Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:02:58 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:

>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's TDMA
>> areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built out
>> (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get added to
>> increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the system hasn't
>> really changed _significantly_ in some time for the legacy 800MHz carriers.
>
>The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly
comparable.

>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but you
>can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.

Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.

>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
>> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
>> subscribers! ;-)
>
>LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile, it
>was Cingular that was trying).
>
>However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the
>Bay Area.

Again, not true.

>The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.

In fact doing quite well in this area.

>I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says about
>the quality of Bay Area coverage.

Believe you instead?

>Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they were
>tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with AT&T a
>distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.

It said nothing of the kind.

Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

>> Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
>> especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you
>> have to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!
>
> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
> twelve years and have been satisfied!

Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close. Too bad about the
other 999 ****ty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
every good one they produce. The last good motorola handset was a
T720/T730. Unfortunately, even THAT one got a bad rep, because the
instruction manual was WRONG. Battery life issues were caused by owners
IMPROPERLY charging the batteries because they did the right thing and READ
THE MANUAL.

Basically, the battery needed to be charged for at least 12 or 24 hours
(forget which) but the manual was vague enough to say something like "charge
until the indicator shows full"... which would happen in as little as 15
minutes. And then the memory effect killed the batteries quick. Thus you
had lots of Motorola owners complaining that they need to charge their
(FAIRLY NEW) batteries several times a day, when (if properly charged) they
would last several days.

But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
probably LOVE Nokia. For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
quality. Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
to be but (sadly) will never be.

In case anybody is wondering, I've had to carry many motorola handsets (no
choice, that's what various employers have given me, without asking or
caring about my input). In all cases, I've relied on my personal nokia (and
some other, but mostly nokia) brand handsets to bail me out when the
motorolas fell short. In some cases, the two handsets I was carrying were
on the same network. Motorola would often show no signal/no service, and
I'd be chatting on the nokia handset (off and on) all day in the same areas
where I couldn't connect ONE call with a motorola handset on the same
network and the same towers!!! And no, there was never anything wrong with
the motorola handsets. They were all working exactly as designed,
unfortunately. I say unfortunately as (in my opinion) they were ALL
defective, but the tech guys of various cell providers all disagreed with me
and refused to repair or replace the motorola handsets, even if I pointed
out that the nokia handset ON THEIR NETWORK worked where the motorola
didn't.... -Dave

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
>> about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced that
>> ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for six
>> years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet my
>> needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
>> know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
>> working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
>> to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
>> contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!
>
> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
> UI.

I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
improved it greatly. Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
badly. -Dave

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:33:07 -0500, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
>> UI.
>
>I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
>improved it greatly.

True, although current handsets crash too much, and carrier customizing
can screw up the functionality, as in the case of the Cingular-branded
V3xx.
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Cingular-branded_V3xx>
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Modding_Cingular_V3xx>

The big problem for Motorola in the UI department is that it's trying to
support too many platforms.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/04/motorola_phone_business_analysis/>

>Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
>and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
>used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
>realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
>badly.

I've had several of both, and find the better Motorola handsets to be
just as good as the better Nokia handsets in the radio department.
Where Motorola has fallen short is in some of its cheaper handsets, like
the V180.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:30:47 -0500, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied!
>
>Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
>decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
>are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close.

Every bit as good in my experience.

>Too bad about the
>other 999 ****ty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
>every good one they produce.

While Motorola has produced some poor handsets in the radio department,
like the V180, those have been in the minority.

>The last good motorola handset was a
>T720/T730.

Both the V5xx series and RAZR series are actually quite good.

>But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
>probably LOVE Nokia.

I've had several of both, and give the edge to Motorola. My Motorola
V3xx is better than any Nokia I've tried.

>For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
>will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
>to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
>tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
>quality.

My V3xx has excellent sound quality. Have you ever tried one?

>Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
>the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
>translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
>WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
>into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
>handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
>calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
>drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
>the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
>quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
>qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
>to be but (sadly) will never be.

Again, that's not my experience with the Motorola V5xx series and the
V3xx against several Nokia handsets -- the Motorola handsets have
performed as well or better than the Nokia handsets.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

"Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> wrote in news:47A7DC93.30204
@comcast.net:

> When the old phone bites the dust or when a new phone will do something
> I NEED and the old one won't, THEN I'll buy a new one. Each time I've
> replaced a phone, it has been because the battery was starting to fail
> and I couldn't see buying a replacement battery for an antique!
>
>
>

Anybody got a rubber duckie antenna for the original Motorola Brick
handheld? I loaned it out to someone who was traveling on an emergency so
he'd have an emergency analog phone for the boonies, and the black rubber
just split apart when it got bent. The phone is perfect and still works
but I want to keep it original. It's quite a piece of history, you know.

$1.99 at a thrift shop. I have 2 battery packs I restored at Batteries
Plus, the 12V car cord that replaces the batteries for mobile, the carrying
case, even the manual.

A real Motorola made by Motorola, not the Chinese slavers, you can't hurt
it.....

That Star Tac was the best phone Motorola ever made....

The shrink tubing I covered the antenna coil with looks like hell on the
brick.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote
>> Todd Allcock wrote

>>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's
>>> TDMA areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built
>>> out (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get
>>> added to increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the
>>> system hasn't really changed significantly in some time for the
>>> legacy 800MHz carriers.

>> The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>> much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly comparable.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.

>> For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>> that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>> GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but
>> you can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.

> Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.

>>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out
>>> decades-old 800- MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell
>>> system on us T-Mo subscribers! ;-)

>> LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>> neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile,
>> it was Cingular that was trying).

>> However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>> coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the Bay Area.

> Again, not true.

>> The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>> good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>> Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>> too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>> spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.

> In fact doing quite well in this area.

>> I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says
>> about the quality of Bay Area coverage.

> Believe you instead?

>> Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they
>> were tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with
>> AT&T a distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.

> It said nothing of the kind.

> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

You in spades.

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
> into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
> handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal
> bars, calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!),
> calls do not drop, and sound quality is superb

This comment about Nokia is only about cellular radio bands.....

The Nokia N800 Linux internet tablet has the most sensitive 802.11b/g
transceiver I have ever seen and it has no external antenna! The silly
thing can connect and use wifi hotspots my Gateway laptop cannot even
detect! It's Bluetooth transceiver is also very hot. It will successfully
connect to my MotoROKR Z6m DUN to the internet on EVDO when the tablet is
way beyond Bluetooth range...60' away from the phone in the bedroom on
charge because the Nokia killed it streaming video and audio...(c;

If the Nokia phones are as hot as the N800 wifi/bluetooth radios, they are
one hot phone.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:11:02 +1100, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my twit
filter. It's a difficult honor -- your posts have to be pretty much
devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote

>>> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly comparable.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

> Be warned that I don't waste much time on people that stoop to insults in their replies.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

>> GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
>> that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.

> Actually not, since range is largely dictated
> by ine of sight and low handset power issues.

Wrong outside the builtup areas.

>>> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

>> You in spades.

> Not true.

Not a shred of proof in the above. Funny that.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:47a7df4d$0$84201
[email protected]:

> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>

Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because CDMA is on
800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS? Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and
its range sucks just as bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2
miles unless there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead
zones.

Larry <[email protected]> wrote
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote

>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

> Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because
> CDMA is on 800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?

Neither. GSM has a digital cliff at 35KM, handsets outside
that distance from the base are just ignored by the base.

> Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and its range sucks just as
> bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2 miles unless
> there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

> GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain.

Because its got a high enough density that the 35KM digital cliff
doesnt matter because the bases are close than that anyway.

> But, that may be because Europe isn't afraid to
> buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead zones.

Nope, its because there is a higher density of bases than
you need with cdma because of the digital cliff that GSM has.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:21:31 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:47a7df4d$0$84201
>[email protected]:
>
>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>
>Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because CDMA is on
>800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?

Neither. Steven tries to claim that 800 MHz propagates better than 1900
MHz, but that simply isn't true in general. All he's really got to go
on is the timing limit of standard GSM, 35 km (or about 22 miles).
That's actually not a significant issue in practice, because real world
range is typically limited by low handset power and line of sight
issues, and that limit can be overcome with extended range (multi time
slot) GSM.

>Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and
>its range sucks just as bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2
>miles unless there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

The issue for Sprint in this area (and perhaps your area) is number of
towers, not frequency. CDMA2000 has some issues, particularly with an
insufficient number of towers, notably cell breathing and pilot
pollution.

>GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
>because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead
>zones.

It's because GSM works as well or better than CDMA2000.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote
>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote

>>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

>> Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because
>> CDMA is on 800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?

> Neither. Steven tries to claim that 800 MHz propagates
> better than 1900 MHz, but that simply isn't true in general.

Wrong, as always, particularly outside the built up areas.

> All he's really got to go on is the timing limit
> of standard GSM, 35 km (or about 22 miles).

Wrong again, there is a clear difference between
those bands propagation and building penetration wise.

> That's actually not a significant issue in practice, because real world
> range is typically limited by low handset power and line of sight issues,

Pigs arse it is, particularly outside built up areas where the base spacing
that GSM needs isnt as economic as with cdma, particularly with car kits.

> and that limit can be overcome with extended range (multi time slot) GSM.

Wrong again, it just doubles it, doesnt eliminate it and there are other
real downsides with that approach that sees it not used much at all.

>> Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and its range sucks just as bad
>> as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2 miles unless there
>> are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

> The issue for Sprint in this area (and perhaps your area) is number of
> towers, not frequency. CDMA2000 has some issues, particularly with
> an insufficient number of towers, notably cell breathing and pilot pollution.

>> GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
>> because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead zones.

> It's because GSM works as well or better than CDMA2000.

Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.

Rod Speed wrote:
> Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.

"Extended range" GSM overcomes that.