reply to discussion
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 128
  1. #31
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:09:04 -0700, in
    <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 20/07/10 2:44 PM, George wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> 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.


    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



    See More: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others




  2. #32
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 20/07/10 2:41 PM, George wrote:

    > 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.



  3. #33
    George
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 7/20/2010 11:41 PM, John Navas wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in
    > <[email protected]>, George
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/20/2010 10:41 AM, John Navas wrote:

    >
    >>> 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?



  4. #34
    George
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 7/20/2010 11:46 PM, John Navas wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:02:04 -0700, in
    > <[email protected]>, SMS
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On 20/07/10 10:43 AM, Frank Haber wrote:
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    >> 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.
    >

    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.



  5. #35
    George
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 7/20/2010 11:48 PM, John Navas wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:44:36 -0400, in
    > <[email protected]>, George
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/20/2010 10:58 AM, John Navas wrote:

    >
    >>> 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?

    >
    >>> 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.
    >





  6. #36
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    SMS wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700]:
    > On 20/07/10 2:41 PM, George wrote:
    >
    >> 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


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




  7. #37
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:34:43 -0400, in
    <[email protected]>, George
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 7/20/2010 11:46 PM, John Navas wrote:


    >> 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.


    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.

    --
    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



  8. #38
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:40:13 -0400, in
    <[email protected]>, George
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 7/20/2010 11:48 PM, John Navas wrote:
    >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:44:36 -0400, in
    >> <[email protected]>, George
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 7/20/2010 10:58 AM, John Navas wrote:

    >>
    >>>> 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."
    [Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]



  9. #39
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in
    <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 20/07/10 2:41 PM, George wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


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

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


    It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.

    >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.

    --
    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



  10. #40
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in
    <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >SMS wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700]:
    >> On 20/07/10 2:41 PM, George wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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

    >
    >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."
    [Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]



  11. #41
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:33:39 -0400, in
    > <[email protected]>, George
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On 7/20/2010 11:41 PM, John Navas wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in
    >>> <[email protected]>, George
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 7/20/2010 10:41 AM, John Navas wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> 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.



  12. #42
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:34:43 -0400, in
    > <[email protected]>, George
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On 7/20/2010 11:46 PM, John Navas wrote:

    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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.
    >


    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.



  13. #43
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 21 Jul 2010 15:27:38 GMT, in <[email protected]>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:


    >> 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 ;-)


    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



  14. #44
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 21 Jul 2010 15:31:50 GMT, in <[email protected]>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:


    >> 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.

    >
    >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.

    --
    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]



  15. #45
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    John Navas wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:26:25 -0700]:
    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in
    > <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>SMS wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700]:
    >>> On 20/07/10 2:41 PM, George wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 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

    >>
    >>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.



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.