Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote in message news:<cgvr8c1vg@news2.newsguy.com>...
> In article <hjuYc.2178$8d1.353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Not necessarily, some of those carriers that have added digital service
> >may just drop analogue only service areas completely. As I understand
> >it, analogue will still be legal for carriers to keep using. It will be
> >that they are not required to keep it running. Therefore if an analogue
> >only area is not profitable, they may just turn that area off. And in
> >the areas that they do have digital, it is almost a certainty that
> >analogue will be dropped. Then analogue only phones will be of limited
> >usability, area wise. The carriers that have added digital may then
> >stop offering phones that have an analogue mode. The carriers that are
> >analogue only will then have income from their subscribers, but little
> >roaming income. Which might force them to either add digital or go out
> >of business.
>
> Specifically, note that with AT&T/Cingular moving to GSM, where almost
> none of the phone include analog, the value of Verizon providing analog
> service to pick up roamers will drop to essentially zero in a few years.
Yes but by the same token, those users who still need analog because
of where they live or the type of work they do, have moved over to
Verizon or kept TDMA/Analog phones.
Those cusomers who got taken by the promise of "lots of bars" on GSM,
will be moving to a provider who offers the type of service they need.
Gets on "soap box"...
Australia went from AMPS to CDMA in the outback by a national decree.
So a larger scale conversion has been done before.
I don't care about the technology just the coverage. Luckily there's
still the ability to boost digital signal beyond the "normal"
standards, with new antenna designs and advanced digital equipment to
use in rural and marine areas.
The FCC tends to turn a sumpathetic ear towards rural communications
providers of all sorts. Apparent at recent congressional hearings,
where rural providers simply could not implement GPS triangulation
deadlines, without going broke. When their network covers a straight
line down a rural highway, with towers spaced at maximum intervals,
any reasonable person would conclude there needs to be some
flexibility for rural cellular providers and new technological
mandates.
Otherwise only people in the cities would even get telephones or
cellular service, since it's not cost effective in much of the western
US to deploy a network, in sparsely populated areas.
States with very small populations still get 2 senators to represent
their interests as well.
We also subsidize telephone networks in rural areas on every phone
bill. Is there a cellular version?
Sure is nice to have cellular coverage on vacation, but farmers,
foresters and country folk are going to have to live with AMPS, or a
suitable replacement technology, every day. Not to mention, all those
old towers are spaced and deployed with specific limits. There's
little chance for strapped, small providers to "fill in", with million
dollar towers, in an arguably critical, safety/service wise, rural
commnicatons chain.
Anyway, I hope the big carriers are forced to at least keep the
current level of basic voice coverage, geographically, across the
nation. While their spending billions, to reap commensurate rewards,
on advanced cellular data networks. While feeding games, ringtones and
fast data, to the dense cherry picked urban markets, cellular service
across rural America, should continue to receive whatever kind of
support is required, to remain a viable service throughout future
technological upgrades.
-
David
hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote in message news:<cgvr8c1vg@news2.newsguy.com>...
> In article <hjuYc.2178$8d1.353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Not necessarily, some of those carriers that have added digital service
> >may just drop analogue only service areas completely. As I understand
> >it, analogue will still be legal for carriers to keep using. It will be
> >that they are not required to keep it running. Therefore if an analogue
> >only area is not profitable, they may just turn that area off. And in
> >the areas that they do have digital, it is almost a certainty that
> >analogue will be dropped. Then analogue only phones will be of limited
> >usability, area wise. The carriers that have added digital may then
> >stop offering phones that have an analogue mode. The carriers that are
> >analogue only will then have income from their subscribers, but little
> >roaming income. Which might force them to either add digital or go out
> >of business.
>
> Specifically, note that with AT&T/Cingular moving to GSM, where almost
> none of the phone include analog, the value of Verizon providing analog
> service to pick up roamers will drop to essentially zero in a few years.
Yes but by the same token, those users who still need analog because
of where they live or the type of work they do, have moved over to
Verizon or kept TDMA/Analog phones.
Those cusomers who got taken by the promise of "lots of bars" on GSM,
will be moving to a provider who offers the type of service they need.
Gets on "soap box"...
Australia went from AMPS to CDMA in the outback by a national decree.
So a larger scale conversion has been done before.
I don't care about the technology just the coverage. Luckily there's
still the ability to boost digital signal beyond the "normal"
standards, with new antenna designs and advanced digital equipment to
use in rural and marine areas.
The FCC tends to turn a sumpathetic ear towards rural communications
providers of all sorts. Apparent at recent congressional hearings,
where rural providers simply could not implement GPS triangulation
deadlines, without going broke. When their network covers a straight
line down a rural highway, with towers spaced at maximum intervals,
any reasonable person would conclude there needs to be some
flexibility for rural cellular providers and new technological
mandates.
Otherwise only people in the cities would even get telephones or
cellular service, since it's not cost effective in much of the western
US to deploy a network, in sparsely populated areas.
States with very small populations still get 2 senators to represent
their interests as well.
We also subsidize telephone networks in rural areas on every phone
bill. Is there a cellular version?
Sure is nice to have cellular coverage on vacation, but farmers,
foresters and country folk are going to have to live with AMPS, or a
suitable replacement technology, every day. Not to mention, all those
old towers are spaced and deployed with specific limits. There's
little chance for strapped, small providers to "fill in", with million
dollar towers, in an arguably critical, safety/service wise, rural
commnicatons chain.
Anyway, I hope the big carriers are forced to at least keep the
current level of basic voice coverage, geographically, across the
nation. While their spending billions, to reap commensurate rewards,
on advanced cellular data networks. While feeding games, ringtones and
fast data, to the dense cherry picked urban markets, cellular service
across rural America, should continue to receive whatever kind of
support is required, to remain a viable service throughout future
technological upgrades.
-
David
/JustThe.net/
Facebook
Twitter