90% of what? (coverage)

[david clayton]

Can some knowledgeable person please clarify (I've gotten contradictory
impressions from local salespeople and this newsgroup):

When cingular says that "90% of their coverage will be GSM by year's end" --
does that mean that 90% of the Nationwide map (i.e., most of the US)? Or
90% of the Preferred Nation map (i.e., the spidery web that follows
interstates)? Or something else yet again?

dc

[Jared Robinson]

More than likely 90% of their licensed areas. That's GSM not GPRS.

david clayton > wrote in article
>:
> Can some knowledgeable person please clarify (I've gotten contradictory
> impressions from local salespeople and this newsgroup):
>
> When cingular says that "90% of their coverage will be GSM by year's end" --
> does that mean that 90% of the Nationwide map (i.e., most of the US)? Or
> 90% of the Preferred Nation map (i.e., the spidery web that follows
> interstates)? Or something else yet again?
>
> dc
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[XFF]

david clayton > wrote in message >...
> Can some knowledgeable person please clarify (I've gotten contradictory
> impressions from local salespeople and this newsgroup):
>
> When cingular says that "90% of their coverage will be GSM by year's end" --
> does that mean that 90% of the Nationwide map (i.e., most of the US)? Or
> 90% of the Preferred Nation map (i.e., the spidery web that follows
> interstates)? Or something else yet again?

Probably 90% of POPS in native Cingular markets.

[John Navas]

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

In > on Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:22:14 -0500,
david clayton > wrote:

>Can some knowledgeable person please clarify (I've gotten contradictory
>impressions from local salespeople and this newsgroup):
>
>When cingular says that "90% of their coverage will be GSM by year's end" --
>does that mean that 90% of the Nationwide map (i.e., most of the US)? Or
>90% of the Preferred Nation map (i.e., the spidery web that follows
>interstates)? Or something else yet again?

What it actually means, other responses notwithstanding, is 90% of Cingular
*subscribers*.

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

[david clayton]

>> Can some knowledgeable person please clarify (I've gotten contradictory
>> impressions from local salespeople and this newsgroup):
>>
>> When cingular says that "90% of their coverage will be GSM by year's end" --
>> does that mean that 90% of the Nationwide map (i.e., most of the US)? Or
>> 90% of the Preferred Nation map (i.e., the spidery web that follows
>> interstates)? Or something else yet again?
>
> What it actually means, other responses notwithstanding, is 90% of Cingular
> *subscribers*.


A ha. That is "something else yet again" isn't it?

90% of subscribers is probably accounted for by the major metropolitan
areas alone. So, if I'm concerned about whether I can rely on GSM-only (as
opposed to TDMA or GAIT) for travel, that 90% number doesn't mean much does
it -- if my travel involves lots of time on interstates between cities, much
less off interstates?

JN- Thank you for the clarification.

-DC

[John Navas]

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

In > on Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:01:47 -0500,
david clayton > wrote:

>>> Can some knowledgeable person please clarify (I've gotten contradictory
>>> impressions from local salespeople and this newsgroup):
>>>
>>> When cingular says that "90% of their coverage will be GSM by year's end" --
>>> does that mean that 90% of the Nationwide map (i.e., most of the US)? Or
>>> 90% of the Preferred Nation map (i.e., the spidery web that follows
>>> interstates)? Or something else yet again?
>>
>> What it actually means, other responses notwithstanding, is 90% of Cingular
>> *subscribers*.
>
>A ha. That is "something else yet again" isn't it?
>
> 90% of subscribers is probably accounted for by the major metropolitan
>areas alone. So, if I'm concerned about whether I can rely on GSM-only (as
>opposed to TDMA or GAIT) for travel, that 90% number doesn't mean much does
>it -- if my travel involves lots of time on interstates between cities, much
>less off interstates?

I expect the interstates and other major highways to be pretty well covered.
It's beyond that where you're likely to find coverage gaps.

>JN- Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome. :-)

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

[Brevdude]

I believe they mean 90% of the nation map. I just switched to GSM and love
it.. Check it out

[John Navas]

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

In > on 25 Jun 2003 08:49:39 GMT,
(Brevdude) wrote:

>I believe they mean 90% of the nation map. ...

It's 90% of subscribers -- see
<http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>.

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

[Robert Saville]

Or perhaps it means 90% of the population will be covered. I tried GSM, it
failed the number one purpose of a cell phone - the ability to make and
recieve calls. Without that, nothing else matters.

You get contradictory information from local sales people, because that's
what they get. Long term planning is next week with Cingular (and most other
cellular companies)

Bob

"david clayton" > wrote in message
...
> Can some knowledgeable person please clarify (I've gotten contradictory
> impressions from local salespeople and this newsgroup):
>
> When cingular says that "90% of their coverage will be GSM by year's
end" --
> does that mean that 90% of the Nationwide map (i.e., most of the US)? Or
> 90% of the Preferred Nation map (i.e., the spidery web that follows
> interstates)? Or something else yet again?
>
> dc
>
>

[John Navas]

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

In > on Thu, 26 Jun 2003
04:33:51 GMT, "Robert Saville" > wrote:

>... Long term planning is next week with Cingular (and most other
>cellular companies)

They actually have multi-year plans -- read the SEC filings.

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

[John S.]

> I tried GSM, it
>failed the number one purpose of a cell phone - the ability to make and
>recieve calls. Without that, nothing else matters.

YEAH!!!! Someone else finally states exactly my feelings on the subject!!!

Thank you!

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

[John Navas]

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

In > on 26 Jun 2003 12:50:25 GMT,
(John S.) wrote:

>> I tried GSM, it
>>failed the number one purpose of a cell phone - the ability to make and
>>recieve calls. Without that, nothing else matters.
>
>YEAH!!!! Someone else finally states exactly my feelings on the subject!!!

Don't hold back, John (aka sexyexotiche), tell us how you really feel! ;-)

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

[Jared Robinson]

I believe the article says 90% of the covered population for their
licensed areas by EOY 2003 for GPRS.

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on 25 Jun 2003 08:49:39 GMT,
> (Brevdude) wrote:
>
> >I believe they mean 90% of the nation map. ...
>
> It's 90% of subscribers -- see
> <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:21:25 -0000,
(Jared Robinson) wrote:

>John Navas > wrote in article
>:
>>
>> In > on 25 Jun 2003 08:49:39 GMT,
>> (Brevdude) wrote:
>>
>> >I believe they mean 90% of the nation map. ...
>>
>> It's 90% of subscribers -- see
>> <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>.

>I believe the article says 90% of the covered population for their
>licensed areas by EOY 2003 for GPRS.
>
GPRS has the same footprint as GSM, since all GSM service areas will have
GPRS. That's why it says "GSM/GPRS".

p.s. Please place follow-up material below (not above) quoted material, as
explained in Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
<http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by the
news.newusers.questions Moderation Board), unless a thread is already using
top posting. (Mixing posting styles in a given thread is confusing.)

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:24:35 -0000,
(N W) wrote:

>It is 90% of their network.

It is actually 90% of their subscribers.

>By network i only mean THEIR network. most
>of the calling maps are comprised of roaming agreements. you will see a
>real difference but it will get bigger as time goes by!

Roaming doesn't come into play with regard to subscriber coverage.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:28:43 -0000,
(N W) wrote:

>John Navas > wrote in article
>:
>>
>> In > on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:24:35 -0000,
>> (N W) wrote:
>>
>> >It is 90% of their network.
>>
>> It is actually 90% of their subscribers.

>No this is coming from a corporate memo a friend showed me. 90% of
>CINGULAR'S network....which i hate to tell you isn't that much.

See <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>. The same data is
in SEC filings, so that "corporate memo" would appear to be incorrect.

p.s. Please place follow-up material below (not above) quoted material, as
explained in Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
<http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by the
news.newusers.questions Moderation Board), unless a thread is already using
top posting. (Mixing posting styles in a given thread is confusing.)

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

[N W]

Ok does it really even matter, depending on your plan you can roam on
ATT and TMO for free. coverage really isn't going to be an issue, and if
you feel it will be get a damn GAIT phone already....i give up!

--
Thanx,

N W


John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:28:43 -0000,
> (N W) wrote:
>
> >John Navas > wrote in article
> >:
> >>
> >> In > on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:24:35 -0000,
> >> (N W) wrote:
> >>
> >> >It is 90% of their network.
> >>
> >> It is actually 90% of their subscribers.
>
> >No this is coming from a corporate memo a friend showed me. 90% of
> >CINGULAR'S network....which i hate to tell you isn't that much.
>
> See <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>. The same data is
> in SEC filings, so that "corporate memo" would appear to be incorrect.
>
> p.s. Please place follow-up material below (not above) quoted material, as
> explained in Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
> <http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by the
> news.newusers.questions Moderation Board), unless a thread is already using
> top posting. (Mixing posting styles in a given thread is confusing.)
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:12:44 -0000,
(N W) wrote:

>All i'm doing is hitting post a response on phonescoop.com....not trying
>to be rude

Fair enough -- then please don't use phonescoop.com -- use a real Usenet
service. It's probably something I should have prohibited in the charter.
<sigh>

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

[John S.]

>Don't hold back, John (aka sexyexotiche), tell us how you really feel! ;-)

:-)

I thought that I pretty well summed it up!


--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

[John S.]

>Good, because since you persist in rude top-posting to a bottom-posting
>thread, I'm not going to bother with a further substantive reply.
>

Actually, if someone can't trim a message to just what they are replying to top
posting is preferable. If the response is interesting then and only then would
I want to scroll through the days and days of postings to get to whatever it
was that the person responded to.

If however someone (such as you and I typically do) can trim the message to
just the part being replied to - bottom posting is ok.

As for rules and the old saw that it is the Usenet standard, I think that all
went out the window as the internet has grown. I would have liked to have said
matured instead of grown but that certainly isn't the case!

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

[Jared Robinson]

The link John Navros is referring to states that "90% of the population
will be covered" by EOY 2003. The corporate memo is correct. Unless John
is saying Cingular will cover 90% of the U.S. population? Have you even
looked at an SEC 10K/Q? Below is an excerpt from the latest 10Q.

The GSM network upgrade is expected to be substantially complete by the
end of 2003 when approximately 90% of the Company’s population (POPs)
will be covered by GSM.

The keyword John is "Company's". Referring to their licensed areas. Also
just because GSM is in an area doesn't mean you have GPRS capabilities.

> >No this is coming from a corporate memo a friend showed me. 90% of
> >CINGULAR'S network....which i hate to tell you isn't that much.
>
> See <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>. The same data is
> in SEC filings, so that "corporate memo" would appear to be incorrect.
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on 27 Jun 2003 12:54:30 GMT,
(John S.) wrote:

>As for rules and the old saw that it is the Usenet standard, I think that all
>went out the window as the internet has grown. ...

Think what you want -- it's still the recommended Usenet practice.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:22:32 -0000,
(Jared Robinson) wrote:

>> >No this is coming from a corporate memo a friend showed me. 90% of
>> >CINGULAR'S network....which i hate to tell you isn't that much.
>>
>> See <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>. The same data is
>> in SEC filings, so that "corporate memo" would appear to be incorrect.

>The link John Navros is referring to states that "90% of the population
>will be covered" by EOY 2003. The corporate memo is correct. Unless John
>is saying Cingular will cover 90% of the U.S. population?

No.

>Have you even
>looked at an SEC 10K/Q?

Yes.

>Below is an excerpt from the latest 10Q.
>
>The GSM network upgrade is expected to be substantially complete by the
>end of 2003 when approximately 90% of the Company’s population (POPs)
>will be covered by GSM.
>
>The keyword John is "Company's". Referring to their licensed areas.

The key word is "population" (subscribers), all of whom by definition will be
in areas served by Cingular.

The difference comes from density. If Cingular had (say) 10 POPs, 5 of which
cover an urban area, and 5 of which cover sparsely populated rural areas
(e.g., Interstate highways), then it might be able to meet it's 90% target by
overlaying GSM on just the 5 urban POPs, if only 10% of subscribers were
spread out among the other 5 POPs. That would be 90% population coverage, but
far less geographic coverage, particularly since rural POPs tend to cover
larger geographic areas than urban POPs.

>Also
>just because GSM is in an area doesn't mean you have GPRS capabilities.

Actually it will.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on 27 Jun 2003 12:45:55 GMT,
(John S.) wrote:

>>Don't hold back, John (aka sexyexotiche), tell us how you really feel! ;-)
>
>:-)
>
>I thought that I pretty well summed it up!

Darn.

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

[Jared Robinson]

Well your statements still don't make sense. Your saying Cingular's
definition of population equals subscribers so they are going to cover
90% of the U.S. population by the end of 2003. Wow! Also if you would
read through FCC 101 information you would learn that it has nothing to
do with density. BellSouth/Cingular has PCS licenses by BTA, MTA and to
keep those licenses they need to cover a certain percentage of the
population. There is a chance you have a brain but I think you lack the
correct definitions of words.

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:22:32 -0000,
> (Jared Robinson) wrote:
>
> >> >No this is coming from a corporate memo a friend showed me. 90% of
> >> >CINGULAR'S network....which i hate to tell you isn't that much.
> >>
> >> See <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>. The same data is
> >> in SEC filings, so that "corporate memo" would appear to be incorrect.
>
> >The link John Navros is referring to states that "90% of the population
> >will be covered" by EOY 2003. The corporate memo is correct. Unless John
> >is saying Cingular will cover 90% of the U.S. population?
>
> No.
>
> >Have you even
> >looked at an SEC 10K/Q?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Below is an excerpt from the latest 10Q.
> >
> >The GSM network upgrade is expected to be substantially complete by the
> >end of 2003 when approximately 90% of the Company’s population (POPs)
> >will be covered by GSM.
> >
> >The keyword John is "Company's". Referring to their licensed areas.
>
> The key word is "population" (subscribers), all of whom by definition will be
> in areas served by Cingular.
>
> The difference comes from density. If Cingular had (say) 10 POPs, 5 of which
> cover an urban area, and 5 of which cover sparsely populated rural areas
> (e.g., Interstate highways), then it might be able to meet it's 90% target by
> overlaying GSM on just the 5 urban POPs, if only 10% of subscribers were
> spread out among the other 5 POPs. That would be 90% population coverage, but
> far less geographic coverage, particularly since rural POPs tend to cover
> larger geographic areas than urban POPs.
>
> >Also
> >just because GSM is in an area doesn't mean you have GPRS capabilities.
>
> Actually it will.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:44:19 -0000,
(Jared Robinson) wrote:

>Well your statements still don't make sense.

Perhaps the problem is on your end of the connection. ;-)

>Your saying Cingular's
>definition of population equals subscribers so they are going to cover
>90% of the U.S. population by the end of 2003. Wow!

Wow! The problem *is* on your end of the connection. ;-)
No, they are going to cover 90% of their subscribers; i.e., only 10% of their
subscribers will be in areas without GSM service, and thus forced to use TDMA.

>[SNIP insults]

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

[Mark W. Oots]

Since 100% of Cingulars network covers about 40% of the land mass of the
contiguous 48 states.....What the......????? Most of North America will
not have any GSM for a long time. Cingular's Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky systems are already GSM-over-TDMA and only about
35% of the great Lakes area is covered at all. ATT, TMO et al are using far
more Cingular towers than the other way around. Here in Illinois those areas
not in Cingular Land that have GSM on TMO and ATT are; a small area around
the Quad Cities, Peoria to Galesburg along I-74, along I-90 through
Rockford up into S Beloit and a small stretch of I-74 east of Champaign. I
have property about 2 hours west of Chicago in Lee County and the only
carries there are Verizon (B band) and US Cellular (A band) both CDMA and
neither of which will ever be GSM. If you fly from place to place, GSM will
be fine. If you drive across several states, especially west of the
Mississippi, go with GAIT. At no time will 90% of the US be
GSM....ever.....only about that much has wireless coverage of ANY kind.
Consider this. The biggest players are; Verizon, Cingular, ATTWS, Sprint and
T-Mobile. Nearly all of them are present (at least 3 and usually 4 of the 5)
in all big markets (here we have all 5 & US Cellular, too). Most of the land
mass is covered by small operators like RCC ( Rural Cellular Corp) or
Mid-sized ones like US Cellular. Places that have as few people as western
North Dakota will need big financial help to build much of anything.

Mark

[John S.]

>>As for rules and the old saw that it is the Usenet standard, I think that
>all
>>went out the window as the internet has grown. ...
>
>Think what you want -- it's still the recommended Usenet practice.

It's kinda like driving down the highway, as you approach a curve. You've seen
the Yellow signs that say "Curve 45" on a 70 mph highway? All that means is
that it is recommended for all those who can't continue on at 70 comfortable.
It is not a law, like the white with black letters that says 70 mph.

Merely a recommendation.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

[John Navas]

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

In > on 28 Jun 2003 01:38:18 GMT,
(John S.) wrote:

>>>As for rules and the old saw that it is the Usenet standard, I think that all
>>>went out the window as the internet has grown. ...
>>
>>Think what you want -- it's still the recommended Usenet practice.
>
>It's kinda like driving down the highway, as you approach a curve. You've seen
>the Yellow signs that say "Curve 45" on a 70 mph highway? All that means is
>that it is recommended for all those who can't continue on at 70 comfortable.
>It is not a law, like the white with black letters that says 70 mph.
>
>Merely a recommendation.

True. If you still want to be a jerk, you're free to do so. ;-)

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

[N W]

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:22:32 -0000,
> (Jared Robinson) wrote:
>
> >> >No this is coming from a corporate memo a friend showed me. 90% of
> >> >CINGULAR'S network....which i hate to tell you isn't that much.
> >>
> >> See <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8054_print.shtml>. The same data is
> >> in SEC filings, so that "corporate memo" would appear to be incorrect.
>
> >The link John Navros is referring to states that "90% of the population
> >will be covered" by EOY 2003. The corporate memo is correct. Unless John
> >is saying Cingular will cover 90% of the U.S. population?
>
> No.
>
> >Have you even
> >looked at an SEC 10K/Q?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Below is an excerpt from the latest 10Q.
> >
> >The GSM network upgrade is expected to be substantially complete by the
> >end of 2003 when approximately 90% of the Company’s population (POPs)
> >will be covered by GSM.
> >
> >The keyword John is "Company's". Referring to their licensed areas.
>
> The key word is "population" (subscribers), all of whom by definition will be
> in areas served by Cingular.
>
> The difference comes from density. If Cingular had (say) 10 POPs, 5 of which
> cover an urban area, and 5 of which cover sparsely populated rural areas
> (e.g., Interstate highways), then it might be able to meet it's 90% target by
> overlaying GSM on just the 5 urban POPs, if only 10% of subscribers were
> spread out among the other 5 POPs. That would be 90% population coverage, but
> far less geographic coverage, particularly since rural POPs tend to cover
> larger geographic areas than urban POPs.
>
> >Also
> >just because GSM is in an area doesn't mean you have GPRS capabilities.
>
> Actually it will.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>


Actuall it won't...sorry...i can tell from past experience...i used to
work for T-Mo and they didn't bother putting GPRS on every tower. Only
like on every other one...the GPRS coverage is broader for some reason
but it still has dead spots... when you were away from the City you
still had GSM signal but the GPRS waived goodbye. Granted, Cingular may
be different but it all depends on how much specturm they have to
use...T-Mo didn't do it on every tower because it would cost too much.

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[jer]

N W wrote:

> Actuall it won't...sorry...i can tell from past experience...i used to
> work for T-Mo and they didn't bother putting GPRS on every tower. Only
> like on every other one...the GPRS coverage is broader for some reason
> but it still has dead spots... when you were away from the City you
> still had GSM signal but the GPRS waived goodbye. Granted, Cingular may
> be different but it all depends on how much specturm they have to
> use...T-Mo didn't do it on every tower because it would cost too much.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]


Cingular intends to implement GPRS service from every GSM-capable cell
site.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

[John S.]

>True. If you still want to be a jerk, you're free to do so. ;-)
>

:-)

Am I posting on the bottom?

Not that I agree with that in all instances. Keep in mind that I try to trim
the message to that which I am replying to.

But there are a lot of jerks here too! :-)

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

[N W]

jer > wrote in article >:
> N W wrote:
>
> > Actuall it won't...sorry...i can tell from past experience...i used to
> > work for T-Mo and they didn't bother putting GPRS on every tower. Only
> > like on every other one...the GPRS coverage is broader for some reason
> > but it still has dead spots... when you were away from the City you
> > still had GSM signal but the GPRS waived goodbye. Granted, Cingular may
> > be different but it all depends on how much specturm they have to
> > use...T-Mo didn't do it on every tower because it would cost too much.
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
>
>
> Cingular intends to implement GPRS service from every GSM-capable cell
> site.
>
> --
> jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
> "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
> what we know." -- Richard Wilbur



I would not want to be Cingular's CFO during this. That's going to cost
a fortune!
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:51:10 -0000,
(N W) wrote:

>jer > wrote in article >:
>> N W wrote:

>> Cingular intends to implement GPRS service from every GSM-capable cell
>> site.

>I would not want to be Cingular's CFO during this. That's going to cost
>a fortune!

Not really. The GSM overlay is the expensive part -- GPRS costs relatively
little more when new GSM is installed, and Cingular has already upgraded most
of its old GSM to GPRS. Furthermore, as I wrote earlier in this thread, GPRS
is considerably more efficient than CSD, and more lucrative for Cingular, so
it's a no-brainer.

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

[jer]

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:48:07 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !\))61k-XdmlIp6/20gYTE"rl (Encoded at Airnews!)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Disposition-Notification-To: jer >
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:51:10 -0000,
> (N W) wrote:
>
>
>>jer > wrote in article >:
>>
>>>N W wrote:
>>
>
>>>Cingular intends to implement GPRS service from every GSM-capable cell
>>>site.
>>
>
>>I would not want to be Cingular's CFO during this. That's going to cost
>>a fortune!
>
>
> Not really. The GSM overlay is the expensive part -- GPRS costs relatively
> little more when new GSM is installed, and Cingular has already upgraded most
> of its old GSM to GPRS. Furthermore, as I wrote earlier in this thread, GPRS
> is considerably more efficient than CSD, and more lucrative for Cingular, so
> it's a no-brainer.
>

Dad gum, dat Navas fellers spot on agin. :)


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur