Will Verizon soon overtake Cingular as Number One ?

[Guest]

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

I've long been saying: "Look at the numbers" Verizon is growing so fast
that it will be less than 2 years before they again become number one in
number of subscribers, and overtake Cingular which will (and is) have
trouble integrating in AT&T Wireless, witness the the switch of AT&T
stores to selling only Cingular plans, that lasted all of one day.

Now I have a URL for Navas who insist that his beloved Cingular will
stay number one.

" Several analysts and industry experts have said the combined company
might not hold its lead for long, as both Cingular and AT&T Wireless
have suffered from high customer defections, also known as churn, this
year. "

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=5&u=/nm/20041201
/bs_nm/telecoms_cingular_outlook_dc&sid=95573419>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <jzwick3-0D68A9.21010101122004@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> I've long been saying: "Look at the numbers" Verizon is growing so fast
> that it will be less than 2 years before they again become number one in
> number of subscribers, and overtake Cingular which will (and is) have
> trouble integrating in AT&T Wireless, witness the the switch of AT&T
> stores to selling only Cingular plans, that lasted all of one day.
>

Verizon is also looking at a dark cloud on the horizon. Their
nationwide coverage is solely dependent on the ability to fall back on
the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those partners
are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon converting to
GSM/AMPS. When the requirement to provide AMPS coverage sunsets in 2007
most carriers will quickly drop analog. Unless Verizon implements a GSM
backup plan before then their national coverage is going to drop
DRASTICALLY. Take a look at the "national enhanced services" and "IN"
maps if you want to get an idea as to just how thin the native CDMA
coverage really is in this country. The number of Verizon customers who
will be forced to bail out in order to have phone service at all will
make any Cingular/ATTWS churn pale to nothing.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-0D68A9.21010101122004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Thu, 02 Dec
2004 03:01:01 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>I've long been saying: "Look at the numbers" Verizon is growing so fast
>that it will be less than 2 years before they again become number one in
>number of subscribers, and overtake Cingular

You've long been saying lots of silly things.

>which will (and is) have
>trouble integrating in AT&T Wireless,

No evidence of that so far.

>witness the the switch of AT&T
>stores to selling only Cingular plans, that lasted all of one day.

That's the website, and is utterly irrelevant.

>Now I have a URL for Navas who insist that his beloved Cingular will
>stay number one.

I've said nothing of the kind.

>" Several analysts and industry experts have said the combined company
>might not hold its lead for long, as both Cingular and AT&T Wireless
>have suffered from high customer defections, also known as churn, this
>year. "
>
><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=5&u=/nm/20041201
>/bs_nm/telecoms_cingular_outlook_dc&sid=95573419>

The key word there is "might". It "might" also extend it's lead.

Is this the best you can do? LOL

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

Verizon refugee De-lurking!

Been an ATT/Cingular customer for a month now. I had been a 10+ year
customer of Verizon, but their broken promises of their clunky
"sometimes digital sometimes analog" network improving in my area made
me shop around at renewal time. 2 years back when my employer
supplied me with an ATT phone the coverage in my town was worse than
Verizon. Today it's better or the same, and now only going to get even
better.

Must add that I was unhappy with Verizon's customer service on a
couple of hardware related issues in my last contract period. For some
reason in this competitive world I thought that a loyal customer could
get a break if they asked - nope, just bend over and smile for the
next 8 months of your contract. ATT's customer service made a good
first impression. It took a couple hours on the phone with several
CSRs, often in a conference call, to transfer four numbers from
Verizon, but they stuck with it (I had them on speaker phone while
working on other desk duties).

Slight favor to ATT was a company discount - but Verizon also had a
similar offer, but it was only on one line. ATT's discount is on all
lines. Contract is for 1 year, got 50% off the cost of hardware
(though many phones were free).

Last - in my opinion, Verizon's selection of phones stink. Always last
to get the new stuff, always cheap brands I never heard of.

Verizon? Never going back.

Happy SE T637 user.

Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>I've long been saying: "Look at the numbers" Verizon is growing so fast
>that it will be less than 2 years before they again become number one in
>number of subscribers, and overtake Cingular which will (and is) have
>trouble integrating in AT&T Wireless, witness the the switch of AT&T
>stores to selling only Cingular plans, that lasted all of one day.
>
>Now I have a URL for Navas who insist that his beloved Cingular will
>stay number one.
>
>" Several analysts and industry experts have said the combined company
>might not hold its lead for long, as both Cingular and AT&T Wireless
>have suffered from high customer defections, also known as churn, this
>year. "
>
><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=5&u=/nm/20041201
>/bs_nm/telecoms_cingular_outlook_dc&sid=95573419>

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:54:12 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
<l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com> wrote:

>Verizon is also looking at a dark cloud on the horizon. Their
>nationwide coverage is solely dependent on the ability to fall back on
>the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
>move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those partners
>are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon converting to
>GSM/AMPS. When the requirement to provide AMPS coverage sunsets in 2007
>most carriers will quickly drop analog.

The little carriers are going to say, "Thank God we no longer have to
make money from Verizon customers!" ? Why would they do that? If there
is a substantial market, someone will fill it.

>Unless Verizon implements a GSM
>backup plan before then their national coverage is going to drop
>DRASTICALLY. Take a look at the "national enhanced services"

That seems to be just Verizon's own network.

>and "IN"
>maps if you want to get an idea as to just how thin the native CDMA
>coverage really is in this country.

The IN map looks pretty good, and will probably be better in two years
time.

>The number of Verizon customers who
>will be forced to bail out in order to have phone service at all will
>make any Cingular/ATTWS churn pale to nothing.

Think GSM coverage will be better than CDMA in two years time? I think
it's too early to tell, but I'd lean toward no. I don't see either one
with an overwelming lead over the other anytime soon.

 

[deb]

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

Justice Gustine <justicegustine@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<jpbtq0hdhdjeeqp6fjugf6pfnov00l9qbh@4ax.com>...
> Verizon refugee De-lurking!
>
> Been an ATT/Cingular customer for a month now. I had been a 10+ year
> customer of Verizon, but their broken promises of their clunky
> "sometimes digital sometimes analog" network improving in my area made
> me shop around at renewal time. 2 years back when my employer
> supplied me with an ATT phone the coverage in my town was worse than
> Verizon. Today it's better or the same, and now only going to get even
> better.
>
> Must add that I was unhappy with Verizon's customer service on a
> couple of hardware related issues in my last contract period. For some
> reason in this competitive world I thought that a loyal customer could
> get a break if they asked - nope, just bend over and smile for the
> next 8 months of your contract. ATT's customer service made a good
> first impression. It took a couple hours on the phone with several
> CSRs, often in a conference call, to transfer four numbers from
> Verizon, but they stuck with it (I had them on speaker phone while
> working on other desk duties).
>
> Slight favor to ATT was a company discount - but Verizon also had a
> similar offer, but it was only on one line. ATT's discount is on all
> lines. Contract is for 1 year, got 50% off the cost of hardware
> (though many phones were free).
>
> Last - in my opinion, Verizon's selection of phones stink. Always last
> to get the new stuff, always cheap brands I never heard of.
>
> Verizon? Never going back.
>
> Happy SE T637 user.
>
> Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I've long been saying: "Look at the numbers" Verizon is growing so fast
> >that it will be less than 2 years before they again become number one in
> >number of subscribers, and overtake Cingular which will (and is) have
> >trouble integrating in AT&T Wireless, witness the the switch of AT&T
> >stores to selling only Cingular plans, that lasted all of one day.
> >
> >Now I have a URL for Navas who insist that his beloved Cingular will
> >stay number one.
> >
> >" Several analysts and industry experts have said the combined company
> >might not hold its lead for long, as both Cingular and AT&T Wireless
> >have suffered from high customer defections, also known as churn, this
> >year. "
> >
> ><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=5&u=/nm/20041201
> >/bs_nm/telecoms_cingular_outlook_dc&sid=95573419>


I know many folks going to cingular and VERY HAPPY. I am out of
contract right now with Verizon and not sure if I am going to stay. I
am in the Tacoma, WA area so that probably makes a difference as well

 

[Guest]

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

Care to look at the numbers?

1. Profit.

2. Capital Investment


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_09/b3872045.htm

Verizon Wireless is so profitable it can afford to do whatever it needs
to get and maintain being number 1. Cingular says it will be 2007 before
its profitable for the year.

Cingular is years behind Verizon in 3G deployment, and will be spending
on that rather than TDMA conversion or Network expansion. When and if
the time comes Verizon can spend to convert Analog to CDMA.

It is wishful thinking to think Cingular has ==> any <== advantage over
Verrizon, except perhaps in number of BlueTooth phones they currently
have available.

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <g5ftq019f5g9lskpkqmh35pko2u691d6la@4ax.com> on Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:16:49
GMT, Clyde Coffey <clyde75074@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:54:12 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
><l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com> wrote:
>
>>Verizon is also looking at a dark cloud on the horizon. Their
>>nationwide coverage is solely dependent on the ability to fall back on
>>the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
>>move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those partners
>>are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon converting to
>>GSM/AMPS. When the requirement to provide AMPS coverage sunsets in 2007
>>most carriers will quickly drop analog.
>
>The little carriers are going to say, "Thank God we no longer have to
>make money from Verizon customers!" ? Why would they do that? If there
>is a substantial market, someone will fill it.

Not necessarily -- both spectrum and carriers are limited, and thus must make
choices; e.g., between GSM and CDMA, with AMPS being dropped due to
inefficiency. This is a real issue for Verizon, as evidenced by the fact that
Verizon has been spending billions on additional spectrum licenses.

>The IN map looks pretty good, and will probably be better in two years
>time.

True, thanks to the mew spectrum licenses. Still, it will be difficult for
Verizon to keep its reach without AMPS.

>Think GSM coverage will be better than CDMA in two years time? I think
>it's too early to tell, but I'd lean toward no. I don't see either one
>with an overwelming lead over the other anytime soon.

GSM coverage is already better than CDMA (without AMPS) now that ATTWS and
Cingular have largely completed their GSM overlays of TDMA, and the plans of
regional carriers bode ill for Verizon.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-A2FE40.03571502122004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Thu, 02 Dec
2004 09:57:15 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Verizon Wireless is so profitable it can afford to do whatever it needs
>to get and maintain being number 1.

It doesn't work that way -- spectrum licenses are a finite resource.

>Cingular is years behind Verizon in 3G deployment,

Your ignorance is showing again: Cingular with ATTWS is ahead of Verizon in
both 2.5G (widespread EDGE deployment) and 3G (UMTS deployment).

>and will be spending
>on that rather than TDMA conversion

GSM overlay is largely complete.

>or Network expansion.

Not needed, thanks to the merger.

>When and if
>the time comes Verizon can spend to convert Analog to CDMA.

Verizon has no control over the plans of regional carriers, many (most?) of
which are migrating from TDMA/AMPS to GSM.

>It is wishful thinking to think Cingular has ==> any <== advantage over
>Verrizon, except perhaps in number of BlueTooth phones they currently
>have available.

Cingular actually has several obvious advantages, including the most
subscribers, the widest coverage, the best selection of advanced phones, and
world standard technology.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-A2FE40.03571502122004@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> Care to look at the numbers?
>
> 1. Profit.
>
> 2. Capital Investment
>
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_09/b3872045.htm
>
> Verizon Wireless is so profitable it can afford to do whatever it needs
> to get and maintain being number 1. Cingular says it will be 2007 before
> its profitable for the year.
>
> Cingular is years behind Verizon in 3G deployment, and will be spending
> on that rather than TDMA conversion or Network expansion. When and if
> the time comes Verizon can spend to convert Analog to CDMA.
>
> It is wishful thinking to think Cingular has ==> any <== advantage over
> Verrizon, except perhaps in number of BlueTooth phones they currently
> have available.

Your hilarious, and I'll prove why. You are extracting VZW numbers from the
parent company. When others have done this with other companies
(specifically Sprint), you have accused them of providing fale numbers due
to the 'hiding' of the cellular operation within the parent company. How is
this any different.

I smell hypocrisy at work.

 

[Guest]

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

> I know many folks going to cingular and VERY HAPPY. I am out of
> contract right now with Verizon and not sure if I am going to stay. I
> am in the Tacoma, WA area so that probably makes a difference as well
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm in North Seattle. Been with Verizon for two years, with a contract up in
January. Prior to that was with Cingular, and a bit miffed that I had to
turn the phone off every time I drove through, or flew to Portland, or for
that matter, the entire state of Oregon. Daughter has always claimed good
service with ATT, and aside from the Oregon deal, we never complained about
Cingular. Would assume that with the combination of the two networks things
could only be better now. Cingular customer service was always first rate.
Billing issues dealt with immediately, and without question. Phone
selection is definitely better than VZ. I'm leaning toward giving them
another shot.

DS

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <AAJrd.16783$%C6.14346@trnddc02> on Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:57:36 GMT, "DFS"
<ok@nospam.com> wrote:

>> I know many folks going to cingular and VERY HAPPY. I am out of
>> contract right now with Verizon and not sure if I am going to stay. I
>> am in the Tacoma, WA area so that probably makes a difference as well
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I'm in North Seattle. Been with Verizon for two years, with a contract up in
>January. Prior to that was with Cingular, and a bit miffed that I had to
>turn the phone off every time I drove through, or flew to Portland, or for
>that matter, the entire state of Oregon. Daughter has always claimed good
>service with ATT, and aside from the Oregon deal, we never complained about
>Cingular. Would assume that with the combination of the two networks things
>could only be better now. Cingular customer service was always first rate.
>Billing issues dealt with immediately, and without question. Phone
>selection is definitely better than VZ. I'm leaning toward giving them
>another shot.

For best coverage, go with a Cingular plan and get a new Cingular phone that
supports ENS, which combines the separate Cingular and ATTWS networks into one
big virtual network. (Otherwise you'll be limited to roaming, which can be
somewhat less effective.)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Bean]

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

Jud Hardcastle <l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c185c0884b9a131989831@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net:

> Verizon is also looking at a dark cloud on the horizon. Their
> nationwide coverage is solely dependent on the ability to fall back on
> the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
> move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those
> partners are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon
> converting to GSM/AMPS.

Not necessarily. If the roaming partners that are running TDMA will get
better revenue from Verizon Roaming than Cingular roaming, I would think
they would switch to CDMA. It's all going to depend on how strong the
combo Cingular/AT&T network is in the area where previously, one of the
companies relied on the roaming partner. If the combined network removes
the necessity for the roaming parnter, even if they convert to GSM,
there is no incentive for roaming partner to convert to GSM.

While it may seem more logical to go from TDMA to GSM, somebody (who
seemed knowledgeable) in Howard Forums posted that it's actually easier
to overlay TDMA towers with CDMA that it is with GSM. So if a company,
who is/was a roaming partner with either Cingular or AT&T thinks they
are going to lose the business, why not switch to CDMA instead and pick
up Verizon, or maybe even position yourself for a buyout?

With Verizon's recent requisitions, including Mountain Wireless in
California, it seems like their strategy is to buy the small companies
where they either need coverage or spectrum. I think by buying these
smaller companies that generally excel in strong local coverage, Verizon
could actually end up with the superior network.

Cingular isn't interested in having much more than "basic" coverage in
more rural areas, at least where I live, while the local carrier has a
superior network. If Verizon were to buy them, they would score big
time.

Just my two cents...

 

[Joseph]

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

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:30:20 GMT, Bean <noway@jose.com> wrote:

>With Verizon's recent requisitions, including Mountain Wireless in
>California, it seems like their strategy is to buy the small companies
>where they either need coverage or spectrum.

Requisitions????????????? What are they ordering?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1102095020.OXLYFvykUJyQw2JgDXk0Dg@teranews>, noway@jose.com
says...
>
> > the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
> > move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those
> > partners are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon
> > converting to GSM/AMPS.
>
> Not necessarily. If the roaming partners that are running TDMA will get
> better revenue from Verizon Roaming than Cingular roaming, I would think
> they would switch to CDMA. It's all going to depend on how strong the
> combo Cingular/AT&T network is in the area where previously, one of the
> companies relied on the roaming partner. If the combined network removes
> the necessity for the roaming parnter, even if they convert to GSM,
> there is no incentive for roaming partner to convert to GSM.

True but in many/most areas Cingular and ATTWS served the SAME areas.
Cingular had the B side and ATTWS bought out carriers that had the A
side. In Texas at least I doubt if the merge resulted in 10% expansion
of coverage (just better coverage). The roaming partners are still
going to be needed.

>
> who is/was a roaming partner with either Cingular or AT&T thinks they
> are going to lose the business, why not switch to CDMA instead and pick
> up Verizon, or maybe even position yourself for a buyout?

The small carrier is going to lose either way they go. Before they had
Cingular and ATTWS customers roaming on both TDMA and AMPS and Verizon
customers roaming on AMPS. With AMPS going out of the picture, if they
go GSM they keep Cingular and gain T-Mobile roamers but loose Verizon's.
If they go CDMA they loose Cingular's but keep Verizon's. And either
way they go they're going to have to swap out their OWN customer's
phones which are now TDMA/AMPS and some pure AMPS--no choice if TDMA
phones start drying up. Sounds like a nightmare for the carriers.
Their decision will be have to be based on revenue. You imply that
there was more revenue coming from the Verizon roamers but are there
$figures to back that up--Cingular and ATTWS may have had as many or
more customers roaming.

Verizon would certainly have the most to gain. Not only would they not
loose nationwide coverage but if they could encourage the small carriers
to go CDMA--or buy them out--they could truly have nationwide digital
coverage. There is probably some major negotiations going on--that
might explain why many/most of the smaller carriers haven't started
conversion yet.

The guaranteed looser in all this is US--the customers. Go GSM and
Verizon customers loose nationwide coverage. Go CDMA and Cingular's
loose it. Allowing AMPS to be dropped before another technology is
covering the same areas--I.e. ALL small towns and most of the rural
areas--is kinda stupid when you think about it.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <urOdne7hfuBmLzLcRVn-pA@adelphia.com> on Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:28:04 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jzwick3-A2FE40.03571502122004@news1.east.earthlink.net...
>> Care to look at the numbers?
>>
>> 1. Profit.
>>
>> 2. Capital Investment
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_09/b3872045.htm
>>
>> Verizon Wireless is so profitable it can afford to do whatever it needs
>> to get and maintain being number 1. Cingular says it will be 2007 before
>> its profitable for the year.
>>
>> Cingular is years behind Verizon in 3G deployment, and will be spending
>> on that rather than TDMA conversion or Network expansion. When and if
>> the time comes Verizon can spend to convert Analog to CDMA.
>>
>> It is wishful thinking to think Cingular has ==> any <== advantage over
>> Verrizon, except perhaps in number of BlueTooth phones they currently
>> have available.
>
>Your hilarious, and I'll prove why. You are extracting VZW numbers from the
>parent company. When others have done this with other companies
>(specifically Sprint), you have accused them of providing fale numbers due
>to the 'hiding' of the cellular operation within the parent company. How is
>this any different.
>
>I smell hypocrisy at work.

I'd call it equal parts situational ethics and fantasy.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1102095020.OXLYFvykUJyQw2JgDXk0Dg@teranews> on Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:30:20
GMT, Bean <noway@jose.com> wrote:

>Jud Hardcastle <l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com> wrote in
>news:MPG.1c185c0884b9a131989831@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net:
>
>> Verizon is also looking at a dark cloud on the horizon. Their
>> nationwide coverage is solely dependent on the ability to fall back on
>> the analog AMPS coverage provided by roaming partners when customers
>> move out of a CDMA digital area. A *VERY* high number of those
>> partners are currently TDMA/AMPS and are now or will be soon
>> converting to GSM/AMPS.
>
>Not necessarily. If the roaming partners that are running TDMA will get
>better revenue from Verizon Roaming than Cingular roaming, I would think
>they would switch to CDMA.

Many have already announced plans to migrate to GSM.

>While it may seem more logical to go from TDMA to GSM, somebody (who
>seemed knowledgeable) in Howard Forums posted that it's actually easier
>to overlay TDMA towers with CDMA that it is with GSM.

Nonsense.

>With Verizon's recent requisitions, including Mountain Wireless in
>California, it seems like their strategy is to buy the small companies
>where they either need coverage or spectrum. I think by buying these
>smaller companies that generally excel in strong local coverage, Verizon
>could actually end up with the superior network.

Verizon currently has the least spectrum per subscriber of any major carrier,
which is part of why it's having to spend big bucks to buy more, but that
doesn't solve the problem in saturated areas.

>Cingular isn't interested in having much more than "basic" coverage in
>more rural areas, at least where I live, ...

I disagree.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

It is possible for a carrier to overlay GSM with CDMA and service roamers on
both technologies.

In <MPG.1c1ab2b550964ed1989836@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net> on Fri, 03 Dec 2004
23:29:06 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com>
wrote:

>The small carrier is going to lose either way they go. Before they had
>Cingular and ATTWS customers roaming on both TDMA and AMPS and Verizon
>customers roaming on AMPS. With AMPS going out of the picture, if they
>go GSM they keep Cingular and gain T-Mobile roamers but loose Verizon's.
>If they go CDMA they loose Cingular's but keep Verizon's. And either
>way they go they're going to have to swap out their OWN customer's
>phones which are now TDMA/AMPS and some pure AMPS--no choice if TDMA
>phones start drying up. Sounds like a nightmare for the carriers.
>Their decision will be have to be based on revenue. You imply that
>there was more revenue coming from the Verizon roamers but are there
>$figures to back that up--Cingular and ATTWS may have had as many or
>more customers roaming.
>
>Verizon would certainly have the most to gain. Not only would they not
>loose nationwide coverage but if they could encourage the small carriers
>to go CDMA--or buy them out--they could truly have nationwide digital
>coverage. There is probably some major negotiations going on--that
>might explain why many/most of the smaller carriers haven't started
>conversion yet.
>
>The guaranteed looser in all this is US--the customers. Go GSM and
>Verizon customers loose nationwide coverage. Go CDMA and Cingular's
>loose it. Allowing AMPS to be dropped before another technology is
>covering the same areas--I.e. ALL small towns and most of the rural
>areas--is kinda stupid when you think about it.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <w57sd.9232$_3.107596@typhoon.sonic.net>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> It is possible for a carrier to overlay GSM with CDMA and service roamers on
> both technologies.
>
Now THAT would solve the problem. Their own customers would probably
all be on one technology. I didn't know if it was possible with the
licensing structure. Wonder if any of the carriers are actually
considering that?

Come to think of it there's another solution--not quite as elegant from
the feature integrity point-of-view but probably much cheaper. If they
could make a GSM/TDMA/AMPS Gait phone can't they make a GSM/CDMA phone?

A google search didn't turn up a dual GSM/CDMA phone but it did verify a
chipset that supports both is already available. Has a GSM/CDMA phone
ever been made?

Verizon could offer a CDMA/GSM phone for customers that need to roam in
a GSM only area. Or Cingular offer a GSM/CDMA phone if CDMA became
common for roamers. Seems like that would be much simpler than doing it
at the carrier level.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

 

[Joseph]

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

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:46:44 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
<l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com> wrote:

>A google search didn't turn up a dual GSM/CDMA phone but it did verify a
>chipset that supports both is already available. Has a GSM/CDMA phone
>ever been made?
>
>Verizon could offer a CDMA/GSM phone for customers that need to roam in
>a GSM only area. Or Cingular offer a GSM/CDMA phone if CDMA became
>common for roamers. Seems like that would be much simpler than doing it
>at the carrier level.

There is a combined CDMA/GSM phone that's in the process of being
deployed in China, but it's for 900/1800 GSM networks not for GSM 1900
or GSM 850.

http://www.threegmobile.net/main/index.php?lang=ENG&option=news_detail&nid=404

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Guest]

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1M6sd.9226$_3.107571@typhoon.sonic.net...

>
> I'd call it equal parts situational ethics and fantasy.
>
> --

Mentioning ethics and Zwick? The ultimate oxymoron.

 

[Guest]

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

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<HS6sd.9229$_3.107592@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>
> In <1102095020.OXLYFvykUJyQw2JgDXk0Dg@teranews> on Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:30:20
> GMT, Bean <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>
> >While it may seem more logical to go from TDMA to GSM, somebody (who
> >seemed knowledgeable) in Howard Forums posted that it's actually easier
> >to overlay TDMA towers with CDMA that it is with GSM.
>
> Nonsense.

It is indeed easier (cheaper) to overlay an existing TDMA network with
CDMA rather than GSM. This is because TDMA and CDMA share the same
core network topology (ANSI-41) whereas GSM uses an entirely
differrent core network topology (MAP) and therefore requires
expensive upgrades to the backbone infrastructure.

Navas' one-liners (that fail to give any explanation for his
opinionated statements) are of no help as usual.

 

[Guest]

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

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<wPGrd.8969$_3.105996@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>
> In <jzwick3-A2FE40.03571502122004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:57:15 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Verizon Wireless is so profitable it can afford to do whatever it needs
> >to get and maintain being number 1.
>
> It doesn't work that way -- spectrum licenses are a finite resource.

Everything (including finite resources) has a price. VZW has clearly
demonstrated that licenses are available for the right price
(Northcoast, NextWave, etc.)

> >Cingular is years behind Verizon in 3G deployment,
>
> Your ignorance is showing again: Cingular with ATTWS is ahead of Verizon in
> both 2.5G (widespread EDGE deployment) and 3G (UMTS deployment).

How do figure that? VZW has sixteen 3G markets live (total POPS 69.3
M) and Cingular has six 3G markets live (total POPS 22.2 M). How does
that put Cingular ahead?

> >When and if
> >the time comes Verizon can spend to convert Analog to CDMA.
>
> Verizon has no control over the plans of regional carriers, many (most?) of
> which are migrating from TDMA/AMPS to GSM.

I'd like to see some research and data that shows the numbers of
carriers migrating to CDMA and those migrating to GSM. I think you're
just blowing smoke and have no idea what the real numbes are. You're
way off.

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <MPG.1c1ac4e9e20f4c61989839@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net> on Sat, 04 Dec 2004
00:46:44 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com>
wrote:

>In article <w57sd.9232$_3.107596@typhoon.sonic.net>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...

>> It is possible for a carrier to overlay GSM with CDMA and service roamers on
>> both technologies.
>>
>Now THAT would solve the problem. Their own customers would probably
>all be on one technology. I didn't know if it was possible with the
>licensing structure.

Licensing only covers frequency, not technology.

>Wonder if any of the carriers are actually
>considering that?

Qualcomm completed a trial on Vodaphone, and is reportedly still working on
it. See: <http://wirelessreview.com/ar/telecom_qualcomm_targets_gsm/>

>Come to think of it there's another solution--not quite as elegant from
>the feature integrity point-of-view but probably much cheaper. If they
>could make a GSM/TDMA/AMPS Gait phone can't they make a GSM/CDMA phone?
>
>A google search didn't turn up a dual GSM/CDMA phone but it did verify a
>chipset that supports both is already available. Has a GSM/CDMA phone
>ever been made?
>
>Verizon could offer a CDMA/GSM phone for customers that need to roam in
>a GSM only area. Or Cingular offer a GSM/CDMA phone if CDMA became
>common for roamers. Seems like that would be much simpler than doing it
>at the carrier level.

Samsung and Verizon Wireless Deliver Market Innovation with the SCH-a790
Global Phone, the First Phone for Globe Trotters
<http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/09/pr2004-09-01.html>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <J_KdnbWvSIfYfCzcRVn-gw@adelphia.com> on Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:09:49 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:1M6sd.9226$_3.107571@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> I'd call it equal parts situational ethics and fantasy.
>
>Mentioning ethics and Zwick? The ultimate oxymoron.

Point taken.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>