Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

Post by ps56k
What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
plans
compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-phone-plans/beyond-talk-plans.html

1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.

2. Very limited handset selection. Probably no tethering.

nospam

2010-07-20 05:54:06 UTC

Post by SMS
1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.

actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.

George

2010-07-20 11:35:37 UTC

actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.

Depends, their network is nothing to write home about in many areas
(including this one) plus they have the built in handicap of being on
PCS so they have issues with building penetration.

John Navas

2010-07-20 14:41:26 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:35:37 -0400, in

actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.

Depends, their network is nothing to write home about in many areas
(including this one)

All carriers have areas in which they aren't so great.

Post by George
plus they have the built in handicap of being on
PCS so they have issues with building penetration.

That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
really matters is tower location.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

George

2010-07-20 21:40:12 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:35:37 -0400, in

actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.

Depends, their network is nothing to write home about in many areas
(including this one)

All carriers have areas in which they aren't so great.

Post by George
plus they have the built in handicap of being on
PCS so they have issues with building penetration.

That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
really matters is tower location.

Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
one reason being what I mentioned.

John Navas

2010-07-21 03:41:29 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
really matters is tower location.

Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
one reason being what I mentioned.

That's largely another urban myth -- tower spacing is dominated by
capacity and siting issues.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

George

2010-07-21 11:33:39 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
really matters is tower location.

Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
one reason being what I mentioned.

That's largely another urban myth -- tower spacing is dominated by
capacity and siting issues.

Right, you do understand there are folks who understand how this stuff
works?

John Navas

2010-07-21 15:20:36 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:33:39 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
really matters is tower location.

Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
one reason being what I mentioned.

That's largely another urban myth -- tower spacing is dominated by
capacity and siting issues.

Right, you do understand there are folks who understand how this stuff
works?

I likewise understand there aren't many of them here. ;)

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 15:27:38 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:33:39 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
really matters is tower location.

Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
one reason being what I mentioned.

That's largely another urban myth -- tower spacing is dominated by
capacity and siting issues.

Right, you do understand there are folks who understand how this stuff
works?

I likewise understand there aren't many of them here. ;)

Most are sitting twice the distance out to sea than GSM can possibly go and
maintaining that they are making a connection to a land based tower [rather
than an offshore tower/repeater]. Oh wait, there is only one such person in
this group ... in this thread ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

John Navas

2010-07-21 15:32:29 UTC

Post by John Navas
I likewise understand there aren't many of them here. ;)

Yep. I know it worked as described. You're just going on speculation.
That pretty much says it all.

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 16:36:53 UTC

Post by John Navas
I likewise understand there aren't many of them here. ;)

Yep. I know it worked as described. You're just going on speculation.
That pretty much says it all.

No more speculative than theoretical physics. I post about theory and effects
and by golly, this scenario is the perfect storm to prove it out and it proves
out in spades. It doesn't mean that anything I said is right for sure, but it
does say that what I have said has evidence to support it. We all know that
PCS has distance and penetration limitations compared to Cellular ... simple
physics. CDMA has better error correction technology (it is newer than GSM,
so that shouldn't be surprising) and can utilize multipath to it's benefit
where GSM is nearly always hindered by it. With better error correction
technology, it means lower base bandwidth requirements for the data payload.
Thus, three items in favor of my conclusion which I have been pointing out for
years and here I work in one such building that illustrates my conclusions
perfectly. T-Mobile, Sprint PCS and AT&T users fly to the windows or out the
door to take or make a call. Verizon users can call, text or use data inside
of stainless steel bathroom stalls. The one tower has all four carriers
antennas on it. Go figure.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

John Navas

2010-07-21 17:19:10 UTC

Post by John Navas
I likewise understand there aren't many of them here. ;)

Yep. I know it worked as described. You're just going on speculation.
That pretty much says it all.

Do you have anything more persuasive then your own opinions and
unsupported claims?

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 20:21:48 UTC

Post by John Navas
I likewise understand there aren't many of them here. ;)

Yep. I know it worked as described. You're just going on speculation.
That pretty much says it all.

Do you have anything more persuasive then your own opinions and
unsupported claims?

The facts about frequency penetration [in building] are there for anybody to
look up. The facts about GSM and CDMA are there for anybody to look up. The
error correction that I speak of is available for GSM for anybody to lookup; I
am not so sure about CDMA since it is under Qualcomm patent, but comparing to
similar spreadspectrum technologies, if one extrapolates, it is about 100%
likely that the error correction protocol used for CDMA is more advanced than
for GSM and it is easy to see then that CDMA can work at a lower signal
relative to if it used what GSM uses for error correction. Thus, applied to
building penetration, it is easy to conclude that the improved error correcton
of CDMA will aid in building penetration. Throw in the fact that CDMA can
utilize multipath rather than necessarily be hindered by it as is the case
with GSM and you can also make similar conclusions about "in structure"
signal.

So, the data is all there. My experience (which I can't exactly share with
you since you are not here, nor can I invite you here ... or would I) backs up
what I have said and concluded based on open data [except for the error
correction protocol for CDMA, which may be available, but I haven't seen it
directly, only compared to GSM some time back].

In summary, you can debunk my conclusions all you want, but the fact remains
that the building I work in is a prime test case to prove out [rather, it
doesn't disprove] my conclusions. There are a couple of hundred people here
on various carriers which all can tell the same story and some of them are RF
engineers themselves, although they probably don't spend time in this group.

John - your record is clear, if it isn't cingular [you still won't let
cingular go and just accept AT&T as far as newsgroups go], it isn't GSM or
later on the evolutionary ladder towards consolidation (ironically much closer
to CDMA than to anything remotely like GSM/TDMA) then you just simple write
things like, "not true", "liar", "wrong again", or just pick to negative words
and pair them. But real word data suggests otherwise and that is why AT&T
threw such a hissy fit about the 3G coverage in Verizon's commercials, because
it was true and they didn't like it [and either do you!].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

John Navas

2010-07-23 03:52:00 UTC

Post by John Navas
Do you have anything more persuasive then your own opinions and
unsupported claims?

In other words, you don't.
That's what I thought, but thanks for the confirmation.

In rebuttal of your furious hand waving, here's real data:

CS 294-7: Radio Propagation by Prof. Randy H. Katz, CS Division,
University of California, Berkeley
<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>.

Those interested will find that frequency isn't an issue in outdoor
range, and is a relatively minor issue in indoor penetration.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

SMS

2010-07-20 13:35:40 UTC

actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.

You've got to be really careful about distinguishing between postpaid
Sprint coverage and coverage on prepaid services that use Sprint's
network. They are two very different animals, and many people are misled
by clever marketing of the MVNOs (though technically since Sprint now
owns Virgin, it's no longer an MVNO). A postpaid Sprint phone has _far_
greater coverage than a phone on Virgin Mobile, and roaming is a
necessary and essential part of Sprint's coverage (as it also is with
Verizon though to a lesser extent).

If you're on Sprint on postpaid, the coverage is okay because you can
roam onto other CDMA cellular and PCS networks. If they have a presence
in the area you often won't roam onto other CDMA networks unless you can
force the handset to only use the 800 MHz CDMA network, so you don't
automatically get the combined coverage of Sprint, Verizon, U.S.
Cellular, etc.. This means issues with in-building coverage due to
Sprint being on the less desirable 1900 MHz frequency.

The big problem is with the prepaid services that use Sprint's native
network exclusively. Sprint's native network is extremely limited, as
their coverage maps show.

You can see the difference between regular Sprint coverage (which
includes roaming) and Virgin coverage (which does not) by comparing maps.

"Loading Image...

"

If you never travel to the white areas on the Virgin map (gray on the
Sprint map) then you'd be fine on Virgin. But there are a LOT of places,
often not all that far out into the boonies, that a Virgin phone won't
have coverage but a Sprint phone will have coverage.

I.e., drive to Yosemite National Park from San Francisco, and you'll
lose Virgin coverage outside of Oakdale and you'll have no coverage in
the park. On Sprint proper you'll roam onto Golden State Cellular as
soon as you leave Oakdale, and you'll have coverage most of the way into
the park, and good coverage in Yosemite Valley.

In short, if you go with Virgin Mobile, or other prepaid providers using
Sprint's network exclusively, you have to understand that your coverage
will be very limited.

John Navas

2010-07-20 14:45:46 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:35:40 -0700, in

Post by SMS
The big problem is with the prepaid services that use Sprint's native
network exclusively. Sprint's native network is extremely limited, as
their coverage maps show.
You can see the difference between regular Sprint coverage (which
includes roaming) and Virgin coverage (which does not) by comparing maps.
"http://i31.tinypic.com/27ymjd.jpg"
If you never travel to the white areas on the Virgin map (gray on the
Sprint map) then you'd be fine on Virgin. But there are a LOT of places,
often not all that far out into the boonies, that a Virgin phone won't
have coverage but a Sprint phone will have coverage.
I.e., drive to Yosemite National Park from San Francisco, and you'll
lose Virgin coverage outside of Oakdale and you'll have no coverage in
the park. On Sprint proper you'll roam onto Golden State Cellular as
soon as you leave Oakdale, and you'll have coverage most of the way into
the park, and good coverage in Yosemite Valley.
In short, if you go with Virgin Mobile, or other prepaid providers using
Sprint's network exclusively, you have to understand that your coverage
will be very limited.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".

If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PLB).

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

Frank Haber

2010-07-20 17:43:54 UTC

What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas, which
is actually good, not "very limited".

Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the Tragedy of
the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and avaricious landlords
charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit coverage, too. Case in point:
any iPhone article in the tech press, clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk
about navel-gazing!).

Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m. while
you're on the street in Midtown.

Penetration: anything over 500MHz has trouble getting through 1920s thick
plaster and stone walls, and steel building frames, and mesh lathing.
Penetration even varies with the ambient humidity (summer stinks). Thus the
persistence of pagers here well into the new century. They're still de rigeur
for physicians on call in some hospitals.

-Frank, who's enjoyed your broadband tips for what, twelve years now?

George

2010-07-20 21:40:25 UTC

Post by John Navas
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".

I go there a lot and have never had an issue using VZW. AT&T however is
a much different story.

Post by Frank Haber
Penetration: anything over 500MHz has trouble getting through 1920s
thick plaster and stone walls, and steel building frames, and mesh
lathing. Penetration even varies with the ambient humidity (summer
stinks). Thus the persistence of pagers here well into the new century.
They're still de rigeur for physicians on call in some hospitals.
-Frank, who's enjoyed your broadband tips for what, twelve years now?

SMS

2010-07-20 23:02:04 UTC

Post by John Navas
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".

I've been in midtown Manhattan many times and never had a problem on
Verizon. AT&T is a disaster there. My nephew lives near Union Square and
his iPhone is unusable in his apartment, whether it's 5:30 p.m. or 5:30
a.m.. He had to give up AT&T when he moved to NYC from Florida for his
internship.

It should not be this way. GSM cell spacing can be denser than CDMA cell
spacing so more subscribers can be served. OTOH For the same amount of
traffic a CDMA network requires less cell sites than a GSM network.

The problems with GSM in NYC are caused by the carriers not deploying
enough cells to meet the demand. While CDMA equipment is more expensive
than GSM equipment, the bigger cost is in the actual real estate for the
cell site.

John Navas

2010-07-21 03:46:54 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:02:04 -0700, in

Post by John Navas
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".

Does the word anecdotal mean nothing to you?
Because it's bad for him, it must be bad for everyone. Right
Just like the coverage issue in your wife's office that started you on
your anti-GSM crusade.

Post by SMS
It should not be this way. GSM cell spacing can be denser than CDMA cell
spacing so more subscribers can be served. OTOH For the same amount of
traffic a CDMA network requires less cell sites than a GSM network.

Neither one of those statements is true. The two technologies have
roughly the same Erlangs, as I documented long ago.

Post by SMS
The problems with GSM in NYC are caused by the carriers not deploying
enough cells to meet the demand. While CDMA equipment is more expensive
than GSM equipment, the bigger cost is in the actual real estate for the
cell site.

Problems with all carriers in NYC are caused by (a) high subscriber
density, (b) siting issues, and (c) urban canyons.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

George

2010-07-21 11:34:43 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:02:04 -0700, in

Post by John Navas
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".

Does the word anecdotal mean nothing to you?
Because it's bad for him, it must be bad for everyone. Right
Just like the coverage issue in your wife's office that started you on
your anti-GSM crusade.

Neither one of those statements is true. The two technologies have
roughly the same Erlangs, as I documented long ago.

Problems with all carriers in NYC are caused by (a) high subscriber
density, (b) siting issues, and (c) urban canyons.

But thats a useless oversimplification because for some reason you
simply assume all things are equal. The reality is some carriers do a
much better job because they spend more money to build a more robust
infrastructure.

John Navas

2010-07-21 15:23:19 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:34:43 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
Problems with all carriers in NYC are caused by (a) high subscriber
density, (b) siting issues, and (c) urban canyons.

Carriers certainly aren't all the same, but the differences are less
significant than proponents claim here, and change over time -- what was
true last year may not be true this year, ad infinitum. All that really
matters is how well a given service works for you in the places you care
about, not what someone else claims about the coverage, not what some
anonymous person here may claim about the technology.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 15:31:50 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:34:43 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
Problems with all carriers in NYC are caused by (a) high subscriber
density, (b) siting issues, and (c) urban canyons.

I have already posted my experience. I have been working with this particular
client for more than five years [with a 20 month gap between gigs] and nothing
but Verizon has ever worked well here and that goes for data as well as voice.
The area is a technology park and is "well covered", but the real problem is
one of building penetration and the makeup of the structure [which is not
uncommon] and only Verizon can deal with it [all carriers are on the same
tower less than a mile away]. For reasons already indicated, I believe this
to be due to the fact that they are the only carrier that uses CDMA and works
in the lower frequency cellular bands [and data is also in the lower frequency
bands compared to other carriers]. In short, what I have said all along about
GSM and building penetration along with PCS and building penetration both seem
to apply in practice.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

John Navas

2010-07-21 15:34:23 UTC

Post by John Navas
Carriers certainly aren't all the same, but the differences are less
significant than proponents claim here, and change over time -- what was
true last year may not be true this year, ad infinitum. All that really
matters is how well a given service works for you in the places you care
about, not what someone else claims about the coverage, not what some
anonymous person here may claim about the technology.

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

Richard B. Gilbert

2010-07-21 16:13:24 UTC

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

Some coverage holes may be more obvious than others; my travels since I
bought my first cellular phone, have been on the East Coast of the U.S.,
roughly Boston to Atlanta. There may be coverage holes if you look hard
enough but I've never noticed any.

YMMV!

John Navas

2010-07-21 16:25:44 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:13:24 -0400, in

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

Indeed.

It's a wildly overblown and largely agenda driven issue here.

All claims should be taken with a grain of salt (my own included).

As a former President famously said, "Trust, but verify!" ;)

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 16:38:23 UTC

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

This is not an issue with "holes". The tower is close by for all carriers
(since they are all on the same tower). Walk out the door of the building and
all carriers show full signal (data and voice). Inside and ONLY Verizon shows
the same full signal (data and voice).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

John Navas

2010-07-21 17:21:14 UTC

Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
I have already posted my experience. I have been working with this particular
client for more than five years [with a 20 month gap between gigs] and nothing
but Verizon has ever worked well here and that goes for data as well as voice.
The area is a technology park and is "well covered", but the real problem is
one of building penetration and the makeup of the structure [which is not
uncommon] and only Verizon can deal with it [all carriers are on the same
tower less than a mile away]. For reasons already indicated, I believe this
to be due to the fact that they are the only carrier that uses CDMA and works
in the lower frequency cellular bands [and data is also in the lower frequency
bands compared to other carriers]. In short, what I have said all along about
GSM and building penetration along with PCS and building penetration both seem
to apply in practice.

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

The location of the tower is only one factor. Also important is the
type and orientation of the antennas. All you really have is one
anecdotal experience. How about some authoritative citations to back up
your claims?

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 20:23:56 UTC

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

And the fact that I said that any carriers phone, when carried outside the
building goes to full or nearly full signal has no bearing on the subject at
all, eh?

What cititions do you need? The GSM open spec? Dig it up yourself.
Comparisons between OTA performance of GSM and CDMA? Dig it up yourself. I
could continue, but you get the drift.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

John Navas

2010-07-23 03:53:00 UTC

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

And the fact that I said that any carriers phone, when carried outside the
building goes to full or nearly full signal has no bearing on the subject at
all, eh?

None. read what I wrote more carefully.

Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
What cititions do you need? The GSM open spec? Dig it up yourself.
Comparisons between OTA performance of GSM and CDMA? Dig it up yourself. I
could continue, but you get the drift.

In other words, you don't have anything to back up your claims.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

Todd Allcock

2010-07-21 17:42:50 UTC

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

And you're positive Verizon doesn't have a repeater inside the building?
Most modern AT&T phones use a CDMA-based 3G radio at 850 and 1900 for voice
and data, with GSM as a fallback, so the "CDMA vs. GSM" factor would seem to
be removed from the equation, unless your AT&T-packing colleagues are using
really old phones.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 20:25:18 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock

All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

Yes ... oddly, the company's preferred carrier was AT&T (and may still be, I
am not sure as I am not an employee). I in one building of many and it is
this particular building with issues as it used to be an old warehouse;
remodelled for R&D.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

SMS

2010-07-21 16:35:04 UTC

On 21/07/10 8:31 AM, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

<snip>

The combination of CDMA and 800 MHz is very big advantage when it comes
to coverage and in-building penetration. There is no shortage of studies
and technical articles that prove this. Are there ways of solving these
issues with 1900 MHz and/or GSM? Yes, greater cell density and picocells
can mitigate the problems with 1900 MHz and with GSM. but they are
costly for the subscriber or carrier (or both).

1900 MHz was all that was left when Sprint and Voicestream/T-Mobile came
into being. You get what you get or you get nothing. GSM equipment is
cheaper than CDMA equipment (yet more smaller rural carries still choose
CDMA).

There's a much bigger problem here. The individual in question, that's
arguing without any technical knowledge of the subject, uses a 1900 MHz
GSM carrier, therefore it is simply beyond comprehension that something
he uses is not the absolute best choice in the entire universe which
must be defended against all facts, logic, and evidence.

John Navas

2010-07-21 17:22:59 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:35:04 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

The combination of CDMA and 800 MHz is very big advantage when it comes
to coverage and in-building penetration. There is no shortage of studies
and technical articles that prove this.

Yet you don't post a single citation.
Why is that? Because it's not true.

Post by SMS
There's a much bigger problem here. The individual in question, that's
arguing without any technical knowledge of the subject, uses a 1900 MHz
GSM carrier, therefore it is simply beyond comprehension that something
he uses is not the absolute best choice in the entire universe which
must be defended against all facts, logic, and evidence.

You're the one here with the agenda and no supporting facts.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-21 20:29:06 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:35:04 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

The combination of CDMA and 800 MHz is very big advantage when it comes
to coverage and in-building penetration. There is no shortage of studies
and technical articles that prove this.

Yet you don't post a single citation.
Why is that? Because it's not true.

You know better than that John; you know very well it is true and it has been
a fact known for about 10 years or more. The carriers themselves have
gathered all the data. You just don't like the result; sorry you are unhappy
with the truth. And if you really believe it is not true, well, I could call
you a name, but I will just leave you in your ignorance at this point; it
is more polite.

You're the one here with the agenda and no supporting facts.

Oh, I thought that was me! SMS can't take that away, that title belongs to
me! ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

SMS

2010-07-21 21:30:40 UTC

Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
You know better than that John; you know very well it is true and it has been
a fact known for about 10 years or more. The carriers themselves have
gathered all the data. You just don't like the result; sorry you are unhappy
with the truth. And if you really believe it is not true, well, I could call
you a name, but I will just leave you in your ignorance at this point; it
is more polite.

Of course he knows. The referenced evidence has been posted probably
hundreds of times over the past several years. As you state, he simply
doesn't like the truth. Sadly, he doesn't confine his misinformation
campaign to just wireless, he's expanded to new areas of lying.

Personally, I kill-file pathological liars, I don't respond to them.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2010-07-22 15:07:38 UTC

Of course he knows. The referenced evidence has been posted probably
hundreds of times over the past several years. As you state, he simply
doesn't like the truth. Sadly, he doesn't confine his misinformation
campaign to just wireless, he's expanded to new areas of lying.
Personally, I kill-file pathological liars, I don't respond to them.

The only reason he isn't in my score file is because he has a propensity to
add alt.cellular.cingular to his posts and loves to post that stupid CHARTER
to this group, so I occassionly get in there and silently change follow-ups
;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

SMS

2010-07-22 15:24:57 UTC

On 22/07/10 8:07 AM, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

<snip>

Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
The only reason he isn't in my score file is because he has a propensity to
add alt.cellular.cingular to his posts and loves to post that stupid CHARTER
to this group, so I occassionly get in there and silently change follow-ups
;-)

Is he really still posting the alt.cellular.cingular charter to
alt.cellular.attws? Some things never change. Funny-sad.

John Navas

2010-07-23 04:15:41 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:35:04 -0700, in

Post by SMS
The combination of CDMA and 800 MHz is very big advantage when it comes
to coverage and in-building penetration. There is no shortage of studies
and technical articles that prove this.

Yet you don't post a single citation.
Why is that? Because it's not true.

You make only unsupported claims,
I post real evidence to the contrary.
Just that simple.

You're the one here with the agenda and no supporting facts.

Oh, I thought that was me! SMS can't take that away, that title belongs to
me! ;-)

OK, it's a tie.

George

2010-07-21 21:21:23 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:34:43 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
Problems with all carriers in NYC are caused by (a) high subscriber
density, (b) siting issues, and (c) urban canyons.

Your argument is as silly as deciding you want a pizza tonight and there
is nothing but a trivial difference say between a big box industrial
pizza from say pizza hut and a quality pizza baked in a wood fired pizza
oven.

There is an incredible difference between the carriers regarding quality
of their entire operation, some don't care about proper capacity,
redundant equipment, backup generators, backup battery or even how long
it takes someone to respond when a site goes down.

John Navas

2010-07-20 05:57:28 UTC

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in

Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.

Post by SMS
2. Very limited handset selection. Probably no tethering.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

Justin

2010-07-20 12:56:47 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in

Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.

Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

Steve Sobol

2010-07-20 13:08:03 UTC

Post by Justin
Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

Depends on your area. In the Cleveland area, Sprint had a tower at Ohio
306 and Lake Shore Boulevard and because of that, they were the only
carrier that had good coverage in Mentor On The Lake, where I lived.

I had Verizon at the time, and I wrote to the Dublin, Ohio corporate
office asking them to add coverage in MOL, and they eventually did, but
they lagged way behind Sprint in providing coverage there.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
***@JustThe.net

John Navas

2010-07-20 14:46:26 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in

Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.

Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

Justin

2010-07-20 14:47:30 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in

Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.

Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".
If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PLB).

Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?

John Navas

2010-07-20 14:58:49 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".
If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PLB).

Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?

Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
too many issues that can interfere with the signal.

It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
as to do the job.

If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
a passive or active (picocell) repeater.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

Justin

2010-07-20 15:06:50 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC), in

Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?

Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
too many issues that can interfere with the signal.
It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
as to do the job.
If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
a passive or active (picocell) repeater.

Did I say indoors?

George

2010-07-20 21:44:36 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC), in

Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?

Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
too many issues that can interfere with the signal.

Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
band they are hand. Couple that with fewer installed sites in many areas
and it just doesn't work out so well.

Post by John Navas
It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
as to do the job.

Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

Post by John Navas
If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
a passive or active (picocell) repeater.

SMS

2010-07-20 23:09:04 UTC

On 20/07/10 2:44 PM, George wrote:

<snip>

Post by George
Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

It's definitely luck. You and I were lucky enough to go to institutions
of higher learning where we could gain the critical thinking skills
necessary to understand that all carriers are not created equal, and
that some spend much more money on their network and some chose newer
and more costly technology that is able to handle more network traffic.

Others were not so lucky and grew more and more clueless, and believe
that wireless coverage is just a matter of luck so they may as well
choose the cheapest carrier. They are the legal prey of the carriers
that provide poorer coverage.

Actually learning critical thinking skills begins much earlier than
college. Those that believe that coverage is a matter of luck are sad
testament to our declining public education system. Watch the movie
_Idiocracy_--it's really happening.

John Navas

2010-07-21 03:48:55 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:09:04 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by George
Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

You must have cut all your classes. ;)

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

John Navas

2010-07-21 03:48:16 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:44:36 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
too many issues that can interfere with the signal.

Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
band they are hand. ...

Not true, as I explained earlier.

Post by John Navas
It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
as to do the job.

Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

The luck is in where you choose to live.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

George

2010-07-21 11:40:13 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:44:36 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
too many issues that can interfere with the signal.

Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
band they are hand. ...

Not true, as I explained earlier.

Really? Was that the "its a myth" declaration?

Post by John Navas
It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
as to do the job.

Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

The luck is in where you choose to live.

John Navas

2010-07-21 15:23:42 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:40:13 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:44:36 -0400, in

Post by John Navas
Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
too many issues that can interfere with the signal.

Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
band they are hand. ...

Not true, as I explained earlier.

Really? ...

Yes.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

SMS

2010-07-20 16:03:38 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in

Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.

Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".
If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PLB).

Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?

The problem is that some carries try to use the sales pitch that goes
something like 'all carriers are about equal because no carrier provides
100% coverage.' I had that used on me once when I was changing carriers
because there was no coverage at my house. It's clever, but ultimately
faulty logic though unfortunately some people that lack critical
thinking skills are naive enough to fall for that kind of thing.

In reality there are very large differences in coverage. It's not a
matter of chance, it's directly related to a) the technology used (CDMA
is much better than GSM in terms of coverage for a given tower
distribution) b) frequency (cellular is much better than PCS), and c)
how much the carrier is willing to spend on towers in non-urban areas
that are sparsely populated. In non-urban areas the differences are
often huge. In urban areas the differences can be small, though not
always. If you look at the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon provides
coverage that is far superior to the other three major carriers and
every independent survey (since the old AT&T Wireless turned off their
TDMA/AMPS network) has verified this fact. OTOH, in the more densely
packed and flatter areas like the eastern seaboard there are less
differences in quality of coverage between carriers.

There is also a very big difference between "remote areas" and rural or
non-urban areas. Besides coverage in their own local area, what matters
to most people is having coverage in areas they drive through and to.

It's true that no carrier has 100% coverage, but as the coverage maps
clearly show, that does not mean all carrier are equal--far from it. A
few weeks ago someone in the group I was with had their brakes go out on
CA 128 between Albion and Boonville. Fortunately they had Verizon, and
they had roaming coverage on U.S. Cellular, so they could summon
assistance. GSM coverage in this area is very spotty, confined to some
high ridges, while the road is down in the valley. It's definitely
rural, but it's not very remote. Here's the map and where they broke down:
"Loading Image...

"--no, there's not 100% coverage, but
there's a very big difference in coverage!

That's why Verizon is consistently ranked as the best carrier by every
statistically sound independent survey, including those from J.D. Power,
Consumers Union, Consumer Checkbook, Yankee Group, etc.. AT&T was
furious, to the point of suing, when Verizon pointed out the significant
coverage differences in their clever, but accurate, "There's a Map for
That" ad campaign. AT&T eventually gave up and dropped the suit after
they were denied an injunction. That ad was only about the 3G coverage
differences, which are very great, but there are also very big
differences in voice coverage.

The problem is that some people get very defensive when the significant
differences between carriers are pointed out to them, and will say
anything to rationalize their own specific purchasing choices, when no
rationalization is really necessary. If someone wants to arrange his
travel routes in a way that he or she is assured of coverage on his or
her carrier then he or she is free to do so. But it's clear that the
vast majority of Americans prefer carriers and networks that provides
the maximum available coverage, be it native or roaming. That's one of
the big reasons that AT&T consistently ranks last in customer satisfaction.

"http://www.tomsguide.com/us/att-consumer-reports-verizon-satisfaction,news-5239.html"
"http://www.tomsguide.com/us/AT-T-Verizon-Lawsuit-Dismissed,news-5246.html"

The best advice for someone enticed by the Virgin $25 plan is to at
least carry a prepaid phone on PagePlus with them as a back-up. It will
work on all CDMA networks in the U.S. and Canada. There will be roaming
charges if you're off of Verizon's native network, but at least the
phone will work. It costs as little as $2.50 a month to keep the phone
active. You can simplify things by signing up for Google Voice and
giving out that number, then letting Google Voice try the Virgin number
first, then the PagePlus number.

Consumers who have no technical knowledge of the reasons for the
differences in quality of coverage and service between carriers are
legal prey for the mis-leading advertising employed by some carriers in
their marketing and sales. At least the original poster in this thread
was smart enough to inquire about a plan that on the surface seems to
good to be true.

John Navas

2010-07-20 17:06:04 UTC

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:03:38 -0700, in

Post by SMS
In reality there are very large differences in coverage. It's not a
matter of chance, it's directly related to a) the technology used (CDMA
is much better than GSM in terms of coverage for a given tower
distribution)

No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.

Post by SMS
) frequency (cellular is much better than PCS),

No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.

Post by SMS
nd c)
how much the carrier is willing to spend on towers in non-urban areas
that are sparsely populated.

In such areas, the real issue is roaming coverage agreements.

Post by SMS
In non-urban areas the differences are
often huge.

But not biased in favor of any one carrier.

Post by SMS
In urban areas the differences can be small, though not
always. If you look at the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon provides
coverage that is far superior to the other three major carriers and
every independent survey (since the old AT&T Wireless turned off their
TDMA/AMPS network) has verified this fact. ...

No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.

Post by SMS
[SNIP rest of anti-GSM, pro-Verizon advocacy]

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

George

2010-07-20 21:41:28 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in

Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.

Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

SMS

2010-07-21 08:27:55 UTC

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Actually in some areas the problem is that they _don't_ spend the money
to even light up the highway, if it's a secondary highway. A common
problem in California with the GSM carriers is the lack of coverage on
less major highways that follow valleys. If you look at the coverage
maps you can see coverage on surrounding ridges that get coverage from
towns ten or fifteen miles away, but the road below shows no coverage.
In that sense, if anyone lives on those ridges, they actually are
"lucky" to get coverage because it was not intentional.

While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
urban centers, at least they allow roaming onto all the other CDMA
carriers, i.e. Verizon, U.S. Cellular, Golden State Cellular, plus a
load of really small CDMA carriers. If you look at the small rural
carriers, the majority of went CDMA. I.e. of the 22 small rural carries
that requested that the FCC do something about the high roaming rates
that they're being charged by the major carriers, 13 were CDMA, 3 were
GSM, 3 were IDEN, 3 did not list their network type. Really surprising
to see that there were small iDEN carriers other than Southern LINC.

Sprint's strategy has always been to just cover the major population
centers which have most of the population, and allow roaming for
everywhere else. This works pretty well as long as their are smaller
carriers to roam onto. But it really breaks down with their prepaid
providers that don't allow off-Sprint roaming.

Justin

2010-07-21 12:24:00 UTC

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

John Navas

2010-07-21 15:26:25 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

Justin

2010-07-21 15:43:51 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.

I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

John Navas

2010-07-21 16:27:03 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:43:51 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.

I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

That's not a correct assumption on your part. What I stated is correct.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

nospam

2010-07-21 18:20:16 UTC

Post by John Navas
For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.

I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

That's not a correct assumption on your part. What I stated is correct.

sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

SMS

2010-07-21 18:40:03 UTC

On 21/07/10 11:20 AM, nospam wrote:

<snip>

Post by nospam
sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

The problem that many, if not most, Sprint customers encounter is that
if their phone finds a Sprint signal, no matter how weak and unusable,
the phone will _not_ automatically roam onto Verizon or other CDMA carriers.

The workaround, on Sprint phones that allow it, is to force the phone to
roam. Not all Sprint phones have this option. Naturally Sprint does not
want its customers doing excessive roaming because it costs the company
money.

The bottom line is that _if_ you have a Sprint phone that allows forced
roaming then the Sprint phone could have equivalent or better coverage
than Verizon.

Related to the original subject of this thread, on Virgin Mobile there
is _no_ roaming off Sprint possible. This greatly limits the available
coverage. If you never leave areas with a usable Sprint signal than the
plan that the original poster was asking about is indeed a very good
deal (as long as you don't want a smart phone and don't want to tether).

The idea that all carriers are equal because all have coverage holes is
of course ludicrous. It's not binary. The poorer carriers (and their
apologists) often use this kind of logic when defending their networks
and trying to make a sale. Similarly, if Sprint is telling potential
customers that their coverage is a superset of Sprint+Verizon+all other
CDMA carriers, and then selling the customer a phone that can't force
roaming, they're walking a fine line of truthfulness. Also, the setting
for forced roaming is usually not permanent--it needs to be re-enabled
often.

John Navas

2010-07-21 18:44:37 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:40:03 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by nospam
sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

[sigh] That's not how it works. Unless the phone is defective, it will
only favor the Home network if the signal is *usable*.

Post by SMS
The idea that all carriers are equal because all have coverage holes is
of course ludicrous.

to a dedicated crusader like you to whom facts are annoying
distractions. ;)

--
John

"There are three kinds of men.
The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
-Will Rogers

Todd Allcock

2010-07-21 20:27:30 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:40:03 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by nospam
sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

[sigh] That's not how it works. Unless the phone is defective, it will
only favor the Home network if the signal is *usable*.

The problem is that typically the _phone_, not you or I, decide how much
signal is "usable." Back in the TDMA days, many times I was stuck with a
choppy, barely usable, Cingular signal when excellent AT&T service was all
around me, because I couldn't force my handset to favor AT&T. When the
signal dropped to zero, the phone would latch onto AT&T.

SMS

2010-07-21 21:47:32 UTC

On 21/07/10 1:27 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>

Post by Todd Allcock
The problem is that typically the _phone_, not you or I, decide how much
signal is "usable."

That's the root of the problem. If you could program the phone to roam
once the signal level was say less than 25% of maximum, then it'd likely
work better. Instead the phone decides that the signal is usable but
outgoing calls fail, and incoming calls go straight to voice mail.

Forced roaming, as some Sprint phones allow, is the best way to get
around their problems, at least in the Bay Area where they have very
poor coverage in many areas. They're okay until you get out into the
hills and valleys between urban centers or until you're far from the
nearest commercial area where they were able to put up a tower, then
they are virtually unusable. Even if they wanted to put up towers in
those areas they'd have an extremely hard time getting approval for the
number of towers needed for good PCS coverage.

nospam

2010-07-21 19:06:36 UTC

Post by nospam
sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

nope.

Post by SMS
The workaround, on Sprint phones that allow it, is to force the phone to
roam. Not all Sprint phones have this option. Naturally Sprint does not
want its customers doing excessive roaming because it costs the company
money.

nope.

Post by SMS
The bottom line is that _if_ you have a Sprint phone that allows forced
roaming then the Sprint phone could have equivalent or better coverage
than Verizon.

nope.

Post by SMS
Related to the original subject of this thread, on Virgin Mobile there
is _no_ roaming off Sprint possible. This greatly limits the available
coverage. If you never leave areas with a usable Sprint signal than the
plan that the original poster was asking about is indeed a very good
deal (as long as you don't want a smart phone and don't want to tether).

that's a different issue. virgin mobile may have their own arrangement.

Post by SMS
The idea that all carriers are equal because all have coverage holes is
of course ludicrous.

it's exactly the case.

Post by SMS
It's not binary. The poorer carriers (and their
apologists) often use this kind of logic when defending their networks
and trying to make a sale.

to an extent, yes.

Post by SMS
Similarly, if Sprint is telling potential
customers that their coverage is a superset of Sprint+Verizon+all other
CDMA carriers, and then selling the customer a phone that can't force
roaming, they're walking a fine line of truthfulness. Also, the setting
for forced roaming is usually not permanent--it needs to be re-enabled
often.

it's correct. sprint *will* roam on other carriers if necessary. it
turns out that it's not needed all that often, at least in my
experience.

Justin

2010-07-21 19:05:43 UTC

Post by John Navas
For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.

I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

That's not a correct assumption on your part. What I stated is correct.

sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

If I have good signal and can make a call on VZW, my friend on sprint should be able
to as well? He can't. I am on an Incredible, he on a Pre.

nospam

2010-07-21 19:33:03 UTC

Post by Justin
If I have good signal and can make a call on VZW, my friend on sprint should
be able to as well? He can't. I am on an Incredible, he on a Pre.

so because one phone didn't roam, the entire carrier sucks?

try another phone. i've gone on a couple of lengthy road trips with
sprint and have watched it digital roam in numerous places. it's never
needed to drop to analog (and analog was available at the time). i
don't know onto which carrier it was (nor do i care), however, i was
always able to make/receive calls, except at the top of pike's peak,
colorado.

Justin

2010-07-21 18:24:59 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:43:51 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.

I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

That's not a correct assumption on your part. What I stated is correct.

I guess English is your second language.

John Navas

2010-07-21 18:37:43 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:24:59 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:43:51 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.

I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

That's not a correct assumption on your part. What I stated is correct.

I guess English is your second language.

Wrong again.

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

SMS

2010-07-21 15:50:54 UTC

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

If a Sprint phone allows you to force roaming, as many do, then the
Sprint phone should work wherever there is an 800 MHz CDMA carrier. If
you allow the phone to decide when to roam, there will be areas where
the Sprint phone doesn't work but the Verizon phone does work. Alas,
Sprint realizes what people were doing, and many newer phones don't
allow forced roaming.

Here is one example:

"Some newer Sprint phones have no ability to do forced roaming. I would
never buy a Sprint phone that I could not force roaming. If the next
time I want to buy a Sprint phone all I find is Automatic/Sprint Only,
Sprint can wave goodbye to me very quickly. When I go to my mother's
house, she is right on the edge of Sprint service (nearest Sprint tower
is like 5-6 miles away). But since I get at least some Sprint service if
I had a Sprint phone that could not be set to roaming only, I would drop
calls all day. But when I go there, I set my phone on roaming only so I
can maintain a good enough signal to have a conversation. BTW I can see
the Verizon tower from my mother's house."

John Navas

2010-07-21 16:28:31 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:50:54 -0700, in

Post by Justin
Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

Just as there will be areas where the Verizon phone doesn't work but the
Sprint phone does work.

Post by SMS
Alas,
Sprint realizes what people were doing, and many newer phones don't
allow forced roaming.

Alas, you have no idea what Sprint does or does not realize.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

SMS

2010-07-21 19:48:41 UTC

On 21/07/10 5:24 AM, Justin wrote:

<snip>

Post by Justin
Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
is not being forced to roam on Verizon.

I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
city. Non-techies, that would never dream of going into a phone's
settings menu to force roaming but that have been informed that Sprint
phones can roam onto other carriers, do not understand the conditions
under which automatic roaming occurs or does not occur. If they have
_any_ Sprint signal, even if it's insufficient to make or receive calls,
the phone will not automatically roam onto Verizon. They have to be in
an area with absolutely no Sprint signal at all for roaming to be
automatic unless they force roaming.

There was one conference room at a company I used to work for, that my
Verizon phone would roam onto Sprint, but it's _extremely_ rare in the
San Francisco Bay Area for Sprint, T-Mobile, or AT&T to have coverage
and Verizon to not have coverage.

John Navas

2010-07-21 19:54:01 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:48:41 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by Justin
Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
is not being forced to roam on Verizon.
I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
city. Non-techies, that would never dream of going into a phone's
settings menu to force roaming but that have been informed that Sprint
phones can roam onto other carriers, do not understand the conditions
under which automatic roaming occurs or does not occur. If they have
_any_ Sprint signal, even if it's insufficient to make or receive calls,
the phone will not automatically roam onto Verizon. They have to be in
an area with absolutely no Sprint signal at all for roaming to be
automatic unless they force roaming.
There was one conference room at a company I used to work for, that my
Verizon phone would roam onto Sprint, but it's _extremely_ rare in the
San Francisco Bay Area for Sprint, T-Mobile, or AT&T to have coverage
and Verizon to not have coverage.

Wrong again: AT&T coverage is arguably the best in the Bay Area.
Sprint and T-Mobile aren't far behind. Overall, there is relatively
little difference in coverage among the four major carriers. Each have
their own holes, and places where they work better than other carriers.

nospam

2010-07-21 20:11:54 UTC

Post by John Navas
Wrong again: AT&T coverage is arguably the best in the Bay Area.

not even close. at&t is not good in the bay area, which at&t themselves
admit. the other problem area is new york city. you don't use it, so
you're not in a position to comment.

George

2010-07-21 21:16:09 UTC

Post by John Navas
Wrong again: AT&T coverage is arguably the best in the Bay Area.

not even close. at&t is not good in the bay area, which at&t themselves
admit. the other problem area is new york city. you don't use it, so
you're not in a position to comment.

Of course not but he knows more than people who do know...

SMS

2010-07-21 21:35:53 UTC

Wrong again: AT&T coverage is arguably the best in the Bay Area.

not even close. at&t is not good in the bay area, which at&t themselves
admit. the other problem area is new york city. you don't use it, so
you're not in a position to comment.

Of course not but he knows more than people who do know...

LOL, check _every_ independent survey, ask virtually _any_ AT&T
subscriber, and you'll learn the facts.

I.e., the most recent Bay Area Consumer Checkbook ranked AT&T 4th out of
sixth (they beat Nextel and MetroPCS). Verizon came out far ahead in
local coverage, non-local coverage, and dropped calls. Consumer Reports
and J.D. Power found the same thing.

Verizon also had the lowest complaint rate, by far, (per 100K
subscribers) with the FCC of the four major carriers,

nospam

2010-07-21 21:43:02 UTC

Post by SMS
I.e., the most recent Bay Area Consumer Checkbook ranked AT&T 4th out of
sixth (they beat Nextel and MetroPCS). Verizon came out far ahead in
local coverage, non-local coverage, and dropped calls. Consumer Reports
and J.D. Power found the same thing.
Verizon also had the lowest complaint rate, by far, (per 100K
subscribers) with the FCC of the four major carriers,

at&t has the most call drops in the latest changewave survey, a
staggering 4.5%, versus verizon with the lowest at 1.5%.

<http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u2aiR-t24t0/S-HFu0ygXXI/AAAAAAAADDY/0eq6QBZDD
DQ/s1600/DroppedCalls1.jpg>

nospam

2010-07-21 20:14:26 UTC

Post by Justin
Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
is not being forced to roam on Verizon.
I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
city.

san francisco bay area? coverage is actually very good there.

Post by SMS
Non-techies, that would never dream of going into a phone's
settings menu to force roaming but that have been informed that Sprint
phones can roam onto other carriers, do not understand the conditions
under which automatic roaming occurs or does not occur. If they have
_any_ Sprint signal, even if it's insufficient to make or receive calls,
the phone will not automatically roam onto Verizon. They have to be in
an area with absolutely no Sprint signal at all for roaming to be
automatic unless they force roaming.

it's actually more than adequate just about anywhere in the bay area,
and has been for a long, long time.

it was a little iffy a decade ago when sprint was building out, but
certainly not now.

SMS

2010-07-21 21:42:04 UTC

Post by Justin
Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
is not being forced to roam on Verizon.
I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
city.

san francisco bay area? coverage is actually very good there.

Actually it's very poor. Every non-profit independent survey validates
that fact, from Bay Area Consumer Checkbook to Consumer Reports.

Sprint is third in the Bay Area in terms of coverage and dropped calls,
far behind Verizon, and slightly behind AT&T. Better than T-Mobile,
Nextel, and MetroPCS. The 1900 MHz PCS is one of the causes, but also
they arrived late on the scene after it became much more difficult to
get approval for new towers.

nospam

2010-07-21 21:47:09 UTC

Post by SMS
I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
city.

san francisco bay area? coverage is actually very good there.

Actually it's very poor.

actually, it's not poor at all.

Post by SMS
Every non-profit independent survey validates
that fact, from Bay Area Consumer Checkbook to Consumer Reports.
Sprint is third in the Bay Area in terms of coverage and dropped calls,
far behind Verizon, and slightly behind AT&T. Better than T-Mobile,
Nextel, and MetroPCS.

actually, it's 2nd best in the latest changewave survey, comparable to
t-mobile and substantially better than at&t.

<http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u2aiR-t24t0/S-HFu0ygXXI/AAAAAAAADDY/0eq6QBZDD
DQ/s1600/DroppedCalls1.jpg>

Post by SMS
The 1900 MHz PCS is one of the causes, but also
they arrived late on the scene after it became much more difficult to
get approval for new towers.

wrong again.

SMS

2010-07-21 22:20:59 UTC

Post by nospam
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u2aiR-t24t0/S-HFu0ygXXI/AAAAAAAADDY/0eq6QBZDD
DQ/s1600/DroppedCalls1.jpg

That looks solely at dropped calls, not at other aspects of coverage.
AT&T has already attacked the Changewave survey.

"http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/21/att_defensively_publishes_private_dropped_call_data.html"

Interesting story because it confirms what everyone has long known about
the San Francisco Bay Area: "Users in areas such as San Francisco with
notoriously bad spots of poor or nonexistent coverage are obviously
going to see far more dropped calls than users in a area where AT&T
doesn't have to fight neighborhood groups working to prevent the
installation of any new towers due to fears that their radio output will
cause health problems." Still that doesn't explain why Verizon, who has
to fight the same neighborhood groups, does not have nearly the coverage
problems of AT&T in the Bay Area.

I can guarantee that it many parts of the Bay Area yo will _never_ have
a dropped call on the Sprint network, because you will never be able to
start a call in the first place. Cingular tried this same sort of
shenanigans with their "fewest dropped calls" ad campaign, and even the
research company they hired said that they had misinterpreted the data
(likely on purpose).

It's not possible for Sprint to fix their native coverage problems in
the Bay Area or in many other areas. They need far more towers for
equivalent coverage because of the 1900 MHz PCS network, and it's become
more difficult to get approval for towers in precisely the areas that
they need them the most.

Sprint's long term outlook is poor. They went their own direction on 4G
which gave them a speed advantage in the short term, but now they've got
a different 4G standard than everyone else. They have no resources to
expand their network beyond the current small footprint. Now they've
said they will abandon Wi-Max and move to LTE.

What's interesting is that Apple apparently could sell 20 million more
iPhones if they offered them on the other three major carriers. They
should hurry, because Android is gaining market share rapidly, and once
people buy an Android phone they'll be locked in for two years, plus
they may not be willing to give up features like a memory card,
replaceable battery, and USB.

"http://www.changewaveresearch.com/articles/2010/05/wireless_service_20100504.html"

nospam

2010-07-21 22:31:31 UTC

Post by SMS
Interesting story because it confirms what everyone has long known about
the San Francisco Bay Area: "Users in areas such as San Francisco with
notoriously bad spots of poor or nonexistent coverage are obviously
going to see far more dropped calls than users in a area where AT&T
doesn't have to fight neighborhood groups working to prevent the
installation of any new towers due to fears that their radio output will
cause health problems."

which disproves navas' claim that at&t is the best in san francisco (no
surprise there).

Post by SMS
Still that doesn't explain why Verizon, who has
to fight the same neighborhood groups, does not have nearly the coverage
problems of AT&T in the Bay Area.

cdma has higher capacity for a given number of towers.

Post by SMS
I can guarantee that it many parts of the Bay Area yo will _never_ have
a dropped call on the Sprint network, because you will never be able to
start a call in the first place.

where? i've yet to find such a place there.

Post by SMS
It's not possible for Sprint to fix their native coverage problems in
the Bay Area or in many other areas. They need far more towers for
equivalent coverage because of the 1900 MHz PCS network, and it's become
more difficult to get approval for towers in precisely the areas that
they need them the most.

nope, they can roam on verizon (which they do) and your claim of crap
coverage is specious in the first place.

Post by SMS
Sprint's long term outlook is poor. They went their own direction on 4G
which gave them a speed advantage in the short term, but now they've got
a different 4G standard than everyone else. They have no resources to
expand their network beyond the current small footprint.

they're expanding it.

Post by SMS
Now they've said they will abandon Wi-Max and move to LTE.

they have not said that, at least not yet.

Post by SMS
What's interesting is that Apple apparently could sell 20 million more
iPhones if they offered them on the other three major carriers.

they are already selling all they can make. adding other carriers right
now isn't going to make a difference until supply catches up.

Post by SMS
They
should hurry, because Android is gaining market share rapidly, and once
people buy an Android phone they'll be locked in for two years, plus
they may not be willing to give up features like a memory card,
replaceable battery, and USB.

or they might, for facetime, wider selection of apps, better battery
life, better exchange support and compatibility with zillions of
accessories, including what's built into cars.

SMS

2010-07-22 01:39:15 UTC

Post by nospam
where? i've yet to find such a place there.

Berkeley Hills, Oakland Hills, parts of Moraga, Marin Headlands, north
Marin Coast, Santa Cruz mountains. Sprint gets coverage on Verizon in
those places but on the fringes of Sprint's native coverage you often
need to force roaming onto Verizon.

i.e. "Loading Image...

" you can see how Sprint relies
on Verizon for non-urban coverage.

Post by SMS
Now they've said they will abandon Wi-Max and move to LTE.

they have not said that, at least not yet.

There CEO has "hinted" at it, along with talking about a Sprint/T-Mobile
merger.

"http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/07/13/sprint-hints-at-lte-network-merging-with-t-mobile-us-sprint-ceo-dan-hesse-says-in-interview-that-sprint-could-do-lte-for-4g-too-combining-with-t-mobile-us-makes-sense/"

nospam

2010-07-22 02:27:20 UTC

Post by nospam
where? i've yet to find such a place there.

for me it's mostly the south bay, san francisco proper and berkeley.
about 7-8 years ago i remember it being weak at oakland airport but
still not roaming. it's quite strong now.

Post by SMS
i.e. "http://i28.tinypic.com/16bn62r.jpg" you can see how Sprint relies
on Verizon for non-urban coverage.

the area you highlighted in grey are sparsely populated mountains. now
scroll up to the parts you snipped out that are dark green, the actual
south bay.

Post by SMS
Now they've said they will abandon Wi-Max and move to LTE.

they have not said that, at least not yet.

There CEO has "hinted" at it, along with talking about a Sprint/T-Mobile
merger.

it's a last ditch plan, and i suspect it's inevitable but they have not
ditched it yet. lte is going to be a while until it's widely deployed
anyway.

SMS

2010-07-22 04:49:06 UTC

Post by nospam
where? i've yet to find such a place there.

for me it's mostly the south bay, san francisco proper and berkeley.
about 7-8 years ago i remember it being weak at oakland airport but
still not roaming. it's quite strong now.

Post by SMS
i.e. "http://i28.tinypic.com/16bn62r.jpg" you can see how Sprint relies
on Verizon for non-urban coverage.

the area you highlighted in grey are sparsely populated mountains.

Some of it is sparsely populated areas where understandably it's
impractical to cover with 1900 MHz. But some is inside city limits of
Silicon Valley towns whose borders often extend up into the foothills.
That's always been the problem in the bay area, and not just with Sprint
but with T-Mobile as well, and to a lesser extent AT&T.

A political issue in Cupertino is the lack of AT&T coverage in the
surrounding foothills (where a lot of wealthy residents have built large
houses. They can only get coverage on Verizon which means no iPhones for
them. The same problem repeats itself throughout all the counties in the
Bay Area--good coverage for all carriers in the flatland urban centers,
but go up into the hills and mountains, even within the city limits, and
you'd better have Verizon. The people up there don't want more towers
though.

The combination of 1900 MHz and GSM is the worst, which is why T-Mobile
is usually last among the four major carriers for coverage in this area.
CDMA+1900 MHz is also not as good as CDMA and 800 MHz and GSM plus 800
MHz is not as good as CDMA plus 800 MHz. It's not "luck" to choose a
carrier which has the best coverage, but it doesn't require a huge
amount of skill either--you read surveys and if you want you understand
the technological reasons why one carrier is better than another.

I remember when Steve Wozniak moved because he had no GSM coverage in
his Los Gatos hills home!
"http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2003/02/57594"

John Navas

2010-07-23 03:45:31 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:49:06 -0700, in

Post by SMS
The combination of 1900 MHz and GSM is the worst, which is why T-Mobile
is usually last among the four major carriers for coverage in this area.
CDMA+1900 MHz is also not as good as CDMA and 800 MHz and GSM plus 800
MHz is not as good as CDMA plus 800 MHz. It's not "luck" to choose a
carrier which has the best coverage, but it doesn't require a huge
amount of skill either--you read surveys and if you want you understand
the technological reasons why one carrier is better than another.

Total nonsense.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

John Navas

2010-07-23 03:44:37 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:20:59 -0700, in

Simply not true.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

John Navas

2010-07-23 03:43:43 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:42:04 -0700, in

Post by Justin
Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
is not being forced to roam on Verizon.
I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
city.

san francisco bay area? coverage is actually very good there.

Actually it's very poor. Every non-profit independent survey validates
that fact, from Bay Area Consumer Checkbook to Consumer Reports.
Sprint is third in the Bay Area in terms of coverage and dropped calls,
far behind Verizon, and slightly behind AT&T. Better than T-Mobile,
Nextel, and MetroPCS. The 1900 MHz PCS is one of the causes, but also
they arrived late on the scene after it became much more difficult to
get approval for new towers.

No facts. Just opinion. Also known as nonsense.

--
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

John Navas

2010-07-21 15:25:38 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Your agenda is showing again. This is as true for CDMA as for GSM.

Post by SMS
While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
urban centers,

It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.

Post by SMS
Sprint's strategy has always been to just cover the major population
centers which have most of the population, and allow roaming for
everywhere else. ...

Nonsense.

Justin

2010-07-21 15:45:50 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in

Post by George
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

Your agenda is showing again. This is as true for CDMA as for GSM.

Post by SMS
While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
urban centers,

It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.

Comparable to AT&T maybe, since both have huge coverage holes in this area, however
my Verizon phone works where my friends with AT&T and Spring don't have coverage

John Navas

2010-07-21 16:29:31 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:45:50 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in

Post by SMS
While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
urban centers,

It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.

Comparable to AT&T maybe, since both have huge coverage holes in this area, however
my Verizon phone works where my friends with AT&T and Spring don't have coverage

There are other areas where the opposite is true.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

Justin

2010-07-21 18:26:44 UTC

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:45:50 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in

Post by SMS
While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
urban centers,

It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.

Comparable to AT&T maybe, since both have huge coverage holes in this area, however
my Verizon phone works where my friends with AT&T and Spring don't have coverage

There are other areas where the opposite is true.

If all the areas outside of urban centers I frequent have crappy Sprint coverage
it certainly must mean that Sprint coverage is wonderful.

John Navas

2010-07-21 18:38:41 UTC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:26:44 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:45:50 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by John Navas
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in

Post by SMS
While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
urban centers,

It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.

Comparable to AT&T maybe, since both have huge coverage holes in this area, however
my Verizon phone works where my friends with AT&T and Spring don't have coverage

There are other areas where the opposite is true.

If all the areas outside of urban centers I frequent have crappy Sprint coverage
it certainly must mean that Sprint coverage is wonderful.

You might want to broaden your horizons and take off those blinders.
Possibly even get a better Sprint phone.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement]

ps56k

2010-07-20 17:55:01 UTC

thanks for hijacking the thread on basically the 2nd posting ....

I was focused on the PLANS - and their implied unlimited usage -

Frank Haber

2010-07-20 18:00:51 UTC

Creative thread drift is often the sauce that makes good conversation. Sorry
to divert.

Justin

2010-07-20 18:23:24 UTC

Post by ps56k
thanks for hijacking the thread on basically the 2nd posting ....

Ironic that you reply to a post that is 100% on topic and bitch

Post by ps56k
I was focused on the PLANS - and their implied unlimited usage -

SMS

2010-07-20 21:07:03 UTC