Why did Sprint give up there First GSM Network

"Group Special Mobile" <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in message
news:64h5ov8dqhs6eh0fldje6l41vr0q99u78b@4ax.com...
> On 07 Oct 2003 00:49:22 GMT, sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.)
> wrote:
>
> >>Why did sprint give up there GSM network when they first started out.
> >
> >There?
> >
> >They gave it up for a better technology - CDMA.
>
> Oh really! I thought you were the one who championed AMPS as the
> best!

In the NGs I've read his posts in, he consistantly seems to prefer CDMA
sound quality out of the various digital schemes, but unlike many of us,
myself included, he owns and uses both CDMA and GSM on a regular basis.

> Why you believe you have to open another CDMA is better than GSM thing
> is a mystery. You know damned well that all you're doing is being a
> troll as this surely won't be in agreement with you especially in this
> news group. One wonders why you did it except to troll. I can't see
> any other reason why you'd do it.

Well, the question was asked why Sprint ditched GSM in favor of CDMA in
Wash/Balt, and frankly, while John's answer might have been a little
volatile for you, the fact is that _Sprint_ thought CDMA was the
technology
of the future, and felt it was worth abandoning the "standard" for.
John's,
your or my opinion is frankly irrelevant- Sprint's is the one that
counts in
this instance.

AFAIK, in talking with some Spint friends of mine, the GSM network in DC
was
a just a test- the "real" Sprint equipment wasn't going to be ready in
time
for their DC test market rollout, and they set up the GSM network to run
a
trial of their systems (billing, customer service, etc.) to insure
they'd be
ready for their nationwide launch the next year. The only reason they
left
it up as long as they did (it ran concurrent with their "real" CDMA
network
in DC for awhile) was to let the GSM system finish "paying for itself"-
they
took in a pretty good amount of revenue from international roamers
visiting
the DC on business. They never planned on implementing GSM nationwide,
and
it was obviously more important to them that the same system be used
nationwide, even if that meant losing the original poster of this
thread, as
important as he undoubtably is, as a customer forever.






[posted via phonescoop.com]

I was fortunate enough to rent my townhouse out to a guy who was brought in
to help setup the initial Sprint Spectrum. Network. And then some friends
worked for Sprint (yes I be cool) Point is, I got alot of info as time went
on, not that suddenly Im giving out the name of shooter on the grassy
knoll.(BTW I think I know, just one more thing I need to check) Originally
it was a Joint venture between APC (American Personal Communications) and
Sprint (as a semi-silent interest) The venture was , in short, marked with a
lot of directionary struggle and internal strife. Then as time went on, they
realized that the hassle of not being able to ROAM and interconnect with
other systems was just not where Sprint wanted to go. SPRINT wanted to
become, and did, a Nationwide Wireless Provider, and would have never gotten
to where they are today continuimg to build on a GSM platform, amongst other
things.

"Bradley Moser" <askmefirst@aol.com> wrote in message
news7lgb.51284$ZR1.37040@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Why did sprint give up there GSM network when they first started out.
> I had there GSM service long time ago.
> When they cut out GSM I got rid of my service
> I live in the Washington DC area and it was so so at the time.
>
>

The Watcher wrote:
> I was fortunate enough to rent my townhouse out to a guy who was brought in
> to help setup the initial Sprint Spectrum. Network. And then some friends
> worked for Sprint (yes I be cool) Point is, I got alot of info as time went
> on, not that suddenly Im giving out the name of shooter on the grassy
> knoll.(BTW I think I know, just one more thing I need to check) Originally
> it was a Joint venture between APC (American Personal Communications) and
> Sprint (as a semi-silent interest) The venture was , in short, marked with a
> lot of directionary struggle and internal strife. Then as time went on, they
> realized that the hassle of not being able to ROAM and interconnect with
> other systems was just not where Sprint wanted to go. SPRINT wanted to
> become, and did, a Nationwide Wireless Provider, and would have never gotten
> to where they are today continuimg to build on a GSM platform, amongst other
> things.


Actually, Sprint could have been strategically advantaged to bring GSM
coverage into the United States. T-Mobile seems to be doing pretty
well, and they are younger than Sprint. T-Mobile was not a merger
between smaller GSM companies, either. Take T-Mobile's rate of
expansion and combine that with Sprint's older age. I think you'd have
a really good national carrier (in terms of amounts of PCS licenses,
roaming agreements, and such).

AD

"About Dakota" <aboutdakota@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F837E89.4050901@REMOVEMEhotmail.com...
> The Watcher wrote:
> > I was fortunate enough to rent my townhouse out to a guy who was
brought in
> > to help setup the initial Sprint Spectrum. Network. And then
some friends
> > worked for Sprint (yes I be cool) Point is, I got alot of info
as time went
> > on, not that suddenly Im giving out the name of shooter on the
grassy
> > knoll.(BTW I think I know, just one more thing I need to check)
Originally
> > it was a Joint venture between APC (American Personal
Communications) and
> > Sprint (as a semi-silent interest) The venture was , in short,
marked with a
> > lot of directionary struggle and internal strife. Then as time
went on, they
> > realized that the hassle of not being able to ROAM and
interconnect with
> > other systems was just not where Sprint wanted to go. SPRINT
wanted to
> > become, and did, a Nationwide Wireless Provider, and would have
never gotten
> > to where they are today continuimg to build on a GSM platform,
amongst other
> > things.
>
>
> Actually, Sprint could have been strategically advantaged to bring
GSM
> coverage into the United States. T-Mobile seems to be doing
pretty
> well, and they are younger than Sprint. T-Mobile was not a merger
> between smaller GSM companies, either. Take T-Mobile's rate of
> expansion and combine that with Sprint's older age. I think you'd
have
> a really good national carrier (in terms of amounts of PCS
licenses,
> roaming agreements, and such).
>
> AD
>

Part of T-Mobile came from the combination of Voicestream and
Omnipoint on the east coast. They acquired the Sprint Spectrum
equipment and bandwidth in the Washington-Baltimore areas.
Omnipoint started about the same time as Sprint Spectrum and
overlapped with it near the Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland
borders.

--
Earl F. Parrish

In article <3F837E89.4050901@REMOVEMEhotmail.com>, About Dakota wrote:

> Actually, Sprint could have been strategically advantaged to bring GSM
> coverage into the United States. T-Mobile seems to be doing pretty
> well, and they are younger than Sprint. T-Mobile was not a merger
> between smaller GSM companies, either. Take T-Mobile's rate of
> expansion and combine that with Sprint's older age. I think you'd have
> a really good national carrier (in terms of amounts of PCS licenses,
> roaming agreements, and such).

There are some important points to be aware of, IMHO:


1. Sprint came in when there was nothing. T-Mobile came in when there was
an already existing network. It's a lot cheaper and a lot easier to
upgrade an existing network, or to change it from C-AMPS (CDMA) or
D-AMPS (TDMA), to GSM. All the licenses have been bought, all the
roaming agreements are signed, all the antennas have been placed, etc.

Most their customers are fed up with their old handsets and would gladly
upgrade to new smaller, longer battery life units, especially if they
were for "free" (included in the contract).

2. If you look back to the early days of PCS, C-AMPS had a lot of promise.
It had many of the features of GSM, without the anoying capability of
a user switching handsets on their own :-) It also had a claimed
ability to get more users in conversation per channel than GSM or D-AMPS.

In the end this turned out not to be so. When a CDMA channel is heavily
utilized, the dropout rate approaches 100% (no signal gets through).
The main advantage of CDMA is that it is not distance sensative, i.e.
TDMA (D-AMPS and GSM) have a distance limit of about 35 miles due to
timing issues, but with PCS (1900mHz) that's irrelevant.

3. AT&T wireless was the world's first 850 mHz GSM customer. Until they
went into the business, no one was going to take a chance on producing
the equipment. Converting from 800 mHz D-AMPS to GSM-850, is an EVOLUTIONARY
change. Everything is the same for a service provider except for the
programing of the controler cards in the base station and the handsets.

If they have let's say 10 base station transceivers at a particular cell,
they can convert one overnight from D-AMPS to GSM. Probably the D-AMPS
customers won't notice excpet for more "system busy" messages at peak
times. As the demand shifts, they could activate more channels as GSM.

There is no technical reason to not have a self switching base station.
It could automaticly change from D-AMPS to GSM or back based upon demand.

4. The whole WAP, 3G, GPRS thing did not reap the enourmous profits that
most people expected. Why people would pay voice rates for data was
beyond me and obviously beyond most customers.

The way to make money these days on cell phones is international roaming.
People will pay $1.50 or more per minute to get their phone calls
while on vacation, while the cost to the service provider, is closer
to $.10. The key to doing this to have their phone work wherever they go,
and that requires multiband GSM.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson gsm@mendelson.com 972-54-608-069
Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM: geoffrey_mendelson@hotmail.com (Not for email)
Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.

"Bradley Moser" <askmefirst@aol.com> wrote in message news:<p7lgb.51284$ZR1.37040@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>. ..
> Why did sprint give up there GSM network when they first started out.
> I had there GSM service long time ago.
> When they cut out GSM I got rid of my service
> I live in the Washington DC area and it was so so at the time.

I'd guess that the biggest reason had to do with bandwidth
and spectrum. CDMA is much more spectrally efficient. They also
were probably looking at the long term implications of sticking
with an obsolete technology. It's going to cost a lot more for
AT&T and Cingular to convert to W-CDMA 3G then it will for Sprint
and Verizon to convert to CDM2000 3G.

Don't get me wrong, I love GSM but it's very old, obsolete
technology.

I'm in Taiwan now, and just bought a prepaid GSM SIM for about
$18. Coverage is great. But I gave up on GSM in the U.S. for
the time being. I think that in 4-5 years GSM in the U.S. will
catch up with CDMA in terms of coverage.