Verizon, Cingular, or T-Mobile? (Chicago area)

Thanks, I'll forget about CDMA vs GSM etc. Under-$40 National plan from
any of the three will meet my needs. Although I mentioned travel in my
previous post (hence the National plan), I have decided to choose
whoever is best in Chicago area, where I spend most of the time.

So which of these three carriers have:

(1) Best service in terms of accurate billing, customer service being
easy to get to and easy to deal with?

(2) Best signal quality and coverage in the Chicago area?

(3) Best phones? (I can't understand why but "talk time" spec in
verizon's phones tends to hover around 200 min while others seem to
have it higher. This happens even if you focus on a single
manufacturer.)

Finally, the phone (free to $50 with plan). I think I want to
emphasize:
talk time and signal clarity first,
well-designed for intuitive and efficient working second,
light weight next, and
screen color quality etc the last.

Which manufacturer should I be looking at?

---

› See More: Verizon, Cingular, or T-Mobile? (Chicago area)

Ajanta <[email protected]> wrote:

> So which of these three carriers have:
>
> (1) Best service in terms of accurate billing, customer service being
> easy to get to and easy to deal with?
>
> (2) Best signal quality and coverage in the Chicago area?

I have been happy enough with ATT/Nokia 3360 but it is within the
city and I can't compare with other carriers.

The plans are definitely getting worse. Two years ago I got ATT
nationwide 500 anytime minutes and unlimited night/weekend for $35
and 1 year contract (ie, I am contract free now). There is no such deal
today as both of us have separately discovered.

I think there is a "conspiracy" to bring the consumers to accept $40 as
the floor. Plans below that seem deliberately crippled. So I'd suggest
one of the $40 plans, or Verizon's 300 minute plan ($35).

> (3) Best phones? (I can't understand why but "talk time" spec in
> verizon's phones tends to hover around 200 min while others seem to
> have it higher. This happens even if you focus on a single manufacturer.)
>
> Finally, the phone (free to $50 with plan). I think I want to emphasize:
> talk time and signal clarity first,
> well-designed for intuitive and efficient working second,
> light weight next, and
> screen color quality etc the last.
>
> Which manufacturer should I be looking at?

I cannot help you but I am debating upgrading from my little battle
tank (3360) and I'd be reading any replies with interest.

PS. Always good to run into mac/thoth users. :-)

If you are going to accept Verizon's $35 plan for 300, you might as well
look at T-Mobile's $40 for 600. That extra $5 is worth the piece of mind
knowing you probably won't have to worry about overages.

As for a phone, you can't go wrong with the Nokia 3595. It's free, has a
color screen and is an excellent quality phone. If you are looking for
something a little "more", the 6610 is a nice phone.

I doubt you'd go wrong with either T-Mobile or Verizon. Just be wary of
Verizon's national network plans, if you roam you pay. They do have
one-rate plans, but aren't as competitive as their "on-network" plans. The
T-Mobile plan is free roaming/free long distance.

As for talk time, GSM provides for a better battery life than CDMA. It's
noticeable, but it's not like CDMA is bad on battery life either. For no
more minutes than you're looking to use, the difference in battery life
probably won't be a big deal.

Don't forget......you can keep your number!

"RPS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:230220041552091445%[email protected]...
> Ajanta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So which of these three carriers have:
> >
> > (1) Best service in terms of accurate billing, customer service being
> > easy to get to and easy to deal with?
> >
> > (2) Best signal quality and coverage in the Chicago area?
>
> I have been happy enough with ATT/Nokia 3360 but it is within the
> city and I can't compare with other carriers.
>
> The plans are definitely getting worse. Two years ago I got ATT
> nationwide 500 anytime minutes and unlimited night/weekend for $35
> and 1 year contract (ie, I am contract free now). There is no such deal
> today as both of us have separately discovered.
>
> I think there is a "conspiracy" to bring the consumers to accept $40 as
> the floor. Plans below that seem deliberately crippled. So I'd suggest
> one of the $40 plans, or Verizon's 300 minute plan ($35).
>
> > (3) Best phones? (I can't understand why but "talk time" spec in
> > verizon's phones tends to hover around 200 min while others seem to
> > have it higher. This happens even if you focus on a single
manufacturer.)
> >
> > Finally, the phone (free to $50 with plan). I think I want to emphasize:
> > talk time and signal clarity first,
> > well-designed for intuitive and efficient working second,
> > light weight next, and
> > screen color quality etc the last.
> >
> > Which manufacturer should I be looking at?
>
> I cannot help you but I am debating upgrading from my little battle
> tank (3360) and I'd be reading any replies with interest.
>
> PS. Always good to run into mac/thoth users. :-)

What's In A Name? <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you are going to accept Verizon's $35 plan for 300, you might as well
> look at T-Mobile's $40 for 600. That extra $5 is worth the piece of mind
> knowing you probably won't have to worry about overages.

The person I was replying to has been using <200 minutes and thought
300 would be plenty.

As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked
but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I
will stay. For now I am just looking to upgrade my phone. Going by
Phonescoop.com's listings for ATT/TDMA phones, Motorola v120t, Nokia
3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available
for which one.

I've carried all 3 phones you mentioned(I used to work for AT&T), and all
are good phones. The v120 is a very good phone. I think I even have one
new or close to new in a box somewhere. I really liked the 6360, although
the size was a bit of an issue(although it is the same size, roughly, as the
Motorola). Still, nothing I've seen could match my old 6160.
"RPS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:230220042308036002%[email protected]...
> What's In A Name? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If you are going to accept Verizon's $35 plan for 300, you might as well
> > look at T-Mobile's $40 for 600. That extra $5 is worth the piece of
mind
> > knowing you probably won't have to worry about overages.
>
> The person I was replying to has been using <200 minutes and thought
> 300 would be plenty.
>
> As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked
> but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I
> will stay. For now I am just looking to upgrade my phone. Going by
> Phonescoop.com's listings for ATT/TDMA phones, Motorola v120t, Nokia
> 3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available
> for which one.

RPS wrote:

> As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked
> but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I
> will stay. For now I am just looking to upgrade my phone. Going by
> Phonescoop.com's listings for ATT/TDMA phones, Motorola v120t, Nokia
> 3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available
> for which one.

If the v120t has the same stubby extendable antenna as the v120c, I'd
recommend against it. I had a v120c and the antenna broke off twice
while the phone was in my pocket, costing me $20 to repair it each time.

Jesse

The 120t has a fixed stub antenna.
"Jesse McGrew" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> RPS wrote:
>
> > As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked
> > but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I
> > will stay. For now I am just looking to upgrade my phone. Going by
> > Phonescoop.com's listings for ATT/TDMA phones, Motorola v120t, Nokia
> > 3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available
> > for which one.
>
> If the v120t has the same stubby extendable antenna as the v120c, I'd
> recommend against it. I had a v120c and the antenna broke off twice
> while the phone was in my pocket, costing me $20 to repair it each time.
>
> Jesse

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:28:10 -0600, "What's In A Name?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The 120t has a fixed stub antenna.
>"Jesse McGrew" <[email protected]> wrote
>in message news:[email protected]...
>> RPS wrote:
>>
>> > As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked
>> > but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I
>> > will stay. For now I am just looking to upgrade my phone. Going by
>> > Phonescoop.com's listings for ATT/TDMA phones, Motorola v120t, Nokia
>> > 3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available
>> > for which one.
>>
>> If the v120t has the same stubby extendable antenna as the v120c, I'd
>> recommend against it. I had a v120c and the antenna broke off twice
>> while the phone was in my pocket, costing me $20 to repair it each time.

TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and
often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are
extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

Joseph wrote:
> TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and
> often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are
> extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint.

Interesting. Is that because CDMA cells can be larger?

Jesse

Joseph <[email protected]> writes:

> TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and
> often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are
> extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint.

Hmmmm. I'd have guessed it had to do with frequencies used. Wavelength
(and thus antenna size) decreases as frequency increases. Verizon
uses 800Mhz a lot (pretty much exclusively in old BAM territories),
and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is
800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively.

Bob

Bob Snyder wrote:
> Joseph <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and
>>often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are
>>extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint.
>
>
> Hmmmm. I'd have guessed it had to do with frequencies used. Wavelength
> (and thus antenna size) decreases as frequency increases. Verizon
> uses 800Mhz a lot (pretty much exclusively in old BAM territories),
> and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is
> 800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively.

But TDMA commonly uses 800 MHz, doesn't it? And don't many TDMA phones
also support analog?

Jesse

I have a drawer full of TDMA tri-mode phones and they all have fixed
antennas. It's possible that it just works better with the extendable
antenna but not necessary.

Also, I have an old Powertel GSM phone and it had an extendable antenna. I
believe they were 1900MHz.

"Jesse McGrew" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> Bob Snyder wrote:
> > Joseph <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and
> >>often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are
> >>extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint.
> >
> >
> > Hmmmm. I'd have guessed it had to do with frequencies used. Wavelength
> > (and thus antenna size) decreases as frequency increases. Verizon
> > uses 800Mhz a lot (pretty much exclusively in old BAM territories),
> > and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is
> > 800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively.
>
> But TDMA commonly uses 800 MHz, doesn't it? And don't many TDMA phones
> also support analog?
>
> Jesse

"What's In A Name?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a drawer full of TDMA tri-mode phones and they all have fixed
> antennas. It's possible that it just works better with the extendable
> antenna but not necessary.
>
> Also, I have an old Powertel GSM phone and it had an extendable antenna.
I
> believe they were 1900MHz.
>
> "Jesse McGrew" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]...
> > Bob Snyder wrote:
> > > Joseph <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >>TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and
> > >>often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are
> > >>extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hmmmm. I'd have guessed it had to do with frequencies used. Wavelength
> > > (and thus antenna size) decreases as frequency increases. Verizon
> > > uses 800Mhz a lot (pretty much exclusively in old BAM territories),
> > > and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is
> > > 800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively.
> >
> > But TDMA commonly uses 800 MHz, doesn't it? And don't many TDMA phones
> > also support analog?
> >
> > Jesse

My old dualmode phone, used on BellSouth Mobility, and
retained for backup is a Motorola M77a. It's a
TDMA/AMPS model in the MicroTac flip form, with an
extendable antenna. The M70 and M75 are the same.

I also have the same PowerTel Motorola MicroTAC
Select 3000e, a 1900 MHz GSM phone with an extendable
antenna.

Whether the antenna extends or not is a decision between
the manufacturer and the buyer (wireless company with
buying power).

John C.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:54:10 -0500, Bob Snyder
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hmmmm. I'd have guessed it had to do with frequencies used. Wavelength
>(and thus antenna size) decreases as frequency increases. Verizon
>uses 800Mhz a lot (pretty much exclusively in old BAM territories),
>and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is
>800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively.

Well, if that's so how do you reckon it applies to TDMA? TDMA is both
cellular (at 800 Mhz) and PCS (at 1900 Mhz.)

My guess is it has more to do with the technology used rather than the
frequency the handsets use.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:18:38 -0600, "John Cummings"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Whether the antenna extends or not is a decision between
>the manufacturer and the buyer (wireless company with
>buying power).

If that's true why are the majority of handsets made for the CDMA
carriers such as Verizon and Sprint all seem to have extendable
antennas and none have internal only antennas as do many TDMA and GSM
models.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply