Signal coverage--truth in advertising

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per daniel cairns:
>>
>>>Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
>>>they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
>>>metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
>>>down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.
>>
>>
>> That's almost exactly where I am right now - but I'm still on T-Mob until
>> the
>> contract runs out.
>
> Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
Dearborn, Michigan.
DC

>
> Also, I'm on a nationwide FamilyTime share plan. I can roam onto other
> carriers, including Cingular (at no extra charge!) if I happen to hit a
> T-Mobile dead spot or travel somewhere where they don't have coverage, and
> apparently that includes the area where I live even though T-Mobile has
> native coverage here. Do you have a local or regional plan, or a
> nationwide plan?
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Company website: http://JustThe.net/
> Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
> E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

---

› See More: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

daniel cairns wrote:
>
> <snip>

A suggestion, Daniel... Learn to edit and snip your responses,
so your one-liners don't get lost in a mess of top and bottom
posts.

See ya!

Notan

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:42:26 UTC, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Ben Skversky wrote:
> > I've been with T-Mobile for ten days. So far the service is great. No
> > dropped calls. 1000 minute family plan for $69.99.
>
> Again, coverage varies.
>
> Sprint and T-Mobile *both* used to suck a whole lot more than they do now,
> coverage-wise.
>

YMMV. I originally signed up with Cellularone, which was bought out
in my area by ATTWS, 15 years ago.

Finally decided 1 1/2 years ago to go with Sprintpcs because of the
phone, and inexpensive data plan vs AT&T. Unfortunately, though
Sprint worked well most places, and was actually better than ATTWS on
I44, it was marginal at my home. If I hadn't bought the phone through
a third party, I would have cancelled the service.

Later, ATTWS was bought by Cingular, and they offered their $20
mediaplan, so I went back. Never actually left, but had kept my old
TDMA phone and minimal plan for emergency use, so was able to keep my
old number

Still not as good on I44, but great at home

Per daniel cairns:
>Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
>they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
>metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
>down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.

That's almost exactly where I am right now - but I'm still on T-Mob until the
contract runs out.

It's almost like there are "shadows" in the coverage... Won't work inside of
building "A", won't work immediately outside either.... but when you walk
another 75 feet in a certain direction, there'll be a couple of bars.
--
PeteCresswell

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:35:21 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:04:33 -0400,
>Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>FCC also needs to
>>inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
>>this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
>>have now.
>
>Really Bad Idea! The "hodge-podge" has now sorted itself out in the market
>into two principal standards, which fosters competition.

In the past, the FCC has adopted and enforced standards. NTSC is a
good example where the different manufacturers in the TV industry
cooperated (eventually, and not without some politics) to come up with
a very elegant broadcast standard that has served the industry well
for 50 years. Why wouldn't such an approach work with the cellular
industry?

Joe Huber
[email protected]

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:33:27
-0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:35:21 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:04:33 -0400,
>>Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>FCC also needs to
>>>inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
>>>this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
>>>have now.
>>
>>Really Bad Idea! The "hodge-podge" has now sorted itself out in the market
>>into two principal standards, which fosters competition.
>
>In the past, the FCC has adopted and enforced standards. NTSC is a
>good example where the different manufacturers in the TV industry
>cooperated (eventually, and not without some politics) to come up with
>a very elegant broadcast standard that has served the industry well
>for 50 years. Why wouldn't such an approach work with the cellular
>industry?

NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.

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

daniel cairns wrote:

>>Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
>
> Dearborn, Michigan.
> DC

I have to wonder how Cingular (former Ameritech Cellular) is in your area. I
don't know if T-Mobile lets you switch plans without penalizing you, but if
they do, perhaps you should try switching to a nationwide plan. See if being
able to roam when your T-Mo signal fades will help at all.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
>NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
>probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
>benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.

NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
was the standard actually approved by the FCC, but covertly derailed
by the rest of the industry because of its many problems. As a
result, the NTSC standard evolved and was adopted by the FCC.

What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
and CDMA? Aren't the benefits really coming because of what the
providers are doing with any given technology (i.e. Verizion vs.
Sprint on CDMA)?

Joe Huber
[email protected]

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:05:28
-0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
>>probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
>>benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.
>
>NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
>the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
>was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
>We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
>was the standard actually approved by the FCC, ...

I rest my case.

>What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
>and CDMA?

Surely you must be joking. We've seen rapid advances in handset shrinkage,
sophistication, battery life, call quality, data transmission speed, PoC, and
rapidly falling prices, to name just a few.

>Aren't the benefits really coming because of what the
>providers are doing with any given technology (i.e. Verizion vs.
>Sprint on CDMA)?

My own assessment is that the biggest competitive force is the battle between
GMS (as the standard bearer for TDMA) and CDMA. Without that battle, I think
3G would be much farther off.

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

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:19:37 GMT, John Navas wrote:
> Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>>>NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
>>>probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
>>>benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.
>>NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
>>the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
>>was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
>>We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
>>was the standard actually approved by the FCC, ...
>
>I rest my case.

So you think it would have been better in the long run to have
competing systems from RCA, CBS, CTI, GE, Philco, Hazeltine, (and
whoever else) duke it out in the market, rather than have them all
combine their efforts to develop a standard? There are various
theories as to why the FCC initially chose FSS after earlier rejecting
it and several others (industry/political pressure to pick something
and they picked the "best" thing available, or perhaps they knew such
a choice would motivate the various factions into uniting to develop a
better standard).

>>What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
>>and CDMA?
>Surely you must be joking. We've seen rapid advances in handset shrinkage,
>sophistication, battery life, call quality, data transmission speed, PoC, and
>rapidly falling prices, to name just a few.

I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
standard.

Joe Huber
[email protected]

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:Yh6He.6609$p%[email protected]:

> Really? What specific (paragraph and section of) law?
>

http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html#rules

The rules are rampant with it...

Ever read the FCC rules on wireless?
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr24_04.html
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/

"Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers."
From the FCC webpages....

--
Larry

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:Zc6He.6608$p%[email protected]:

> Under what statute or regulation?
>

Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
FCC rules, Part 22 is cellular.

Want your own license?
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cel...ing/index.html





--
Larry

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:jIaHe.6665$p%[email protected]:

> NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that
> standard we'd probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS),
> rather than enjoying the benefits of vigorous competition between GSM
> and CDMA.
>
>

True....But I bet before this conversion to digital TV is over, the
politicians will wish they'd never heard of digital TV.

I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....

BBC graciously refused my offer to pay their radio tax to support the
servers they provide me for the great BBC radio programmes I'm listening to
as I type this. I'm hoping to see BBC-TV, the home channels, on the
internet in the future and am willing to PAY for the priviledge of watching
it.....spam free.

My friend Werner is from Thun, Switzerland. He buys European TV channels
from Dish Network to get the German TV. Great programs on German TV, too!

--
Larry

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> It's almost like there are "shadows" in the coverage... Won't work
> inside of building "A", won't work immediately outside either.... but
> when you walk another 75 feet in a certain direction, there'll be a
> couple of bars.
>

A great indication of multipath signals. You walk a few feet and signals
improve, markedly. The signals are weak from lack of cells and what you
are receiving from far off is bouncing off buildings, bridges and other
reflective things like airplanes and mountains, causing many signal paths
to the poorly covered cells.

Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!

--
Larry

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:57:47 -0400,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:Yh6He.6609$p%[email protected]:
>
>> Really? What specific (paragraph and section of) law?
>>
>
>http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html#rules
>
>The rules are rampant with it...
>
>Ever read the FCC rules on wireless?

Yep. Also the actual enabling legislation, and relevant court decisions.
And you?

>http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr24_04.html
>http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
>
>"Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
>Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
>providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
>is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
>competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
>such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
>standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
>review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers."
>From the FCC webpages....

Interesting, but not even close to supporting your claims.

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