Cellular Carrier Comparison Sites Revamped (NYC, Northern & Southern CA)

I revamped my cellular websites after complaints about the
layout and load time. Sorry, but with DSL I didn't realize
just how bloated they had become.

Load time of the main page will be about 30 seconds rather
than the previous 3 minutes (dial-up).

I've also added a new section on "Voice Quality" after
someone pointed out that I did not adequately address
this issue.

These sites are objective, non-commercial sites that
are designed to help consumers choose a carrier.

http://nycell.com New York City
http://sfbacell.com San Francisco Bay Area
http://socalcell.com Southern California

Also:

http://earthroam.com International Roaming

The response and hit rate on this last site has been quite amazing.
I created it after a few e-mails on questions of international roaming
costs, and apparently there was a big demand for this sort of
comparison between carriers.

---

› See More: Cellular Carrier Comparison Sites Revamped (NYC, Northern & Southern CA)

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

In <i7s%[email protected]> on Sat, 16 Aug 2003
15:31:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:

>These sites are objective, ...

Not true.

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

In article <i7s%[email protected]>,
Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've also added a new section on "Voice Quality" after
>someone pointed out that I did not adequately address
>this issue.

Yep.

>These sites are objective...

Bull<cough>****.

RDT
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <i7s%[email protected]>,
> Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I've also added a new section on "Voice Quality" after
> >someone pointed out that I did not adequately address
> >this issue.
>
> Yep.
>
> >These sites are objective...
>
> Bull<cough>****.

Come now, don't pull a Navas. I added the voice quality section based on
your suggestion, if there is something you see that is incorrect, then speak
up.

In article <[email protected]>,
Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
>Come now, don't pull a Navas. I added the voice quality section based on
>your suggestion, if there is something you see that is incorrect, then speak
>up.

Most people don't buy based on what's the very best in the
marketplace. They buy based on what is the best value for them. Without
a doubt, T-Mobile is a very good value. It is a much better value than
Verizon. I have a very good friend who lives in SoCal (works north of
Sherman Oaks, lives in downtown LA off Sunset). His work phone is a
Nextel. His personal phone up until recently was Verizon. He purchased
the Verizon phone because he was led to believe it had the best coverage.
His girlfriend purchased a T-Mobile phone because the phones looked cool
and they would give her a lot of anytime minutes (3000) for an
unbelievable price ($50). He tried her phone a few times and discovered
that it sounds better and it works better in the mountains. In fact, he
has found that the Verizon phone he owns is no better than the Nextel in
the mountains. They both drop calls in different places. The T-Mobile
phone appears to work better in the mountains, but has more dead spots in
LA (than Verizon). Given that the performance of these three is roughly
equivalent with Verizon costing much more per minute (during the daytime),
he made the decision to go with the $40 for 1000 plan with T-Mobile.

The voice quality is better. The dropped calls are fewer in the
mountains which is a large part of his daily commute. The price is much
cheaper. He doesn't ever worry that he's exceeded his daytime minutes
since all minutes are the same price. And he gets LD and roaming. All
for $0.04 a minute. And a note: he had Verizon so long he still has a
handset (an old Startac) that was programmed with the much clearer 13k
Qualcomm CDMA codec. He thinks the GSM EFR is better.

By the way, I don't know why Nextel gets *****-slapped on voice
quality. I think Nextel sounds fine. When he's on his Nextel phone, I
really can't tell a difference from a landline. Although it is possible
that incoming voice quality is pretty ****ty since I've never used a
Nextel handset, outgoing voice quality is good (when he calls my
landline). His Verizon phone does funny things with the letter "s"
(sounds like a hissing snake) and occasionally chirps while he's talking.

RDT
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

In my experience, Nextel's voice quality, while it has improved over
the last several years, still is not in a league w. other wireless
protocols.
I have a person I deal w. a lot who has Nextel. His voice quality is
so bad, he knows that if he wants to talk w. me he needs to NOT use his
Nextel.

...mike (in Northern Ca.)

[email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> In article <r
> By the way, I don't know why Nextel gets *****-slapped on voice
> quality. I think Nextel sounds fine. When he's on his Nextel phone, I
> really can't tell a difference from a landline. Although it is possible
> that incoming voice quality is pretty ****ty since I've never used a
> Nextel handset, outgoing voice quality is good (when he calls my
> landline). His Verizon phone does funny things with the letter "s"
> (sounds like a hissing snake) and occasionally chirps while he's talking.
>
> RDT
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:

> ""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <i7s%[email protected]>,
> > Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >I've also added a new section on "Voice Quality" after
> > >someone pointed out that I did not adequately address
> > >this issue.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > >These sites are objective...
> >
> > Bull<cough>****.
>
> Come now, don't pull a Navas. I added the voice quality section based on
> your suggestion, if there is something you see that is incorrect, then speak
> up.

I found the voice quality section reasonablly even handed, although I
would probably quibble with your conclusions.

To my ear, when you have a perfect CDMA signal it often sounds as good
as or very slightly better than GSM (providng a little more treble), but
that in the real world, you more often have CDMA signal with
significant error rates, so the overall quality is usually lower than
the typical GSM call.

But overall on that page, I thought you gave both sides of the argument.


--
To send email, remove the invalid and nospams.