AT&T Spectrum Switch Leaves Smartphone Users In The Cold

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/entry/5326780577844212/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/entry/5326780577844212/</a><br /><br /></div>AT&T is now deploying GSM 850 while a large selection of their earlier GSM phones do not support this frequency. This includes the Motorola MPx-200 Smartphone. AT&T Wireless is quietly offering a replacement phone for those effected by this change. However, the replacement phones don't reflect the features your current phone already has. I wonder if this is where the MPx-220 fits in? Regardless, this sounds like it's going to ugly really fast. Check out the linked article for a full list of the phones effected.

[greenmozart]

Thank you, AT&T for proving my decision to go with Verizon was the right one.

That AT&T would effectively obsoletize (word?) a large number of its handsets is astounding. I feel sorry for everyone out there who has jumped on the AT&T bandwagon with the MPx-200. What do you guys think this will do to AT&T's stock? They got a nice boost with the Cingular buy-out, but this is going to ruffle the market's feathers something fierce. Of course, stock-holders could see this as a way of cutting out the old technology and streamlining their backbone.

Of course, this is a SmartPhone discussion so who cares about the stock. What I want to know is what AT&T/Cingular is going to do to "replace" all the SmartPhones that may soon become paperweights.

[possmann]

ATT: "Hello customer - please bend over..."

Why am I not surprised? One stupid move after another... It just goes to show you that ATT does not think globally, does not think of the large scale impact, and certainly does not think of their customers. Geesh. :roll:

I'm sticking with T-Mo!

[Jason Dunn]

Changing the frequency is probably a good business move, but not having replacement handsets in place is a bad business move. I can't believe they'd ask users of a Smartphone to downgrade to some dumbphone...?! :?

[brianchris]

My wife purchased the MPx200 back in December from AT&T, and she absolutely LOVES it! However, she does not know about this yet, becuase she was really hesitant to give up her TDMA/Analog phone (as it had, and still does have, better coverage than GSM, even if you include the GSM 850 range, which her MPx200 is not capable of). Needless to say, she is not going to be happy, especially because we live deep in the blue area of the map in the article. I may wait to tell her until AT&T has a specific replacement policy for the MPx200, as she doesn't do well with bad news mixed with a touch of uncertainty.

AT&T, tell us what's up ASAP.

-Brian

[aristoBrat]

If an AT&T customer has a Smartphone that's working fine now, where is the issue?

It sounds like AT&T's committed to growing their 850mhz network, but the article didn't sound like AT&T was going to turn off their 1900mhz towers next week or anything. :?:

[brianchris]

If an AT&T customer has a Smartphone that's working fine now, where is the issue?

It sounds like AT&T's committed to growing their 850mhz network, but the article didn't sound like AT&T was going to turn off their 1900mhz towers next week or anything. :?:

I can't speak for the others in this thread, but my concern comes straight from this quote from the article:

"Just take a look at the map below. AT&T’s GSM 850 network is indicated by dark blue (the map also shows part of Cingular’s network). Subscribers in these areas are the ones most likely to be affected by AT&T’s replacement program."

Upon looking at the map, our county is dark blue, therefore my cause for concern. I will admit the article is a tad vague on some subjects, but none the less the quote above is the quote above.

-Brian

[aristoBrat]

Subscribers in these areas are the ones most likely to be affected by AT&T’s replacement program.
I read that as:

AT&T is not going to expand their existing 1900mhz networks in the blue areas, so if a customer with a 1900mhz-only phone complains about getting poor reception, then the only solution is to offer that customer a 850mhz phone.

I've seen this issue posted as "news" on a few large sites, so maybe the buzz generated will cause AT&T to do a press release to straigthen this out.

[ShivShanks]

AT&T is not going to expand their existing 1900mhz networks in the blue areas, so if a customer with a 1900mhz-only phone complains about getting poor reception, then the only solution is to offer that customer a 850mhz phone.


Do people seriously think that the 1900 MHz network will not deteriorate as they move to 850MHz and start concentrating on that? So why are they offering 850MHz phones to customers who already have 1900MHz? After all they could be using the old phones just fine. The 1900MHz network is broken (read bad coverage) and will only become worse. After all they will have limited tower/financial infrastructure to put both kinds of equipment and guess which one will take priority when a conflict arises? Who knows they might even remove some 1900MHz equipment to make way for 850Mhz. They seem to be in quite a hurry to move people over by just sending them new phones without even asking (and without making and public announcement about it I might add). Apparently the state of GSM caught the attention of Consumer Reports who have a cellular article in their February 2004 issue with a sidebar entitled: "Trouble in the GSM Network." I haven't read that (heard about it) but I can imagine what it would be talking about. The AT&T Cingular network is a mess right now with 1900 MHz GSM, 800 MHz TDMA and 850 MHz GSM and all the permutations and combinations of migration and change. I personally would stay away from such headaches.

[mcsouth]

I would find it surprising that they would go to the expense of pulling down 1900mhz equipment to put up 850mhz equipment, considering that part of the 1900mhz network coverage must come from T-mobile (unless I grossly misunderstand how this all works...).

I agree with Jason on this part - there have been some announcements of quad-band phones lately, but I'm not sure any are shipping yet. Releasing this kind of news story without enough solid facts to allow the average consumer to understand what is happening is just going to continue the migration to other cell providers, in hopes of some stability.

AT&T sure seems to be disorganized lately, and stumbling over its own feet - weren't they the ones having the most problems complying with the number portability issue?

[Jason Dunn]

If an AT&T customer has a Smartphone that's working fine now, where is the issue? It sounds like AT&T's committed to growing their 850mhz network, but the article didn't sound like AT&T was going to turn off their 1900mhz towers next week or anything. :?:

A good point - I think a few of us (myself included) misunderstood what this means. It seems to me that this is really AT&T saying "We're not going to improve our 1900mhz systems any further" - but it might also mean some infrastructure changes that might make things worse. Tough to say...?

[ktoole72]

I love Att however after reading this I am starting to change my mind .... I just bought this phone and I do like it .. it has a lot on it but for 400.00 it should... I was even excepting that I couldn't use the phone in some areas now I know the real reason as to why...... I live In Eastern PA and my county is clearly in the DARK BLUE !!!! Ughhhh I am so upset.... Unless they offer a phone that is of equal price tag there is no way I am going to stay with them nor pay to break a contract fee considering I just signed up for another year with them when I bought this phone........

[ShivShanks]

I would find it surprising that they would go to the expense of pulling down 1900mhz equipment to put up 850mhz equipment, considering that part of the 1900mhz network coverage must come from T-mobile (unless I grossly misunderstand how this all works...).


No, AT&T and T-Mobile do not share any GSM networks. AT&T has its own 1900 MHz GSM network. Cingular and T-Mobile share the network in CA and NY. T-Mobile uses Cingular's network in CA and in return gives its network for Cingular to use in NY, so its an arrangement of convenience and necessity. Coming back to the point AT&T's GSM 1900 coverage is broken. The whole GSM situation in the US is screwed up horribly with a hodgepodge of Analog, TDMA, GSM 850, GSM 1900 networks. GSM is a technology with no future as far as upgrades go. Its again rip and replace come 3GSM time just like its rip and replace now from TDMA to GSM.

Smart people who know cell phone technology choose the much superior CDMA alternative. It has smooth upgrades all the way to 3G without any rip and replace. When 1xRTT came, the existing CDMAone phones had no problems coexisting with the new 1xRTT ones since it was just an upgrade to the carriers existing network equipment. It will be the same when EV-DO and EV-DV are deployed (which will be soon) to reach true 3G levels. Do some quality research and you will realise that CDMA is the better and superior choice. GSM may have a bigger installed base but its an older technology with more baggage and when Europe is trying hard to move to 3GSM (W-CDMA) here we have some in the US still trying to move to GSM. Nuts I tell you. In fact even 3GSM is based on the base CDMA technology (only incompatible as you would expect). The way I see it, the only reason to use GSM is when you don't have any choices. Is it any wonder that more people in the US use CDMA then any other technology?

[ShivShanks]

A good point - I think a few of us (myself included) misunderstood what this means. It seems to me that this is really AT&T saying "We're not going to improve our 1900mhz systems any further" - but it might also mean some infrastructure changes that might make things worse. Tough to say...?

Whats interesting is the almost sneaky way in which AT&T is going about this without being aboveboard with its customers or making a public announcement about it. Didn't I warn people not to expect great things from the combined AT&T and Cingular entity? AT&T screwed up badly in number portability so much that they were the only ones to be publicly questioned by the FCC. Then there was the whole CRM software installation screwup and being unable to activate phones. And now this. Not a very good track record of late. I sincerely wish luck to people staying with AT&T wireless. Really unfortunate that Microsoft had to pick AT&T for being the star partner for the smartphone launch but hey even they couldn't have dreamed that AT&T would get so inept as to stumble this badly. Most Analysts think that AT&T was a fundamentally good company that wouldn't have had to sell itself had it not screwed up so badly in the recent past. And instead the AT&T executives get a windfall due to the sale. Amazing how capitalism works sometimes!

Microsoft please please *please* get on with some other partners for making WM Smartphones a success. AT&T is a "has been" not worthy of being lavished all the attention on IMHO.

[Kris Kumar]

You said it...
The way I see it, the only reason to use GSM is when you don't have any choices.

I was forced to switch to T-Mobile, because that was the only network that would supprt my MS dev kit smartphone. And later when Verizon introduced their phone, they had launched a phone with 2002 OS, with no clear plans for upgrade and $400-$500 price tag !! And not forget lack of Bluetooth.

[aristoBrat]

Cingular and T-Mobile share the network in CA and NY. T-Mobile uses Cingular's network in CA and in return gives its network for Cingular to use in NY
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=304901
T-Mobile and Cingular decided to create a subsidiary called "GSM Facilities" or "GSM Factory". T-Mobile calls is one way, Cingular calls it the other way, but it is the same entity. This entity or subsidiary is in charge of maintaining and operating the GSM networks in NYC/CA/NV on behalf of Cingular and T-Mobile. So neither company interacts with the networks directly without going through GSM Facilities first. GSM Facilities is funded money from both T-Mobile and Cingular based on the minutes used by each carrier. If T-Mobile uses the network more than Cingular, then they have to pay more money to GSM Facilities.

The way I see it, the only reason to use GSM is when you don't have any choices. Is it any wonder that more people in the US use CDMA then any other technology?
No argument that CDMA provides carriers less-intrusive upgrade paths, but it really does look like GSM, even though it's slower and doesn't upgrade well, is going to win. EMC (the folks that provided the stats that these graphs are based on) does independant wireless analysis, so these numbers aren't the "fluffy" ones from the GSM or CDMA websites, where they tend to toot their own horns.

http://www.3gamericas.org/English/statistics/global_comparisons/digital_growth.cfm
http://www.blipnet.net/growth.bmp

http://www.3gamericas.org/English/statistics/global_comparisons/world_subscribers_bytech.cfm
http://www.blipnet.net/2003.bmp

http://www.3gamericas.org/English/statistics/subscriber_forecasts/forecast_by_technology.cfm
http://www.blipnet.net/2008.bmp

[ShivShanks]

No argument that CDMA provides carriers less-intrusive upgrade paths, but it really does look like GSM, even though it's slower and doesn't upgrade well, is going to win. EMC (the folks that provided the stats that these graphs are based on) does independant wireless analysis, so these numbers aren't the "fluffy" ones from the GSM or CDMA websites, where they tend to toot their own horns.

http://www.3gamericas.org/English/statistics/global_comparisons/digital_growth.cfm
http://www.blipnet.net/growth.bmp


Actually this figure can be misinterpreted in the context of the other figures you are showing since it shows only the growth in the "Western Hemisphere" and not the whole world. May I ask why you posted world wide figures and yet growth only for the western hemisphere? If you add the China and India growth figures to these then the picture is totally different. E.g. in India within a year of launching, the CDMA operator Reliance has become the largest mobile operator. Those are some impressive growth numbers. I agree that GSM has a larger installed base but I'm not convinced its going to "win". In the US CDMA is already winning and is growing fast in the rest of the world. Once CDMA starts its high speed juggernaut and GSM is unable to catch up, you'll see CDMA take off even more when people realise they can't get all those cool features with GSM. Not unless they move to 3GSM which will have shoddy coverage due to being incompatible with GSM. I'd rather not discuss estimated growth figures since they can be affected by a variety of factors not known now.
In the US CDMA has lots of advantages and GSM is in a pretty pathetic state. Who cares if the rest of the world has GSM? Like Verizon says "Who cares if you can use your phone in the rest of the world if you can't get a signal in your backyard?" As it is people can buy a cheap pre paid phone and add a SIM card when travelling abroad since the international roaming rates are quite expensive. The advantage of the rest of the world using GSM are quite overhyped. As it is the US uses incompatible 850 and 1900 frequencies and none of the cool phones are available as quad band and neither are all GSM phones triband. US consumers are smart and realise that coverage and quality at home is the most important thing so CDMA makes sense. Thats why CDMA has the largest marketshare in the US and I see no way its going to change esp. with the way the GSM companies are fumbling around ineptly.

[Kris Kumar]

US consumers are smart and realise that coverage and quality at home is the most important thing so CDMA makes sense. Thats why CDMA has the largest marketshare in the US and I see no way its going to change esp. with the way the GSM companies are fumbling around ineptly.

I dont think the US consumers had "any" say in spread of CDMA. And I believe it was the carriers Verizon and Sprint that decided to stay with CDMA.

The US mobile network was a late bloomer compared to Europe and Japan. So I believe that the carriers had better idea of the technology. And also they were trying to keep costs minimum.

As for the GSM multiple band mess in US...I was reading the same topic thread on PPCT.com and it was mentioned that US army had reserved the 900/1800 band for its use, hence forcing cell carriers to use an alternative band :-)
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=223448

My only wish is that Nokia/SE and other hardcore (read European) phone manufacturers should pay more attention to CDMA. Better approach would be to have CDMA and GSM versions for the same model. Only when you have a level playing ground in terms of phone models will you, the consumer be able to decide which is a better network.

Kris

[aristoBrat]

In the US CDMA has lots of advantages and GSM is in a pretty pathetic state.
&lt;snip>
Who cares if you can use your phone in the rest of the world if you can't get a signal in your backyard?"
&lt;snip>
Thats why CDMA has the largest marketshare in the US and I see no way its going to change esp. with the way the GSM companies are fumbling around ineptly.
Umm, what advantages does US CDMA have over GSM? The only one I can think of is 1xRTT data speeds, but the fact that Verizon/Sprint have ridiciously expensive unlimited tethered data plans ($79+/month) (and frown on Bluetooth) makes that a luxury, not an advantage.

I don't buy the "can't get a signal in your backyard" line. Verizon's ENTIRE network (that's AMPS + CDMA) covers 235 million people. T-Mobile's network (100% GSM) covers 224 million. Add Sprint to the CDMA list, and AT&amp;T/Cingular's GSM networks to the GSM list, and it's not like there's a whole bunch of backyards w/o GSM coverage. Furthermore, after "do I get a signal in my backyard", the next question is "who has the best plans?" CDMA plans (Sprint/Verizon) offer a lot LESS minutes for the dollar than GSM plans (AT&amp;T/T-Mobile esp).

CDMA's "largest marketshare" has a heck of a lot to do with it getting deployed 5 years **BEFORE** GSM! :D

And to answer you ? about the "Western Hemisphere" graph/stats, it was the closest to "US" stats that I could find. The point I was trying to make is that GSM (in the US) is adding MILLIONS of new subscribers more than CDMA (in the US) is.

I looked a little more and found some "North America" stats, which narrows it down a little more. If US GSM sees a few more Q4/03 quarters, how long before it surpasses CDMA in the US?

http://www.blipnet.net/na2003.bmp

[ShivShanks]

I dont think the US consumers had "any" say in spread of CDMA. And I believe it was the carriers Verizon and Sprint that decided to stay with CDMA.


Well the US customers have a say in the sense that they vote with their wallets. Verizon continues to add the most number of customers with the least amount of churn. BTW Verizon and Sprint did not decide to "stay" with CDMA rather they deployed CDMA by choice since it is a superior technology and allows them to add more customers efficiently in the bandwidth they have due to better spectral efficiency. In fact AT&T was also supposed to move from TDMA to CDMA originally before politics and business came into the pictute. Japan's NTT DoCoMo invested a huge amount of money in AT&T so that AT&T in return would instead move to GSM and eventually W-CDMA. Since NTT was going to move to W-CDMA it did not want to lose out having no presense in the US as all the other US GSM operators have no plans to move to W-CDMA. That is the simple reason why AT&T chose GSM over CDMA.


The US mobile network was a late bloomer compared to Europe and Japan. So I believe that the carriers had better idea of the technology. And also they were trying to keep costs minimum.


Actually thats not totally true. Mobile phone service first started in the US with AMPS in the 80s which then moved to TDMA. Its just that Europe deployed its next generation digital technology (GSM) much before the US moved to deploy next generation digital technology. The US was in no hurry to move since AMPS and TDMA were serving the needs whereas Europe didn't have anything equivalent. In fact it was the presence and backwards compatibility with existing technology that held the US from moving quickly with the next gen. So while the US was waiting for CDMA to deploy, GSM took the lead. Now a similar thing will happen with the 3G stuff in favour of CDMA. The GSM world has so much baggage with existing GSM deployments and a rip and replace upgrade to 3GSM that CDMA will take the lead due to easy upgrades to 3G. It will be just like the times when GSM took the lead over CDMA while it was being deployed. Its just a question of timing and leap frogging. However we may not have another cycle after this since most needs are met with 3G. Whoever wins the 3G battle will have a big upper hand. So far GSM is losing big time in that battle. CDMA already has about 75 million 3G customers compared to hardly 2 million for 3GSM.


As for the GSM multiple band mess in US...I was reading the same topic thread on PPCT.com and it was mentioned that US army had reserved the 900/1800 band for its use, hence forcing cell carriers to use an alternative band :-)
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=223448


Actually the GSM Association is more to blame for that than the US military. The US military has been using those frequency bands for decades and the GSM folks were warned in the early 90's not to use those frequency bands and yet they went ahead and chose it anyway.


My only wish is that Nokia/SE and other hardcore (read European) phone manufacturers should pay more attention to CDMA. Better approach would be to have CDMA and GSM versions for the same model. Only when you have a level playing ground in terms of phone models will you, the consumer be able to decide which is a better network.


I find nothing "hardcore" BTW about the European mfrs. In fact the Koreans like Samsung and LG were ahead of the Nokia/SE in the introduction of colour phones and other advanced features. Nokia/SE have a vested interest in not making the latest phones available for CDMA since they are joined from the hip to GSM. Again it is Samsung that is going to come out with a CDMA cum GSM phone. Now that would be interesting. Then allow phone portability and see the fun within the US.

The consumer can still today decide which is the better network (even if it means not being able to carry over phone) and many do who don't fall into all the misinformation that GSM is anything great. The US consumers can plainly see that CDMA has better coverage and better technology.

[ShivShanks]

Umm, what advantages does US CDMA have over GSM? The only one I can think of is 1xRTT data speeds, but the fact that Verizon/Sprint have ridiciously expensive unlimited tethered data plans ($79+/month) (and frown on Bluetooth) makes that a luxury, not an advantage.


Oh quite a few advantages -

* Better spectral efficiency (means more customers and more calls in the same bandwidth and less dropped calls and busy signals). Take up any telecommunications book to learn why CDMA has better spectral efficiency over TDMA based GSM
* Higher data rates
* More coverage of the US
* Smooth and easy upgrades to 3G.
* Cooler phones (minus bluetooth). By comparison there are hardly many GSM 850 phones (which is what you have to count for US wide coverage).
* The advantage of having one CDMA network instead of the hodge podge GSM coverage and overlays
* Has Analog coverage as backup which gives coverage over 98% of the US (a huge plus). Something GSM doesn't have at all.



I don't buy the "can't get a signal in your backyard" line. Verizon's ENTIRE network (that's AMPS + CDMA) covers 235 million people. T-Mobile's network (100% GSM) covers 224 million.


BTW talking about coverage in the US using the no of people is silly since most of the US population lives in urban areas. I'm surprised people fall for such tricks. So you think T-Mobile has great coverage? Shall we take a look at the coverage maps?

T-Mobile coverage map -
http://nordicgroup.us/upic/tmobile.jpg

Verizon coverage map -
http://nordicgroup.us/upic/verizonac.jpg

'Nuff said.


Add Sprint to the CDMA list, and AT&T/Cingular's GSM networks to the GSM list, and it's not like there's a whole bunch of backyards w/o GSM coverage. Furthermore, after "do I get a signal in my backyard", the next question is "who has the best plans?" CDMA plans (Sprint/Verizon) offer a lot LESS minutes for the dollar than GSM plans (AT&T/T-Mobile esp).


Actually Sprint has very competitive plans. They offer 7PM night and weekend minutes and unlimited mobile to mobile minutes. If you add it all up they have very good plans. They probably can't beat T-Mobile since they are the low cost specialists but you have to pay more for better coverage. Why do you think T-Mobile charges less?


CDMA's "largest marketshare" has a heck of a lot to do with it getting deployed 5 years **BEFORE** GSM! :D


Wrong. Actually they started out at the same time. As per the GSM association -
http://www.gsmworld.com/about/history/history_page14.shtml
the first GSM deployment in the US was on Nov 95. CDMA started in the US in 1996. If anything GSM had a slight lead.


And to answer you ? about the "Western Hemisphere" graph/stats, it was the closest to "US" stats that I could find. The point I was trying to make is that GSM (in the US) is adding MILLIONS of new subscribers more than CDMA (in the US) is.

I looked a little more and found some "North America" stats, which narrows it down a little more. If US GSM sees a few more Q4/03
quarters, how long before it surpasses CDMA in the US?


Again you are using misleading fugures. Those North America figures include Mexico which is predominantly GSM so don't think that makes it US only numbers. Also I don't think the CDMA numbers are quite correct since Verizon itself added 1.5 million customers in the 4th quarter -
http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/01/pr2004-01-29.html
and as per CDG the NA growth in 4Q was 4 million (quite a bit of which is US unlike GSM). So you are confusing NA numbers with the US. Wait for the numbers next quarter when even more people leave AT&T and Cingular.

[brianchris]

As it is people can buy a cheap pre paid phone and add a SIM card when travelling abroad since the international roaming rates are quite expensive.

That is one (perhaps small) advantage to GSM is the SIM card, correct? I'm (objectively) following this thread, but the SIM card feature hasn't been mentioned by either side.

-Brian

[ShivShanks]

As it is people can buy a cheap pre paid phone and add a SIM card when travelling abroad since the international roaming rates are quite expensive.

That is one (perhaps small) advantage to GSM is the SIM card, correct? I'm (objectively) following this thread, but the SIM card feature hasn't been mentioned by either side.

-Brian

Yes its one big advantage GSM has, and I've made posts in the past where I have lambasted the US situation and the FCC for not mandating this. This is one thing the GSM Association got absolutely right. However this is something that could be added to CDMA in the US and its strictly not related to the communication technology. For example, in China, CDMA phones have a feature similar to SIM cards in them. This is more of a business/politics issue where the carriers don't want to give this extra freedom to the consumers. So much so that even some GSM operators in the US try and prevent it by SIM locking the phones. AT&T for example has been guilty of this. If enough consumers raise a hue and cry about it then the FCC might mandate it and then CDMA will have to implement it. But yes currently it sucks that CDMA doesn't have this (at least in the US).

[Kris Kumar]

Now this has been an interesting discussion...

Want to put up another question...

Verizon clearly has a great coverage/reach...
TMobile looks like it is focusing only on metros...
I was looking at the AT&T coverage..seems like they have better coverage than T-Mobile. The Digital One (supposedly GSM/GPRS).

Now my question is that do they (AT&T) have truely better coverage than T-Mobile?

http://www.attwireless.com/global/maps/coveragemap.jhtml?map=Y&mapDisplay=dorgsm/gprs&mapMenu=Y&zip=14623

The confusing part is "Additional Service Area"..what it means and who is the provider for that area, because AT&T says it will charge Roaming, TMObile and Cingular both dont have coverage in those areas !!

Kris

[ShivShanks]

Now this has been an interesting discussion...

Want to put up another question...

Verizon clearly has a great coverage/reach...
TMobile looks like it is focusing only on metros...
I was looking at the AT&T coverage..seems like they have better coverage than T-Mobile. The Digital One (supposedly GSM/GPRS).

Now my question is that do they (AT&T) have truely better coverage than T-Mobile?

http://www.attwireless.com/global/maps/coveragemap.jhtml?map=Y&mapDisplay=dorgsm/gprs&mapMenu=Y&zip=14623

The confusing part is "Additional Service Area"..what it means and who is the provider for that area, because AT&T says it will charge Roaming, TMObile and Cingular both dont have coverage in those areas !!


AT&T's maps are meant to confuse the heck out of the user to say the least. The problem is that they are showing many different things on those maps without clearly saying exactly what it is. A fair bit of the AT&T coverage shown is actually the old TDMA network (which had pretty good coverage). My guess is that all the lightest shade of yellow in that map is TDMA coverage. For example no way they would build GSM coverage like that in the Nevada desert areas. Then there are parts which are an amalgamation of the Cigular and T-Mobile coverage but since these are roaming AT&T chooses to confuse the user even more by calling it "Additional Service Area" which sounds like nothing more than a euphemism for roaming. BTW compare AT&T's dark brown areas with this map of cingular's dark brown areas (GSM 850) -
http://onlinestore.cingular.com/html/Maps/nation_GSMleg_1_29_04.htm
So it does look like a large part of that is also in AT&T's maps. Plus I guess whatever GSM 850 AT&T was building up (they started using GSM 850 only recently) BTW they call it the Digital map and TDMA is also digital (albiet an older digital technology) so I guess they can get away with calling it digital. So yes with GSM 850 AT&T does have better coverage as per these maps. But thats only really true in the Eastern half of the country. If you look at the western half in both AT&T and Cingular maps then you'll realise that true GSM coverage is pretty anemic. This is also borne out by reviews from independent sites like sfbacell.com and mountainwireless.com -
http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/sfbaratings.htm (main link is sfbacell.com)
http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/scaratings.htm
(Look at the overall coverage figures)
BTW T-Mobile is rated horrible in CA since it is due to Cingular's horrible network in CA.

http://www.mountainwireless.com/ratings.htm
Notice Cingular scores badly in the West Coast

Got through these sites and see if people still want to debate with me as to whether CDMA is superior to GSM or not.

[Kris Kumar]

Thanks ShivShanks,

Those Charts offer a lot of truth about the state of Network. Anything for the NE US :-)

Anyway, looks like the US Cell Network Carriers are operating without thinking about consumers, except maybe Verizon, which put a lot of emphasis in the last couple years on improving (and advertising) its network coverage..Bottomline..
- No single carrier offers everything..
- Verizon has the best network but no cool phones / plans (though I like the IN network feature)
- TMobile offers cool plans/phones but has no plans to expand or atleast is not in a hurry :-(
- AT&T : dont know what they are upto..no wonder they put themselves up for sale.
- Cingular : They have to do a lot stay up with Verizon..and to make this AT&T deal worth it.

The other thing that came to my mind is that Verizon can easily swing the consumers from other networks onto theirs.
- The have built a solid network, which has a good upgrade path. I guess they dont advertise this upgrade thingy because they think Consumers are not smart enough to figure out. I would still expect a one page article on their website.
- All they have to do to capture the bulk of the market share is to offer slightly lower rates when it comes to Data Plans.
- And get more data phones and subsidize them

Kris

[alan.koblin]

I don't dare represent my company - this is an unofficial view, but we're not turning down any 1900 MHz frequencies. What we're doing is overlaying with 850 MHz where we can. Additionally, due to the merger with Cingular, it's unlikely that we'll be building out additional 1900 MHz infrastructure.

Accordingly, if you're in possession of a single band GSM phone, you won't benefit from the additional coverage afforded by the 850 spectrum unless you get a new phone. That's why ATTWS has offered new phones.

I'm sorry the phone isn't top-of-the-line, but you can still get a credit towards a phone you "really like."

It's frustrating seeing what we try to do for customers, only to see it twisted and skewed online.

[swbuehler]

I sent an email to our local AT&T Wireless Business Accounts rep for clarification on the GSM band and software upgrade issues; I'm on the phone with AT&T Wireless' business accounts as I write this after I got an email reply from our local business rep.

AT&T is NOT eliminating the 1900 MHz band; your MPx200 is far from going to be obsolete or unusable. You just won't see any improvement in coverage for a while if your coverage is currently problematic. The person I spoke with indicated that they are planning improvements for both bands but that their emphasis for the immediate period will be on the 850. I suspect this means that while you won't see expansion of the 1900 band you will see improvements in the existing 1900 facilities.

AT&T further advised me that are not offering a replacement phone for the MPx200 to address this issue. They did say that SonyEricsson is offering a replacement for the SonyEricsson T68is (which is my backup phone), but since that is not the active phone listed on my account I can't take advantage of that offer. This is an offer by the manufacturer through AT&T Wireless.

After getting the above information from customer care, I was transferred to Data Services to try and get information on the MPx200 ROM and OS upgrades. She had no information in the system about either, so she went to the actual development guys to check with them directly. Their reply was that any upgrades to the MPx200 will be offerred through Motorola and not through AT&T Wireless and that there are currently no updates/upgrades available at this time. The same process was done with the SX56 Pocket PC Phone&mdash;the upgrade was offerred through Siemens. She said that this normally takes quite a while so if Motorola ever does don't hold your breath for when. If you want the ROM update, you'd have to do it by warranty exchange with Motorola, assuming your phone is actually defective, and there is no guarantee the phone you get back will have the updated ROM.

So, if you are looking for updates, you need to be looking at Motorola.

SWB