Results 16 to 30 of 504
- 07-10-2006, 06:25 PM #16Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If coverage in the boonies is really important, then I think you need
> either a satellite phone or a PLB -- AMPS isn't really enough, since
> there are lots of places with no AMPS service.
>
For emergency service it is a far better safety net than any digital service
available [via cellular/PCS]. There is no such thing as a free 911 call on a
satellite phone if I am not mistaken. I have been to only one place in more
than 10 years where I had no coverage what-so-ever ... and that was two weeks
ago up in the Gunflint Trail in the boundry waters of the Minnesota Arrowhead
region. I am in locations that have no digital coverage several times per
year.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
› See More: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
- 07-10-2006, 06:40 PM #17SMSGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
Quick wrote:
> I think everyone agrees that no carrier has coverage
> everywhere and that all carrier's coverage does not
> coincide. So one should first decide what your priorities
> are, who offers it, and if more than one carrier then
> consider price and plans.
As long as you don't fall for the illogic that since no carrier has 100%
coverage, that all carriers are equal. It's not binary, as some shills
would like people to think.
- 07-10-2006, 07:16 PM #18John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:25:50 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> If coverage in the boonies is really important, then I think you need
>> either a satellite phone or a PLB -- AMPS isn't really enough, since
>> there are lots of places with no AMPS service.
>
>For emergency service it is a far better safety net than any digital service
>available [via cellular/PCS].
But still not complete enough to be any sort of real safety net.
>There is no such thing as a free 911 call on a
>satellite phone if I am not mistaken.
The FCC mandated 911 calls on satellite phones starting in February 2005
(as you would undoubtedly have learned with a tiny bit of checking.
>I have been to only one place in more
>than 10 years where I had no coverage what-so-ever ... and that was two weeks
>ago up in the Gunflint Trail in the boundry waters of the Minnesota Arrowhead
>region. I am in locations that have no digital coverage several times per
>year.
I'm often in places with no cellular coverage whatsoever. All it takes
is a drive in the mountains.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-10-2006, 07:23 PM #19Jeffrey KaplanGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
It is alleged that Quick claimed:
> My 7135 switches to analog quite well. 2 or 3 golf courses
> a bit out in the boonies are analog only coverage. Works
> great. Downside is that it only works for about 6 hours...
> but that's a different issue.
That is and always was the biggest advantage of digital over AMPS - the
power consumption.
> I'm still in denial and refuse to start planning for my inevitable
> migration (probably to a Treo).
Upgrading from a 7135 to a PalmOS Treo is relatively painless, no worse
than upgrading between any other Palm pair made by different companies.
I do miss the flip bit, though. Even with the so-called "Keyguard"
active, unless I keep it in a holster or a full case, it WILL turn on
in my pocket.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
"How many times do I have to tell you, Please don't shoot the nuclear
weapon!" (Major Deakson "Broken Arrow")
- 07-10-2006, 07:35 PM #20Mij AdyawGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
What Dick said is true. It depends upon the areas where you live, work, and
travel. No one service is best. It might be Cingular for you, Verizon for
Joe Schmuck, and Sprint for me. You need to test the phone in the areas
where you live, work, and travel.
"Dick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:48:13 -0400, "Nick Danger"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I fear I might start a flame war with this ... well, actually I don't fear
>>it; it might even be entertaining.
>
>>
>>Based on what I've seen (and heard) so far, I honestly have to say that
>>Cingular is winning. Could it be that Verizon's better coverage is all a
>>myth, perpetuated by a well-orchestrated advertising campaign? I won't
>>have
>>time to travel around extensively to test the two thoroughly before one
>>set
>>of phones has to go back.
>>
>
> It all depends upon where you live and travel. It's impossilbe to
> make a generalization about the two services. Sometimes one is
> better. Sometimes the other.
>
> Dick
- 07-10-2006, 07:41 PM #21ScottGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:27:55 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Nick Danger wrote:
>>
>>> Based on what I've seen (and heard) so far, I honestly have to say that
>>> Cingular is winning. Could it be that Verizon's better coverage is all a
>>> myth, perpetuated by a well-orchestrated advertising campaign?
>>
>>In suburban and urban areas the coverage should be about the same. Even
>>though you need more GSM towers than CDMA towers to cover a given area,
>>in suburban and urban areas there will be more than the minimum in order
>>to have sufficient capacity.
>
> GSM and CDMA actually have comparable coverage areas.
Patently false and you can't prove otherwise. Why do you continue to lie?
>
>>I have both Cingular GSM (on an MVNO) and Verizon, in the San Francisco
>>Bay Area. If I'm in a major city in the area, the Cingular coverage is
>>just fine. However when I get out into some of the suburbs to visit
>>friends and relatives, it's often the case that Cingular's coverage is
>>aporadic. I always find it amusing, that about 2 km from Cingular's
>>western regional HQ in Pleasanton, at my nephew's house, there is no
>>Cingular coverage, and it's not a condo, and not up in the hills.
>
> Cingular coverage is actually better than any other carrier in that
> general area.
Based on what? THis would appear to be another lie, based on your inability
to back these types of claims in the past.
- 07-10-2006, 08:44 PM #22Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:25:50 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If coverage in the boonies is really important, then I think you need
>>> either a satellite phone or a PLB -- AMPS isn't really enough, since
>>> there are lots of places with no AMPS service.
>>
>>For emergency service it is a far better safety net than any digital service
>>available [via cellular/PCS].
>
> But still not complete enough to be any sort of real safety net.
>
Says who? I just indicated that I have not noticed at any time in the last 10
years where I have been in an area where I could not get an AMPS signal ...
with the exception of the Gunflint trail in the boundry waters [most modern
appliances are not allowed including motors on boats].
>>There is no such thing as a free 911 call on a
>>satellite phone if I am not mistaken.
>
> The FCC mandated 911 calls on satellite phones starting in February 2005
> (as you would undoubtedly have learned with a tiny bit of checking.
>
Well, that is why I was bright enough to indicate [if I am not mistaken]. I
don't enjoy spending my time googling up counter arguments as much as you do.
>>I have been to only one place in more
>>than 10 years where I had no coverage what-so-ever ... and that was two weeks
>>ago up in the Gunflint Trail in the boundry waters of the Minnesota Arrowhead
>>region. I am in locations that have no digital coverage several times per
>>year.
>
> I'm often in places with no cellular coverage whatsoever. All it takes
> is a drive in the mountains.
>
Indeed .. and if there are other people like you that spend any time there,
then I agree, an AMPS phone is probably inadequate for the glove box. For the
rest of us, AMPS is a far better safety net than ANY digital cellular/PCS
digital phone can offer.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-10-2006, 08:49 PM #23John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:44:05 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I have been to only one place in more
>>>than 10 years where I had no coverage what-so-ever ... and that was two weeks
>>>ago up in the Gunflint Trail in the boundry waters of the Minnesota Arrowhead
>>>region. I am in locations that have no digital coverage several times per
>>>year.
>>
>> I'm often in places with no cellular coverage whatsoever. All it takes
>> is a drive in the mountains.
>
>Indeed .. and if there are other people like you that spend any time there,
>then I agree, an AMPS phone is probably inadequate for the glove box. For the
>rest of us, AMPS is a far better safety net than ANY digital cellular/PCS
>digital phone can offer.
Not just in the mountains -- there are lots of other places with no AMPS
coverage -- it's just not possible to make a valid generalization.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-11-2006, 03:36 AM #24SMSGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
Scott wrote:
> Based on what? THis would appear to be another lie, based on your inability
> to back these types of claims in the past.
Cingular is weak out in the tri-valley area on the eastern bay area, in
the "new suburbs." I.e., the area of western Pleasanton I an referring
to is all new development, built in the last eight years or so, and used
to be farmland or ranch land. You'd have thought that the developers
would have planned for cell phone towers in advance, to avoid the NIMBY
problem of adding towers after the homes were in place, but apparently not.
- 07-11-2006, 06:37 AM #25Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not just in the mountains -- there are lots of other places with no AMPS
> coverage -- it's just not possible to make a valid generalization.
>
So you do not agree that an AMPS phone is a better safety net than a digital
phone for most people?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-11-2006, 06:40 AM #26Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In alt.cellular.verizon SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Cingular is weak out in the tri-valley area on the eastern bay area, in
> the "new suburbs." I.e., the area of western Pleasanton I an referring
> to is all new development, built in the last eight years or so, and used
> to be farmland or ranch land. You'd have thought that the developers
> would have planned for cell phone towers in advance, to avoid the NIMBY
> problem of adding towers after the homes were in place, but apparently not.
Developers would care less. That sort of planning is done at the local,
regional or state level and if they were worth a grain of salt and not corrupt
or lazy like most modern politicians, then they would have an effective
planning commision to avoid problems like this. Such commisions have existed
for decades; arising from the need to combat urban sprawl ... of which
California is famous.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-11-2006, 08:15 AM #27John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:37:47 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Not just in the mountains -- there are lots of other places with no AMPS
>> coverage -- it's just not possible to make a valid generalization.
>
>So you do not agree that an AMPS phone is a better safety net than a digital
>phone for most people?
As I'm sure you know, I do not agree that an AMPS phone is a real
"safety net" for many people, particularly since real "safety nets" are
reasonably available (e.g., satellite phone, PLB).
Since this is just going round and round, I'm now done, and you can
again have the last word.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-11-2006, 08:15 AM #28John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:36:54 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> Based on what? THis would appear to be another lie, based on your inability
>> to back these types of claims in the past.
>
>Cingular is weak out in the tri-valley area on the eastern bay area, in
>the "new suburbs." I.e., the area of western Pleasanton I an referring
>to is all new development, built in the last eight years or so, and used
>to be farmland or ranch land. You'd have thought that the developers
>would have planned for cell phone towers in advance, to avoid the NIMBY
>problem of adding towers after the homes were in place, but apparently not.
In fact Cingular has the best coverage in that area of any carrier.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-11-2006, 08:17 AM #29John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:40:05 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>In alt.cellular.verizon SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Cingular is weak out in the tri-valley area on the eastern bay area, in
>> the "new suburbs." I.e., the area of western Pleasanton I an referring
>> to is all new development, built in the last eight years or so, and used
>> to be farmland or ranch land. You'd have thought that the developers
>> would have planned for cell phone towers in advance, to avoid the NIMBY
>> problem of adding towers after the homes were in place, but apparently not.
>
>Developers would care less. That sort of planning is done at the local,
>regional or state level and if they were worth a grain of salt and not corrupt
>or lazy like most modern politicians, then they would have an effective
>planning commision to avoid problems like this. Such commisions have existed
>for decades; arising from the need to combat urban sprawl ... of which
>California is famous.
In fact developers often do care -- new developments in the Tri-Valley
part of the SF East Bay have been planned to have very good cellular
coverage from the get go.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-11-2006, 09:07 AM #30Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> In fact developers often do care -- new developments in the Tri-Valley
> part of the SF East Bay have been planned to have very good cellular
> coverage from the get go.
>
Indeed, some do. I wish it were a rule rather than an exception.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- General Service Provider Forum
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat