All digital over Dig/analog?

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

jc

 

[Guest]

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

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


Define "expensive to operate." To whom?

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

--

-Philip

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

-Philip

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

-Philip

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

Chuck Forsberg wrote:
> OK - how many tri-mode PDA phones has Verizon introduced lately?
> Last I looked, they weren't selling ANY such phones.

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Joseph]

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Guest]

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

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

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


Agree about 0 tact but truth is that his signature brought more
attention to this anniversary than the President or the rest of the
country!

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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