New Every Two program question (long, sorry)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

My two years are up. Due to the poor digital coverage at my home, I
had been seriously considering going with another carrier, but a
couple of things have happened.

About 3 or 4 weeks ago, the signal quality improved noticeably. It's
not perfect, but it's a lot better than it was. If it holds, it would
be enough for me to stay with VZW. After all, I've been with this
carrier (through several name changes) for over 9 years. They've
always treated me well, especially at my local store.

One of the recent "Where can I find a tower?" threads got me to doing
some research. I discovered that the tower 1.75 miles from me that
was erected about three years ago has VZW hanging at the 290' mark.
It's always had two sets, The top set, according to NWC, is Cingular.
There is a tower down the road the other way that had Alltell on it,
so I was considering going with them. I had been routinely hitting
towers 10-20+ miles away, so I figured terrain was an issue. I do
live in a modest valley of sorts.

This improvement leads me to think they've finally re-adjusted an
antenna on the local tower more towards me. That's great, until
someone else bitches, it gets adjusted again, and leaves me with the
spotty service again. So just to be on the safe side, I'd like to
renew my contract for only 1 year.

My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.

 

[_KC_]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
> for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
> so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
> sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.
>


New Every Two requires resigning for another 2 year agreement to get it. So
yes, you will have to do a 2 year.



KC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:43:47 GMT, "_KC_" <kc@kc.com> wrote:

>
>> My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
>> for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
>> so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
>> sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.
>>
>
>
>New Every Two requires resigning for another 2 year agreement to get it. So
>yes, you will have to do a 2 year.

Thanks, KC. I'll just remain month to month for now, especially since
I have the extended warranty coverage on the 3035. That should give
time to see if the signal strength holds, and maybe I can wrangle my
way into speaking with a network engineer before signing on for
another 2 year hitch.

Now, if Kyocera would come out with some new phones for VZW. I'm not
quite sold on the new slider yet.

 

[_KC_]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:s40be0l5q6379tdltaeudbrljhv8at9khr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:43:47 GMT, "_KC_" <kc@kc.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> My question is, do I still qualify for the $100 credit if I only renew
> >> for 1 year? I did not get a credit when I purchased my 3035 in 2002,
> >> so I figure I've already earned it, but fear VZW will require me to
> >> sign on for 2 more years in order to redeem the credit.
> >>
> >
> >
> >New Every Two requires resigning for another 2 year agreement to get it.
So
> >yes, you will have to do a 2 year.
>
> Thanks, KC. I'll just remain month to month for now, especially since
> I have the extended warranty coverage on the 3035. That should give
> time to see if the signal strength holds, and maybe I can wrangle my
> way into speaking with a network engineer before signing on for
> another 2 year hitch.
>
> Now, if Kyocera would come out with some new phones for VZW. I'm not
> quite sold on the new slider yet.
>


I like the Slider, seems to be a pretty solid phone. I wouldn't carry it
myself due to the keypad buttons being too small and close together for me.
Other than that, I think its a neat phone.


KC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
newsna9e01mfflp6q98k4samkf6ajc0rbcr4v@4ax.com:

>
> One of the recent "Where can I find a tower?" threads got me to doing
> some research. I discovered that the tower 1.75 miles from me that
> was erected about three years ago has VZW hanging at the 290' mark.
> It's always had two sets, The top set, according to NWC, is Cingular.
> There is a tower down the road the other way that had Alltell on it,
> so I was considering going with them. I had been routinely hitting
> towers 10-20+ miles away, so I figured terrain was an issue. I do
> live in a modest valley of sorts.

When they came up with the "digital" toyphone scam to increase revenues-
per-square-mile, those trusty old 500' towers you used 9 years ago had to
be scrapped, either by abandoning them completely or moving the antennas
down from the 10-mile-range 500' level with all those big panels to a
smaller antenna with lots less gain at 150'. If you go look at the old
towers, you'll also notice they have the goddamned panels POINTING AT THE
GROUND specifically to prevent them from having any range beyond a mile or
two....to that little toyphone minicell-on-a-stick, which doubles revenue-
per-square-mile every time they put one up and point more antennas at the
ground below the towers.

When they do this, of course, they have to choose which neighborhoods (rich
with lawyers and doctors) get the new minicells FIRST and which
neighborhoods (lower classes like us) get to WAIT until they get around to
putting up enough minicells to cover the DEAD ZONE holes created by
pointing the antennas at the ground. Your house was, obviously, in one of
the newly-created DEAD ZONES, until recently.

Then they wait..........and wait.........and count the number of complaints
they get about the new DEAD ZONES. When the data piles up, this determines
what areas get the next round of minicells, the ones that create the
greatest number of complaints/dropped calls/etc.

Our efforts to create a firestorm of complaints in MY newly-created DEAD
ZONE was rewarded with a new minicell on a shared tower with one of the PCS
companies, about 1/2 mile from my house. Good signals, of course, returned
to the delight of those involved in the firestorm of 611 calls. It works,
no matter what the bullshit supporters of the company will tell you here.
I can SHOW you ours....(c;

>
> This improvement leads me to think they've finally re-adjusted an
> antenna on the local tower more towards me. That's great, until
> someone else bitches, it gets adjusted again, and leaves me with the
> spotty service again. So just to be on the safe side, I'd like to
> renew my contract for only 1 year.
>

I doubt it. I don't know how many times you took the time to RAISE HELL
over the denial-of-service handed you, but you must not have been
alone....(c; They'll fill the next Black Hole with another minicell as
soon as the complaints roll in. EVERY time you drop a call or have no
service, CALL 611 IMMEDIATELY....it works.

Why are you renewing your contract? You probably have a better plan than
is now offered in the newer, tighter-assed offerings Verizon has....so why
screw yourself out of more minutes in the older plan? My plan has 700
minutes, unlimited n/w, all the "features" including voicemail, etc., FREE
LONG DISTANCE that's only offered on more expensive plans, now for $39/mo.
New contract my ass! Dangling a new toyphone with a LOWER POWERED
TRANSMITTER in front of me that DOESN'T ROAM TO ANALOG with even LESS
SERVICE AREA doesn't make me froth at the mouth to sign a new contract even
if it has a DVD player with free movies on it. Neither does a GPS-equipped
phone so the government bureaucrats can pinpoint my location within a 3
meter circle for target acquisition, either......no thanks.

You don't NEED a new contract if your current contract works for you. They
won't cancel service, especially now with you being able to take your
NUMBER PORTABILITY over to Alltel....(c; There's no contract forcing me to
stay any more. I'll buy my own phone, at wholesale, thank you.

Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:26:58 -0000, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
wrote:

>If you go look at the old
>towers, you'll also notice they have the goddamned panels POINTING AT THE
>GROUND specifically to prevent them from having any range beyond a mile or
>two....to that little toyphone minicell-on-a-stick

Which should be all I need. I truly believe that when I was getting
poor service inside my home, there was probably an excellent signal
not more than 10-20 feet above my house. If I was on a call as I came
down my driveway, I could almost predict the spot where the call would
drop. The topographic maps I've looked at show a definite ridge line
between me and the tower.

If all stays as is, great. But you know if the fix was a panel
realignment, it won't last forever. It'll get moved again some day.
Considering the terrain situation and proximity of the tower, I was
wondering if it was worth putting up a truly passive repeater system.
I was trying to avoid the expense of a powered repeater. I don't need
to boost my signal, I just need to redirect it down a few feet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Larry is very well 'versed' in electronics and RF theory. At least analog
RF and ham radio, etc. That is why his ad nauseam rants and endless
campaign of mis-information are all the more pathetic.

He knows better....



"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ko75bF4l6jqU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> If you haven't noticed by now, to Larry, everything in life is a
> conspriracy designed to extract an extra dollar from him. He is one
> ofhte leading sighters of black helicopters in usenet, and typically is
> laughed off one newsgroup after another. It's too bad, because I think
> at heart he really is a pretty decent guy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
newsJWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:

> Bla, bla, bla....
> Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
> BS rant.
>
> So again.....

The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!

The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!

Bullshit...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

No.... not my imagination, just how it is and has to be.

They are a product of growth and maturity of the technology and systems.
A necessary byproduct of the changes needed to a accommodate exponential
growth is subscriber numbers. Nothing more, nothing less...


"Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns951D889402CF5w4csc@216.168.3.44...
> "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> newsJWdncqRnfZMeXvd4p2dnA@comcast.com:
>
> > Bla, bla, bla....
> > Larry just doesn't seem to get it and keeps up with the same tired OLD
> > BS rant.
> >
> > So again.....
>
> The company flacks come out of the woodwork......ATTACK! ATTACK~!!
>
> The panels pointing at the ground are all your imagination....!!
>
> Bullshit...
>

 

[gerry]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[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.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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.

--
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.
"A bit of lusting after someone does wonders for you and is good for your
skin." - Elizabeth Hurley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

AMPS does have the ability to control the power levels on a phone
Some carriers didn't use it however, but it is part of the protocol.


"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message news:2b1oe05cqjl9fuprlau9qmqtml46a4fm64@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
> --
> 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.
> "A bit of lusting after someone does wonders for you and is good for your
> skin." - Elizabeth Hurley
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <HamdnRNshI_gR3HdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>AMPS does have the ability to control the power levels on a phone
>Some carriers didn't use it however, but it is part of the protocol.
>
>"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
>news:2b1oe05cqjl9fuprlau9qmqtml46a4fm64@4ax.com...
>> 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.

A given cellular antenna covers the whole cellular band (A-side or B-side,
anyway), and can be designed to additionally handle the PCS band (or you
can have PCS-only antennas). There are generally separate transmit and
receive antennas. CDMA and AMPS will be deployed on distinct channels
on a given cellular band, so they use the same antenna. The fact that
on some channels the modulation is analog FM, and on others is digital
spread-spectrum, is irrelevant.

Concerning power, I think most cellular companies used the AMPS power
control protocol. But the transmitter is on for the entire duration of
the call, whether you are talking or not.

 

[gerry]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[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.

gerry


--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

<snip>

> spread-spectrum, is irrelevant.
>
> Concerning power, I think most cellular companies used the AMPS power
> control protocol. But the transmitter is on for the entire duration of
> the call, whether you are talking or not.

-->Exactly. Speaking from Verizon experience, I haven't seen any area of
theirs, where they have not used AMPS or CDMA and not used 'power control'.
It benefits battery life as well as sound quality of the end user(s).

It's not like it's and "add-on" option the carriers have to buy, nor am I
sure you can even turn it off if you wanted to.

Scotty.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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
newso9te0tnp9fd0sr1eb6iupo6uoikmeqefh@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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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?
>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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
newshcIc.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?
> >>
> >
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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
> newshcIc.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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

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