Being able to roam on AT&T's superior 3G network with my current data plan would keep me around awhile longer.
LOL. Superior 3G network? Not for me. I ran a speedtest at Costco today and got 1.6mb down. My identical T-Mo S2 got 6mb down. This is in an area where all the major carriers have excellent coverage. Ironically.. that AT&T S2 showed HSPA, yet my Virgin Mobile phone on crappy Sprint 3G regularly gets 1.5mb down.
Anyway.. we'll see what happens. I'm happy for the time being. Next year makes 11 years with T-Mo for me.
Castrol EDGE 5W-30 is my drug of choice.
Toyota | moving forward
Primary: T-Mobile Galaxy S II & HTC Radar 4G| Nokia Lumia 710: 3 lines FT 500 + SMS/MMS + myFaves + $20.00 preferred data (5GB), plus corp discount and $10/mo loyalty credit @ $87/mo tax inclusive Secondary: VM Optimus Slider: 300min + SMS/MMS + unlimited data @ $25/mo, Samsung R455C: TracFone PAYG
For that reason, I have to wonder why the carrier that became VoiceStream did not instead go the TDMA 1900 route. Around the same time, AT&TWS supplemented its TDMA 850 + AMPS markets with numerous TDMA 1900 markets.
As I recall (back in the dim recesses of my memory) TDMA-1900 was not quite ready to go at the time of the first round of PCS auctions (1995). GSM-1900 was just a minor tweak of GSM-1800 an could be used immediately. The first dual band phones took a few more years to develop. So, even if there had been a working TDMA-1900 phone it could not have been used to extend the coverage of an existing cellular carrier.
Nokia 5310 w/Jabra BT250V handsfree, Nokia 6010, Nokia 6030
Nokia 6310i, Nokia 8310 (Europe)
Carrier
T-Mobile US, Fido, T-Mobile NL, Orange IL
Feedback Score
0
Originally Posted by DRNewcomb
Without getting too far off topic here, Voicestream, which was bought by DT to become T-Mobile, was a child of Western Wireless, which in turn was a big 850 MHz cellular carrier in the West. But the two never cooperated. There was no GSM-850 and Voicestream was 100% 1900 MHz. Verizon now owns what's left of Western Wireless but (AFAIK) still operates GSM-850 in parallel with CDMA for the benefit of GSM roaming. I wonder how things might have been different had there been more cooperation between WW & VS? If they had pushed for GSM-850 and dual-band phones earlier?
If you're roaming in the area does it show Western Wireless or Verizon for the operator on the handset?
Moderator yahoogroups forum T-Mobile-US http://groups.yahoo.com/group/T-Mobile-US
Nokia 5310 w/Jabra BT250V handsfree, Nokia 6010, Nokia 6030
Nokia 6310i, Nokia 8310 (Europe)
Carrier
T-Mobile US, Fido, T-Mobile NL, Orange IL
Feedback Score
0
Originally Posted by WiWavelength
At the time in the mid to late 1990s that VoiceStream was a PCS 1900 MHz offshoot of WWC, WWC was still a TDMA 850 + AMPS carrier (WWC did not do a CDMA overlay until ~2002). For that reason, I have to wonder why the carrier that became VoiceStream did not instead go the TDMA 1900 route. Around the same time, AT&TWS supplemented its TDMA 850 + AMPS markets with numerous TDMA 1900 markets. Seemingly, WWC and VoiceStream could have done likewise.
To further illustrate, many of the major markets where VoiceStream acquired PCS A/B block 30 MHz licenses from the first round of PCS 1900 MHz auctions ~1995 (e.g. Salt Lake City, Albuquerque-El Paso, Denver, and Oklahoma City MTAs) were adjacent to WWC rural Cellular 850 MHz markets. A dual band TDMA 1900 city, TDMA 850 + AMPS rural network would have seemed a natural fit. Even VoiceStream's FCC auction bidding entity name -- Western PCS -- suggested a more synergistic relationship between WWC and VoiceStream than ever materialized.
AJ
Also left over from Western Wireless: 800-937-8997 (cust care) which also can be in letters 800-WEST-WYR
If you're roaming in the area does it show Western Wireless or Verizon for the operator on the handset?
I think that all depends on the vintage of your handset. Verizon probably still uses WWC's network numbers. So, older handsets would say Western Wireless and newer ones would say Verizon.
As I recall (back in the dim recesses of my memory) TDMA-1900 was not quite ready to go at the time of the first round of PCS auctions (1995). GSM-1900 was just a minor tweak of GSM-1800 an could be used immediately. The first dual band phones took a few more years to develop. So, even if there had been a working TDMA-1900 phone it could not have been used to extend the coverage of an existing cellular carrier.
You may be right (or I may be crazy). But the 15 year old article linked below indicates what you say about dual band TDMA 850/1900 handsets. AT&TWS' first round of PCS 1900 MHz market launches in 1997 were held up waiting for the handsets. Also, TDMA 1900 was always IS-136, while TDMA 850 could be either IS-54 or IS-136. So, the transition to IS-136 infrastructure and mobiles, as well, could have slowed the roll out.
Furthermore, Sprint Spectrum in Washington-Baltimore and VoiceStream in Honolulu were the first two PCS 1900 MHz licensees and markets to launch in late 1995 and early 1996, respectively. And both were GSM 1900. So, that does lend credence to your theory that DCS 1800 begat rapid availability for GSM 1900.
Lastly, VoiceStream did offer an AMPS "sleeve" for at least one or two Nokia GSM 1900 handsets. Thus, that could have been the way that VoiceStream intended partly to harmonize its GSM 1900 urban coverage with sibling WWC's AMPS rural coverage.
You may be right (or I may be crazy). But the 15 year old article linked below indicates what you say about dual band TDMA 850/1900 handsets. AT&TWS' first round of PCS 1900 MHz market launches in 1997 were held up waiting for the handsets. Also, TDMA 1900 was always IS-136, while TDMA 850 could be either IS-54 or IS-136. So, the transition to IS-136 infrastructure and mobiles, as well, could have slowed the roll out.
One thing to keep in mind is that at that time just a few months were critical. These new carriers had to get some cash flow, "right now." CDMA was just getting the kinks worked out on the first generation. TDMA-1900 was almost there but nothing was ready, "right now". GSM-1800 had been operating in Europe for over a year and manufacturers could deliver both 1900 MHz handsets and infrastructure, "right now."
Lastly, VoiceStream did offer an AMPS "sleeve" for at least one or two Nokia GSM 1900 handsets. Thus, that could have been the way that VoiceStream intended partly to harmonize its GSM 1900 urban coverage with sibling WWC's AMPS rural coverage.
Yes, I own one. It slips on back of the Nokia 5190/6190 phone between the phone and battery.
TDMA-1900 was almost there but nothing was ready, "right now". GSM-1800 had been operating in Europe for over a year and manufacturers could deliver both 1900 MHz handsets and infrastructure, "right now." Yes, I own one. It slips on back of the Nokia 5190/6190 phone between the phone and battery.
I still have one of those sleeves, too. There was also at least one phone, the Nokia 6340i, that worked on both TDMA and GSM.
I still have one of those sleeves, too. There was also at least one phone, the Nokia 6340i, that worked on both TDMA and GSM.
man i remember fighting tooth and nail with Cingular to activate my 6340i since GSM was garbage in Columbus, OH at the time and when i went up north i wanted to be able to roam onto Alltel's AMPS network since the only GSM available where i was going was an extremely weak AT&T Wireless PCS signal that only worked outside.
Left: T-Mobile HSPA+ with Amaze 4G, On the right Cox Communications at Home:
...Furthermore, Sprint Spectrum in Washington-Baltimore and VoiceStream in Honolulu were the first two PCS 1900 MHz licensees and markets to launch in late 1995 and early 1996, respectively. And both were GSM 1900. So, that does lend credence to your theory that DCS 1800 begat rapid availability for GSM 1900.
...
Sprint Spectrum had an additional incentive, I believe, for DC. I think the FCC gave them a "pioneer" license for that market for launching GSM.
AT&T and T-Mobile SF Bay Area+ Cell Sites - with Cell ID labels http://sfocellsites.com/ Over 1,100 AT&T sites in the 9 Bay Area counties + San Benito, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties Now over 1,500 T-Mobile sites in these 12 counties
Anyone else have any further thoughts on the failed acquisition of T-Mobile? Please feel free to open a new thread in the main forums. This thread was probably the most provocative and heated in quite some time for our T-Mobile family. I think it's time to discuss plan B, C and/or D with new threads.
AT&T to acquire T-Mobile USA
Originally Posted by jet1000
AT&T and T-Mobile SF Bay Area+ Cell Sites - with Cell ID labels
Over 1,100 AT&T sites in the 9 Bay Area counties + San Benito, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties
Now over 1,500 T-Mobile sites in these 12 counties
Bookmarks