reply to discussion |
Results 16 to 30 of 33
- 05-07-2008, 09:28 AM #16Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible
>>> Sprint
>>> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
>>> doesn't allow for cell sites.
>>
>>That's an atypical situation, though.
>
>
> That's an all too common situation.
>
> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
during the 14-30 day trial period?
Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
customers? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship
back to 800MHz carriers long ago.
When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years
ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the
incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until
relatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evidence" game too...
If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two
companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the
Johnny-Come-Latelies?
When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint
(1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is
very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this
isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in
SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..."
Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So
1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and
suburban areas this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are
needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway,
so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in
populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant
disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is
why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just
covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns.
Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with
roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer
an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS
NG seems to bear out, despite your insistence that scores of folks are
complaining about coverage.
› See More: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
- 05-07-2008, 09:29 AM #17Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible
>>> Sprint
>>> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
>>> doesn't allow for cell sites.
>>
>>That's an atypical situation, though.
>
>
> That's an all too common situation.
>
> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
during the 14-30 day trial period?
Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
customers? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship
back to 800MHz carriers long ago.
When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years
ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the
incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until
releatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evedence" game too...
If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two
companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the
Johnny-Come-Latelies?
When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint
(1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is
very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this
isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in
SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..."
Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So
1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and
suburban ares this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are
needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway,
so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in
populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant
disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is
why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just
covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns.
Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with
roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer
an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS
NG seems to bear out, despite your insistance that scores of folks are
complaining about coverage.
- 05-07-2008, 09:47 AM #18RonGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:28:46 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>
>>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible
>>>> Sprint
>>>> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
>>>> doesn't allow for cell sites.
>>>
>>>That's an atypical situation, though.
>>
>>
>> That's an all too common situation.
>>
>> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
>> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
>> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
>> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
>
>"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
>during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly
at alt.cellular.sprintpcs.
- 05-07-2008, 09:54 AM #19SMSGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
Todd Allcock wrote:
> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
> during the 14-30 day trial period?
Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that
had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the
contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number portability.
> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
> customers?
No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those
of 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and
T-Mobile, which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by
independent entities, have something to do with them being unable to
catch up to Verizon and AT&T?
You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you,
Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest
of the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area.
- 05-07-2008, 10:46 AM #20Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or
>> work
>> during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
> Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that
> had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the
> contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number
> portability.
I have never known a time without a trial period. In the past, it was often
unreasonable (48-72 hours) rather than 14-30 days, but there was no reason
to get stuck with a phone that didn't work at home or work if you actively
worked the trial period.
>> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
>> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
>> customers?
>
> No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those of
> 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and T-Mobile,
> which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by independent entities,
> have something to do with them being unable to catch up to Verizon and
> AT&T?
Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start? Or the
fact that all of these companies are now merger-created amalgams of smaller
companies so the numbers aren't directly comparable? Frankly, Sprint has
done pretty G-D well for building an entire nationwide network from the
ground up. Remember that before the Cingular/AT&T merger, Sprint was pretty
much neck and neck with both of them.
> You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you,
> Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest of
> the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area.
I don't. I called it "anecdotal" for a reason. However, I'm enjoying the
irony that MY anecdote "shouldn't be extrapolated," yet yours is "all too
typical!" ;-)
You can suggest all of the personal experience, and "independant surveys"
you like, but you can't answer the simple question- if 1900MHz is so
inferior, why is ANYONE subscribing to a carrier using it? Pricing (except
for maybe T-Mo's low-balling) is relatively competitive between carriers, so
it's not like people jump from AT&T or Verizon to Sprint to save 40%. If
Verizon and AT&T are as geometrically superior due to their frequency
assignments, how are Sprint and T-Mo still in business? How do they hang on
to the 70 million suckers like myself who apparently simply haven't noticed
their phones don't work anywhere? Why hasn't the free market done it's job?
- 05-07-2008, 11:17 AM #21Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> MetroPCS has their own licenses, spectrum and infrastructure- they aren't
>> an MVNO. They typically build tiny systems covering the smallest
>> possible area to launch a viable service.
>
> In the bay area they use a subset of Sprint's towers. But yes, they're not
> a Sprint MVNO, and I shouldn't have implied that.
AFAIK, while they might rent space on some of SPC's towers, they don't
really use a "subset" of anything. (Frankly if they negotiated any type of
sharing with Sprint, why wouldn't they extend it to the entire network?)
They have their own spectrum (generally one of the small 10-15k PCS
licenses), equipment and sites. They tend to use a lot of cheap
"microsites" on top of whatever roofs they can negotiate access to.
Compared to the major carriers they are a real shoestring operation, but
represent an excellent value to a particular value-oriented but less-mobile
niche (mostly high-use teens and low-income users substituting Metro for
landlines) with very low-cost unlimited voice/text plans and relatively
cheap phones.
- 05-07-2008, 03:10 PM #22RonGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
On Wed, 07 May 2008 08:54:39 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
>> during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
>Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that
>had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the
>contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number portability.
>
>> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
>> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
>> customers?
>
>No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those
>of 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and
>T-Mobile, which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by
>independent entities, have something to do with them being unable to
>catch up to Verizon and AT&T?
>
>You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you,
>Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest
>of the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area.
The 1900 Mhz phones have also spawned a thriving industry of cellular
repeaters for folks to use at their home or office.
- 05-07-2008, 03:11 PM #23RonGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:29:05 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>
>>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible
>>>> Sprint
>>>> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
>>>> doesn't allow for cell sites.
>>>
>>>That's an atypical situation, though.
>>
>>
>> That's an all too common situation.
>>
>> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
>> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
>> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
>> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
>
>"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
>during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
>Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
>been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
>customers?
Again - Read alt.cellular.sprintpcs. Or look at all the folks
making a good living selling repeaters for folks with 1900 Mhz phones.
- 05-07-2008, 08:17 PM #24Steve SobolGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
> during the 14-30 day trial period?
That would make sense, but you have to understand you're talking to a liar
and troll. Troll because, although he sometimes does post the truth, more
often he posts half-truths in an attempt to make SPCS look bad. Liar because
he repeatedly said a couple years ago that he was never going to post in the
SPCS newsgroup again.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 05-07-2008, 08:18 PM #25Steve SobolGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> Again - Read alt.cellular.sprintpcs. Or look at all the folks
> making a good living selling repeaters for folks with 1900 Mhz phones.
There have been plenty of complaints here about Sprint. Most of them have
NOT been about coverage. Please tell me to go read alt.cellular.sprintpcs so
I can laugh at you -- as you know, I've read and posted here for years.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 05-07-2008, 08:20 PM #26Steve SobolGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly
> at alt.cellular.sprintpcs.
The problem with your premise is that you know (well before the trial period
ends) whether the coverage will be good enough, and if you don't cancel before
the end of the trial period, how is that the carrier's fault? (SPCS or
any other carrier)
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 05-07-2008, 08:29 PM #27Steve SobolGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> The 1900 Mhz phones have also spawned a thriving industry of cellular
> repeaters for folks to use at their home or office.
Really. Point me to a company that sells repeaters or antennas for 1900MHz
handsets, that DOESN'T also sell devices for use with 800MHz handsets.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 05-07-2008, 08:30 PM #28Steve SobolGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Compared to the major carriers they are a real shoestring operation, but
> represent an excellent value to a particular value-oriented but less-mobile
> niche (mostly high-use teens and low-income users substituting Metro for
> landlines) with very low-cost unlimited voice/text plans and relatively
> cheap phones.
Los Angeles is a MetroPCS market. Our local broadcast TV stations are the
Los Angeles stations (we could, by some metrics, be considered on the very
extreme outer edge of the Los Angeles metro area), so I see a lot of Metro
ads. I wish I could get a Metro phone for my daughter.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 05-07-2008, 11:19 PM #29Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
At 08 May 2008 02:28:36 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:
> > Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start?
>
> Good point. Let's look at the facts.
In THIS thread? Why start now? ;-)
> Verizon. Formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Verizon Wireless
> included those properties plus the properties of Vodafone AirTouch
> Cellular and PrimeCo (A 1900MHz carrier, Phillippe, FYI).
Funny you mentioned the 1900MHz bit. I was going to throw Consumer
Reports' cellular survey back at Steven Scharf in my last post but forgot
to get around to it- despite his "Verizon-dominates-independent-surveys" as
"proof" 1900 MHz is inferior to 800MHz, CR's survey ranked Verizon as best
in
the Miami market (like in many cities) in the No Signal, and Dropped Calls
categories as well as overall score. The "punchline" of course, is that
Verizon is a 1900MHz-only carrier in Miami. AT&T owns both 800MHz licenses
there. (T-Mobile often came in second to Verizon many markets in the CR
survey, above AT&T, despite AT&T being 800 and T-Mobile 1900. Maybe
Verizon is just a little better at building out a network than the others,
and it has nothing to do with frequency? Or maybe an even simpler
explanation is the "can you hear me
now" brainwashing is market independent?)
> Sprint's network, much newer than the incumbents, had coverage at my house
> along Lake Erie in a neighborhood no one else covered until a year after I
> moved there, and Verizon's coverage in Ashtabula was horrible where
> Sprint's was very good. Ashtabula is about an hour east of Cleveland;
> smallish town, but not middle-of-nowhere small.
Bah! Anecdotal! ;-)
> > Why hasn't the free market done it's job?
>
> Well, that's the thing, the free market IS doing its job.
>
> I believe that was your point.
Guilty as charged!
- 05-08-2008, 04:56 AM #30RonGuest
Re: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:19:34 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Funny you mentioned the 1900MHz bit. I was going to throw Consumer
>Reports' cellular survey back at Steven Scharf in my last post but forgot
>to get around to it- despite his "Verizon-dominates-independent-surveys"
Consumer Reports did mention how Sprint was WORST for dropped calls.
Similar Threads
- General Cell Phone Forum
- General Cell Phone Forum
- LG
- Motorola RAZR
- alt.cellular.verizon
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung