Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

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

--
----------------------------------
"If everything seems to be going well,
you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright

---

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

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.

2. Very limited handset selection. Probably no tethering.

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.

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.

>2. Very limited handset selection. Probably no tethering.


--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

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) plus they have the built in handicap of being on
PCS so they have issues with building penetration.

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.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...


>
> Only if you live near a major highway in this area.

Depends on your area. In the Cleveland area, Sprint had a tower at Ohio
306 and Lake Shore Boulevard and because of that, they were the only
carrier that had good coverage in Mentor On The Lake, where I lived.

I had Verizon at the time, and I wrote to the Dublin, Ohio corporate
office asking them to add coverage in MOL, and they eventually did, but
they lagged way behind Sprint in providing coverage there.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
[email protected]

On 19/07/10 10:54 PM, 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.

You've got to be really careful about distinguishing between postpaid
Sprint coverage and coverage on prepaid services that use Sprint's
network. They are two very different animals, and many people are misled
by clever marketing of the MVNOs (though technically since Sprint now
owns Virgin, it's no longer an MVNO). A postpaid Sprint phone has _far_
greater coverage than a phone on Virgin Mobile, and roaming is a
necessary and essential part of Sprint's coverage (as it also is with
Verizon though to a lesser extent).

If you're on Sprint on postpaid, the coverage is okay because you can
roam onto other CDMA cellular and PCS networks. If they have a presence
in the area you often won't roam onto other CDMA networks unless you can
force the handset to only use the 800 MHz CDMA network, so you don't
automatically get the combined coverage of Sprint, Verizon, U.S.
Cellular, etc.. This means issues with in-building coverage due to
Sprint being on the less desirable 1900 MHz frequency.

The big problem is with the prepaid services that use Sprint's native
network exclusively. Sprint's native network is extremely limited, as
their coverage maps show.

You can see the difference between regular Sprint coverage (which
includes roaming) and Virgin coverage (which does not) by comparing maps.

"http://i31.tinypic.com/27ymjd.jpg"

If you never travel to the white areas on the Virgin map (gray on the
Sprint map) then you'd be fine on Virgin. But there are a LOT of places,
often not all that far out into the boonies, that a Virgin phone won't
have coverage but a Sprint phone will have coverage.

I.e., drive to Yosemite National Park from San Francisco, and you'll
lose Virgin coverage outside of Oakdale and you'll have no coverage in
the park. On Sprint proper you'll roam onto Golden State Cellular as
soon as you leave Oakdale, and you'll have coverage most of the way into
the park, and good coverage in Yosemite Valley.

In short, if you go with Virgin Mobile, or other prepaid providers using
Sprint's network exclusively, you have to understand that your coverage
will be very limited.

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.

--
John

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:35:40 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The big problem is with the prepaid services that use Sprint's native
>network exclusively. Sprint's native network is extremely limited, as
>their coverage maps show.
>
>You can see the difference between regular Sprint coverage (which
>includes roaming) and Virgin coverage (which does not) by comparing maps.
>
>"http://i31.tinypic.com/27ymjd.jpg"
>
>If you never travel to the white areas on the Virgin map (gray on the
>Sprint map) then you'd be fine on Virgin. But there are a LOT of places,
>often not all that far out into the boonies, that a Virgin phone won't
>have coverage but a Sprint phone will have coverage.
>
>I.e., drive to Yosemite National Park from San Francisco, and you'll
>lose Virgin coverage outside of Oakdale and you'll have no coverage in
>the park. On Sprint proper you'll roam onto Golden State Cellular as
>soon as you leave Oakdale, and you'll have coverage most of the way into
>the park, and good coverage in Yosemite Valley.
>
>In short, if you go with Virgin Mobile, or other prepaid providers using
>Sprint's network exclusively, you have to understand that your coverage
>will be very limited.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

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).

--
John

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in
<[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
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.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

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).

--
John

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

John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in
> <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
> 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.
>
> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
> -Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
>
> 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?

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.

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

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

--
John

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

John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:58:49 -0700]:
> 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.
>
> It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
> as to do the job.
>
> If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
> a passive or active (picocell) repeater.

Did I say indoors?

On 20/07/10 7:47 AM, Justin wrote:
> John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in
>> <[email protected]>, Justin<[email protected]>
>> 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.
>>
>> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
>> -Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
>>
>> 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?

The problem is that some carries try to use the sales pitch that goes
something like 'all carriers are about equal because no carrier provides
100% coverage.' I had that used on me once when I was changing carriers
because there was no coverage at my house. It's clever, but ultimately
faulty logic though unfortunately some people that lack critical
thinking skills are naive enough to fall for that kind of thing.

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) b) frequency (cellular is much better than PCS), and c)
how much the carrier is willing to spend on towers in non-urban areas
that are sparsely populated. In non-urban areas the differences are
often huge. 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. OTOH, in the more densely
packed and flatter areas like the eastern seaboard there are less
differences in quality of coverage between carriers.

There is also a very big difference between "remote areas" and rural or
non-urban areas. Besides coverage in their own local area, what matters
to most people is having coverage in areas they drive through and to.

It's true that no carrier has 100% coverage, but as the coverage maps
clearly show, that does not mean all carrier are equal--far from it. A
few weeks ago someone in the group I was with had their brakes go out on
CA 128 between Albion and Boonville. Fortunately they had Verizon, and
they had roaming coverage on U.S. Cellular, so they could summon
assistance. GSM coverage in this area is very spotty, confined to some
high ridges, while the road is down in the valley. It's definitely
rural, but it's not very remote. Here's the map and where they broke down:
"http://i26.tinypic.com/v6pxer.jpg"--no, there's not 100% coverage, but
there's a very big difference in coverage!

That's why Verizon is consistently ranked as the best carrier by every
statistically sound independent survey, including those from J.D. Power,
Consumers Union, Consumer Checkbook, Yankee Group, etc.. AT&T was
furious, to the point of suing, when Verizon pointed out the significant
coverage differences in their clever, but accurate, "There's a Map for
That" ad campaign. AT&T eventually gave up and dropped the suit after
they were denied an injunction. That ad was only about the 3G coverage
differences, which are very great, but there are also very big
differences in voice coverage.

The problem is that some people get very defensive when the significant
differences between carriers are pointed out to them, and will say
anything to rationalize their own specific purchasing choices, when no
rationalization is really necessary. If someone wants to arrange his
travel routes in a way that he or she is assured of coverage on his or
her carrier then he or she is free to do so. But it's clear that the
vast majority of Americans prefer carriers and networks that provides
the maximum available coverage, be it native or roaming. That's one of
the big reasons that AT&T consistently ranks last in customer satisfaction.

"http://www.tomsguide.com/us/att-consumer-reports-verizon-satisfaction,news-5239.html"
"http://www.tomsguide.com/us/AT-T-Verizon-Lawsuit-Dismissed,news-5246.html"

The best advice for someone enticed by the Virgin $25 plan is to at
least carry a prepaid phone on PagePlus with them as a back-up. It will
work on all CDMA networks in the U.S. and Canada. There will be roaming
charges if you're off of Verizon's native network, but at least the
phone will work. It costs as little as $2.50 a month to keep the phone
active. You can simplify things by signing up for Google Voice and
giving out that number, then letting Google Voice try the Virgin number
first, then the PagePlus number.

Consumers who have no technical knowledge of the reasons for the
differences in quality of coverage and service between carriers are
legal prey for the mis-leading advertising employed by some carriers in
their marketing and sales. At least the original poster in this thread
was smart enough to inquire about a plan that on the surface seems to
good to be true.