> I don't think Cing^H^H^H^H at&t is actively informing customers about
> any hard date yet, but the FCC "must carry AMPS" rule sunsets in Feb
> 2008, and continuing to carry AMPS beyond that sunset date doesn't make
> business sense.
There is currently a petition before the FCC to extend the AMPS sunset
date to 2010 because of concerns of all the automated equipment that
uses AMPS, such as security systems, as well as roadside call boxes.
Verizon and Cingular are opposed to an extension of course, and they
have more political clout than the companies and individuals that will
benefit from continued AMPS service. These companies and governments
have had plenty of time to switch their equipment out, so it's really a
stretch to think that the FCC will grant another extension.
In any case TDMA is history in early 2008, whether or not the carriers
keep AMPS on, either voluntarily or by law.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
SMS wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> I don't think Cing^H^H^H^H at&t is actively informing customers about
>> any hard date yet, but the FCC "must carry AMPS" rule sunsets in Feb
>> 2008, and continuing to carry AMPS beyond that sunset date doesn't
>> make business sense.
>
> There is currently a petition before the FCC to extend the AMPS sunset
> date to 2010 because of concerns of all the automated equipment that
> uses AMPS, such as security systems, as well as roadside call boxes.
> Verizon and Cingular are opposed to an extension of course, and they
> have more political clout than the companies and individuals that will
> benefit from continued AMPS service. These companies and governments
> have had plenty of time to switch their equipment out, so it's really a
> stretch to think that the FCC will grant another extension.
>
> In any case TDMA is history in early 2008, whether or not the carriers
> keep AMPS on, either voluntarily or by law.
>
I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
to the procrastinators? Doing so will keep them as a client, thereby
preserving the contract relationships, and still convert the AMPS
spectrum to service those same contracts. Considering all the business
costs of keeping AMPS, my Cing^H^H^H^H at&t buds tell me their company
is salivating at the idea of turning it off, finger already poised above
the off switch and watching the second hand on the clock.
> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
> to the procrastinators?
It's not that simple. It's not a question of the cost, it's that in many
cases there is just not equivalent digital equipment available for the
specialized applications. They had sufficient notice to design such
equipment, but now they're claiming that the equipment either won't be
ready, or that they can't replace all the AMPS stuff in time.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45fe286a$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jer wrote:
>
>> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
>> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment
>> to the procrastinators?
>
> It's not that simple. It's not a question of the cost, it's that in many
> cases there is just not equivalent digital equipment available for the
> specialized applications. They had sufficient notice to design such
> equipment, but now they're claiming that the equipment either won't be
> ready, or that they can't replace all the AMPS stuff in time.
Digital requires more towers than AMPS. The mere fact that one switches
over to digital does not guarantee the same level of reliable coverage,
especially in outlying areas. For OnStar, AMPS was a better choice, and
their ability to provide service will be diminished in many areas.
> Digital requires more towers than AMPS. The mere fact that one switches
> over to digital does not guarantee the same level of reliable coverage,
> especially in outlying areas. For OnStar, AMPS was a better choice, and
> their ability to provide service will be diminished in many areas.
Yes, an AMPS shutdown greatly reduces the appeal of On-Star. However the
entities complaining about the AMPS shutdown are security companies,
trucking companies, etc.
If the new On-Star system is CDMA/AMPS then the coverage will still be
excellent. I think the issue with the existing users of AMPS-only
On-Star is that their systems will not work in urban areas once AMPS is
turned off, but could, if GM wanted to allow it, work in the areas where
AMPS is not turned off if the new system is CDMA/AMPS.
SMS wrote:
> jeremy wrote:
>
>> Digital requires more towers than AMPS. The mere fact that one
>> switches over to digital does not guarantee the same level of reliable
>> coverage, especially in outlying areas. For OnStar, AMPS was a better
>> choice, and their ability to provide service will be diminished in
>> many areas.
>
> Yes, an AMPS shutdown greatly reduces the appeal of On-Star. However the
> entities complaining about the AMPS shutdown are security companies,
> trucking companies, etc.
>
> If the new On-Star system is CDMA/AMPS then the coverage will still be
> excellent. I think the issue with the existing users of AMPS-only
> On-Star is that their systems will not work in urban areas once AMPS is
> turned off, but could, if GM wanted to allow it, work in the areas where
> AMPS is not turned off if the new system is CDMA/AMPS.
Seems like the choice of AMPS only of AMPS/CDMA would be a decision for
the carrier rather than GM. But I could be wrong.
In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
have usable analog.
>
> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment to
> the procrastinators?
On 2007-03-22, Bill Radio <wireless@mountainwirelessNOOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> I don't have a clue where the numbers shake out, but could it become a
>> sound business decision for carriers to simply donate digital equipment to
>> the procrastinators?
>
> In ADT's request to the FCC their problem is with coverage and not
> equipment. They can develop GSM units for their systems, but have found GSM
> coverage is either not good enough or not available in areas where they now
> have usable analog.
>
It is true they had GSM equipment, and found GSM coverage didn't match analog,
but they also said there was no available CDMA hardware that they could use
so they couldn't get service in places where the AMPS operator was CDMA.
And they only wanted to use 850 MHz operators too, which probably limited
them further.
It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.
Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog. This included
AT&T Wireless which, I'm pretty sure, has analog(/TDMA?) towers in the vicinity
of 94020 with no GSM coverage showing on their coverage map or detectable
on a phone, so I think they told a bit of a fib. Verizon reported that
in their in-person meeting with FCC people they were asked about higher
power phones for rural areas (they didn't report how they answered), which
maybe suggests people at the FCC might not think 200 mW CDMA is quite up
to the coverage of full-power AMPS, despite the company's protestations
otherwise.
> It's a bit strange, however, that after a group of rural carriers presented
> cost and revenue numbers for AMPS (costs a lot, apparently, and hardly any
> users), ADT modified the request to allow rural operators to drop AMPS in
> 2008 and only force operators in more urban locations to keep it.
Pretty strange. Most of the time I'm using AMPS it's in rural areas,
though I've also used Cingular AMPS in Florida and Verizon AMPS in the
Bay Area.
> Even better, a lot of the operators that provided comments asserted that
> their digital coverage was exactly the same as their analog.
Their definition of identical coverage is that every analog tower also
has digital equipment. This does not make the coverage identical.
TDMA Shutdown
Linear Mode
