Sprint has no bluetooth. AT&T or T-Mobile in L.A.?

I live in Los Angeles. I want a bluetooth enabled cell phone. It appears
that Sprint will not be offering one in the near future. That leaves me a
choice between T-Mobile and AT&T. I understand that neither T-Mobile and
AT&T offer very good service on the networks that can be used with their
bluetooth phones, but I am interested in opinions on which of the two has
better coverage in the L.A. area.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Michael

---

› See More: Sprint has no bluetooth. AT&T or T-Mobile in L.A.?

This is just a thought, but are there any sd modules with bluetooth that
will work with any of the new smartphones coming out?

"MEG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I live in Los Angeles. I want a bluetooth enabled cell phone. It appears
> that Sprint will not be offering one in the near future. That leaves me a
> choice between T-Mobile and AT&T. I understand that neither T-Mobile and
> AT&T offer very good service on the networks that can be used with their
> bluetooth phones, but I am interested in opinions on which of the two has
> better coverage in the L.A. area.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Michael
>
>

In article <vecCb.15787$P%[email protected]>,
"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is just a thought, but are there any sd modules with bluetooth that
> will work with any of the new smartphones coming out?

Maybe soon, but not now. The SD bluetooth Add-on doesn't work with Palm
OS 5, which is in the the Treo 600.

http://www.intelenetwireless.com offers the best prices
for Sony/Ericsson T610 or T616.

In many part of Los Angles AT&T cverage is better than that of SprintPCS.

I switched from Sprint to T-Mobile for the very same reason - BT. Although
speed is slower, t-mobile's network is actually more stable. With Sprint I
had to reset the connection all the time. In real life, I have no complaint
about the speed of t-mobile and it is just fast enough.
I'm in N. Cal and coverage is as good as Sprint except in buildings.
The only hope for BT with Sprint is a BT SD card for Treo 600. Then this
world is perfect.

"MEG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I live in Los Angeles. I want a bluetooth enabled cell phone. It appears
> that Sprint will not be offering one in the near future. That leaves me a
> choice between T-Mobile and AT&T. I understand that neither T-Mobile and
> AT&T offer very good service on the networks that can be used with their
> bluetooth phones, but I am interested in opinions on which of the two has
> better coverage in the L.A. area.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Michael
>
>

Stuart,

I'm pretty sure the SmartPhone SD slot is not I/O capable. Rumor has it =
that the next generation (Motorola) coming out early 2004 will have BT =
integrated. My guess would be this will be the SmartPhone that T-Mobile =
will get.

Bob

"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:vecCb.15787$P%[email protected]...
: This is just a thought, but are there any sd modules with bluetooth =
that
: will work with any of the new smartphones coming out?
:=20

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:34:25 GMT, "John Smith" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I switched from Sprint to T-Mobile for the very same reason - BT. Although
>speed is slower, t-mobile's network is actually more stable. With Sprint I
>had to reset the connection all the time. In real life, I have no complaint
>about the speed of t-mobile and it is just fast enough.
>I'm in N. Cal and coverage is as good as Sprint except in buildings.
>The only hope for BT with Sprint is a BT SD card for Treo 600.

Except that BT on the 600 will not support Voice I/O. Sorry.

> Then this world is perfect.
<snip>
--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:34:25 GMT, "John Smith" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I switched from Sprint to T-Mobile for the very same reason - BT. Although
> >speed is slower, t-mobile's network is actually more stable. With Sprint I
> >had to reset the connection all the time. In real life, I have no complaint
> >about the speed of t-mobile and it is just fast enough.
> >I'm in N. Cal and coverage is as good as Sprint except in buildings.
> >The only hope for BT with Sprint is a BT SD card for Treo 600.
>
> Except that BT on the 600 will not support Voice I/O. Sorry.


At the moment it's moot. There is no bluetooth on or addable for the
Treo 600.

Stewart wrote:

>
> In many part of Los Angles AT&T cverage is better than that of
> SprintPCS.

How do you know this Phillip? You live in Houston, Texas!

Tom Veldhouse

>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:34:25 GMT, "John Smith" wrote:
>>
>> >I switched from Sprint to T-Mobile for the very same reason - BT. Although
>> >speed is slower, t-mobile's network is actually more stable. With Sprint I
>> >had to reset the connection all the time. In real life, I have no complaint
>> >about the speed of t-mobile and it is just fast enough.
>> >I'm in N. Cal and coverage is as good as Sprint except in buildings.
>> >The only hope for BT with Sprint is a BT SD card for Treo 600.

>In article <[email protected]>, I wrote:
>> Except that BT on the 600 will not support Voice I/O. Sorry.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:04:16 GMT, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>At the moment it's moot. There is no bluetooth on or addable for the
>Treo 600.


But, when BT works on the 600, it will not work for voice.. so it's a
double moot.

--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:23:31 -0600, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>How do you know this Phillip? You live in Houston, Texas!

I'm guessing you're doing a traceroute to his IP. However just because
he lives in Houston doesn't mean he doesn't travel to LA, have family
in LA, or possibly he LIVED in LA 3 months ago....

Evan
To e-mail me, remove theobvious from my e-mail address.

Evan Platt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:23:31 -0600, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How do you know this Phillip? You live in Houston, Texas!
>
> I'm guessing you're doing a traceroute to his IP. However just because
> he lives in Houston doesn't mean he doesn't travel to LA, have family
> in LA, or possibly he LIVED in LA 3 months ago....
>
> Evan
> To e-mail me, remove theobvious from my e-mail address.

You don't know Phillip It is best not too. I assure you he is speaking
from ficticious experience. He has been a Sprint PCS customer for a very
long time, and only with AT&T for the last week or two.

Tom Veldhouse

MEG <[email protected]> wrote:

> I understand that neither T-Mobile and
> AT&T offer very good service on the networks that can be used with their
> bluetooth phones, but I am interested in opinions on which of the two has
> better coverage in the L.A. area.

Up until last week, I had AT&T as well as T-Mobile. (I also have Sprint
on a Treo--I ported my AT&T number to the Treo.) My personal experience
is that T-Mobile's coverage is far better than AT&T's. Given the
buildout of AT&T's network, and their primary use of 1900MHz in the Los
Angeles market, this makes sense.

AT&T has a huge 850MHz footprint in the L.A. market. They were one of
the original two cellular carriers. (L.A. Cellular) When 1900MHz was
licensed to carriers, they bought licenses to a) add capacity, and b)
fill in some holes. Suffice to say, the coverage of the 1900MHz is
nowhere near as good as their 850MHz coverage. Since it was used to fill
gaps, it wouldn't be as robust.

Until AT&T "opens" up their 850MHz completely in Los Angeles, they will
likely be lousy. I had many dropped calls along the major freeways (405
between 10 and LAX as an example...105/110 interchange for another) AT&T
had opened up some cells to 850 about three months ago. For some reason,
they were closed again.

I have had very few issues with coverage with T-Mobile. (Note that
they're riding Cingular's infrastructure in California and Nevada.)
T-Mobile's GPRS/T-Zones, however, is another story. I found that AT&T's
GPRS/mMode was much more stable--and available. T-Mobile had better
pricing plans when I last looked--both on data and voice.

As always, your experience may differ from mine, as I cannot say I have
covered every square mile of the Los Angeles market. I frequent West Los
Angeles, South Central, and North/Southwest Orange County.

Joel

"MEG" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I live in Los Angeles. I want a bluetooth enabled cell phone. It appears
> that Sprint will not be offering one in the near future. That leaves me a
> choice between T-Mobile and AT&T. I understand that neither T-Mobile and
> AT&T offer very good service on the networks that can be used with their
> bluetooth phones, but I am interested in opinions on which of the two has
> better coverage in the L.A. area.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Michael

My vote would go to TMobile. I just switched to them from AWS, who in
my opinion are worth crap. I travel from LA through OC all the time
and dropped calls on AWS. TM seems excellent so far, but I would have
to say it depends on your exact requirements and areas of travel. I
would highly recommend taking the 15 day test drive on it and hit all
your normal routes.

As for Sprint...I wasn't too impressed by them. They have built out
their coverage, but I just didn't like the customer service and CDMA
technology doesn't have sound quality that matches GSM.

Ditto for Verizon. Although, they would probably be the top pick for
coverage. Their phones are the pits and their plans are typically
higher. That is if you are interested in the $$ aspect.

So my vote would be the T610 via TMobile.