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. 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?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >
     



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

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> chose to add this to the great equation of life,
    the universe, and everything:

    >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.


    I never said they were legally required.

    >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.


    Right, for digital.

    >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.


    But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae, and
    if Larry is right about those antennae being aimed downward to avoid
    digital overlap between towers (I know, there has to be some overlap), then
    in fact AMPS coverage *is* deteriorating, at least in terms of "toyphones"
    being able to use it.

    --
    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.
    "It's been so long since I made love I can't remember who gets tied up."
    - Joan Rivers
     
  3. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> chose to add this to the great equation of life,
    the universe, and everything:

    >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.


    I never said they were legally required.

    >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.


    Right, for digital.

    >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.


    But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae, and
    if Larry is right about those antennae being aimed downward to avoid
    digital overlap between towers (I know, there has to be some overlap), then
    in fact AMPS coverage *is* deteriorating, at least in terms of "toyphones"
    being able to use it.

    --
    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.
    "It's been so long since I made love I can't remember who gets tied up."
    - Joan Rivers
     
  4. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:23:18 GMT, "Scott Nelson - Wash DC"
    <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> chose to add this to the great equation of life,
    the universe, and everything:

    >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.


    I never said they were legally required.

    >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.


    Right, for digital.

    >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.


    But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae, and
    if Larry is right about those antennae being aimed downward to avoid
    digital overlap between towers (I know, there has to be some overlap), then
    in fact AMPS coverage *is* deteriorating, at least in terms of "toyphones"
    being able to use it.

    --
    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.
    "It's been so long since I made love I can't remember who gets tied up."
    - Joan Rivers
     
  5. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.

    As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    that isn't available for digital services.


    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    > may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    > that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    > It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    > Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > Not really.
    > > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    > > voice channels/capacity.
    > > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    > > maintenance costs are minimal.
    > > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    > > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    > > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    > > nowadays.
    > >
    > > Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    > > tuned.
    > > AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    > > Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    > > off.
    > > Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    > > thing.
    > >
    > > I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    > > for a lot longer.
    > > I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    > > the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.
    > >
    > > My .02 worth........ ;-)
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:phcIc.144$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?
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>

    > >
    > >
     
  6. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.

    As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    that isn't available for digital services.


    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    > may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    > that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    > It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    > Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > Not really.
    > > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    > > voice channels/capacity.
    > > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    > > maintenance costs are minimal.
    > > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    > > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    > > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    > > nowadays.
    > >
    > > Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    > > tuned.
    > > AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    > > Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    > > off.
    > > Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    > > thing.
    > >
    > > I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    > > for a lot longer.
    > > I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    > > the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.
    > >
    > > My .02 worth........ ;-)
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:phcIc.144$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?
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>

    > >
    > >
     
  7. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.

    As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    that isn't available for digital services.


    "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Most of the maintainence cost is probably salary. Cost of power
    > may not be all the trivial I think. I was also under the impression
    > that dropping amps will not give them any more voice or data capacity.
    > It will just save them money on power, parts, labor, equipment space.
    > Also, they will be able to make the phones simpler/cheaper.
    >
    >
    > Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
    >
    > > Not really.
    > > What it will do, is give them more spectrum to use for special services or
    > > voice channels/capacity.
    > > There is plenty of replacement cell site AMPS gear on the market so,
    > > maintenance costs are minimal.
    > > Since there is not as much AMPS capacity anymore, CellSite footprint is
    > > relatively small and power load/heat load is also minimal.
    > > Tuning is fairly easy as well. System pretty much tells you what's wrong
    > > nowadays.
    > >
    > > Most of the time, that I can see, is spent on keeping the digital system
    > > tuned.
    > > AMPS can take some slop. I can hear my way though most any static.
    > > Digital, not so much. Digital doesn't like bit errors. 1's and 0's. On or
    > > off.
    > > Try to talk on a badly tuned Voice over IP Network and you get the same
    > > thing.
    > >
    > > I still like both for different reasons but wish they would keep AMPS around
    > > for a lot longer.
    > > I use my 3 Watt AMPS Bag Phone and my Digital phones alot and still prefer
    > > the calrity of AMPS over CDMA, GSM, etc.
    > >
    > > My .02 worth........ ;-)
    > >
    > > Scotty
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:phcIc.144$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?
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>

    > >
    > >
     
  8. David S

    David S Guest

    But, IIRC, the 1.25Mhz CDMA channels don't fit perfectly into the bandwidth
    of the cellular A and B channels -- there is some left over that they might
    as well use for AMPS service.

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:31:55 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this top-post to the great
    equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.
    >
    >As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    >that isn't available for digital services.
    >
    >"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >> 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.


    --
    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.
    "[T]he fish of Vermont remain tragically vulnerable to terrorist lampreys."
    - Dave Barry
     
  9. David S

    David S Guest

    But, IIRC, the 1.25Mhz CDMA channels don't fit perfectly into the bandwidth
    of the cellular A and B channels -- there is some left over that they might
    as well use for AMPS service.

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:31:55 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this top-post to the great
    equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.
    >
    >As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    >that isn't available for digital services.
    >
    >"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >> 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.


    --
    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.
    "[T]he fish of Vermont remain tragically vulnerable to terrorist lampreys."
    - Dave Barry
     
  10. David S

    David S Guest

    But, IIRC, the 1.25Mhz CDMA channels don't fit perfectly into the bandwidth
    of the cellular A and B channels -- there is some left over that they might
    as well use for AMPS service.

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:31:55 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> chose to add this top-post to the great
    equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >Spectrum is (valuable) spectrum.
    >
    >As long as AMPS channels are still 'up', there is RF spectrum being used
    >that isn't available for digital services.
    >
    >"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vnlIc.621$Qu5.511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >> 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.


    --
    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.
    "[T]he fish of Vermont remain tragically vulnerable to terrorist lampreys."
    - Dave Barry
     
  11. On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

    >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae


    They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    sticks.
     
  12. On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

    >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae


    They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    sticks.
     
  13. On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

    >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae


    They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    sticks.
     
  14. BZZZZZ, wrong. ;-)

    I have setup both kinds. Depends on the traffic for that site.
    Back in the 80's, there were a lot of sites in Los Angeles that were 60deg
    sector sites around heavy traffic areas.
    Wash DC is no different. Got AMPS sector/sector sites today all over. (
    receive/transmit and can also be sector/omni or omni/omni )

    Scotty


    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    > <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    > >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae

    >
    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
     
  15. BZZZZZ, wrong. ;-)

    I have setup both kinds. Depends on the traffic for that site.
    Back in the 80's, there were a lot of sites in Los Angeles that were 60deg
    sector sites around heavy traffic areas.
    Wash DC is no different. Got AMPS sector/sector sites today all over. (
    receive/transmit and can also be sector/omni or omni/omni )

    Scotty


    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    > <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    > >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae

    >
    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
     
  16. BZZZZZ, wrong. ;-)

    I have setup both kinds. Depends on the traffic for that site.
    Back in the 80's, there were a lot of sites in Los Angeles that were 60deg
    sector sites around heavy traffic areas.
    Wash DC is no different. Got AMPS sector/sector sites today all over. (
    receive/transmit and can also be sector/omni or omni/omni )

    Scotty


    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
    news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S
    > <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
    >
    > >But if Gerry is right about digital and AMPS using the same antennae

    >
    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
     
  17. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    And this includes AMPS.



    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S


    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
     
  18. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    And this includes AMPS.



    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S


    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
     
  19. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    And this includes AMPS.



    "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message news:21j8f0t5gvn0s1ch02lkbjrcgpi0ic7cgp@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:41:03 GMT, David S


    > They often share a tower, but the antenna are not the same. Digital
    > are the directional flat panels. AMPS are the omni-directional
    > sticks.
    >
     
  20. On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:08:02 -0700, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    >You will find that omni directional sites are actually rare nowadays.
    >Maybe in rural areas, but almost never in higher traffic areas.
    >And this includes AMPS.


    When they went digital around here several years ago, they never
    swapped out the AMPS sticks. They put up digital panels on existing
    towers, and put up a lot more new digital only sites. The AMPS sticks
    that were here 7-8 years ago are for the most part still in place.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?