1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  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!
    Dismiss Notice

More of Larry's BS...

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Richard Ness, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:04:24 GMT, David S
    ><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:20 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    >>add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >>
    >>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >>>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    >>><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    >>>>cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    >>>>
    >>>>HOWEVER....
    >>>>
    >>>>Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    >>>>coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    >>>>keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    >>>>command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    >>>>or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    >>>>even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    >>>>with the noise.
    >>>
    >>>This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    >>>increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    >>>arrays per tower and higher tower density.
    >>>
    >>>They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    >>>Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.

    >>
    >>Did you read the part of my post before the "HOWEVER...."?
    >>
    >>It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    >>bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    >>since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    >>and antennae.
    >>
    >>And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    >>transmits at full power.

    >
    >Others posted the power issue, but digital and analog DO NOT need
    >different transceivers (complete) and share antennae. It's just how
    >fractions of the frequency allotment (channels) are used.
    >
    >AMPS is divided into a number of channels, CDMA just uses several of these
    >channels (portion of the transceiver and system's bandwidth). Only the
    >modulator/demodulator methods vary. A number of channels treated as CDMA
    >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.


    So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    to.

    And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is better
    than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    engineered.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Fate -- protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise."
    - Cdr. William Riker
     



    › See More: More of Larry's BS...
  2. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:04:24 GMT, David S
    ><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:20 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    >>add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >>
    >>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >>>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    >>><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    >>>>cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    >>>>
    >>>>HOWEVER....
    >>>>
    >>>>Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    >>>>coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    >>>>keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    >>>>command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    >>>>or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    >>>>even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    >>>>with the noise.
    >>>
    >>>This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    >>>increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    >>>arrays per tower and higher tower density.
    >>>
    >>>They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    >>>Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.

    >>
    >>Did you read the part of my post before the "HOWEVER...."?
    >>
    >>It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    >>bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    >>since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    >>and antennae.
    >>
    >>And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    >>transmits at full power.

    >
    >Others posted the power issue, but digital and analog DO NOT need
    >different transceivers (complete) and share antennae. It's just how
    >fractions of the frequency allotment (channels) are used.
    >
    >AMPS is divided into a number of channels, CDMA just uses several of these
    >channels (portion of the transceiver and system's bandwidth). Only the
    >modulator/demodulator methods vary. A number of channels treated as CDMA
    >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.


    So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    to.

    And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is better
    than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    engineered.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Fate -- protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise."
    - Cdr. William Riker
     
  3. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:04:24 GMT, David S
    ><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:20 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to
    >>add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >>
    >>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
    >>>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:34:09 GMT, David S
    >>><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Larry is wrong in that he doesn't recognize that a large number of smaller
    >>>>cells is better than a small number of big cells.
    >>>>
    >>>>HOWEVER....
    >>>>
    >>>>Larry is right in that even a digital phone, on the fringe of a cell's
    >>>>coverage or inside a building, would have a better chance of making and
    >>>>keeping a call if it had a higher power output. A CDMA tower can always
    >>>>command a phone capable of as much as 3W to ratchet down its power to 100
    >>>>or 50 or even 10mW if that is what is necessary to keep the noise floor
    >>>>even, but the tower CANNOT command a 200mW phone to go to 300mW to keep up
    >>>>with the noise.
    >>>
    >>>This (almost) has nothing to do with analog of digital! It's simply
    >>>increased usage and essentially creating more cells via more directional
    >>>arrays per tower and higher tower density.
    >>>
    >>>They use the same frequencies, there are not digital vas analog antennas.
    >>>Just arrays that cover smaller areas so one can have more cells.

    >>
    >>Did you read the part of my post before the "HOWEVER...."?
    >>
    >>It was my impression that even though CDMA and AMPS use the same frequency
    >>bands, they cannot be on the same exact frequencies at the same time, and,
    >>since they are different types of transmissions, need separate transceivers
    >>and antennae.
    >>
    >>And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that on AMPS, the phone always
    >>transmits at full power.

    >
    >Others posted the power issue, but digital and analog DO NOT need
    >different transceivers (complete) and share antennae. It's just how
    >fractions of the frequency allotment (channels) are used.
    >
    >AMPS is divided into a number of channels, CDMA just uses several of these
    >channels (portion of the transceiver and system's bandwidth). Only the
    >modulator/demodulator methods vary. A number of channels treated as CDMA
    >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.


    So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    to.

    And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is better
    than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    engineered.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Fate -- protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise."
    - Cdr. William Riker
     
  4. New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.

    New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    So when Verizon or any other Cellular company ( Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile,
    Cingular, etc. ) puts in new sites, they just keep adding sites between
    existing sites, which only improves handheld phone coverage as the sites get
    closer and closer to the user(s) and the coverage gets better and better.
    Since AMPS isn't installed in the new sites or being actively, improved, the
    perception is that AMPS is getting worse and worse when in reality, it's
    staying the same and ( insert digital protocol here such as CDMA, TDMA, GSM,
    etc ) is just adding more and more coverage and actively filling in holes
    with smaller cells. If they filled in smaller cells and used AMPS
    technology, you would see a lot of the better coverage that "digital" only
    sites are seeing now with smaller areas and more frequency reuse.

    So, your are both correct to a large degree.

    Sorry for the rambling.......... ;-)

    Scotty




    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:po9te0tnp9fd0sr1eb6iupo6uoikmeqefh@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to


    <snip>

    > >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.

    >
    > So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    > areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    > ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    > mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    > to.
    >
    > And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is

    better
    > than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    > engineered.
     
  5. New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.

    New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    So when Verizon or any other Cellular company ( Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile,
    Cingular, etc. ) puts in new sites, they just keep adding sites between
    existing sites, which only improves handheld phone coverage as the sites get
    closer and closer to the user(s) and the coverage gets better and better.
    Since AMPS isn't installed in the new sites or being actively, improved, the
    perception is that AMPS is getting worse and worse when in reality, it's
    staying the same and ( insert digital protocol here such as CDMA, TDMA, GSM,
    etc ) is just adding more and more coverage and actively filling in holes
    with smaller cells. If they filled in smaller cells and used AMPS
    technology, you would see a lot of the better coverage that "digital" only
    sites are seeing now with smaller areas and more frequency reuse.

    So, your are both correct to a large degree.

    Sorry for the rambling.......... ;-)

    Scotty




    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:po9te0tnp9fd0sr1eb6iupo6uoikmeqefh@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to


    <snip>

    > >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.

    >
    > So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    > areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    > ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    > mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    > to.
    >
    > And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is

    better
    > than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    > engineered.
     
  6. New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.

    New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    So when Verizon or any other Cellular company ( Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile,
    Cingular, etc. ) puts in new sites, they just keep adding sites between
    existing sites, which only improves handheld phone coverage as the sites get
    closer and closer to the user(s) and the coverage gets better and better.
    Since AMPS isn't installed in the new sites or being actively, improved, the
    perception is that AMPS is getting worse and worse when in reality, it's
    staying the same and ( insert digital protocol here such as CDMA, TDMA, GSM,
    etc ) is just adding more and more coverage and actively filling in holes
    with smaller cells. If they filled in smaller cells and used AMPS
    technology, you would see a lot of the better coverage that "digital" only
    sites are seeing now with smaller areas and more frequency reuse.

    So, your are both correct to a large degree.

    Sorry for the rambling.......... ;-)

    Scotty




    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:po9te0tnp9fd0sr1eb6iupo6uoikmeqefh@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:55:51 -0400, gerry <gerrry_net@gogood.com> chose to


    <snip>

    > >and a ever decreasing number allocated as AMPS.

    >
    > So then, Larry is also right about AMPS towers having reduced coverage
    > areas as more cells are added, and new towers also need to have AMPS
    > ability to maintain the original level of coverage. *But*, then that would
    > mean that a phone wouldn't need as much power, even for AMPS, as it used
    > to.
    >
    > And Larry is still wrong to not recognize that more smaller cells is

    better
    > than fewer larger cells, if the overall network of them is properly
    > engineered.
     
  7. On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

    >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >
    >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.


    Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    it off then, no matter what?
     
  8. On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

    >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >
    >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.


    Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    it off then, no matter what?
     
  9. On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

    >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >
    >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing AMPS
    >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.


    Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    it off then, no matter what?
     
  10. They can just turn it off no matter what.

    Scotty



    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >
    > >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >
    > >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    AMPS
    > >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    >
    > Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > it off then, no matter what?
    >
     
  11. They can just turn it off no matter what.

    Scotty



    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >
    > >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >
    > >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    AMPS
    > >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    >
    > Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > it off then, no matter what?
    >
     
  12. They can just turn it off no matter what.

    Scotty



    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >
    > >New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >
    > >New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    AMPS
    > >stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    >
    > Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > it off then, no matter what?
    >
     
  13. And it will start saving them a lot of money.


    Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:

    > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    >
    > Scotty
    >
    >
    >
    > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >>>
    >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    >
    > AMPS
    >
    >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    >>
    >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    >>it off then, no matter what?
    >>

    >
    >
    >
     
  14. And it will start saving them a lot of money.


    Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:

    > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    >
    > Scotty
    >
    >
    >
    > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >>>
    >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    >
    > AMPS
    >
    >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    >>
    >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    >>it off then, no matter what?
    >>

    >
    >
    >
     
  15. And it will start saving them a lot of money.


    Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:

    > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    >
    > Scotty
    >
    >
    >
    > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >>>
    >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    >
    > AMPS
    >
    >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.

    >>
    >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    >>it off then, no matter what?
    >>

    >
    >
    >
     
  16. Not really.
    What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    voice channels/capacity.
    There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    maintenance costs are minimal.
    Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    nowadays.

    Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    tuned.
    AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    off.
    Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    thing.

    I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    for a lot longer.
    I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.

    My .02 worth........ ;-)

    Scotty



    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:phcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >>>
    > >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    > >
    > > AMPS
    > >
    > >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    > >>
    > >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > >>it off then, no matter what?
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >
     
  17. Not really.
    What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    voice channels/capacity.
    There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    maintenance costs are minimal.
    Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    nowadays.

    Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    tuned.
    AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    off.
    Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    thing.

    I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    for a lot longer.
    I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.

    My .02 worth........ ;-)

    Scotty



    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:phcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >>>
    > >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    > >
    > > AMPS
    > >
    > >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    > >>
    > >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > >>it off then, no matter what?
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >
     
  18. Not really.
    What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    voice channels/capacity.
    There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    maintenance costs are minimal.
    Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    nowadays.

    Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    tuned.
    AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    off.
    Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    thing.

    I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    for a lot longer.
    I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.

    My .02 worth........ ;-)

    Scotty



    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:phcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > They can just turn it off no matter what.
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    > > news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    > >><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    > >>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    > >>>
    > >>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing

    > >
    > > AMPS
    > >
    > >>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    > >>
    > >>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    > >>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    > >>it off then, no matter what?
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >
     
  19. Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.


    Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:

    > Not really.
    > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    > voice channels/capacity.
    > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    > maintenance costs are minimal.
    > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    > nowadays.
    >
    > Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    > tuned.
    > AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    > Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    > off.
    > Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    > thing.
    >
    > I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    > for a lot longer.
    > I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    > the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.
    >
    > My .02 worth........ ;-)
    >
    > Scotty
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:phcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >> And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    >>
    >>
    >>Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>They can just turn it off no matter what.
    >>>
    >>>Scotty
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    >>>news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    >>>><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >>>>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing
    >>>
    >>>AMPS
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    >>>>
    >>>>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    >>>>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    >>>>it off then, no matter what?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >
     
  20. Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.


    Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:

    > Not really.
    > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    > voice channels/capacity.
    > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    > maintenance costs are minimal.
    > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    > nowadays.
    >
    > Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    > tuned.
    > AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    > Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    > off.
    > Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    > thing.
    >
    > I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    > for a lot longer.
    > I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    > the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.
    >
    > My .02 worth........ ;-)
    >
    > Scotty
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:phcIc.144$Qu5.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >> And it will start saving them a lot of money.
    >>
    >>
    >>Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>They can just turn it off no matter what.
    >>>
    >>>Scotty
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    >>>news:vnc0f09n23k5sbt3cqgcmnu75a1cojfrmk@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    >>>><spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>New Cell Sites in Wash DC do not install AMPS equipment.
    >>>>>AMPS installs stopped in 2001, what the reports I keep up on.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>New sites aren't required anyway. The FCC requirement was for existing
    >>>
    >>>AMPS
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>stuff/network/coverage staying in place until 2008.
    >>>>
    >>>>Don't they also have to keep it in place after that date until they
    >>>>drop below a certain usage percentage on AMPS, or can they just turn
    >>>>it off then, no matter what?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?