Biggest network?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 03 Nov 2004
20:56:39 -0700, DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]> Steve Sobol
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In response to DevilsPGD, carrying an analog phone when you travel? Why? My
>>Sprint phone is 1900/800 CDMA and 800 AMPS... and will roam analog when necessary.
>
>I've used iDEN phones exclusively since '99 or so... Digital only.

You have my sincere sympathy.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Biggest network?

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>Cingular has very good coverage here in the San Francisco Bay Area, much
>better than SprintPCS. That's even without the ATTWS merger, which makes
>coverage even better.

But isn't the Cingular network reverting to T-Mobile in CA/NV, now that
the merger is approved? I understand that Cingular/AT&T-Wireless people
will be able to roam on the T-Mobile system for a while, but the combo
will be running basically on the current AT&T-Wireless network, right?

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>I've used iDEN phones exclusively since '99 or so... Digital only.
>
>You have my sincere sympathy.

By choice... Best phones I've found in a long time, and one of the most
functional networks. Great coverage in the city, although not the best
when I travel. Luckily, I rarely travel.


--
You're not as stupid as you look, or sound, or our best testing indicates.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <zthid.13460$233.1789@okepread05> on Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:38:03 -0600,
> "lmerz1" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've used Sprint for a couple years now and I must say they have great
> >coverage, better than some other carriers. Out here in Oklahoma I'll
drive
> >past Crescent (which if you have ever been there you would know it's out
in
> >the middle of nowhere) and I will still have service. Then I'll try using
> >cingular wireless in the same area and I don't have any service. And I'll
> >tell you this, when I drive from Oklahoma to Florida taking back roads
I'll
> >get Sprint service with no roaming during the entire trip.
>
> Out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, Cingular has much better coverage
than
> SprintPCS.

Oh? And how would you know John? I'm not trying to start an argument, but it
seems that you haven't had SPCS coverage for a long time, if you ever had it
in the past. Do you subscribe to SPCS service now, and use it?

Bob

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 04 Nov 2004
04:36:39 GMT, [email protected]lid (CharlesH) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Cingular has very good coverage here in the San Francisco Bay Area, much
>>better than SprintPCS. That's even without the ATTWS merger, which makes
>>coverage even better.
>
>But isn't the Cingular network reverting to T-Mobile in CA/NV, now that
>the merger is approved? I understand that Cingular/AT&T-Wireless people
>will be able to roam on the T-Mobile system for a while, but the combo
>will be running basically on the current AT&T-Wireless network, right?

1. It's a multi-year roaming agreement.

2. The ATTWS network is very good.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 04 Nov 2004
05:09:57 GMT, "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> Out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, Cingular has much better coverage than
>> SprintPCS.
>
>Oh? And how would you know John? I'm not trying to start an argument, but it
>seems that you haven't had SPCS coverage for a long time, if you ever had it
>in the past. Do you subscribe to SPCS service now, and use it?

I do indeed use SprintPCS (in addition to Cingular).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

CharlesH wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cingular has very good coverage here in the San Francisco Bay Area, much
>>better than SprintPCS. That's even without the ATTWS merger, which makes
>>coverage even better.
>
>
> But isn't the Cingular network reverting to T-Mobile in CA/NV, now that
> the merger is approved?

I had the opportunity to ask a T-Mobile major accounts rep that exact question
a few weeks ago, and the answer was a resounding "I'm not sure."

I don't think anything is an absolute yet. (Except the fact that the merger's
going through

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:50:00 -0800, Steve
Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>CharlesH wrote:

>> But isn't the Cingular network reverting to T-Mobile in CA/NV, now that
>> the merger is approved?
>
>I had the opportunity to ask a T-Mobile major accounts rep that exact question
>a few weeks ago, and the answer was a resounding "I'm not sure."
>
>I don't think anything is an absolute yet. (Except the fact that the merger's
>going through

T-Mobile USA to End Network Venture with Cingular and Acquire
California/Nevada Network and Spectrum
http://tmobile.com/company/pressroom...release100.asp

BELLEVUE, Washington - 05/25/2004 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile
USA"), the U.S. operating subsidiary of T-Mobile International AG &
Co. KG ("T-Mobile International"), the mobile communications
subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT) ("Deutsche Telekom"),
today announced it has entered into agreements with Cingular Wireless
LLC ("Cingular") to terminate their wireless network sharing joint
venture and for T-Mobile USA to acquire 100% ownership of the shared
networks in California and Nevada for $2.5 billion. The purchase
price of $2.5 billion for the GSM network in California/Nevada will
be offset by $200 million related to the unwinding of the joint
venture, resulting in a net cash payment of approximately $2.3
billion to Cingular. In addition, T-Mobile USA will:

* provide network services to Cingular under a wholesale arrangement
until Cingular's customers in these markets transition to the
networks it will acquire through its pending merger with AT&T
Wireless Services, Inc. ("AT&T Wireless");

* replace its existing roaming agreement with Cingular with a new
nationwide agreement with improved terms;

* transfer 10 MHz of New York spectrum in exchange for certain
California spectrum owned by Cingular as specified in the termination
provisions of the joint venture agreement;

* acquire an additional 10 MHz of spectrum from Cingular in certain
key California markets for $180 million; and

* receive an option to acquire an additional 10 MHz of spectrum in
other key California markets from Cingular within two years.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:50:00 -0800,
Steve
> Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >CharlesH wrote:
>
> >> But isn't the Cingular network reverting to T-Mobile in CA/NV, now that
> >> the merger is approved?
> >
> >I had the opportunity to ask a T-Mobile major accounts rep that exact
question
> >a few weeks ago, and the answer was a resounding "I'm not sure."
> >
> >I don't think anything is an absolute yet. (Except the fact that the
merger's
> >going through
>
> T-Mobile USA to End Network Venture with Cingular and Acquire
> California/Nevada Network and Spectrum
> http://tmobile.com/company/pressroom...release100.asp
>
> BELLEVUE, Washington - 05/25/2004 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile
> USA"), the U.S. operating subsidiary of T-Mobile International AG &
> Co. KG ("T-Mobile International"), the mobile communications
> subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT) ("Deutsche Telekom"),
> today announced it has entered into agreements with Cingular Wireless
> LLC ("Cingular") to terminate their wireless network sharing joint
> venture and for T-Mobile USA to acquire 100% ownership of the shared
> networks in California and Nevada for $2.5 billion. The purchase
> price of $2.5 billion for the GSM network in California/Nevada will
> be offset by $200 million related to the unwinding of the joint
> venture, resulting in a net cash payment of approximately $2.3
> billion to Cingular. In addition, T-Mobile USA will:
>
> * provide network services to Cingular under a wholesale arrangement
> until Cingular's customers in these markets transition to the
> networks it will acquire through its pending merger with AT&T
> Wireless Services, Inc. ("AT&T Wireless");
>
> * replace its existing roaming agreement with Cingular with a new
> nationwide agreement with improved terms;
>
> * transfer 10 MHz of New York spectrum in exchange for certain
> California spectrum owned by Cingular as specified in the termination
> provisions of the joint venture agreement;
>
> * acquire an additional 10 MHz of spectrum from Cingular in certain
> key California markets for $180 million; and
>
> * receive an option to acquire an additional 10 MHz of spectrum in
> other key California markets from Cingular within two years.
>
> [MORE]
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

That nationwide roaming agreement that they mention sounds like T-Mobile
would be entering into an agreement similar to ATTW/Cingular prior to the
merger. If so, that would be a win-win situation for T-Mobile as it would
expand their coverage.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:05:42 GMT, "Carl Keehn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That nationwide roaming agreement that they mention sounds like T-Mobile
>would be entering into an agreement similar to ATTW/Cingular prior to the
>merger. If so, that would be a win-win situation for T-Mobile as it would
>expand their coverage.
>
I wouldn't get tremendously excited about that unless TM officially
begins to support 850 mHz roaming, because that's the frequency most
of Cingular's GSM overlay operates on. As it is now, I don't see any
way that agreement is going to expand the coverage of TM customers.

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>> Out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, Cingular has much better coverage
> than
>> SprintPCS.
>
> Oh? And how would you know John? I'm not trying to start an argument, but it
> seems that you haven't had SPCS coverage for a long time, if you ever had it
> in the past. Do you subscribe to SPCS service now, and use it?

I have a data point different from John Navas. My wife and I have used SprintPCS
exclusively for the past four years. Initially there were some gaps in coverage,
but it has gotten much better. We travel mostly in the northern Bay area:
Solano, Napa and Sonoma counties. Incidentally, our kids use T-Mobile (it's
cheap), but T-Mobile's coverage is nowhere near as good as Sprint, at least
in our area. I've heard anecdotal remarks from friends that Cingular's coverage
is good in the east and south bay areas, but not that great in the north country.

--
John Richards

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 04 Nov 2004
16:26:19 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

>>> Out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, Cingular has much better coverage
>> than
>>> SprintPCS.
>>
>> Oh? And how would you know John? I'm not trying to start an argument, but it
>> seems that you haven't had SPCS coverage for a long time, if you ever had it
>> in the past. Do you subscribe to SPCS service now, and use it?
>
>I have a data point different from John Navas. My wife and I have used SprintPCS
>exclusively for the past four years. Initially there were some gaps in coverage,
>but it has gotten much better. We travel mostly in the northern Bay area:
>Solano, Napa and Sonoma counties. Incidentally, our kids use T-Mobile (it's
>cheap), but T-Mobile's coverage is nowhere near as good as Sprint, at least
>in our area. I've heard anecdotal remarks from friends that Cingular's coverage
>is good in the east and south bay areas, but not that great in the north country.

Fair enough -- although I was in Napa recently, I travel mostly around the Bay
(SF, Marin, Richmond, East, Peninsula, and South).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 2 Nov 2004
> 16:51:40 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >I couldn't see anything in that thread that says 280 million. It's
> >still 240 million:
> >
> >http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ue...tworkAdvantage
>
> <http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/Pa...der_id=1371443>:
>
> "... reaching more than 280 million people..."

The first quote refers to the SPCS native network (including
affiliates, but not roaming partners). The second quote refers to the
total coverage available with the Free & Clear America Plan, which
does include numerous non-affiliated roaming partners. The second
quote says nothing about native coverage on the SPCS network,
therefore the first quote is correct in reference to SPCS native
coverage.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on 4 Nov 2004 18:40:42
-0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on 2 Nov 2004
>> 16:51:40 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >I couldn't see anything in that thread that says 280 million. It's
>> >still 240 million:
>> >
>> >http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ue...tworkAdvantage
>>
>> <http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/Pa...der_id=1371443>:
>>
>> "... reaching more than 280 million people..."
>
>The first quote refers to the SPCS native network (including
>affiliates, but not roaming partners). The second quote refers to the
>total coverage available with the Free & Clear America Plan, which
>does include numerous non-affiliated roaming partners. The second
>quote says nothing about native coverage on the SPCS network,
>therefore the first quote is correct in reference to SPCS native
>coverage.

Irrelevant.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 4 Nov 2004 18:40:42
> -0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>
> >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> In <[email protected]> on 2 Nov 2004
> >> 16:51:40 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >I couldn't see anything in that thread that says 280 million. It's
> >> >still 240 million:
> >> >
> >> >http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ue...tworkAdvantage
> >>
> >> <http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/Pa...der_id=1371443>:
> >>
> >> "... reaching more than 280 million people..."
> >
> >The first quote refers to the SPCS native network (including
> >affiliates, but not roaming partners). The second quote refers to the
> >total coverage available with the Free & Clear America Plan, which
> >does include numerous non-affiliated roaming partners. The second
> >quote says nothing about native coverage on the SPCS network,
> >therefore the first quote is correct in reference to SPCS native
> >coverage.
>
> Irrelevant.

What exactly are you talking about? What is irrelevant? A delta of
40 million people certainly is not irrelevant when comparing native
coverage areas of various carriers. Any carrier can claim to cover
280 million people (essentially the entire population of the United
States - the 2000 census totalled 281.4 million people) when they
include non-affiliated roaming partners in the calculation. So if
anything, your claim of 280 million people is irrelevant as it doesn't
pertain to SPCS at all but rather to the total available CMRS coverage
availability in the United States - a figure that was not under
dispute in this thread.