
    > network.

    Hey, but you can download different ringtones now!
    Aren't the technical advancements wonderful?

    --
    John Richards
Ask a new question

Read More

Cingular Verizon Internet Service Providers