PRL 10023 contents posted

[Guest]

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

I was just browsing in alt.cellular.verizon and came across two postings
from March 25, 2004 with the contents of Sprint PCS PRL 10023 and
Verizon PRL 50154. Someone has posted here previously asking about the
contents of the SPCS PRL, so here's how to see it.

For SPCS 10023, go to
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
and enter message ID
1c5117d9.0403251833.285c162@posting.google.com
or try this long URL
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1c5117d9.0403251833.285c162%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

For Verizon 50154, go to
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
enter message ID
1c5117d9.0403251829.661cec0d@posting.google.com
or try this long URL
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1c5117d9.0403251829.661cec0d%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

--
Frank Harris in San Francisco with an A620

 

[Guest]

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

Frank Harris <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote in message news:<c5uink$jk0$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> I was just browsing in alt.cellular.verizon and came across two postings
> from March 25, 2004 with the contents of Sprint PCS PRL 10023 and
> Verizon PRL 50154. Someone has posted here previously asking about the
> contents of the SPCS PRL, so here's how to see it.

And perhaps the most interesting conclusion presented by Sprint PCS
PRL 10023 is that Qwest Wireless SIDs are still designated negative.

Specifically, Qwest SID 5461 for the Rocky Mountain region (e.g. 721
5461 65535 Neg NEW SAME 0) continues to be unavailable for SPCS
roamers w/ the most current PRL. Thus, despite the transfer of Qwest
subs to the coincident SPCS network, native SPCS users do not yet have
access to the isolated Qwest CDMA 1900 footprint in Wyoming, Montana,
& the Dakotas and will not be able to utilize the additional coverage
until at least the release of PRL 10024 or until Qwest SIDs are
transitioned to existing SPCS SIDs.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/

 

[Guest]

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

Can you or someone either give or point to a quick explanation of the
columns or a quick tutorial /

TIA

"Frank Harris" <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote in message
news:c5uink$jk0$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> I was just browsing in alt.cellular.verizon and came across two postings
> from March 25, 2004 with the contents of Sprint PCS PRL 10023 and
> Verizon PRL 50154. Someone has posted here previously asking about the
> contents of the SPCS PRL, so here's how to see it.
>
> For SPCS 10023, go to
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> and enter message ID
> 1c5117d9.0403251833.285c162@posting.google.com
> or try this long URL
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1c5117d9.0403251833.285c162%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
> For Verizon 50154, go to
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> enter message ID
> 1c5117d9.0403251829.661cec0d@posting.google.com
> or try this long URL
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1c5117d9.0403251829.661cec0d%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
> --
> Frank Harris in San Francisco with an A620

 

[Guest]

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

Here's what little I know about it -

In the top half, lines 0-46 list as CH1-6 which PCS channels the phone
should search in what order, based on which SID is identified in the
bottom half.

In the bottom half, lines 0-808 list the SIDs (System IDs) that the
phone may (Pref) or many not (Neg) use. I think the 4xxx ones are
Sprint PCS system IDs (4183 is Northern California) (note a 1 in the
Roam column), and for each of those, the ACQ INDEX indicates which line
from the top half to use to know which channels to search for. A 0 in
the Roam column probably turns on the phone's Roam indicator.

I don't know what SAME or MORE or NEW mean. Or ACQ TYPE.

ACQ INDEX 4 and 37 seem to be for cellular carriers (SID 40 is Verizon
in Northern California).

There is a list of cellular (not PCS) SIDs for many A-side and B-side
cellular carriers at
http://www.bit0.com/txt/telecom/cell-sidh.txt

Sprint PCS's SIDs are listed under
Sprint PCS wireless spectrum license database
at
http://people.cc.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/main.html

--
Frank Harris in San Francisco with an A620

 

[Guest]

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

cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote in message news:<33e89561.0404181552.4ae7f418@posting.google.com>...
> Frank Harris <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote in message news:<c5uink$jk0$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> > I was just browsing in alt.cellular.verizon and came across two postings
> > from March 25, 2004 with the contents of Sprint PCS PRL 10023 and
> > Verizon PRL 50154. Someone has posted here previously asking about the
> > contents of the SPCS PRL, so here's how to see it.
>
> And perhaps the most interesting conclusion presented by Sprint PCS
> PRL 10023 is that Qwest Wireless SIDs are still designated negative.
>
> Specifically, Qwest SID 5461 for the Rocky Mountain region (e.g. 721
> 5461 65535 Neg NEW SAME 0) continues to be unavailable for SPCS
> roamers w/ the most current PRL. Thus, despite the transfer of Qwest
> subs to the coincident SPCS network, native SPCS users do not yet have
> access to the isolated Qwest CDMA 1900 footprint in Wyoming, Montana,
> & the Dakotas and will not be able to utilize the additional coverage
> until at least the release of PRL 10024 or until Qwest SIDs are
> transitioned to existing SPCS SIDs.
>
> Andrew

If that's the case then how are Qwest customers in Montana and Wyoming
using the Sprint network now? Have they not been transitioned over
yet? If they are using the Sprint network (which I've heard is the
case) then why couldn't us Sprint customers also get service there
now?

 

[Guest]

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

larryt510@hotmail.com (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<9c02589b.0404182247.101f155e@posting.google.com>...
>
> If that's the case then how are Qwest customers in Montana and Wyoming
> using the Sprint network now? Have they not been transitioned over
> yet? If they are using the Sprint network (which I've heard is the
> case) then why couldn't us Sprint customers also get service there
> now?

Larry...

I am just the messenger. I can only report what I see. And there is
relatively little room for interpretation in the PRL. In PRL 10023,
line #721 (e.g. 721 5461 65535 Neg NEW SAME 0) patently states
that Qwest SID 5461 for the Rocky Mountain region remains designated
negative. Except for 911 emergency, Sprint PCS handsets w/ the most
current PRL will absolutely not use systems broadcasting that Qwest
SID.

As to your contention about Qwest subs - but potentially not SPCS subs
- currently being able to utilize both the SPCS footprint & the
isolated pockets of Qwest coverage in the Great Plains, two
possibilities - one of which you will not like - could exist to
explain the situation.

In the first possibility, the more likely of the two, Qwest subs that
have been transferred to the SPCS network have been updated to a PRL
that supercedes even PRL 10023, a transitional PRL that is essentially
PRL 10023 plus all Qwest SIDs w/ negative designation removed &
increased priority. If such proves true, Qwest subs actually have
slightly more extensive coverage than native SPCS subs - for the time
being.

In the second possibility, which you will probably find more
appealing, transferred Qwest subs will have been updated to PRL 10023,
while some or all Qwest broadcast SIDs will have been transitioned to
existing SPCS SIDs already in the PRL, allowing both transferred Qwest
subs & native SPCS subs alike to use national SPCS coverge plus
non-coincident Qwest footprint (e.g. Rapid City, SD, et al.).

The problem w/ the second theory is that any Qwest subs in the
isolated coverage areas (e.g. Montana & Wyoming, et al.) that have yet
failed to successfully complete the transfer process will have been
left high & dry, an unlikely scenario. Far more sensible is the first
scenario, in which Qwest subs will only receive the benefit of the
national SPCS footprint once they complete the transition process.
Qwest subs who do not complete the transfer in a timely fashion will
simply continue to retain only Qwest coverage as per their calling
plans. Regardless, any non-coincident Qwest footprint should remain
accessible to Qwest subs both before & after transfer.

Thus, yes, at the moment it does appear that Qwest - the VMNO on the
SPCS network - actually has it better than the network operator
itself. But time or the next PRL should readily fix that discrepancy.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/

 

[Guest]

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

cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote in message news:<33e89561.0404191020.d46b886@posting.google.com>...
> larryt510@hotmail.com (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<9c02589b.0404182247.101f155e@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > If that's the case then how are Qwest customers in Montana and Wyoming
> > using the Sprint network now? Have they not been transitioned over
> > yet? If they are using the Sprint network (which I've heard is the
> > case) then why couldn't us Sprint customers also get service there
> > now?
>
> Larry...
>
> I am just the messenger. I can only report what I see. And there is
> relatively little room for interpretation in the PRL. In PRL 10023,
> line #721 (e.g. 721 5461 65535 Neg NEW SAME 0) patently states
> that Qwest SID 5461 for the Rocky Mountain region remains designated
> negative. Except for 911 emergency, Sprint PCS handsets w/ the most
> current PRL will absolutely not use systems broadcasting that Qwest
> SID.
>
> As to your contention about Qwest subs - but potentially not SPCS subs
> - currently being able to utilize both the SPCS footprint & the
> isolated pockets of Qwest coverage in the Great Plains, two
> possibilities - one of which you will not like - could exist to
> explain the situation.
>
> In the first possibility, the more likely of the two, Qwest subs that
> have been transferred to the SPCS network have been updated to a PRL
> that supercedes even PRL 10023, a transitional PRL that is essentially
> PRL 10023 plus all Qwest SIDs w/ negative designation removed &
> increased priority. If such proves true, Qwest subs actually have
> slightly more extensive coverage than native SPCS subs - for the time
> being.
>
> In the second possibility, which you will probably find more
> appealing, transferred Qwest subs will have been updated to PRL 10023,
> while some or all Qwest broadcast SIDs will have been transitioned to
> existing SPCS SIDs already in the PRL, allowing both transferred Qwest
> subs & native SPCS subs alike to use national SPCS coverge plus
> non-coincident Qwest footprint (e.g. Rapid City, SD, et al.).
>
> The problem w/ the second theory is that any Qwest subs in the
> isolated coverage areas (e.g. Montana & Wyoming, et al.) that have yet
> failed to successfully complete the transfer process will have been
> left high & dry, an unlikely scenario. Far more sensible is the first
> scenario, in which Qwest subs will only receive the benefit of the
> national SPCS footprint once they complete the transition process.
> Qwest subs who do not complete the transfer in a timely fashion will
> simply continue to retain only Qwest coverage as per their calling
> plans. Regardless, any non-coincident Qwest footprint should remain
> accessible to Qwest subs both before & after transfer.
>
> Thus, yes, at the moment it does appear that Qwest - the VMNO on the
> SPCS network - actually has it better than the network operator
> itself. But time or the next PRL should readily fix that discrepancy.
>
> Andrew


Thanks! I really hope that Sprint and/or Qwest don't continue to drag
their feet on allowing us Sprint customers new coverage in Montana,
Wyoming and the Dakotas. I heard PRL 10024 is only a month away so
maybe that will finally be the one we've been waiting for.

 

[Guest]

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

cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote in
news:33e89561.0404191020.d46b886@posting.google.com:

> Larry...
>
> I am just the messenger. I can only report what I see. And there is
> relatively little room for interpretation in the PRL. In PRL 10023,
> line #721 (e.g. 721 5461 65535 Neg NEW SAME 0) patently states
> that Qwest SID 5461 for the Rocky Mountain region remains designated
> negative. Except for 911 emergency, Sprint PCS handsets w/ the most
> current PRL will absolutely not use systems broadcasting that Qwest
> SID.
>
> As to your contention about Qwest subs - but potentially not SPCS subs
> - currently being able to utilize both the SPCS footprint & the
> isolated pockets of Qwest coverage in the Great Plains, two
> possibilities - one of which you will not like - could exist to
> explain the situation.
>
> In the first possibility, the more likely of the two, Qwest subs that
> have been transferred to the SPCS network have been updated to a PRL
> that supercedes even PRL 10023, a transitional PRL that is essentially
> PRL 10023 plus all Qwest SIDs w/ negative designation removed &
> increased priority. If such proves true, Qwest subs actually have
> slightly more extensive coverage than native SPCS subs - for the time
> being.
>
> In the second possibility, which you will probably find more
> appealing, transferred Qwest subs will have been updated to PRL 10023,
> while some or all Qwest broadcast SIDs will have been transitioned to
> existing SPCS SIDs already in the PRL, allowing both transferred Qwest
> subs & native SPCS subs alike to use national SPCS coverge plus
> non-coincident Qwest footprint (e.g. Rapid City, SD, et al.).
>
> The problem w/ the second theory is that any Qwest subs in the
> isolated coverage areas (e.g. Montana & Wyoming, et al.) that have yet
> failed to successfully complete the transfer process will have been
> left high & dry, an unlikely scenario. Far more sensible is the first
> scenario, in which Qwest subs will only receive the benefit of the
> national SPCS footprint once they complete the transition process.
> Qwest subs who do not complete the transfer in a timely fashion will
> simply continue to retain only Qwest coverage as per their calling
> plans. Regardless, any non-coincident Qwest footprint should remain
> accessible to Qwest subs both before & after transfer.
>
> Thus, yes, at the moment it does appear that Qwest - the VMNO on the
> SPCS network - actually has it better than the network operator
> itself. But time or the next PRL should readily fix that discrepancy.
>


Is it possible for the Qwest subs in the isolated coverage area mentioned
above to have their handsets programmed with the home SID 5461 even
though it is marked NEG in the PRL? Does the handset ignore the PRL
unless there is no service available from the home SID programmed in the
setup?

Keith A.

 

[Guest]

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

"Keith A." <shwemp@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94D0B8D63EA5Bshwempyahooooooooooc@151.164.30.94>...
>
> Is it possible for the Qwest subs in the isolated coverage area mentioned
> above to have their handsets programmed with the home SID 5461 even
> though it is marked NEG in the PRL? Does the handset ignore the PRL
> unless there is no service available from the home SID programmed in the
> setup?

Good question.

I cannot speak definitively for Qwest Wireless, but as for Sprint PCS,
the programmed home SID is simply irrelevant. The SPCS PRL above all
else is in control. Additionally, SPCS removes from the firmware of
its handsets the menu selection to limit service only to the home SID.

For Motorola CDMA 800/1900 handsets for example, standard firmware
includes the following system selection options: Home Only, Standard
Scan, Scan A, Scan B. "Home Only" obviously limits service only to
the programmed home SID, ignoring the PRL. "Standard Scan" invokes
the PRL to find the service of highest priority. And "Scan A" or
"Scan B," again eschewing the PRL, searches for compatible service on
the Cellular A-side or Cellular B-side, respectively.

Conversely, SPCS firmware typically offers only three system selection
options: Sprint PCS Only, Automatic, or Analog Only. Regardless, all
three options are controlled by the PRL. Home SID is a moot point.
Regular group contributor Frank Harris has noted that SPCS Samsung
handsets often come pre-programmed w/ the SPCS Dallas MTA SID 4120.
But, no matter in which SPCS MTA the handset will ultimately reach its
customer destination, the PRL will usurp the Dallas SID, selecting the
available SPCS home system w/ the highest priority in the GEO
association in which the handset finds itself.

Interestingly, each of the NEG designated SIDs in PRL 10023 do still
include an ACQ INDEX - probably for wireless 911 purposes - as many
CDMA handsets will not efficiently search the PCS band w/o a PRL ACQ
INDEX of channels to guide them. On the other hand, given a Cellular
home SID, Cellular CDMA handsets need only search respectively the
primary & secondary A-side & B-side CDMA channels: CEL 283, CEL 691,
CEL 384, & CEL 777.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/

 

[Guest]

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

In article <33e89561.0404202048.404a6817@posting.google.com>,
cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:

> SPCS firmware typically offers only three system selection
> options: Sprint PCS Only, Automatic, or Analog Only. Regardless, all
> three options are controlled by the PRL.


Huh? Is this why some folks find themselves ROAMing even though they
have set the cell phone for PCS Only to avoid incurring roaming charges?

 

[Mike]

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

Robert M. wrote:

> Huh? Is this why some folks find themselves ROAMing even though they
> have set the cell phone for PCS Only to avoid incurring roaming charges?

Huh? Are you talking about traveling charges?
-mike

 

[Guest]

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

In article <Beuhc.3375$eZ5.384@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > Huh? Is this why some folks find themselves ROAMing even though they
> > have set the cell phone for PCS Only to avoid incurring roaming charges?
>
> Huh? Are you talking about traveling charges?
> -mike

How about posting the whole thing for context?

In article <33e89561.0404202048.404a6817@posting.google.com>,
cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:

> SPCS firmware typically offers only three system selection
> options: Sprint PCS Only, Automatic, or Analog Only. Regardless, all
> three options are controlled by the PRL.


Huh? Is this why some folks find themselves ROAMing even though they
have set the cell phone for PCS Only to avoid incurring roaming charges?


=========================

Where did I say charges? Folks have posted that their phones will show
roaming, even when presumably roaming is turned off by setting to
SprintPCS only.

 

[Mike]

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

Robert M. wrote:
> In article <Beuhc.3375$eZ5.384@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Huh? Is this why some folks find themselves ROAMing even though they
>>>have set the cell phone for PCS Only to avoid incurring roaming charges?
>>
>>Huh? Are you talking about traveling charges?
>>-mike
>
>
> How about posting the whole thing for context?

I submit that posting within a thread allows for trimming of the post in
the interest of bandwidth and brevity. If moving into a new thread or
subject, or replying to a rather old post, trimming may be ill-advised.
My newsreader suggests my reply was made sixteen minutes after your post.

> In article <33e89561.0404202048.404a6817@posting.google.com>,
> cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:
>
>
>>SPCS firmware typically offers only three system selection
>>options: Sprint PCS Only, Automatic, or Analog Only. Regardless, all
>>three options are controlled by the PRL.
>
>
>
> Huh? Is this why some folks find themselves ROAMing even though they
> have set the cell phone for PCS Only to avoid incurring roaming charges?
>
>
> =========================
>
> Where did I say charges? Folks have posted that their phones will show
> roaming, even when presumably roaming is turned off by setting to
> SprintPCS only.

Sounds like a handset issue. I'd be interested seeing this. Can you site
an example - perhaps a URL?
-mike

 

[Guest]

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

In article <6avhc.5091$e4.3931@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> > In article <33e89561.0404202048.404a6817@posting.google.com>,
> > cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>SPCS firmware typically offers only three system selection
> >>options: Sprint PCS Only, Automatic, or Analog Only. Regardless, all
> >>three options are controlled by the PRL.
> >
> >
> >
> > Huh? Is this why some folks find themselves ROAMing even though they
> > have set the cell phone for PCS Only to avoid incurring roaming charges?
> >
> >
> > =========================
> >
> > Where did I say charges? Folks have posted that their phones will show
> > roaming, even when presumably roaming is turned off by setting to
> > SprintPCS only.
>
> Sounds like a handset issue. I'd be interested seeing this. Can you site
> an example - perhaps a URL?
> -mike



How about this one. Google finds many

From: antoniosp (Guest.sh10y@in-val-id.com)
Subject: A620 - Digital Roam Automatically?
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 2003-08-20 10:45:03 PST


I have set the Roaming on my phone to be SprintPCS only. however I
received a couple of calls yestreday and they were marked as digital
roam. I find this very strange since I have the settings to SprintPCS
only. Anybody else have this problem?