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

Who do you complain to?

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Louise, Jun 7, 2004.

  1. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    Remember N-AMPS??
    Needed because of increased demand and overloading of AMPS channels.
    I was there (US West Cellular) during those years. I saw the traffic printouts...
    Very steady and exponential growth since the very beginning.
    One of the highest penetration growth rates of any consumer device... ever.
    Prices came down because of demand, competition and PCS.

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:pa-dnUMfv8aQCVHdRVn-sw@lmi.net...
    > Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    > > New here huh?
    > > Larry "spouts off' quite a bit. Sometimes accurate, but very rarely.
    > > Don't let him fool you however. He actually knows quite a bit, but would
    > > rather stick
    > > to his old and highly inaccurate "AMPS, bla, bla, bla", arguments

    >
    > And he will occasionally go off on a rant completely tangential to the
    > thread he's posting in.
    >
    >
    > > Bitches about "revenue enhancement" alot. But never has acknowledged the
    > > fact that if digital,
    > > lower power and minicells, etc. were NOT used, no one could make a call
    > > nowadays because of the sheer
    > > volume of cell phones in people's hands today. AMPS became
    > > obsolete, so things HAD TO change.

    >
    > Whoa, Nellie. Cause-and-effect relationship is wrong here. The carriers
    > started introducing digital in the mid-90s presumably because they wanted
    > to add more capacity, but the ability to do so brought airtime rates way down.
    > Do you really think gazillions of people would be using cell phones now if
    > they were still as expensive as they were in 1994 and 1995? No.
    >
    > > Digital phones, lower output power, minicells, etc, etc are because of
    > > the exponential growth of
    > > cellular use in this country, period. The technology was needed to handle
    > > the greatly increased traffic.
    > > Not because of some nefarious plot to rip the public off.

    >
    > Don't be silly. Digital is in wide use due to the added capacity. The demand
    > wasn't *there* in the mid-90s, but the carriers knew they'd eventually run
    > out of capacity if they stuck with AMPS.
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    > PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    > Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     



    › See More: Who do you complain to?
  2. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    Remember N-AMPS??
    Needed because of increased demand and overloading of AMPS channels.
    I was there (US West Cellular) during those years. I saw the traffic printouts...
    Very steady and exponential growth since the very beginning.
    One of the highest penetration growth rates of any consumer device... ever.
    Prices came down because of demand, competition and PCS.

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:pa-dnUMfv8aQCVHdRVn-sw@lmi.net...
    > Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    > > New here huh?
    > > Larry "spouts off' quite a bit. Sometimes accurate, but very rarely.
    > > Don't let him fool you however. He actually knows quite a bit, but would
    > > rather stick
    > > to his old and highly inaccurate "AMPS, bla, bla, bla", arguments

    >
    > And he will occasionally go off on a rant completely tangential to the
    > thread he's posting in.
    >
    >
    > > Bitches about "revenue enhancement" alot. But never has acknowledged the
    > > fact that if digital,
    > > lower power and minicells, etc. were NOT used, no one could make a call
    > > nowadays because of the sheer
    > > volume of cell phones in people's hands today. AMPS became
    > > obsolete, so things HAD TO change.

    >
    > Whoa, Nellie. Cause-and-effect relationship is wrong here. The carriers
    > started introducing digital in the mid-90s presumably because they wanted
    > to add more capacity, but the ability to do so brought airtime rates way down.
    > Do you really think gazillions of people would be using cell phones now if
    > they were still as expensive as they were in 1994 and 1995? No.
    >
    > > Digital phones, lower output power, minicells, etc, etc are because of
    > > the exponential growth of
    > > cellular use in this country, period. The technology was needed to handle
    > > the greatly increased traffic.
    > > Not because of some nefarious plot to rip the public off.

    >
    > Don't be silly. Digital is in wide use due to the added capacity. The demand
    > wasn't *there* in the mid-90s, but the carriers knew they'd eventually run
    > out of capacity if they stuck with AMPS.
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    > PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    > Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  3. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    Strongbox <strongbox@no.mail> wrote in
    news:1mtocd29jt7gw$.1pbmol9eqt504.dlg@40tude.net:

    > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:05:22 -0700, Joseph wrote:
    >
    >> You evidently don't have a clue do you? Digital phones operate
    >> differently than analog AMPS phones. If you apply the same standard
    >> to digital you of course won't have the same. Before you start
    >> spouting off about how poorly things are now you should at least do a
    >> little research.

    >
    > Actually, whether digital or analog, radio field signal strength as
    > applied to antenna characteristics are the same. The fact that
    > digital signals transmit packets vs. an analog's steady carrier is not
    > relevent. 600mW packet output and 600mW analog output into an antenna
    > would result in the same ERP (effective radiated power).


    Oh, no! EVERYBODY (well at the sales counter, at least) KNOWS CDMA is
    fu**ing magic (FM). None of the physics characteristics of radio,
    propagation, reflectivity, root mean square laws, amazingly expensive radio
    mapping programs used to predict coverage for a transmitter over terrain,
    terrestrial noises like a hot parking lot.....NONE of that applies to FM
    cellular modulation schemes, especially CDMA (or whatever the company
    decides this week).

    No matter how low the power of your toyphone is limited to, 200mw, 20mw, 1
    microwatt, CDMA will make each call perfect, regardless of the antenna
    placement, height above average terrain, etc. Hell, if NASA used CDMA,
    they could talk to the Shuttle on the other side of the planet with NO
    HOLES!

    CDMA IS MAGIC, THE HOLY GRAIL OF DATA COMMUNICATIONS!
    -- SARCASM OFF --

    >
    > CDMA cell phones with higher signal outputs WILL communicate to towers
    > farther away then will the lower powered ones. It is in THE
    > CARRIER'S best interest to limit your transmit range to avoid cell
    > overcrowding, even if this means you may have no coverage in certain
    > areas where higher power would grab a distant cell.


    Dead on truth. The only thing the CARRIER cares about is REVENUE PER
    SQUARE MILE....

    >
    > More power and higher antennas equate to more communcation range.
    > It's simple basic radio theory.
    >


    Hmm....That must be why FOX 24 is running FIVE MEGAWATTS at 1,975' up the
    tower. It's why they went to all that EXPENSE.......R-A-N-G-E.

    RADIO RULE #1 - POWER IS OUR FRIEND. In cellular, power is the CONSUMER'S
    friend. But, watch the next round of toyphone wonders. I think we're
    gonna be begging for 100 mw phones in 2 years.....

    RF means nothing. Ask any of the RF experts at your sales floor.

    Larry
     
  4. Strongbox

    Strongbox Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:10:55 -0000, Larry W4CSC wrote:

    > watch the next round of toyphone wonders. I think we're
    > gonna be begging for 100 mw phones in 2 years.....


    Yep. Tradeoffs must be made between output power (better range) and running
    games, wallpaper, animated GIF screensavers, cameras, etc. The batteries
    can only support so much electrical demand and still be small enough to keep
    the cellphones tiny and run the phone for a reasonable length of time.

    The carriers appear to be focusing on the glitter instead of the basic
    function of cellphones - reliable communications with decent coverage areas.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?