Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:03:38 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In reality there are very large differences in coverage. It's not a
>matter of chance, it's directly related to a) the technology used (CDMA
>is much better than GSM in terms of coverage for a given tower
>distribution)

No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.

>) frequency (cellular is much better than PCS),

No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.

>nd c)
>how much the carrier is willing to spend on towers in non-urban areas
>that are sparsely populated.

In such areas, the real issue is roaming coverage agreements.

>In non-urban areas the differences are
>often huge.

But not biased in favor of any one carrier.

>In urban areas the differences can be small, though not
>always. If you look at the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon provides
>coverage that is far superior to the other three major carriers and
>every independent survey (since the old AT&T Wireless turned off their
>TDMA/AMPS network) has verified this fact. ...

No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.

>[SNIP rest of anti-GSM, pro-Verizon advocacy]

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

---

› See More: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

>What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas, which
>is actually good, not "very limited".

Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the Tragedy of
the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and avaricious landlords
charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit coverage, too. Case in point:
any iPhone article in the tech press, clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk
about navel-gazing!).

Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m. while
you're on the street in Midtown.

Penetration: anything over 500MHz has trouble getting through 1920s thick
plaster and stone walls, and steel building frames, and mesh lathing.
Penetration even varies with the ambient humidity (summer stinks). Thus the
persistence of pagers here well into the new century. They're still de rigeur
for physicians on call in some hospitals.

-Frank, who's enjoyed your broadband tips for what, twelve years now?

thanks for hijacking the thread on basically the 2nd posting ....

I was focused on the PLANS - and their implied unlimited usage -

Creative thread drift is often the sauce that makes good conversation. Sorry
to divert.

ps56k wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:55:01 -0500]:
> thanks for hijacking the thread on basically the 2nd posting ....

Ironic that you reply to a post that is 100% on topic and *****

> I was focused on the PLANS - and their implied unlimited usage -

On 20/07/10 11:23 AM, Justin wrote:
> ps56k wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:55:01 -0500]:
>> thanks for hijacking the thread on basically the 2nd posting ....
>
> Ironic that you reply to a post that is 100% on topic and *****
>
>> I was focused on the PLANS - and their implied unlimited usage -

I thought that he/she wanted to know the catch(es) on these plans and
why they're so cheap versus other unlimited plans. I was wrong. Maybe
he/she already signed up and is now trying to justify the decision, who
knows?

Yes the usage for messaging, e-mail, data, and web is unlimited, but
they're doing this because a) the coverage is only on Sprint's
relatively limited native network so they have no roaming costs, and b)
they're not offering smart phones and there's no tethering so the data
usage will be minimal (people have gotten tethering to work on some
Virgin Mobile U.S. phones, but it violates the acceptable use policy, so
if you were using it for large quantities of data they'd catch on).

If someone can live with the coverage issues, and doesn't care about a
smart phone, and isn't not going to tether (or is going to tether in
violation of the terms of use) then indeed it's a very good price.

There is no low cost prepaid unlimited (or large quantity) data where
smart phones and tethering are allowed, and at least roaming is allowed
on the voice part of the network.

On 7/20/2010 10:41 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:35:37 -0400, in
> <[email protected]>, George
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2010 1:54 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>>
>>> actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.
>>
>> Depends, their network is nothing to write home about in many areas
>> (including this one)
>
> All carriers have areas in which they aren't so great.
>
>> plus they have the built in handicap of being on
>> PCS so they have issues with building penetration.
>
> That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
> penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
> really matters is tower location.
>
Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
one reason being what I mentioned.

On 7/20/2010 1:43 PM, Frank Haber wrote:
>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>
> Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the
> Tragedy of the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and
> avaricious landlords charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit
> coverage, too. Case in point: any iPhone article in the tech press,
> clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk about navel-gazing!).
>
> Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m.
> while you're on the street in Midtown.

I go there a lot and have never had an issue using VZW. AT&T however is
a much different story.

>
> Penetration: anything over 500MHz has trouble getting through 1920s
> thick plaster and stone walls, and steel building frames, and mesh
> lathing. Penetration even varies with the ambient humidity (summer
> stinks). Thus the persistence of pagers here well into the new century.
> They're still de rigeur for physicians on call in some hospitals.
>
> -Frank, who's enjoyed your broadband tips for what, twelve years now?

On 7/20/2010 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
> John Navas wrote on [Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:57:28 -0700]:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in
>> <[email protected]>, SMS
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>>> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
>>>> plans
>>>> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
>>>> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
>>>
>>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>
>> Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.
>
> Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.

On 7/20/2010 10:58 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC), in
> <[email protected]>, Justin<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
>
>>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>>>
>>> If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
>>> provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PLB).
>>
>> Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?
>
> Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
> too many issues that can interfere with the signal.
>

Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
band they are hand. Couple that with fewer installed sites in many areas
and it just doesn't work out so well.

> It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
> as to do the job.
>

Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

> If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
> a passive or active (picocell) repeater.
>

On 20/07/10 10:43 AM, Frank Haber wrote:
>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>
> Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the
> Tragedy of the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and
> avaricious landlords charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit
> coverage, too. Case in point: any iPhone article in the tech press,
> clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk about navel-gazing!).
>
> Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m.
> while you're on the street in Midtown.

I've been in midtown Manhattan many times and never had a problem on
Verizon. AT&T is a disaster there. My nephew lives near Union Square and
his iPhone is unusable in his apartment, whether it's 5:30 p.m. or 5:30
a.m.. He had to give up AT&T when he moved to NYC from Florida for his
internship.

It should not be this way. GSM cell spacing can be denser than CDMA cell
spacing so more subscribers can be served. OTOH For the same amount of
traffic a CDMA network requires less cell sites than a GSM network.

The problems with GSM in NYC are caused by the carriers not deploying
enough cells to meet the demand. While CDMA equipment is more expensive
than GSM equipment, the bigger cost is in the actual real estate for the
cell site.

On 20/07/10 2:44 PM, George wrote:

<snip>

> Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
> some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

It's definitely luck. You and I were lucky enough to go to institutions
of higher learning where we could gain the critical thinking skills
necessary to understand that all carriers are not created equal, and
that some spend much more money on their network and some chose newer
and more costly technology that is able to handle more network traffic.

Others were not so lucky and grew more and more clueless, and believe
that wireless coverage is just a matter of luck so they may as well
choose the cheapest carrier. They are the legal prey of the carriers
that provide poorer coverage.

Actually learning critical thinking skills begins much earlier than
college. Those that believe that coverage is a matter of luck are sad
testament to our declining public education system. Watch the movie
_Idiocracy_--it's really happening.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in
<[email protected]>, George
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/20/2010 10:41 AM, John Navas wrote:

>> That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
>> penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
>> really matters is tower location.
>>
>Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
>one reason being what I mentioned.

That's largely another urban myth -- tower spacing is dominated by
capacity and siting issues.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:02:04 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 20/07/10 10:43 AM, Frank Haber wrote:
>>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>>
>> Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the
>> Tragedy of the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and
>> avaricious landlords charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit
>> coverage, too. Case in point: any iPhone article in the tech press,
>> clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk about navel-gazing!).
>>
>> Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m.
>> while you're on the street in Midtown.
>
>I've been in midtown Manhattan many times and never had a problem on
>Verizon. AT&T is a disaster there. My nephew lives near Union Square and
>his iPhone is unusable in his apartment, whether it's 5:30 p.m. or 5:30
>a.m.. He had to give up AT&T when he moved to NYC from Florida for his
>internship.

Does the word anecdotal mean nothing to you?
Because it's bad for him, it must be bad for everyone. Right
Just like the coverage issue in your wife's office that started you on
your anti-GSM crusade.

>It should not be this way. GSM cell spacing can be denser than CDMA cell
>spacing so more subscribers can be served. OTOH For the same amount of
>traffic a CDMA network requires less cell sites than a GSM network.

Neither one of those statements is true. The two technologies have
roughly the same Erlangs, as I documented long ago.

>The problems with GSM in NYC are caused by the carriers not deploying
>enough cells to meet the demand. While CDMA equipment is more expensive
>than GSM equipment, the bigger cost is in the actual real estate for the
>cell site.

Problems with all carriers in NYC are caused by (a) high subscriber
density, (b) siting issues, and (c) urban canyons.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:44:36 -0400, in
<[email protected]>, George
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/20/2010 10:58 AM, John Navas wrote:

>> Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
>> too many issues that can interfere with the signal.
>
>Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
>band they are hand. ...

Not true, as I explained earlier.

>> It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
>> as to do the job.
>
>Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
>some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.

The luck is in where you choose to live.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]