Results 16 to 26 of 26
- 09-10-2003, 11:33 PM #16About DakotaGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
Larry Thomas wrote:
> [email protected] (XFF) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>sparks <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>
>>>Well I went to the Cingular web page and the coverage areas
>>>are lets just say a bunch of hype.
>>>They show coverage over the entire state. Ok sprint shows the main
>>>cities and the highways are covered, LOTS of missing areas...but
>>>honest.
>>>There is no way that Cingular coveres the entire area they have
>>>colored in.
>>
>>I guess as a Sprint PCS customer you're just not used to having good
>>coverage, even off the beaten path. But while I don't know whether
>>this is the case in AR or not, it is very much possible to have
>>wall-to-wall coverage from cellular providers. That's why VZW,
>>Cingular, and AT&TWS are the top 3 wireless providers in the country,
>>and not PCS providers like Sprint PCS or T-Mobile.
>
>
> Not true at all. The reason the other 3 are the top is because of
> mergers and acquistions. I'm surprised at all of the misconception that
> exists on this issue.
Actually, it is true. If Cingular, Verizon Wireless, or AT&T Wireless
decided that they were going to drop coverage in areas that were not by
themselves profitable, they would see an increase in customer churn.
Not only would you see coverage dropped intirely in some areas, total
states would have coverage dropped (Like North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, Wyoming, Idaho). The larger the coverage area, the more
subscribers that provider will have.
› See More: Actual coverage areas
- 09-10-2003, 11:44 PM #17Boy_Boy_6969Guest
Re: Actual coverage areas
Jim-G wrote:
> boy you must be smokin' sump'n the indians use to believe those maps. Our
> daughter drives from Indiana to the west coast each summer both north-south
> and easr-west using her cingular, that is 'when' she can find coverage. You
> need to talk to more users.
>
>
It depends on whether you have a GSM, TDMA/AMPS, or AMPS only phone. I
drove from Bismarck, North Dakota to Orlando, Florida, and the only
areas without coverage were in the Chatanooga, TN area, where it was not
even safe to use the phone. The only place I hit roaming was in
Wisconsin and part of Illinois. I have a Moto C331t TDMA/AMPS phone,
and it beats the coverage of even CDMA phones for digital service and
quality (I had three CDMA phones -- all experienced unstable signal,
poor digital quality but good analog qualilty, and poor digital
coverage). I think it makes a difference what kind of phone you have -
GSM and CDMA are newer technologies, and therefore still have bugs that
are being worked out. In 10 years, it's possible that we may not even
see an AMPS system, or even a TDMA system, but it's possible that those
systems may even grow in coverage as some equipment manufacturers may
offer discounts to carriers expanding TDMA, more as a back-up system.
- 09-11-2003, 12:00 AM #18Larry ThomasGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
About Dakota <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
>
> Larry Thomas wrote:
> > [email protected] (XFF) wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>sparks <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>
> >>>Well I went to the Cingular web page and the coverage areas
> >>>are lets just say a bunch of hype.
> >>>They show coverage over the entire state. Ok sprint shows the main
> >>>cities and the highways are covered, LOTS of missing areas...but
> >>>honest.
> >>>There is no way that Cingular coveres the entire area they have
> >>>colored in.
> >>
> >>I guess as a Sprint PCS customer you're just not used to having good
> >>coverage, even off the beaten path. But while I don't know whether
> >>this is the case in AR or not, it is very much possible to have
> >>wall-to-wall coverage from cellular providers. That's why VZW,
> >>Cingular, and AT&TWS are the top 3 wireless providers in the country,
> >>and not PCS providers like Sprint PCS or T-Mobile.
> >
> >
> > Not true at all. The reason the other 3 are the top is because of
> > mergers and acquistions. I'm surprised at all of the misconception that
> > exists on this issue.
>
> Actually, it is true. If Cingular, Verizon Wireless, or AT&T Wireless
> decided that they were going to drop coverage in areas that were not by
> themselves profitable, they would see an increase in customer churn.
> Not only would you see coverage dropped intirely in some areas, total
> states would have coverage dropped (Like North Dakota, South Dakota,
> Montana, Wyoming, Idaho). The larger the coverage area, the more
> subscribers that provider will have.
>
>
That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-11-2003, 12:18 AM #19Larry ThomasGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
The point I was trying to make is that the top 3 carriers didn't get to
be the top 3 because of their coverage area, customer service,
popularity etc. They got to be that way because of their mergers and
acquistions which kept them ahead of the pack. It just so happens that
the top 3 are mainly 800 Mhz cellular carriers. I'm not saying this is a
bad thing or that it even matters but I am saying it's the reason they
became the top 3. A lot of people mistaken think Verizon got to be the
largest carrier because they are the best carrier. It had nothing to do
with that. Let's AT&T & Cingular decided to merge next week. That would
make AT&T the largest carrier by far. Does that automatically mean they
become the best carrier then? No. If Sprint merged with let's say Nextel
(or someone else) then that would put them into the No. 3 position.
Whoever makes the most mergers is the carrier that will likely have the
most subscribers.
--
-Larry
Sprint user since 1997
[email protected] (XFF) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> There's no misconception on my part, thank you! Look at the coverage
> map for a rural service area (take CMA666 [Texas 15 - Concho]) for
> example) from Sprint PCS or T-Mobile and then compare to that of the
> two cellular providers in that area. Now you tell me if one doesn't
> look like Swiss Cheese and the other one like wall-to-wall carpeting.
>
> Yes, I know some providers lie about their true service area. Yes, I
> know Sprint PCS has only been building out for a few years vs. the
> cellular providers since the mid-80's. Yes I understand the economics
> and consequences of covering low-density population areas.
>
> All of this doesn't change the facts. For good rural coverage, the
> PCS providers cannot compete against incumbant cellular providers.
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-11-2003, 12:31 AM #20Boy_Boy_6969Guest
Re: Actual coverage areas
It's highly unlikely that Sprint could even merge with Nextel, as they
use very different technological standards for delivery of their
services. It is more likely that Sprint would merge with Verizon
Wireless or Western Wireless, but you know mergers are coming up in the
near future, especially as number portability becomes madatorily
available to consumers. Western Wireless charges a $5.00 monthly fee in
some areas for this, which will increase their churn.
One thing that remains important about the largest providers -- they
stay largest because of their services, plans, CS, or other factors.
People can still switch if they don't like services. I have seen quite
a few people discontinue services they had from CommNet or AirTouch when
it became Verizon because calling plan options decreased.
Larry Thomas wrote:
> The point I was trying to make is that the top 3 carriers didn't get to
> be the top 3 because of their coverage area, customer service,
> popularity etc. They got to be that way because of their mergers and
> acquistions which kept them ahead of the pack. It just so happens that
> the top 3 are mainly 800 Mhz cellular carriers. I'm not saying this is a
> bad thing or that it even matters but I am saying it's the reason they
> became the top 3. A lot of people mistaken think Verizon got to be the
> largest carrier because they are the best carrier. It had nothing to do
> with that. Let's AT&T & Cingular decided to merge next week. That would
> make AT&T the largest carrier by far. Does that automatically mean they
> become the best carrier then? No. If Sprint merged with let's say Nextel
> (or someone else) then that would put them into the No. 3 position.
> Whoever makes the most mergers is the carrier that will likely have the
> most subscribers.
>
>
- 09-11-2003, 12:42 AM #21Larry ThomasGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
Yes I realize that a Sprint/Nextel merger would be very unlikely due to
their different technologies. I was just using that as an example.
--
-Larry
Sprint user since 1997
Boy_Boy_6969 <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> It's highly unlikely that Sprint could even merge with Nextel, as they
> use very different technological standards for delivery of their
> services. It is more likely that Sprint would merge with Verizon
> Wireless or Western Wireless, but you know mergers are coming up in the
> near future, especially as number portability becomes madatorily
> available to consumers. Western Wireless charges a $5.00 monthly fee in
> some areas for this, which will increase their churn.
>
> One thing that remains important about the largest providers -- they
> stay largest because of their services, plans, CS, or other factors.
> People can still switch if they don't like services. I have seen quite
> a few people discontinue services they had from CommNet or AirTouch when
> it became Verizon because calling plan options decreased.
>
> Larry Thomas wrote:
> > The point I was trying to make is that the top 3 carriers didn't get to
> > be the top 3 because of their coverage area, customer service,
> > popularity etc. They got to be that way because of their mergers and
> > acquistions which kept them ahead of the pack. It just so happens that
> > the top 3 are mainly 800 Mhz cellular carriers. I'm not saying this is a
> > bad thing or that it even matters but I am saying it's the reason they
> > became the top 3. A lot of people mistaken think Verizon got to be the
> > largest carrier because they are the best carrier. It had nothing to do
> > with that. Let's AT&T & Cingular decided to merge next week. That would
> > make AT&T the largest carrier by far. Does that automatically mean they
> > become the best carrier then? No. If Sprint merged with let's say Nextel
> > (or someone else) then that would put them into the No. 3 position.
> > Whoever makes the most mergers is the carrier that will likely have the
> > most subscribers.
> >
> >
>
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-11-2003, 10:23 AM #22sparksGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
Thank you to everyone who helped me with this.
I have one other point and question.
They say that analog is going out in 2004, I think that a lot of
coverage in my state is by the old swbell analog system that was
here years ago and will go out in 2004. Maybe then they can put up a
map of the real coverage areas. 1 mile north and south of the main
highways LOL
my question is the phones you mention. What type of phone technology
does cingular use? and with the drop of analog will this all change
in the near future?
thanks again
sparks
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 13:00:57 GMT, sparks <[email protected]> wrote:
>I live in Arkansas and wanted to change from sprint to another
>carrier. Well I went to the Cingular web page and the coverage areas
>are lets just say a bunch of hype.
>They show coverage over the entire state. Ok sprint shows the main
>cities and the highways are covered, LOTS of missing areas...but
>honest.
>There is no way that Cingular coveres the entire area they have
>colored in.
>
>IS there a way to see what their coverage area is really like?
>
>I have had sprint for years and I enjoy the longdistance and call from
>anywhere feature .... does Cingular have these same things?
>
>The reason I am changing, rollover minutes and no charges when you try
>to swap phones....sprint hit me for $30 to move my number from my old
>phone (6 months old,,that was crap) to my new phone.
>$30 to move a number ???????
>
>thanks for any help
>
>sparks
>
- 09-11-2003, 12:04 PM #23About DakotaGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
I don't think it's accurate that analog will go out in 2004. If it is,
I'd better discontinue my cell phone, as I will lose 80% of my home
coverage area. There are too many rural areas that only have AMPS
coverage, and too many subscribers that still have AMPS only phones to
discontue the system entirely. If you have a CDMA or TDMA phone and you
do not live in a metropolis, it's amazing how often you might fall back
on analog. In fact, in Bismarck, North Dakota, AMPS coverage beats CDMA
coverage in most aspects, even in town. Digital coverage is unreliable,
with many dropped calls, poor voice quality, unreliable signal...need I
say more? But analog has a better voice quality than digital here (I
know it's against the principles of cellular technology, but I "forced
analog" on my Audiovox CDMA phone before making any phone call. AMPS is
just too prevalent to just go out like that, I think it will have to
wait until TDMA/CDMA/GSM is more spread out.
sparks wrote:
> Thank you to everyone who helped me with this.
> I have one other point and question.
> They say that analog is going out in 2004, I think that a lot of
> coverage in my state is by the old swbell analog system that was
> here years ago and will go out in 2004. Maybe then they can put up a
> map of the real coverage areas. 1 mile north and south of the main
> highways LOL
>
> my question is the phones you mention. What type of phone technology
> does cingular use? and with the drop of analog will this all change
> in the near future?
>
> thanks again
> sparks
>
>
>
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 13:00:57 GMT, sparks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I live in Arkansas and wanted to change from sprint to another
>>carrier. Well I went to the Cingular web page and the coverage areas
>>are lets just say a bunch of hype.
>>They show coverage over the entire state. Ok sprint shows the main
>>cities and the highways are covered, LOTS of missing areas...but
>>honest.
>>There is no way that Cingular coveres the entire area they have
>>colored in.
>>
>>IS there a way to see what their coverage area is really like?
>>
>>I have had sprint for years and I enjoy the longdistance and call from
>>anywhere feature .... does Cingular have these same things?
>>
>>The reason I am changing, rollover minutes and no charges when you try
>>to swap phones....sprint hit me for $30 to move my number from my old
>>phone (6 months old,,that was crap) to my new phone.
>>$30 to move a number ???????
>>
>>thanks for any help
>>
>>sparks
>>
>
>
- 09-11-2003, 05:23 PM #24William BrayGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
I agree. AMPS is here to stay. It is still the base of Public Service
bands. It will be several years before CDMA or GSM actually become
established enough to obliberate the need for AMPS. By the time they
start impacting rural America UMT will come along and they will be busy
trying to update for that technology. At this rate AMPS will remain an
active standard in many parts of the country.
While GSM carriers have proclaimed an end to AMPS CDMA and TDMA carriers
have made no such proclamation. The time frame mentioned is when GSM
providers have permission to start turning off TDMA, not when it will
actually happen.
sparks <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> Thank you to everyone who helped me with this.
> I have one other point and question.
> They say that analog is going out in 2004, I think that a lot of
> coverage in my state is by the old swbell analog system that was
> here years ago and will go out in 2004. Maybe then they can put up a
> map of the real coverage areas. 1 mile north and south of the main
> highways LOL
>
> my question is the phones you mention. What type of phone technology
> does cingular use? and with the drop of analog will this all change
> in the near future?
>
> thanks again
> sparks
>
>
>
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 13:00:57 GMT, sparks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I live in Arkansas and wanted to change from sprint to another
> >carrier. Well I went to the Cingular web page and the coverage areas
> >are lets just say a bunch of hype.
> >They show coverage over the entire state. Ok sprint shows the main
> >cities and the highways are covered, LOTS of missing areas...but
> >honest.
> >There is no way that Cingular coveres the entire area they have
> >colored in.
> >
> >IS there a way to see what their coverage area is really like?
> >
> >I have had sprint for years and I enjoy the longdistance and call from
> >anywhere feature .... does Cingular have these same things?
> >
> >The reason I am changing, rollover minutes and no charges when you try
> >to swap phones....sprint hit me for $30 to move my number from my old
> >phone (6 months old,,that was crap) to my new phone.
> >$30 to move a number ???????
> >
> >thanks for any help
> >
> >sparks
> >
>
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-11-2003, 09:07 PM #25N WGuest
Re: Actual coverage areas
The Cingular map is a calling map, not a coverage map, it shows where
you can place a call accoriding to roaming charges. companies operating
on 850mHz are not required to show a "Coverage" except where they are
using PCS frequency. And when they preform a tech change like going to
GSM. Wait until you see a Cingular GSM coverage map, you will
understand.
--
Thanx,
N W
sparks <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> I live in Arkansas and wanted to change from sprint to another
> carrier. Well I went to the Cingular web page and the coverage areas
> are lets just say a bunch of hype.
> They show coverage over the entire state. Ok sprint shows the main
> cities and the highways are covered, LOTS of missing areas...but
> honest.
> There is no way that Cingular coveres the entire area they have
> colored in.
>
> IS there a way to see what their coverage area is really like?
>
> I have had sprint for years and I enjoy the longdistance and call from
> anywhere feature .... does Cingular have these same things?
>
> The reason I am changing, rollover minutes and no charges when you try
> to swap phones....sprint hit me for $30 to move my number from my old
> phone (6 months old,,that was crap) to my new phone.
> $30 to move a number ???????
>
> thanks for any help
>
> sparks
>
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 03-31-2006, 05:26 PM #26Newbie
- Posts
- 2
Re: Actual coverage areas
So what is the quality of mobile coverage of T-mobile compared to Cingular or Sprint in this area? (surrounding LR)?
Any personal experience? any good advice before I jump onto the wagon?
Thanks!
Similar Threads
- Cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
- Cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat