Re: Samsung to develop dualmode CDMA-GSM handset

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<JukNa.8279$%3.362771@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <vgbj4h18dn9nda@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:50:57 -0000,
> Rdweber@remove.usa.net (R W) wrote:
>
> >It seems like this this is more likely targeted to allow the european
> >and african GSM markets to blend more efficiently with the Asian and
> >Australian CDMA systems. I doubt that it'll affect the US market much
> >at all.
>
> In the USA, even without dualmode roaming, it could facilitate the ease of
> switching carriers, which could complement number portability; e.g., you'd be
> able to switch between (say) SprintPCS and Cingular with the same handset.

It's just cheaper to buy that carriers own handset than get one that
would handle both technologies unless something really major changes.

It's not handset technology which keeps consumers stuck with one
carrier, it's each carrier developing a proprietary roaming database or
locking. It requires significant hurdles just to use a Sprint phone on
Verizon and it's a technological match.

Cingular can't even integrate GSM usage on it's own network with TDMA
without leaving out analog customers. Cingular might actually get some
much needed extended coverage/capacity through roaming on a Sprint or
Verizon CDMA, in California for instance, but I just don't see it
happening.

I see no incentive for a cellular provider to offer a handset that makes
it even easier to switch carriers or help with LNP churn.

-----
David

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

"R W" <Rdweber@remove.usa.net> wrote in message
news:vgbj4h18dn9nda@corp.supernews.com...
> It seems like this this is more likely targeted to allow the european
> and african GSM markets to blend more efficiently with the Asian and
> Australian CDMA systems. I doubt that it'll affect the US market much
> at all.

That was my first thought as well. After all, Korea is CDMA but
a lot of Asia and Africa are GSM. AMPS is not a concern for
those countries (except perhaps for Australia). Without AMPS
such a handset will not be of interest to any of the U.S. carriers.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:02:57 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:


> "R W" <Rdweber@remove.usa.net> wrote in message
> news:vgbj4h18dn9nda@corp.supernews.com...
>> It seems like this this is more likely targeted to allow the european
>> and african GSM markets to blend more efficiently with the Asian and
>> Australian CDMA systems. I doubt that it'll affect the US market much
>> at all.
>
> That was my first thought as well. After all, Korea is CDMA but a lot of
> Asia and Africa are GSM. AMPS is not a concern for those countries
> (except perhaps for Australia). Without AMPS such a handset will not be
> of interest to any of the U.S. carriers.

Australia isn't using AMPS any more. There are 3 companies in Australia
providing GSM servcies (Telstra, Optus and Vodafone) and 2 companies
providing CDMA services (Telstra and Orange). From what I've heard most of
the GSM providers provide excellent coverage in cities while Telstra's
CDMA system provide good coverage in the countryside.

Even New Zealand, where I am from, is migrating away from AMPS. Vodafone
has been operating a GSM network here in New Zealand since 1993 and they
have like 97% of the areas where people live and work covered. Telecom NZ
has been heavily promoting their new CDMA network (which they set up in
2000) and that also has good coverage from what I've heard.

So AMPs is really just a US thing. At this rate, they're going to be the
last country in the world to migrate away from AMPS.

- James

Don't forget that the US is a pretty large country too.... I believe it
is the 3rd largest if I'm not mistaken. Also, it is a mix of
technologies and the gov't makes it really hard for carriers to improve
on coverage with so many taxes and mandates and etc.

Don't bash the US still using AMPs, if it weren't for AMPs we'd all be
left in the dark when we hit the boonies (for those of us who travel in
rural areas) ...

--
Michael Y.


James Pole <jamesNO@SPAM.pole.net.nz> wrote in article
<pan.2003.07.05.00.29.07.77613@SPAM.pole.net.nz> :
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:02:57 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>
> > "R W" <Rdweber@remove.usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:vgbj4h18dn9nda@corp.supernews.com...
> >> It seems like this this is more likely targeted to allow the european
> >> and african GSM markets to blend more efficiently with the Asian and
> >> Australian CDMA systems. I doubt that it'll affect the US market much
> >> at all.
> >
> > That was my first thought as well. After all, Korea is CDMA but a lot of
> > Asia and Africa are GSM. AMPS is not a concern for those countries
> > (except perhaps for Australia). Without AMPS such a handset will not be
> > of interest to any of the U.S. carriers.
>
> Australia isn't using AMPS any more. There are 3 companies in Australia
> providing GSM servcies (Telstra, Optus and Vodafone) and 2 companies
> providing CDMA services (Telstra and Orange). From what I've heard most of
> the GSM providers provide excellent coverage in cities while Telstra's
> CDMA system provide good coverage in the countryside.
>
> Even New Zealand, where I am from, is migrating away from AMPS. Vodafone
> has been operating a GSM network here in New Zealand since 1993 and they
> have like 97% of the areas where people live and work covered. Telecom NZ
> has been heavily promoting their new CDMA network (which they set up in
> 2000) and that also has good coverage from what I've heard.
>
> So AMPs is really just a US thing. At this rate, they're going to be the
> last country in the world to migrate away from AMPS.
>
> - James

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:JukNa.8279$%3.362771@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <vgbj4h18dn9nda@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:50:57 -0000,
> Rdweber@remove.usa.net (R W) wrote:
>
> >It seems like this this is more likely targeted to allow the european
> >and african GSM markets to blend more efficiently with the Asian and
> >Australian CDMA systems. I doubt that it'll affect the US market much
> >at all.
>
> In the USA, even without dualmode roaming, it could facilitate the ease of
> switching carriers, which could complement number portability; e.g., you'd
be
> able to switch between (say) SprintPCS and Cingular with the same handset.
>

That's an absurd scenario, and will never happen.


--
Mike

"Michael Yermian" <myermian00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vgcp2ef3ltco40@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

> Don't bash the US still using AMPs, if it weren't for AMPs we'd all be
> left in the dark when we hit the boonies (for those of us who travel in
> rural areas) ...

In Alaska you can still buy 3W AMPS only bag phones. Nothing
else works outside of the major cities. In a state that size no carrier
is going to run around putting in tens of thousands of more cells to
provide digital coverage to a small number of people. AMPS coverage
outside the cities is pretty good.

The outskirts of urban areas are also often AMPS only, at least where
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I can drive 15 minutes from my
house and be in the Santa Cruz mountains (well I guess that really
is rural), and have AMPS only.

The National Parks Service doesn't allow cell site in the parks (good
idea!), but at least in Yosemite you can get AMPS coverage in a lot
of the park from the cells on the edge of the park. Still a single tower
on Half Dome would be able to provide digital coverage to the entire
Yosemite Valley.

The only really anti-AMPS people are those who are on GSM and
unable to get GAIT phones. Some of the rationalizatons are truly
amusing. One person wrote, in defense of Cingular's coverage issues
in Northern California, "I have several colleagues who don't even take
their phones with them when they leave their home area. They view
the phone as an anchor."

Steve
http://sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison

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

In <vgc0vbpk7hug3f@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:47:07 -0000,
davNOLindiSpamatHotmaildotcom (David L) wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
><JukNa.8279$%3.362771@typhoon.sonic.net>:

>> In the USA, even without dualmode roaming, it could facilitate the ease of
>> switching carriers, which could complement number portability; e.g., you'd be
>> able to switch between (say) SprintPCS and Cingular with the same handset.
>
>It's just cheaper to buy that carriers own handset than get one that
>would handle both technologies unless something really major changes.

I respectfully disagree -- there's a real and substantial economic cost to
subsidy locks.

>It's not handset technology which keeps consumers stuck with one
>carrier, it's each carrier developing a proprietary roaming database or
>locking.

The primary obstacle is lack of number portability. Close behind is contract
lock-in.

>It requires significant hurdles just to use a Sprint phone on
>Verizon and it's a technological match.

That's largely a CDMA/carrier issue.

>Cingular can't even integrate GSM usage on it's own network with TDMA
>without leaving out analog customers.

Say what? GAIT phones can roam on all three standards.

>Cingular might actually get some
>much needed extended coverage/capacity through roaming on a Sprint or
>Verizon CDMA, in California for instance, but I just don't see it
>happening.

Me either. Why should those carriers cooperate?

>I see no incentive for a cellular provider to offer a handset that makes
>it even easier to switch carriers or help with LNP churn.

True, which is why I think such handsets might open up the independent cell
phone market, driven by independent resellers.

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

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

In <RAoNa.26256$C83.2406875@newsread1.prod.itd.earthl ink.net> on Sat, 05 Jul
2003 00:02:57 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>"R W" <Rdweber@remove.usa.net> wrote in message
>news:vgbj4h18dn9nda@corp.supernews.com...

>> It seems like this this is more likely targeted to allow the european
>> and african GSM markets to blend more efficiently with the Asian and
>> Australian CDMA systems. I doubt that it'll affect the US market much
>> at all.
>
>That was my first thought as well. After all, Korea is CDMA but
>a lot of Asia and Africa are GSM. AMPS is not a concern for
>those countries (except perhaps for Australia). Without AMPS
>such a handset will not be of interest to any of the U.S. carriers.

On the contrary -- US carriers already sell handsets without AMPS, and
interest in AMPS will continue to fall.

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