1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

AT&T Wireless in play to be sold

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Robert M., Jan 16, 2004.

  1. XFF

    XFF Guest

    "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message news:<101e6of3svp6ee7@corp.supernews.com>...

    > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0401252353.3e6fabb2@posting.google.com...
    >
    > > "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message news:<10191fu4tf2ag0b@corp.supernews.com>...
    > >
    > > > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0401192326.2c132a2d@posting.google.com...
    > > >
    > > > > "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message news:<100p5cc4afisff0@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > > >
    > > > > > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0401191538.331f7d02@posting.google.com...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > Actually, there are not that many markets where AT&T and Cingular
    > > > > > > overlap. I went through this exercise a couple months ago and from
    > > > > > > what I remember, the only markets where overlap exists are in the
    > > > > > > following 4 states:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > * CT: CT-1
    > > > > > > * OK: Oklahoma City (partial), OK-3 (partial)
    > > > > > > * TX: Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Sherman/Denison, TX-6,
    > > > > > > TX-11 (partial)
    > > > > > > * FL: Miami, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach,
    > > > > > > Jacksonville, FL-2 (partial), FL-4 (partial), FL-5 (partial)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > They overlap all through the SE on TDMA. Are you talking about GSM only?
    > > > >
    > > > > I'm talking about cellular market areas (CMAs) where both ATTWS and
    > > > > Cingular are licensed to provide service, regardless of technology.
    > > > > The 18 markets listed below is exactly where such overlap occurs. If
    > > > > you believe that ATTWS and Cingular overlap in other cellular markets
    > > > > please name them specifically.
    > > >
    > > > I may just be totally misunderstanding your post, but Cingular and AT&T are
    > > > both in the North Alabama area(Birmingham/Huntsville) and the Atlanta area,
    > > > along with Nashville. I'm sure there are many others throughout the SE.

    > >
    > > Keep in mind that the original post was talking about overlap of
    > > cellular licenses only. While ATWTS provides service in Birmingham
    > > and Atlanta, it does not provide cellular service and does not have
    > > cellular licenses in these markets, whereas Cingular does. You can
    > > find the owners of each cellular license by market at
    > > http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/regions.html. The FCC now
    > > generally allows carriers to aggregate spectrum as long as one carrier
    > > doesn't control both cellular licenses within a single market (there
    > > are exceptions to this rule, but let's just assume this for
    > > simplicity's sake). A carrier controlling a cellular and a PCS
    > > license (as would be the case with a Cingular/ATTWS merger in
    > > Birmingham and Atlanta) is of little concern to the FCC whereas a
    > > carrier controlling both cellular licenses (as would be the case in
    > > Dallas or Miami) would be of considerable concern.

    >
    > At least for North Alabama, AT&T did own the license, until Tritel purchased
    > that licensed and started SunCom in this area. Telecorp assumed ownership
    > of the license when they bought Tritel, then AT&T regained ownership when
    > they purchased SunCom.


    You mean Triton PCS? As the name implies, those are PCS licenses, not
    cellular. We've covered that a few time now in this very same thread.



    › See More: AT&T Wireless in play to be sold
  2. David

    David Guest

    "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-6C2035.18044820012004@news06.west.earthlink.net>...
    > In article <gabley-C8D3D4.14021220012004@news.supernews.com>,
    > Yazzan Gable <gabley@titans.org> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > California. The sixth largest economy in the world. And whose cell
    > > infrastructure is worse than many third world countries...

    >
    >
    > AT&T Wireless, the Company America disTrusts.


    I agree! I speant hours and hours on the phone trying to CANCEL my
    service. I could hardly get a signal anywhere! It barely even worked
    in parts of Chicago or LA.
  3. XFF

    XFF Guest

    lithiaspgs@aol.com (LithiaSpgs) wrote in message news:<20040129062058.19320.00000504@mb-m26.aol.com>...

    > >Yes, but not cellular service. See
    > >http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/regions.html who holds the two
    > >cellular licenses and provides cellular service in any given market.

    >
    > When you say "cellular" most people think of any mobile phone as being a "cell
    > phone".


    They would be wrong. What you're talking about is a mobile phone or a
    wireless phone. A cellular phone is just that, a phone that operates
    in the cellular band of the electromagnetic spectrum. And cellular
    service is service provided in the cellular spectrum, not in any other
    part of the spectrum.

    > I assume you are talking about the old analog 800Mhz cellular phones? I
    > didn't know anybody still used those!


    Cellular service was the first mobile phone service deployed in the
    United States, so by that account it would be (relatively) old. But
    it doesn't need to be analog. Cellular operators have been overlaying
    digital service on the cellular spectrum since the early 90's. There
    are very few cellular service providers remaining that only offer
    analog service. Concho Cellular (one county away from me) is one of
    them. And regardless, there are still plenty of people using analog
    service. I seem to remember that the latest industry figures talked
    about 94% digital subscribership, that leaves 6% (or about 9 Million!)
    subscribers on analog service. Not exactly negligible.
  4. XFF

    XFF Guest

    xff@austin.rr.com (XFF) wrote in message news:<298d9cbf.0401291058.42ec8eb0@posting.google.com>...

    > And regardless, there are still plenty of people using analog
    > service. I seem to remember that the latest industry figures talked
    > about 94% digital subscribership, that leaves 6% (or about 9 Million!)
    > subscribers on analog service. Not exactly negligible.


    I just checked (http://www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/surveys/) and it
    turns out as of 06/2003 digital subscribership was 92%, leaving 8% (or
    about 12 Million!) analog subscribers.
  5. Jer

    Jer Guest

    XFF wrote:



    > Cellular service was the first mobile phone service deployed in the
    > United States, so by that account it would be (relatively) old.


    oops, you forgot about MTS and IMTS. Both preceded cellular service by
    many years.


    [....]


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  6. "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0401291058.42ec8eb0@posting.google.com...
    > lithiaspgs@aol.com (LithiaSpgs) wrote in message news:<20040129062058.19320.00000504@mb-m26.aol.com>...
    >
    > > >Yes, but not cellular service. See
    > > >http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/regions.html who holds the two
    > > >cellular licenses and provides cellular service in any given market.

    > >
    > > When you say "cellular" most people think of any mobile phone as
    > > being a "cell phone".

    >
    > They would be wrong. What you're talking about is a mobile phone or
    > a wireless phone. A cellular phone is just that, a phone that operates
    > in the cellular band of the electromagnetic spectrum. And cellular
    > service is service provided in the cellular spectrum, not in any other
    > part of the spectrum.
    >

    Well, maybe that's the technical definition of "cellular", but I think that
    in common usage most people would refer to any wireless system that
    uses many low-powered towers arranged in cells as a "cellular" system.
    The original definition just refers to the earliest system which used cells.
  7. In alt.cellular XFF <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote:

    > They would be wrong. What you're talking about is a mobile phone or a
    > wireless phone. A cellular phone is just that, a phone that operates
    > in the cellular band of the electromagnetic spectrum. And cellular
    > service is service provided in the cellular spectrum, not in any other
    > part of the spectrum.


    A cell phone is a cell phone.

    The constant insistence that frequency matters is idiotic. I love when
    people insist that wireless phones running on the 1900MHz PCS frequencies
    aren't cellular. They all use the same communications protocols! (OK, you
    don't have 1900MHz AMPS, but GSM, CDMA and TDMA all work the same at both
    frequencies.)

    Sorry XFF, this rant isn't really directed at you... it's just a general
    I-have-to-rant-about-this-continued-stupidity rant.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
  8. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In alt.cellular.verizon Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    > AT&T Wireless, the Company America disTrusts.


    Of course, Phillip ... or Robert M. You are David the guy that started
    this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155

    Moron.

    - --

    Thomas T. Veldhouse


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFAGnfc1p0e3NXsrtERAgMBAJ9E9Pj8JpJ3qX9Yx6s4tj5sswkyawCeISUC
    DAlXejTBsymWZWhqP0AhbTc=
    =P0ax
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  9. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In alt.cellular.verizon Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > Of course, Phillip ... or Robert M. You are David the guy that started
    > this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155
    >
    > Moron.
    >


    My apologies to the group and David (but not to Robert M ... Phillip).
    I was mistaken when I though David started the thread and that it was
    therefor another Phillip incarnation. It was indeed the Robert M
    instance of Phillip that started the thread. My statement calling him a
    moron still stands however.

    - --

    Thomas T. Veldhouse


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFAGnoZ1p0e3NXsrtERAgy0AJ9Y4h+KgCQyTn+f8BVgYZWZc0UljgCgh4M3
    8eYeHj+tmWfF3OYQVzyAhXs=
    =SHPz
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  10. "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:I8KdnZpyp-nfToTd4p2dnA@lmi.net...

    > The constant insistence that frequency matters is idiotic. I love when
    > people insist that wireless phones running on the 1900MHz PCS frequencies
    > aren't cellular.


    The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
    much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the second
    tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
    coverage is worse for these carriers.
  11. In alt.cellular Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
    > "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    > news:I8KdnZpyp-nfToTd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    >
    >> The constant insistence that frequency matters is idiotic. I love when
    >> people insist that wireless phones running on the 1900MHz PCS frequencies
    >> aren't cellular.

    >
    > The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
    > much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the second
    > tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
    > coverage is worse for these carriers.


    Perhaps. I've not noticed any major difference between my Verizon phones
    and my wife's Sprint phones, and both in Cleveland (where I lived until 6/03)
    and in Southern California (where I live now), Verizon is 800 MHz. Sprint, of
    course, is 1900 MHz too.

    To *just* look at frequency as the sole factor means you're missing the
    point, IMHO.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
  12. In alt.cellular.verizon Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:

    > Perhaps. I've not noticed any major difference between my Verizon phones
    > and my wife's Sprint phones, and both in Cleveland (where I lived until 6/03)
    > and in Southern California (where I live now), Verizon is 800 MHz. Sprint, of
    > course, is 1900 MHz too.


    I didn't mean "too". :)

    Should read "1900 MHz."

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
  13. Joseph

    Joseph Guest

    On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:07:36 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    >The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
    >much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the second
    >tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
    >coverage is worse for these carriers.


    Have *you* actually used both? I have and it makes a lot more
    difference as to the position of the base stations than it does what
    frequency they use. I have first-hand practical experience that says
    this is so. What do you have except what you've heard?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    remove NO from .NOcom to reply
  14. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <401a77de$0$41289$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > You are David the guy that started
    > this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155


    Now Veldlouse is an AT&T apologist???

    LOL
  15. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-5A7E55.19411301022004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <401a77de$0$41289$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>,
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > You are David the guy that started
    > > this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155

    >
    > Now Veldlouse is an AT&T apologist???
    >


    No- but you are still a moron.
  16. In alt.cellular Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
    > In article <401a77de$0$41289$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>,
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> You are David the guy that started
    >> this thread. Same IP address too! 66.32.49.155

    >
    > Now Veldlouse is an AT&T apologist???


    Nah, but you're still a fraud.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
  17. "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom> wrote in message
    news:rp6o109qn30sh3ivcgracrs74o9shljbd7@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:07:36 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    > <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
    >
    > >The insistence on terminology is idiotic, but the frequency matters very
    > >much in actual operation. Both in the U.S., and Europe and Asia, the

    second
    > >tier carriers got stuck with 1800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz, and the quality of
    > >coverage is worse for these carriers.

    >
    > Have *you* actually used both?


    Yes. Of course there is no way to definitively say that the reason for the
    poorer coverage was due to 1900 Mhz versus 800 Mhz. It is the location of
    the base station that matters, as you state. But it takes a lot more base
    stations to cover the same area when they are at 1900 Mhz. Cingular's
    problems in California are due to not enough cells, among other things. At
    800 Mhz they would have needed less cells.

    Go down the Consumer Reports survey and look at how many instances where the
    800 Mhz carrier in the area is rated the best. It's not 100%, but it's a
    high percentage.
  18. Joseph

    Joseph Guest

    On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 03:53:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    >Yes. Of course there is no way to definitively say that the reason for the
    >poorer coverage was due to 1900 Mhz versus 800 Mhz. It is the location of
    >the base station that matters, as you state. But it takes a lot more base
    >stations to cover the same area when they are at 1900 Mhz. Cingular's
    >problems in California are due to not enough cells, among other things. At
    >800 Mhz they would have needed less cells.


    A 1900 Mhz system will perform as well as an 800 Mhz system *if* the
    system is set out properly. Of course it won't perform was well as an
    800 Mhz system if the base station placement is the same as it is for
    800 Mhz rather than 1900 Mhz. That's pretty self-evident.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    remove NO from .NOcom to reply
  19. "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom> wrote in message
    news:vvms10d8961af2redoi2ng9g3e3dv02vuj@4ax.com...

    > Of course it won't perform was well as an
    > 800 Mhz system if the base station placement is the same as it is for
    > 800 Mhz rather than 1900 Mhz. That's pretty self-evident.


    And that's the problem. When Cingular and AT&T overlayed 1900 Mhz GSM onto
    800 Mhz TDMA, they started by simply adding 1900 Mhz GSM at the same towers
    they were already using, knowing full well that this would result in lousdy
    GSM coverage. Now they're adding more towers to compensate, as well as
    adding 800 Mhz GSM.

    In the west, where Cingular is GSM only, their coverage is very poor. Every
    time they are criticized, the stock response is to state how much money they
    are spending to correct the problem. But they're doing poorly out here
    because not many people are willing to wait for them to correct the
    problems.
  20. Yazzan Gable

    Yazzan Gable Guest

    In article <eVtTb.9190$uM2.857@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    > "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom> wrote in message
    > news:vvms10d8961af2redoi2ng9g3e3dv02vuj@4ax.com...
    >
    >
    > In the west, where Cingular is GSM only, their coverage is very poor. Every
    > time they are criticized, the stock response is to state how much money they
    > are spending to correct the problem. But they're doing poorly out here
    > because not many people are willing to wait for them to correct the
    > problems.
    >
    >


    Ummmm, I think three years is plenty of time to fill the holes in San
    Francisco's GSM coverage...

    Problem is that Cinguliar is spending "millions of dollars" on not GSM
    coverage so you can make a phone call but on optional expensive add ons
    such as GPRS and the like.

    But you can't use even that if you don't get a signal!

    18 months is plenty of time to erect towers if that was their priority.
    Out in my neighbourhood, GSM service actually got worse once Pac Bell
    became Cinguliar.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?