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

Pagers may be better than cell phones

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by PagerGuy, May 15, 2004.

  1. [ a m z ] wrote:

    > The U.S. is constantly "upgrading" (to use the term loosely) the cellular
    > system. First we have AMPS. Then TDMA & CDMA. Then GSM.


    CDMA and GSM are the two technologies that everyone's upgrading to :)
    I can understand why people are moving away from AMPS, being analog and
    all, and TDMA.

    I think part of the problem is that the market moves slower than the
    technology. And U.S. is a huge market with lotsa towers to build and
    all. And everyone made their own bets on what technology would on top.
    Some of those bets paid off, some didn't.


    > We're currently on "2.5G" and on the way to "3G" (UMTS/WCDMA & CDMA2000).


    Regardless I don't think that the 3G networks are going to make the 2G
    networks obsolete, much like GPRS hasn't rendered GSM/CSD obsolete. You
    can still use all the features of old skool GSM in the new GPRS-able
    networks; what you may be missing out on is all the cool new stuff. But
    short messages still fly the way they used to, and phones still ring the
    same they always did :)


    > Also, the data
    > protocols have changes -- at least on AT&T. My previous data / e-mail
    > service was PocketNet (CDPD). Then I was *forced* to switch (at my expense)
    > to the newer "mMode" (GPRS) data service (and equipment). And now AT&T has
    > gone one step further and ignored everyone they sold mMode phones to *last
    > year* in favor of the newer *ML flavor of the month -- which, of course, is
    > geared toward the new phones they want to sell you. The problem is that
    > they never quite finish the last upgrade before starting the migration to
    > the next. I thought I was safe in getting a TDMA/GSM/GPRS multi-band phone,
    > but not even that offers total protection from AT&T's whims.


    Ok, you got me there. That *does* sound rather bad :(

    Does AT&T not offer any GPRS service at all anymore? I mean, GPRS is
    just the data connection method. As I understand it AT&T's data plans
    have been something of a joke, but ditching all GPRS..

    ..
    ..

    Personally, I'm happy with a GPRS or EDGE enabled quad-band GSM phone.
    That's my bet on the future, for the time being :)

    TDMA may be going away, but GSM is going to stick around regardless of
    what the marketers would have you believe.
     



    › See More: Pagers may be better than cell phones
  2. [ a m z ]

    [ a m z ] Guest

    "Kael Vaeltaja" wrote:
    > [ a m z ] wrote:
    >
    > CDMA and GSM are the two technologies that everyone's upgrading to :)
    > I can understand why people are moving away from AMPS, being analog and
    > all, and TDMA.


    CDMA and TDMA are the same "era" -- 2G. The current GSM/GPRS is 2.5G.
    AMPS, of course, is 1G. The new ones are UMTS/WCMDA and CDMA2000.

    > I think part of the problem is that the market moves slower
    > than the technology. And U.S. is a huge market with lotsa
    > towers to build and all. And everyone made their own bets
    > on what technology would on top. Some of those bets paid
    > off, some didn't.


    The problem is that they have pockets of all kinds of services here and
    there. They only partially roll out at each step, meaning that you NEVER
    have a nice, big footprint. There are still places where TDMA is good and
    GSM isn't, but they're already testing and/or rolling out the next
    generation stuff -- EDGE, UMTS, etc. They should be required to have a FULL
    implementation of a given generation before rolling out another one. And
    then they shouldn't be able to shut off the previous generation until the
    NEW generation is fully rolled out.


    > > We're currently on "2.5G" and on the way to "3G".

    >
    > Regardless I don't think that the 3G networks are going to
    > make the 2G networks obsolete, much like GPRS hasn't
    > rendered GSM/CSD obsolete.


    GPRS is just the "data side" of GSM, at least on AT&T. They go
    hand-in-hand, AFAIK.


    > > Also, the data protocols have changed -- at least on AT&T.
    > > I thought I was safe in getting a TDMA/GSM/GPRS multi-band
    > > phone, but not even that offers total protection from AT&T's whims.

    >
    > Ok, you got me there. That *does* sound rather bad :(
    >
    > Does AT&T not offer any GPRS service at all anymore? I mean,
    > GPRS is just the data connection method. As I understand it
    > AT&T's data plans have been something of a joke, but ditching
    > all GPRS..


    They do offer GPRS. But they're changing to XML or MXMXML or XXL or
    whatever the latest, greatest "ML" is. And they're reconfiguring the
    interfaces, too. Believe it or not, but you no longer have message numbers
    in mMode e-mail, you can't delete a message without reading it first and you
    can't delete ranges of messages. In this spam-filled world, what idiot
    programs that?? And you also can't see more than three messages (subject
    lines) at a time. You used to see about 7 or 8... WITH message numbers...
    AND the option to simply "delete range" while still in "subject line view."

    The problem is that the wireless companies are all geared towards picture
    messaging and ringtones and other trendy things that make money. They care
    FAR less about the usability of the phone or basic e-mail or basic SMS
    functions.


    > Personally, I'm happy with a GPRS or EDGE enabled quad-band
    > GSM phone. That's my bet on the future, for the time being :)


    What make and model? What service provider?


    > TDMA may be going away, but GSM is going to stick around
    > regardless of what the marketers would have you believe.


    GSM (or even TDMA) won't go away. But that doesn't mean that they'll put up
    any more towers or complete the holes in the coverage areas.
     
  3. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    > They care
    > FAR less about the usability of the phone or basic e-mail or basic SMS
    > functions.


    The handset manufacturers are also squeezed and have no incentive to
    spend time and money on the internal handset software usuability.
    For example Audiovox's handset group had revenues of over $200m last
    quarter and made a profit of $1.9m, and that was a good quarter for
    them. If they had employed a few more people to actually do some
    decent user interaction design and a few software engineers to
    implement it, they would have made a loss. I am fairly sure the
    story is the same for the other handset vendors. (You can also
    imagine where that profit would have gone if they didn't do the
    expensive and different accessories per phone model).

    Until the carriers customers refuse to stand for this, things
    will continue as they are. The relatively small size of the
    US market makes the handset manufacturers even less likely to
    invest a lot.

    Roger
     
  4. Gerald

    Gerald Guest


    >> Would you happen to have the TAP number? VZW's is archived
    >> on Google somewhere in the VZW newsgroup. We should do
    >> the same with the Sprint number.
    >>

    >http://www.notepage.net/tap-phone-numbers.htm


    What a great resource, thanks for sharing! Looks like they have SNPP and WCTP
    settings too

    Thanks for the post
    Gerry
     
  5. [ a m z ] wrote:
    > "Kael Vaeltaja" wrote:
    >
    >>[ a m z ] wrote:
    >>
    >>CDMA and GSM are the two technologies that everyone's upgrading to :)
    >>I can understand why people are moving away from AMPS, being analog and
    >>all, and TDMA.

    >
    >
    > CDMA and TDMA are the same "era" -- 2G. The current GSM/GPRS is 2.5G.


    Actually GPRS and EDGE are the 2.5G parts -- CDMA, GSM and TDMA are
    plain ol' 2G. GSM is actually a flavor of TDMA technology :)


    > AMPS, of course, is 1G. The new ones are UMTS/WCMDA and CDMA2000.


    Yar. Good thing we got rid of the analog types... AMPS, NMT.. good
    riddance!

    I remember there was a big hubbub overseas back in 1998-99 when they
    were auctioning off the frequencies for UMTS. I'm not sure if they've
    gotten around to actually *deploying* any UMTS yet, though ;)

    I think Verizon's slowly deploying CDMA2000 1xEV?

    To me it *looks* like there's a similar division between CDMA2000 1xEV
    and UMTS as there is between GSM and CDMA. Any corrections welcome :)


    >>I think part of the problem is that the market moves slower
    >>than the technology. And U.S. is a huge market with lotsa
    >>towers to build and all. And everyone made their own bets
    >>on what technology would on top. Some of those bets paid
    >>off, some didn't.

    >
    > The problem is that they have pockets of all kinds of services here and
    > there. They only partially roll out at each step, meaning that you NEVER
    > have a nice, big footprint. There are still places where TDMA is good and
    > GSM isn't,


    As I understand it, a lot of smaller cellular companies - especially in
    rural areas - are scampering to convert their TDMA systems to either GSM
    or CDMA. Take U.S. Cellular, for example: they've been converting a
    TDMA network over to CDMA. AT&T Wireless on the other hand had a very
    well developed TDMA network that they began converting to GSM; I think
    this conversion process is still going on. What this does mean is that
    the coverage and quality of TDMA networks will diminish while CDMA and
    GSM networks are going to improve.


    > but they're already testing and/or rolling out the next
    > generation stuff -- EDGE, UMTS, etc. They should be required to have a FULL
    > implementation of a given generation before rolling out another one. And
    > then they shouldn't be able to shut off the previous generation until the
    > NEW generation is fully rolled out.


    There is that. I'd *like* to have ubiquituous GPRS or EDGE coverage,
    but while GPRS is pretty well developed here in California, I can see
    how they could stop it's deployment.

    Personally I don't think UMTS is going to suffer from this problem,
    though, being that it's a full-fledged 3G standard. Think GSM versus
    GPRS/EDGE, and the coverages and deployments thereof.

    Regardless, the vague murmurs I've been hearing from the cellular
    industry might make you feel a little better: there's been a little bit
    of talk about phones that can do all the popular TLAs and ETLAs, and
    then some. These phones would separate the pure radio hardware from the
    rest of it, and implement all communication techniques through pure
    software. This would mean that the phone would be able to use any
    present cellular standard, and the future ones too via simple software
    upgrades.

    There are other possibilities too, of course. Go wild on that one :)


    >>>We're currently on "2.5G" and on the way to "3G".

    >>
    >>Regardless I don't think that the 3G networks are going to
    >>make the 2G networks obsolete, much like GPRS hasn't
    >>rendered GSM/CSD obsolete.

    >
    > GPRS is just the "data side" of GSM, at least on AT&T. They go
    > hand-in-hand, AFAIK.


    Sorta. CSD is the data side of plain vanilla GSM, and GPRS is the 2.5G
    part that's smarter than CSD. They do go hand-in-hand, very much.


    >>>Also, the data protocols have changed -- at least on AT&T.
    >>>I thought I was safe in getting a TDMA/GSM/GPRS multi-band
    >>>phone, but not even that offers total protection from AT&T's whims.

    >>
    >>Ok, you got me there. That *does* sound rather bad :(
    >>
    >>Does AT&T not offer any GPRS service at all anymore? I mean,
    >>GPRS is just the data connection method. As I understand it
    >>AT&T's data plans have been something of a joke, but ditching
    >>all GPRS..

    >
    > They do offer GPRS. But they're changing to XML or MXMXML or XXL or
    > whatever the latest, greatest "ML" is.


    Ok, now I get it. Thank you.


    > And they're reconfiguring the
    > interfaces, too. Believe it or not, but you no longer have message numbers
    > in mMode e-mail, you can't delete a message without reading it first and you
    > can't delete ranges of messages. In this spam-filled world, what idiot
    > programs that?? And you also can't see more than three messages (subject
    > lines) at a time. You used to see about 7 or 8... WITH message numbers...
    > AND the option to simply "delete range" while still in "subject line view."


    Hmmm.. I can see how that can be a problem :(

    Have they changed the actual interface on the phone itself, or in the
    mMode service? Personally I'm using my own mail servers through my
    phone's IMAP4 mail client, and this works rather beautifully. If the
    cellular company did an over-the-air update that would make me unable to
    see more than three (email/sms/mms) messages, I'd be rather pissed.


    > The problem is that the wireless companies are all geared towards picture
    > messaging and ringtones and other trendy things that make money. They care
    > FAR less about the usability of the phone or basic e-mail or basic SMS
    > functions.


    From perusing this thread it seem that some cellular companies *do*
    care about stuff like SMS, while others couldn't give a hoot. I think
    Cingular's one that has redundant messaging servers.. is this correct?
    I'm rather fond of SMS, because back in the day at least it used to be
    pretty reliable way to communicate with my friends in Europe.


    >>Personally, I'm happy with a GPRS or EDGE enabled quad-band
    >>GSM phone. That's my bet on the future, for the time being :)

    >
    > What make and model? What service provider?


    Cingular or T-Mobile for service.

    That Motorola a630 I linked as a phone, when it comes out! :D
    Or maybe Moto MPx... but it ain't not no quad-band... but it does have a
    full-fledged PDA. I'm rather inclined towards the a630, TBH.

    For now I'm happy with Moto v400. Quad-band plus GPRS, decent battery
    life, and no Bluetooth. Plus you *can* get a 1100mAh battery to it, if
    you feel adventurous. The normal battery is 700mAh... do the math :)


    >>TDMA may be going away, but GSM is going to stick around
    >>regardless of what the marketers would have you believe.

    >
    > GSM (or even TDMA) won't go away. But that doesn't mean that they'll put up
    > any more towers or complete the holes in the coverage areas.


    I think they are putting up more towers. I could be wrong, of course,
    but I was under the impression that there are two types of GSM
    deployments going on: conversion of old TDMA towers to GSM, and putting
    up brand new GSM towers. I could be wholly misinformed though -
    wouldn't put it past me!



    ~K
     
  6. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    In article <HLCqc.1113$Tn6.222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    [ a m z ] <amz.REMOVE@eskimo.THIS.com> wrote:
    >The problem is that they have pockets of all kinds of services here and
    >there. They only partially roll out at each step, meaning that you NEVER
    >have a nice, big footprint. There are still places where TDMA is good and
    >GSM isn't, but they're already testing and/or rolling out the next
    >generation stuff -- EDGE, UMTS, etc. They should be required to have a FULL
    >implementation of a given generation before rolling out another one. And
    >then they shouldn't be able to shut off the previous generation until the
    >NEW generation is fully rolled out.
    >
    >
    >> > We're currently on "2.5G" and on the way to "3G".

    >>
    >> Regardless I don't think that the 3G networks are going to
    >> make the 2G networks obsolete, much like GPRS hasn't
    >> rendered GSM/CSD obsolete.


    What's nice for the CDMA providers is that the 2G->2.5G->3G upgrades are
    forward and backward compatible... a 2G CDMA-1 phone works fine on a 2.5G
    1xRTT system, and a 2.5G 1xRTT CDMA phone works fine on a CDMA-1 system.

    Unlike the TDMA->GSM->W-CDMA fiasco with Cingular-AT&TWireless.
     
  7. CharlesH wrote:

    > What's nice for the CDMA providers is that the 2G->2.5G->3G upgrades are
    > forward and backward compatible... a 2G CDMA-1 phone works fine on a 2.5G
    > 1xRTT system, and a 2.5G 1xRTT CDMA phone works fine on a CDMA-1 system.


    Do you mean in similar fashion to how 2G and 2.5G GSM are interoperable?
    Meaning that you can use a plain vanilla GSM phone in a GPRS/EDGE
    enabled network, and a GPRS/EDGE enabled phone in a plain vanilla GSM
    network?

    As the 3G solutions go, CDMA2000 does have an advantage over UMTS in
    that UMTS requires new frequencies while CDMA2000 doesn't. What I'm
    curious about is whether a CDMA-1 or 1x phone can operate in a 1xEV-DV
    network? Or does this require running two networks simultaneously, one
    for 1x and one for 1xEV-DV? This is what I'm a little unclear about.

    I'm thinking that all UMTS phones also do GSM, for backward compatibility.


    > Unlike the TDMA->GSM->W-CDMA fiasco with Cingular-AT&TWireless.


    I wasn't aware of a GSM-to-WCDMA fiasco with Cingular. Has Cingular
    started deploying UMTS already? As far as TDMA-to-GSM fiascos are
    concerned, that's pure lack of foresight from the telco's part IMHO :)
     
  8. >>>In alt.cellular Please invert everything left of the @ to reply <3yeltrabnhoj@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>> 1) One AA cell runs my 2-way text pager for weeks when used frequently. My
    >>>> (three) cellphones (Nokia, Palm and Samsung) need to be restoked with a
    >>>> charge daily, or even more often, if used frequently, even if just in text
    >>>> modes.


    >> On Sat, 15 May 2004, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >>>Let's be fair: that's because you only use a lot of juice when you're
    >>>receiving or sending a page and that only takes seconds... a cell phone
    >>>does a lot more stuff, especially when actually being used...


    >In alt.cellular yeltrabnhoj@email.com wrote:
    >> Yes, it does... all of which are irrelevant to the task at hand, getting a
    >> message across, no matter what.


    On Tue, 18 May 2004, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >Then why did you bring up the point? I was responding to you, sir.


    "All of which" is a reference to the cellphone doing "a lot more stuff"
    which a pager does not. No games, no big (color?) display, many peripheral
    things neat to marketing but less than fully important to communications.

    >>>Hm. That doesn't make sense - it's all radio transmissions, whether to a pager
    >>>or not.


    >> True, but there's radio,and then there's radio.


    >Radio waves act the same no matter which device they're coming from.


    If they are on the same freq with the same ERP, yes.

    {Here, some relevant info was snipped}

    >>>That's pretty close to what a lot of the cellular carriers run... although a lot of
    >>>them also run on the PCS frequencies.


    >> Irrelevant.


    >Not irrelevant. Some frequencies penetrate buildings and other structures
    >better.


    That's why it was relevant when I noted VHF was used... but the 150 MHz
    band used by paging is by no means "pretty close to what a lot of the
    cellular carriers run" (i.e., 800MHz).


    --
    John Bartley K7AAY http://celdata.cjb.net
    This post quad-ROT-13 encrypted; reading it violates the DMCA.
    Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.
     
  9. DevilsPGD

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <<ahdqc.51972$jU.3088556@twister.southeast.rr.com>> "Stan"
    <stanncno1spam@noispam.yahoo.com> did ramble:

    >>> Which is weird since cell phones typically have voicemail, and will hold
    >>> SMS and voicemail messages until the cellphone comes back, whereas with
    >>> a pager, the page is completely lost if it occurs when the pager is out
    >>> of range.

    >>
    >> Unless you use a pager that has ReFlex service. It's a ping-pong type
    >> deal...Of course it costs more then your standard pager and service, but
    >> you will receive your pages when you get in coverage. When I used to
    >> have a pager I went with Reflex from two different companies. I ened up
    >> with Metrocall when I turned off the pager and my landline phone and
    >> went completely wireless in 2001.

    >
    >The down side of ReFlex is when you're in a fringe area. You'll get that
    >page, but if the tower doesn't receive an ACK from your pager, you're going
    >to keep getting that page. Again and again.


    I was looking at one pager that had an ACK feature (I'm not sure if it
    was ReFlex or not), the way it worked every message had a serial number
    (which wasn't shown), and as long as you don't delete the message, you
    won't get a duplicate, it will match up the serial number and know to
    ignore it.

    The service was cost prohibitive (all of the services with ACK support
    were), but it looked like a nice design.
    --
    I see dumb people, walking around like regular people.
    They don't see each other. They only see what they
    wanna see. They don't know they're dumb.
     
  10. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Steven J Sobol wrote:

    >>Actually, everyone knows that you can check your voicemail from a
    >>landline and not get billed airtime.

    >
    >
    > ...if you have a Verizon phone, but. I'm not sure if that's true for everyone.
    > I did just confirm that you don't get billed airtime on a Sprint phone if
    > checking from a landline, but I don't know about other carriers (I have
    > active accounts only with Verizon and Sprint).


    I've had active accounts with Verizon, Sprint (currently), Nextel,
    Alltell, AT&T Wireless, and T-Mobile. Yes, I've tried them all, and all
    of them do not count against your airtime if you check your voicemail
    from a landline.


    >>Really? Based on what? A one way pager requires me to rely on whatever
    >>news source the paging carrier has contracted with, and I'm stuck with
    >>small stale headlines that are a couple lines long per item (I know
    >>because I used to subscribe to this back in the day). With a cell
    >>phone, I can choose my news source, and get a completed story at will.

    >
    >
    > SMS is limited to 160 characters.


    1. What does SMS have to do with the above topic? I was referring to
    WAP browsing.

    2. Actually, quite a few services (I know Sprint is one) have systems
    that will either split the message as needed and send the message in
    multiple parts, or actually do allow longer than 160-character messages.


    >>Gee, thanks. At least with a cell phone, I can choose not to answer.
    >>With spam on a pager, i've received the message whether i wanted to or
    >>not. Nothing I can do about that once it's happened.

    >
    >
    > Uhhh... same with SMS spam to a cell phone.


    Uhhh, I'm not paying to receive SMS messages; charges incur only upon
    sending. While still annoying, I know that I'm not paying for it.

    Pager plans, however, are typically priced with an allotment of messages
    that can be either sent or received; go over that limit, and you're
    paying for it whether it's spam or not.

    Further, none of this refutes my original argument: Yes, paging has a
    place in niche applications. But it's misguided to think that everyone
    who already uses a cell phone could benefit from the additional expense
    of a pager when many of the same functions are not only replicated, but
    improved upon by the cell phone.

    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
     
  11. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Lawrence Glasser wrote:

    > Isaiah Beard wrote:
    >>This has always been an illusion. A lack of signal strength indicators
    >>does not mean that you've always got a good signal. it's simply harder
    >>to discern whether you've actually got good coverage on a pager than it
    >>is on a cell phone.

    >
    >
    > Maybe yes, maybe no.
    >
    > It's more of a binary (on/off) phenonenon, rather that incremental.


    How is this a benefit? You either have coverage or you don't. Someone
    who is missing their pages certainly doesn't care whether their pager is
    binary or incremental... they're still out of range.

    > My pager (a 2-way Motorola PF 1500) displays "Receiving Messages" when it's
    > out of transmitting range, and "Storing Messages" when it's completely out
    > of range.


    A euphemism for "no service."

    > And, while not scientifically proven, at least by me, my pager *does* seem
    > to have better coverage than cell phones.
    > I'm frequently in lead-lined, or highly shielded, areas, where *no one's"
    > cell phone gets a signal, yet I'm able to send/receive paging messages.


    As always, YMMV. I used pagers before I used cell phones too, and like
    many people today, I had a problem where I couldn't get any pages in my
    house, and an entire part of town wasn't covered. However, complicating
    matters was the fact that PageNet (the company i was with back then)
    very frequently would refuse to believe that they had any holes in their
    coverage, because they too subscribed to the "we're not a cell phone
    service, therefore we have better coverage" myth. A RadioShack police
    scanner tuned to their paging frequency easily proved them wrong... but
    while I was there, I managed to pick up a cell phone, too, which did
    quite fine in my house and all over town. And that's when I got rid of
    my pager. :)


    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
     
  12. Robert M

    Robert M Guest

    In article <40afc188$1@rutgers.edu>,
    Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

    > However, complicating
    > matters was the fact that PageNet (the company i was with back then)
    > very frequently would refuse to believe that they had any holes in their
    > coverage, because they too subscribed to the "we're not a cell phone
    > service, therefore we have better coverage" myth.



    More likely because they were not equipped to track down such complaints.
    Sort of like happens when someone calls SprintPCS calls and reports a
    dead spot. It goes in the circular filing cabinet.
     
  13. Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

    >>>Gee, thanks. At least with a cell phone, I can choose not to answer.
    >>>With spam on a pager, i've received the message whether i wanted to or
    >>>not. Nothing I can do about that once it's happened.

    >>
    >> Uhhh... same with SMS spam to a cell phone.

    >
    >Uhhh, I'm not paying to receive SMS messages; charges incur only upon
    >sending. While still annoying, I know that I'm not paying for it.


    Verizon Wireless charges to receive messages as well as send them, at
    least on my plan.



    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  14. Isaiah Beard wrote:
    >
    > Lawrence Glasser wrote:
    >
    > > Isaiah Beard wrote:
    > >>This has always been an illusion. A lack of signal strength indicators
    > >>does not mean that you've always got a good signal. it's simply harder
    > >>to discern whether you've actually got good coverage on a pager than it
    > >>is on a cell phone.

    > >
    > >
    > > Maybe yes, maybe no.
    > >
    > > It's more of a binary (on/off) phenonenon, rather that incremental.

    >
    > How is this a benefit? You either have coverage or you don't. Someone
    > who is missing their pages certainly doesn't care whether their pager is
    > binary or incremental... they're still out of range.


    I never said it was a benefit. I was talking about "it's simply harder to
    discern..."

    >
    > > My pager (a 2-way Motorola PF 1500) displays "Receiving Messages" when it's
    > > out of transmitting range, and "Storing Messages" when it's completely out
    > > of range.

    >
    > A euphemism for "no service."


    Yep.

    >
    > > And, while not scientifically proven, at least by me, my pager *does* seem
    > > to have better coverage than cell phones.
    > > I'm frequently in lead-lined, or highly shielded, areas, where *no one's"
    > > cell phone gets a signal, yet I'm able to send/receive paging messages.

    >
    > As always, YMMV. I used pagers before I used cell phones too, and like
    > many people today, I had a problem where I couldn't get any pages in my
    > house, and an entire part of town wasn't covered. However, complicating
    > matters was the fact that PageNet (the company i was with back then)
    > very frequently would refuse to believe that they had any holes in their
    > coverage, because they too subscribed to the "we're not a cell phone
    > service, therefore we have better coverage" myth. A RadioShack police
    > scanner tuned to their paging frequency easily proved them wrong... but
    > while I was there, I managed to pick up a cell phone, too, which did
    > quite fine in my house and all over town. And that's when I got rid of
    > my pager. :)


    Again, what works for me might not work for you, and vice versa.

    How much time do *you* spend in shielded areas? <g>

    Larry
     
  15. In alt.cellular Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>Really? Based on what? A one way pager requires me to rely on whatever
    >>>news source the paging carrier has contracted with, and I'm stuck with
    >>>small stale headlines that are a couple lines long per item (I know
    >>>because I used to subscribe to this back in the day). With a cell
    >>>phone, I can choose my news source, and get a completed story at will.

    >>
    >>
    >> SMS is limited to 160 characters.

    >
    > 1. What does SMS have to do with the above topic? I was referring to
    > WAP browsing.


    Ok, I was making a comparison of alpha paging to the cellular service that
    most directly compares to it - SMS being the cellular equivalent of alpha
    paging on a pager. Of course, that limitation doesn't apply to WAP browsing.

    >> Uhhh... same with SMS spam to a cell phone.

    >
    > Uhhh, I'm not paying to receive SMS messages; charges incur only upon
    > sending. While still annoying, I know that I'm not paying for it.


    With Verizon and Sprint, at least, you pay both ways.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  16. On Tue, 18 May 2004 02:55:01 GMT, Lawrence Glasser
    <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:

    >Stan wrote:
    >>
    >> "Robert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> news:rmarkoff-415120.06232216052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
    >> > In article <40A6E57A.17FF1C9F@spamcop.net>,
    >> > Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > Mainly because cell phones have more dead spots than pagers!
    >> >

    >> That depends on the animal. 2-way pagers have plenty of dead spots,
    >> including inside buildings where my cell phone has no problem.
    >>
    >> One way pagers are useless, since they don't offer store-and-forward
    >> service. How do you know when you're out of area?

    >
    >The pager displays "Storing Messages."
    >
    >Larry


    The Two-Way my employer used to supply us would store messages until
    you got back into a service area and then start beeping you... and
    beeping you... and beeping you over and over with same damn message
    that kept repeating the page until you got back into service. That
    was very annoying since you usually were driving your car when it
    happened.

    Russ

    respond here or email responses to cruzincat"deletethis"@cruzincat.com
     
  17. Russell Patterson wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 18 May 2004 02:55:01 GMT, Lawrence Glasser
    > <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Stan wrote:
    > >>
    > >> "Robert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:rmarkoff-415120.06232216052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
    > >> > In article <40A6E57A.17FF1C9F@spamcop.net>,
    > >> > Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > > Mainly because cell phones have more dead spots than pagers!
    > >> >
    > >> That depends on the animal. 2-way pagers have plenty of dead spots,
    > >> including inside buildings where my cell phone has no problem.
    > >>
    > >> One way pagers are useless, since they don't offer store-and-forward
    > >> service. How do you know when you're out of area?

    > >
    > >The pager displays "Storing Messages."
    > >
    > >Larry

    >
    > The Two-Way my employer used to supply us would store messages until
    > you got back into a service area and then start beeping you... and
    > beeping you... and beeping you over and over with same damn message
    > that kept repeating the page until you got back into service. That
    > was very annoying since you usually were driving your car when it
    > happened.


    I could see where that might be a bit annoying! <g>

    I've never had that problem with Verizon.

    Larry
     
  18. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    In article <rmarkoff-939B1F.17062322052004@news5.west.earthlink.net>,=20
    rmarkoff@yahoo.com says...
    >=20
    >=20
    > More likely because they were not equipped to track down such complaints.
    > Sort of like happens when someone calls SprintPCS calls and reports a=20
    > dead spot. It goes in the circular filing cabinet.
    >=20


    Same old dishonesty from the same old hypocrite.

    And no, Phill, that is *not* saying it doesn't happen. It's just not=20
    the rule you falsely claim it to be.

    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    I work for Sprint PCS
    I *don't* speak for them
     
  19. Ron

    Ron Guest

    I have 3 lines in my house, Cable modem, cat-5 to every room, wifi for
    laptops, Direct TV, 2 cells and...... my Skyel Talkabout pager. I
    love the pager. Rarely out of range (for incoming) had 250 char
    display, micro (full) keypad. I can get a text message and reply
    while in a meeting without being rude. They are a great business tool
    and until cell phones coverage is as good and as easy to use. It is no
    fun typing messages on a cell.



    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2gmf13F4gn0vU1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > "PagerGuy" <pageguy@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:40A5A705.C5AA69C4@nospam.com...
    > > From newsgroup: news:tnn.comm.pager
    > >

    >
    > Yeah!!! I mean, just because I carry a cell phone doesn't mean I have to
    > ditch my pager. I may drive an SUV but I still tow my horse trailer behind
    > it as a back-up. THE HORSE IS NOT DEAD!!!! -Dave
     
  20. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote in
    news:40A93452.875801B3@spamcop.net:


    > And, while not scientifically proven, at least by me, my pager *does*
    > seem to have better coverage than cell phones.
    >
    > I'm frequently in lead-lined, or highly shielded, areas, where *no
    > one's" cell phone gets a signal, yet I'm able to send/receive paging
    > messages.
    >

    Pagers will always have better coverage than cellphones. Your toyphone
    listens to ONE little transmitter at 150' on the other side of the
    building, with the same poor reception you get on voice. The pager, on the
    other hand, is listening to an entire network of 350 to 500 watt monster
    transmitters, all on the SAME frequency, all transmitting the SAME data,
    all the time. Because so many high powered transmitters are broadcasting
    your data, there are no "shadows", like there are, as we all know, on a
    cellular system. The reality of narrowband FM, the modulation used by the
    pager, encoded with various tone encoding schemes for the data, is that an
    FM receiver locks onto the strongest signal on the frequency, by default of
    the physics of FM.

    All these transmitters are very close, within a few Hz, of being on the
    exact same frequency, which prevents them beating against each other. With
    all this high powered RF spraying around from very tall antennas trying to
    reach as far as possible, without the cellular worries of overlapping
    coverage reducing revenues, it's nearly impossible to get a pager into an
    area of the city where it has no signal, in a properly designed system.

    Pagers also have the advantage of being on lower frequency spectrum.
    Pagers operate in one of several bands....152, 462, 800 Mhz bands simply
    have better coverage than the higher, near microwave bands of cellular near
    900 and 1900 Mhz. But, most importantly to get the signal through, is the
    POWER. POWER IS OUR FRIEND. And, paging HAS the power to make it happen.

    Reverse paging sucks. It doesn't have the power....

    Larry
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?