Foreigner looking for US-domestic advice

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <[email protected]> SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I keep a GSM account just to keep my cellular-related web sites accurate
>> in terms of coverage differences, and I've been surprised with just how
>> little GSM has progressed in rural areas.
>
> While I didn't have a CDMA phone around, I can tell you that Verizon had
> no coverage at all at our favourite campground, based on the reviews of
> a fellow camper -- I had five bars of Cingular/AT&T service (not that I
> could access it with my T-Mobile SIM, but I could roam over at
> $0.95-$1.70/minute with my Canadian SIM)
>
> In fact, having roaming on both AT&T and T-Mobile, as well as 17 other
> carriers, I have very decent coverage as a whole.

Where was this? Did the Verizon user have a tri-mode phone.

I have been in rural places where there was only AMPS, and thankfully
most rural carriers are keeping their AMPS networks up past the time
they are allowed to shut them down.

I've never found anywhere where their was GSM coverage, but not
CDMA/AMPS coverage, or even where there was GSM coverage but not CDMA
coverage, though I'm sure they exist.

In my area (San Francisco Bay Area), the CDMA coverage is far superior
to GSM, even without AMPS. This has been my own experience, and all the
independent surveys confirm it (the Consumer Reports survey is in the
January 2008 issue, and The Bay Areas Consumer Checkbook survey can be
purchased at
"http://www.checkbook.org/cgi-bin/download/default.cfm?action=showsummary&FileID=543").

---

› See More: Foreigner looking for US-domestic advice

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:01:11 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>I've never found anywhere where their was GSM coverage, but not
>CDMA/AMPS coverage, or even where there was GSM coverage but not CDMA
>coverage, ...

Why are we not surprised.

>In my area (San Francisco Bay Area), the CDMA coverage is far superior
>to GSM, even without AMPS. ...

AT&T Wireless actually has the best coverage in the San Francisco Bay
Area.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

In message <[email protected]> SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]> SMS
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I keep a GSM account just to keep my cellular-related web sites accurate
>>> in terms of coverage differences, and I've been surprised with just how
>>> little GSM has progressed in rural areas.
>>
>> While I didn't have a CDMA phone around, I can tell you that Verizon had
>> no coverage at all at our favourite campground, based on the reviews of
>> a fellow camper -- I had five bars of Cingular/AT&T service (not that I
>> could access it with my T-Mobile SIM, but I could roam over at
>> $0.95-$1.70/minute with my Canadian SIM)
>>
>> In fact, having roaming on both AT&T and T-Mobile, as well as 17 other
>> carriers, I have very decent coverage as a whole.
>
>Where was this?

Campground in rural Idaho.

>Did the Verizon user have a tri-mode phone.

He did mention his analog phone died and since AMPS was going down, he
didn't see the need to buy a new phone with analog support, so he was
using a digital-only CDMA phone his son gave him.

I didn't inquire further.

At 16 Feb 2008 00:43:16 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Then there's the fact that your personal remarks on me were out of line
> here. Had you really been sincere, you would have email them to me,
> instead of bashing me in public.

Gee, I seem to recall when Thomas Veldhouse did just that a couple of weeks
ago, you reamed him about it here and said you were closing that e-mail box.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:56:47 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 16 Feb 2008 00:43:16 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Then there's the fact that your personal remarks on me were out of line
>> here. Had you really been sincere, you would have email them to me,
>> instead of bashing me in public.
>
>Gee, I seem to recall when Thomas Veldhouse did just that a couple of weeks
>ago, you reamed him about it here and said you were closing that e-mail box.

In fact I did. That wasn't my Usenet email address, which was and is
valid. TV was trying to compromise a different email address (as a way
of punishing me for not doing what he demanded). Next time take the
time to understand the issue before jumping in.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford