Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Well, several years ago I was pleased and disappointed at the same
time. At that time RS offered PCS nationwide, where launched, through
Sprint PCS, and cellular was offered by various carriers based on
location. That was because there was no national cellular carrier.
Then there arrived a national carrier that was mostly cellular, verizon.
However verizon in our state was also PCS. For our state, I thought
it would have been preferable to keep the cellular carrier uscellular.
Now I see that RS has chosen a different National, mostly cellular,
carrier to replace verizon, namely cingular. Yes, in my state they are
cellular. RS states that they wanted to offer CDMA and gsm instead of
two CDMA carriers. Even though they are both PCS I would have preferred
if RS had chosen tmobile for the gsm choice. I have not worked at RS
for 2.5 yrs., but maybe if we get a new district manager or I move out
of this district, I might consider working there again. However I do
note that RS stock is up on the news.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WStHe.7062$0C.5121@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Well, several years ago I was pleased and disappointed at the same
> time. At that time RS offered PCS nationwide, where launched, through
> Sprint PCS, and cellular was offered by various carriers based on
> location. That was because there was no national cellular carrier.
> Then there arrived a national carrier that was mostly cellular, verizon.
> However verizon in our state was also PCS. For our state, I thought
> it would have been preferable to keep the cellular carrier uscellular.
> Now I see that RS has chosen a different National, mostly cellular,
> carrier to replace verizon, namely cingular. Yes, in my state they are
> cellular. RS states that they wanted to offer CDMA and gsm instead of
> two CDMA carriers. Even though they are both PCS I would have preferred
> if RS had chosen tmobile for the gsm choice. I have not worked at RS
> for 2.5 yrs., but maybe if we get a new district manager or I move out
> of this district, I might consider working there again. However I do
> note that RS stock is up on the news.

I hadn't heard the news about the changes with RS, but I'm guessing they
decided to go with a national GSM carrier - i.e.: Cingular. TMobile does not
provide coverage in all states. They are only in 43 of the 51 markets
(including DC).

Bob

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

43 sounds large enough to be called a national carrier. Sprint PCS has
a license for all 50, but does not cover 7 of them much.


Bob Smith wrote:
> "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:WStHe.7062$0C.5121@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Well, several years ago I was pleased and disappointed at the same
>>time. At that time RS offered PCS nationwide, where launched, through
>>Sprint PCS, and cellular was offered by various carriers based on
>>location. That was because there was no national cellular carrier.
>>Then there arrived a national carrier that was mostly cellular, verizon.
>> However verizon in our state was also PCS. For our state, I thought
>>it would have been preferable to keep the cellular carrier uscellular.
>>Now I see that RS has chosen a different National, mostly cellular,
>>carrier to replace verizon, namely cingular. Yes, in my state they are
>>cellular. RS states that they wanted to offer CDMA and gsm instead of
>>two CDMA carriers. Even though they are both PCS I would have preferred
>>if RS had chosen tmobile for the gsm choice. I have not worked at RS
>>for 2.5 yrs., but maybe if we get a new district manager or I move out
>>of this district, I might consider working there again. However I do
>>note that RS stock is up on the news.
>
>
> I hadn't heard the news about the changes with RS, but I'm guessing they
> decided to go with a national GSM carrier - i.e.: Cingular. TMobile does not
> provide coverage in all states. They are only in 43 of the 51 markets
> (including DC).
>
> Bob
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Bob Smith wrote:

> I hadn't heard the news about the changes with RS, but I'm guessing they
> decided to go with a national GSM carrier - i.e.: Cingular. TMobile does not
> provide coverage in all states. They are only in 43 of the 51 markets
> (including DC).

?? Cingular isn't in all 50 either, are they? (I know Verizon isn't.)

By the way, I don't think the issue with Verizon was 800 MHz or 1900 MHz, I
think it was a consistent stream of policies introduced over the past few
months that screwed Verizon customers by nickeling-and-diming them to death
- not very customer-friendly, considering that VZW is already the most
expensive "pure" cellular carrier out there (I consider Nextel a specialty
carrier, not pure cellulr).

This is just conjecture, though.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I just hope RadioShack is not shooting it's self in the foot by selling
a whole bunch of gsm phones then those customers will be unhappy at
having to buy new wcdma phones soon.


Steve Sobol wrote:
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
>> I hadn't heard the news about the changes with RS, but I'm guessing they
>> decided to go with a national GSM carrier - i.e.: Cingular. TMobile
>> does not
>> provide coverage in all states. They are only in 43 of the 51 markets
>> (including DC).
>
>
> ?? Cingular isn't in all 50 either, are they? (I know Verizon isn't.)
>
> By the way, I don't think the issue with Verizon was 800 MHz or 1900
> MHz, I think it was a consistent stream of policies introduced over the
> past few months that screwed Verizon customers by nickeling-and-diming
> them to death - not very customer-friendly, considering that VZW is
> already the most expensive "pure" cellular carrier out there (I consider
> Nextel a specialty carrier, not pure cellulr).
>
> This is just conjecture, though.
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:J9vHe.8027$Uk3.6267@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 43 sounds large enough to be called a national carrier. Sprint PCS has
> a license for all 50, but does not cover 7 of them much.

SPCS covers a lot more territory than TMobile does. TMobile has NO coverage
in NC ... In SC, which was included in the 43, only Aiken, Beaufort & Hilton
Head, SC are covered. 3 small cities ... Aiken is only covered because it's
so close to Augusta, GA.

Bob

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Even though they are both PCS I would have preferred
> if RS had chosen tmobile for the gsm choice.

Why T-Mobile over Cingular, beyond your personal preference?

I can give you a few reasons why not:

- Constant rumors that the company is going to be sold, folded or spun
off. Deutsche Telecom has been very passive about investing anything in
T-Mobile, depsite the revenue it has brought in for them. They seem to
be interesting in milking it for all its worth and then throwing it away
when the money dries up.

- Very limited network upgrades over the past few years, no EDGE, no
UMTS upgrade plan.

- No clear expansion plans. T-Mobile is dead last among national
carriers, and seems content to stay there. They probably wouldn't offer
much benefit to RS in terms of reseller revenue.

- RS Probably wants a carrier that they know most stores will be able to
sell. T-Mobile doesn't have nearly the coverage footprint of Cingular,
and that means some RS stores will be left out unable to sell the
service if they are located in areas where there is no coverage.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:11f1ol3a38d6da7@corp.supernews.com...
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> > Even though they are both PCS I would have preferred
> > if RS had chosen tmobile for the gsm choice.
>
> Why T-Mobile over Cingular, beyond your personal preference?
>
> I can give you a few reasons why not:
>
> - Constant rumors that the company is going to be sold, folded or spun
> off. Deutsche Telecom has been very passive about investing anything in
> T-Mobile, depsite the revenue it has brought in for them. They seem to
> be interesting in milking it for all its worth and then throwing it away
> when the money dries up.
>
> - Very limited network upgrades over the past few years, no EDGE, no
> UMTS upgrade plan.
>
> - No clear expansion plans. T-Mobile is dead last among national
> carriers, and seems content to stay there. They probably wouldn't offer
> much benefit to RS in terms of reseller revenue.
>
> - RS Probably wants a carrier that they know most stores will be able to
> sell. T-Mobile doesn't have nearly the coverage footprint of Cingular,
> and that means some RS stores will be left out unable to sell the
> service if they are located in areas where there is no coverage.

All good points Isaiah, especially the last one. As I mentioned previously,
there is no native TMobile coverage in NC. As for SC, none, I repeat none of
the major cities, Columbia, Charleston, Greenville, Spartanburg, Myrtle
Beach, Anderson, Florence or Rock Hill have any native TMobile coverage.

Bob

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Sorry, I must have been tired or succumbing to the heat, for that
sentence was in error. tmobile is all PCS, but cingular is dual band.
I see that as an advantage for tmobile. There are RadioShack stores now
that can not sell verizon and/or Sprint PCS because those carriers do
not cover those areas. The difference in areas not covered by cingular
vs tmobile, I do not know, again there may be some areas not covered by
either, but it may be a partial factor in RadioShack's choice. Maybe
the new ATT wireless division might pick up tmobile?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Sorry, I must have been tired or succumbing to the heat, for that
> sentence was in error. tmobile is all PCS, but cingular is dual band. I
> see that as an advantage for tmobile. There are RadioShack stores now
> that can not sell verizon and/or Sprint PCS because those carriers do
> not cover those areas. The difference in areas not covered by cingular
> vs tmobile, I do not know, again there may be some areas not covered by
> either, but it may be a partial factor in RadioShack's choice. Maybe
> the new ATT wireless division might pick up tmobile?

I doubt AT&T will sprout a new wireless division now that they've been
bought by SBC.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

The way I understood it was that AT&T sold AT&T Wireless to SBC. and
that after an appropriate time that AT&T was planning on starting a new
wireless division. But who know what lurks in the hearts of corporate
america? Wait, does corporate america have a heart? hihi

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Sorry, I must have been tired or succumbing to the heat, for that
> sentence was in error. tmobile is all PCS, but cingular is dual band. I
> see that as an advantage for tmobile.

I don't see how that's an advantage. If anything, it's a limiting
factor: TMobiel has only 1900Mhz, and no room to expand for high speed data.

Very soon, Sprint's going to have split bands with the acquisition of
Nextel. They're going to have 800Mhz spectrum, 1.9GHz spectrum, and
possibly 2.6GHz spectrum. This is certainly not a disadvantage.

> There are RadioShack stores now
> that can not sell verizon and/or Sprint PCS because those carriers do
> not cover those areas.

That said, many more stores can sell Sprint/Verizon than they can
T-Mobile. And more stores will be able to sell Cingular than T-Mobile.

> The difference in areas not covered by cingular
> vs tmobile, I do not know,

All you have to do is compare coverage maps.

> again there may be some areas not covered by
> either, but it may be a partial factor in RadioShack's choice. Maybe
> the new ATT wireless division might pick up tmobile?

There is no such thing as a "new" ATT wireless division. There was
going to be an AT&T Mobile Systems, that was going to be a Sprint MVNO.
However, the planned acquisition of AT&T by SBC has pretty much put an
end to those plans. If the SCB-AT&T deal goes through, what's left of
AT&T won't need a wireless division, as its parent company (SBC) has a
60% stake in Cingular (which of course, now owns the "old" AT&T wireless
division).

AT&T never should have split off it wireless division in the first
place, nor its cable ("broadband" ) division. The spinoffs became its
undoing.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I must have been tired or succumbing to the heat, for that
>> sentence was in error. tmobile is all PCS, but cingular is dual band.
>> I see that as an advantage for tmobile.
>
>
> I don't see how that's an advantage. If anything, it's a limiting
> factor: TMobiel has only 1900Mhz, and no room to expand for high speed
> data.

They're adding EDGE - they have it in several markets now. My complaint is
that EDGE is only similar to 1xRTT in speed, but they are deploying it
(they're just *slow*).

> AT&T never should have split off it wireless division in the first
> place, nor its cable ("broadband" ) division. The spinoffs became its
> undoing.

No.

The purchases of businesses outside their core business were AT&T's undoing.
The spinoffs were necessary. IMHO.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:

>> AT&T never should have split off it wireless division in the first
>> place, nor its cable ("broadband" ) division. The spinoffs became its
>> undoing.
>
>
> No.
>
> The purchases of businesses outside their core business were AT&T's
> undoing. The spinoffs were necessary. IMHO.


I could argue for hours about this, but the proof is in the pudding;
AT&T decided that long distance telephony was the way to go, and spun
everything else off. Now look at the results: Comcast (which bought the
broadband unit) is very profitable, and Cingular (which bought wireless)
is very profitable. Meanwhile, long distance telephony revenue
continues to decline every year. The core business was a dying business.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.