Coveverag in 95008

How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
switching from Verizon.

---

› See More: Coveverag in 95008

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:57:24 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
in <[email protected]>:

>How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
>switching from Verizon.

<http://onlinecare.cingular.com/coverageviewer/>

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Dave wrote:
> How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
> switching from Verizon.

All of Campbell is 95008, so going by zip code is not sufficient. It's
like many Bay Area suburbs where one zip code covers a relatively large
area. Along Bascom, Winchester, Hamilton, and Campbell Avenue the
coverage is probably just fine, it's when you get into the
non-commercial areas that you have to worry.

That said, Campbell doesn't have the issues that some other Bay Area
cities have with new suburbs in the nether regions having poor coverage
from one carrier or another. Cupertino has large swaths where T-Mobile
and Sprint suck, because these are off in the hills where no one wants
a tower. Campbell is pretty flat and compact, and other than maybe over
along parts of Dry Creek Road between Bascom and Leigh, you should have
no problem with any carrier.

When I lived in Campbell, about 15 years ago, I had AT&T/Cellular One
TDMA and it was fine, so Cingular GSM should also be fine, since it's
the same network.

I still notice that the Santa Cruz mountains have much better coverage
with Verizon than with Cingular, but if you don't care about non-urban
areas, then Cingular should be fine.

On 13 Nov 2006 16:27:34 -0800, [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>I still notice that the Santa Cruz mountains have much better coverage
>with Verizon than with Cingular, ...

Not true.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Thanks to all.

Tmobile never worked reliably for me from home. Verizon is very good.

The cingualr coverage map says I am in a good area.

I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.



Thanks for the inputs..


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>> How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
>> switching from Verizon.
>
> All of Campbell is 95008, so going by zip code is not sufficient. It's
> like many Bay Area suburbs where one zip code covers a relatively large
> area. Along Bascom, Winchester, Hamilton, and Campbell Avenue the
> coverage is probably just fine, it's when you get into the
> non-commercial areas that you have to worry.
>
> That said, Campbell doesn't have the issues that some other Bay Area
> cities have with new suburbs in the nether regions having poor coverage
> from one carrier or another. Cupertino has large swaths where T-Mobile
> and Sprint suck, because these are off in the hills where no one wants
> a tower. Campbell is pretty flat and compact, and other than maybe over
> along parts of Dry Creek Road between Bascom and Leigh, you should have
> no problem with any carrier.
>
> When I lived in Campbell, about 15 years ago, I had AT&T/Cellular One
> TDMA and it was fine, so Cingular GSM should also be fine, since it's
> the same network.
>
> I still notice that the Santa Cruz mountains have much better coverage
> with Verizon than with Cingular, but if you don't care about non-urban
> areas, then Cingular should be fine.
>

Dave wrote:
> Thanks to all.
>
> Tmobile never worked reliably for me from home. Verizon is very good.

So why are you switching? I go to Campbell a lot, as I rent out the
property that I used to live in, as well as going there to ride the bike
path to LG and beyond. You're correct, Verizon is very good there.

> The cingualr coverage map says I am in a good area.
>
> I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
> Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.

As long as you don't need good Santa Cruz mountains coverage, Cingular
should be fine. I go up to the Saratoga Gap/Highway 9 area a lot, and
points east, south, and west from there, and Verizon is excellent, while
Cingular is poor. Remember, when you move to Cingular, you lose all the
AMPS coverage which is still very useful in many parts of the Bay Area.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:37:19 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Dave wrote:

>> I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
>> Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.
>
>As long as you don't need good Santa Cruz mountains coverage, Cingular
>should be fine. I go up to the Saratoga Gap/Highway 9 area a lot, and
>points east, south, and west from there, and Verizon is excellent, while
>Cingular is poor.

Dave, be warned that Steven has a hard-on for GSM in general and
Cingular in particular, and rarely misses an opportunity to troll in the
Cingular newsgroup and claim Verizon is better.

I've compared Cingular to Verizon in the areas he mentions, and there
really isn't that much difference in general. There are lots of
coverage gaps with both carriers up in the hills. Cingular has actually
been a bit better than Verizon in areas I care about (e.g., Los Trancos
Open Space), but it might be the other way around in areas you care
about -- there is valid generalization, so be sure to check for
yourself.

>Remember, when you move to Cingular, you lose all the
>AMPS coverage which is still very useful in many parts of the Bay Area.

You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 14 Nov 2006 15:26:46 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
> long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
> words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.
>
In a world where people change handsets on a annual basis, and wireless
contracts are one or two years, I'm not sure one NEEDS "long term
criteria" to select a carrier.

And, franlky, I'm not sure your implied "Verizon's coverage is better
now, but might be downgraded to Cingular's level in a few years when AMPS
is phased out" is exactly the cloth that sales brochures are cut from!
;-)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 14 Nov 2006 15:26:46 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
>> long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
>> words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.
>>
> In a world where people change handsets on a annual basis, and wireless
> contracts are one or two years, I'm not sure one NEEDS "long term
> criteria" to select a carrier.
>
> And, franlky, I'm not sure your implied "Verizon's coverage is better
> now, but might be downgraded to Cingular's level in a few years when AMPS
> is phased out" is exactly the cloth that sales brochures are cut from!
> ;-)

What John doesn't understand is that the FCC is not mandating that AMPS
be shut down, it's merely _permitting_ it to be shut down.

One indicator of AMPS coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains are the
roadside call boxes. While there is a program in place to convert the
AMPS call boxes to CDMA, this would require a lot more towers, so it may
be more economical, in the rural areas, to keep them as AMPS for now.
It's in the urban areas where the carriers are chomping at the bit to
turn off AMPS, because it's so inefficient in terms of spectral efficiency.

In other areas, including parts of the Sierra Nevada, AMPS is the only
coverage provided by the smaller carriers along long stretches of state
highways. These carriers have little incentive, and no money, to convert
these portions of their network to digital.

John has been claiming that AMPS will degrade Verizon's coverage to the
same level of Cingular's coverage for a couple of years now. In the long
term he may be right, but it's more likely that a lot of AMPS will
remain on, by choice, until there is something available to replace it.

Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
on the towers. No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:04:01 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>At 14 Nov 2006 15:26:46 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
>> long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
>> words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.
>>
>In a world where people change handsets on a annual basis, and wireless
>contracts are one or two years, I'm not sure one NEEDS "long term
>criteria" to select a carrier.

The FCC mandate will "sunset" in Feb 2008, well within the standard
2-year contract term.

>And, franlky, I'm not sure your implied "Verizon's coverage is better
>now, but might be downgraded to Cingular's level in a few years when AMPS
>is phased out" is exactly the cloth that sales brochures are cut from!

I said nothing of the kind. Cingular actually has better overall
coverage than Verizon here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:15:23 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>What John doesn't understand is that the FCC is not mandating that AMPS
>be shut down, it's merely _permitting_ it to be shut down.

I actually understand the matter quite well, thank you. I also
understand that carriers are eager to shut down AMPS service (due to
reasons of high cost, low demand/revenue, inefficiency, redeployment of
infrastructure and spectrum, etc.), and are expected to do so rapidly
following "sunset" of the AMPS mandate.

>One indicator of AMPS coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains are the
>roadside call boxes. While there is a program in place to convert the
>AMPS call boxes to CDMA, this would require a lot more towers, so it may
>be more economical, in the rural areas, to keep them as AMPS for now.

Simply untrue.

>In other areas, including parts of the Sierra Nevada, AMPS is the only
>coverage provided by the smaller carriers along long stretches of state
>highways. These carriers have little incentive, and no money, to convert
>these portions of their network to digital.

On the contrary -- these smaller carriers get most of their profits from
roaming, and thus are likewise eager to redeploy from AMPS to digital.

>John has been claiming that AMPS will degrade Verizon's coverage to the
>same level of Cingular's coverage for a couple of years now.

I said nothing of the kind. Cingular actually has better overall
coverage than Verizon here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

>In the long
>term he may be right, but it's more likely that a lot of AMPS will
>remain on, by choice, until there is something available to replace it.

I'll take that bet -- I don't think this forecast is going to be any
better than your prior forecasts.

>Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
>towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
>on the towers.

Terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the market only
serves to create *dis*incentives.

>No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
>investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.

Patently untrue.

AMPS "sunset" will stimulate improved digital coverage in rural areas,
part of why it's long overdue.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 14 Nov 2006 09:15:23 -0800 SMS wrote:

> What John doesn't understand is that the FCC is not mandating that AMPS
be shut down, it's merely _permitting_ it to be shut down.

John understands it just fine. Cingular will shut off analog the morning
the FCC allows it, because they get to kill two legacy technologies with
one stone. Verizon has far less of an incentive to squash analog because
any of their current customer base (with a dual-mode phone) can use it.
Only a _very_ small pc of Cingular customers (that haven't been bullied
into switching to GSM or leaving Cingular altogether!) can utilize
Cingular's legacy analog service.

> One indicator of AMPS coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains are the
roadside call boxes. While there is a program in place to convert the
AMPS call boxes to CDMA, this would require a lot more towers, so it may
be more economical, in the rural areas, to keep them as AMPS for now.
It's in the urban areas where the carriers are chomping at the bit to
turn off AMPS, because it's so inefficient in terms of spectral efficiency.


Agreed- if a rural tower is not utilizing anything close to it's
capacity, there's no incentive to shut of the "bandwith wasting" analog
channels
> In other areas, including parts of the Sierra Nevada, AMPS is the only
coverage provided by the smaller carriers along long stretches of state
highways. These carriers have little incentive, and no money, to convert
these portions of their network to digital.
Unless there's roaming revenue to be had- arguably there's not much
reason to leave them analog only if "nobody" has a phone that can use them.
Adding GSM would make sense, since that would open them up to T-Mo and
Cingular roaming, whereas Verizon and Sprint customers with dual-mode
handsets can already use them as is...
>
> John has been claiming that AMPS will degrade Verizon's coverage to the
same level of Cingular's coverage for a couple of years now. In the long
term he may be right, but it's more likely that a lot of AMPS will remain
on, by choice, until there is something available to replace it.

Agreed- why would Verizon reduce coverage in low-usage rural areas, or
spend money updating the system when the leaving the status quo costs
nothing?

> Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
on the towers. No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.

Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
collected from cellular customers.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:23:18 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>... if a rural tower is not utilizing anything close to it's
>capacity, there's no incentive to shut of the "bandwith wasting" analog
>channels

Actually there is an incentive, because it's expensive to support and
maintain service for limited demand.

>Agreed- why would Verizon reduce coverage in low-usage rural areas, or
>spend money updating the system when the leaving the status quo costs
>nothing?

Because that's a misconception -- there is a very real cost to support
and maintain such service, a problem when there's so little demand.

>> Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
>towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
>on the towers. No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
>investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.
>
>Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
>collected from cellular customers.

Again, terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the
market only serves to create *dis*incentives.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Adding GSM would make sense, since that would open them up to T-Mo and
> Cingular roaming, whereas Verizon and Sprint customers with dual-mode
> handsets can already use them as is...

True, but a lot of Sprint and Verizon customers don't have AMPS capable
handsets. Also, the carrier for some of the areas in question in the
Sierras is a CDMA/AMPS carrier (Golden State Cellular) though I guess
nothing would stop them from operating some GSM as well, as some smaller
CDMA/AMPS carriers are doing.

> Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
> collected from cellular customers.

It'll have to wait at least until 2008. The FCC chief will have to be
replaced before something like this happens.

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

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:37:19 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>
>>> I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
>>> Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.
>>
>>As long as you don't need good Santa Cruz mountains coverage, Cingular
>>should be fine. I go up to the Saratoga Gap/Highway 9 area a lot, and
>>points east, south, and west from there, and Verizon is excellent, while
>>Cingular is poor.
>
> Dave, be warned that Steven has a hard-on for GSM in general and
> Cingular in particular, and rarely misses an opportunity to troll in the
> Cingular newsgroup and claim Verizon is better.
>

Dave- be warned that the only hard-on in this group is the result of John
Navas' blind obsession with Cingular. In his eyes, they are never at
fault. He will eventually blame your problem on your phone or dismiss it
as anecdotal rubbish.

>