Industry experts disagree over benefits of new wireless technology.

Last August, the Federal Communications Commission began auctioning off licenses to build Personal Communications Services networks - billed by supporters as the biggest advance in wireless phone communications since cellular phone service. One year later, however, industry sources are divided over just how big a breakthrough PCS really is.

PCS licensees say the wireless systems they are building will provide service that is better and more-efficient than that provided by today's cellular carriers. Conversely, cellular providers say they can already offer everything that PCS carriers will provide.

A number of technological issues are involved in the PCS debate, but one - the issue of digital vs. analog technology - lies at the heart of the matter. Current cellular providers rely on a mixture of older analog technology and newer digital technology, whereas future PCS providers will exclusively use digital technology.

The other major difference between PCS and cellular service is the bandwidth of radio frequencies assigned to each by the FCC. Cellular phone calls currently use bandwidths around 800 megahertz, while PCS calls will be broadcast at frequencies in the area of 1900 megahertz. The bandwidth has no effect on quality of signal transmission, however. It merely indicates the portion of the broadcast spectrum over which the signal is transmitted.

The two PCS licensees for Southern California, including L.A. County, are San Francisco-based Pacific Telesis Group and Cox California PCS Inc., an Irvine-based joint venture whose majority owner is Cox Communications Inc. of Atlanta. In addition to the two licenses already issued, the FCC plans to auction off as many as six more PCS licenses for Southern California in coming years.

In a recent development, an August auction for additional PCS licenses was delayed when a federal appeals court challenged one of the FCC's rules regarding potential bidders. The controversy involved large firms that have been investing in small companies bidding for special small-business PCS licenses.

Outside the PCS arena, L.A. County's two licensed cellular carriers are Cerritos-based L.A. Cellular Telephone Co. and AirTouch Communications of San Francisco.

PCS licensees argue that digital technology will provide a number of advantages over existing cellular service. Most of those arise from the higher efficiency and greater sound clarity of digital signals over analog ones. Cellular carriers such as L.A. Cellular and AirTouch, meanwhile, say they can already provide many of the advantages being touted by PCS licensees.

Seduced by propaganda?

Herschel Shosteck, president of telecommunications market research and consulting firm Herschel Shosteck Associates Ltd. in Wheaton, Md., said the field of 102 PCS licensees in the United States so far has been "seduced by their own propaganda."

"(PCS licensees) are saying they can do all kinds of things existing cellular carriers cannot, but this is self delusion," said Shosteck. He explained that when PCS technology was first developed in 1990, its proponents billed it as a system that could deliver "everything and more" than cellular carriers. Since that time, however, Shosteck said cellular companies have introduced many of the features that PCS proponents previously envisioned as their exclusive terrain.

Steve Crosby, director of external affairs for L.A. Cellular, echoed Shosteck's sentiments.

"People have been talking PCS for the last year and a half, but it sounds like everything they say we can already do now. (PCS licensees) say they'll provide lots of new services, but they haven't been too clear about what the services really are," Crosby said.

And while PCS carriers may offer newer technology, Crosby pointed out that cellular carriers still have an edge on their rivals-to-be in the experience arena. In particular, cellular carriers are already well versed in the fraud- and customer service-related issues that will likely confront PCS carriers of the future.

Better transmissions

Scott Ellison, issues manager at Personal Communications Industry Association in Washington, D.C., said the main advantage of PCS over existing cellular service will be higher-quality transmissions.

"From a customer perspective, you'll see a digital high-end line (from PCS carriers) that's almost indistinguishable from (wire-based) land lines," he said.

In addition to offering high-quality voice transmission, devoid of the hissing and popping often associated with cellular service, Ellison pointed out that PCS will be much better for machines such as faxes and modems. "Data tends to have a low tolerance for popping and hissing," he said.

The two licensed PCS carriers for Southern California both have big plans for their future operations.

Pacific Telesis, which expects to start its L.A. County service by the beginning of 1997, hopes to someday become the premier PCS carrier for the entire states of California and Nevada, according to company spokesman Lou Saviano. To that end, Pacific Telesis currently holds licenses to establish PCS service in Northern California, Southern California and Nevada.

Cox California, meanwhile, hopes to make its PCS service part of an eventual seamless package of wired and wireless services for consumers.

Bruce Crair, vice president and general manager of Cox California, said his company plans to work with a series of affiliates and joint venture partners to eventually create a package of PCS, cable television, local telephone and long-distance telephone services available to Southland consumers.

At the same time, though, Crair conceded that distinctions between soon-to-be PCS carriers and existing cellular companies will likely fade over time, as cellular companies upgrade their systems to all-digital formats.

"Eight to 10 years from now, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between a cellular operator and a PCS system," he said.