Results 46 to 60 of 64
- 11-04-2004, 10:26 AM #46John RichardsGuest
Re: Biggest network?
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>> Out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, Cingular has much better coverage
> than
>> SprintPCS.
>
> Oh? And how would you know John? I'm not trying to start an argument, but it
> seems that you haven't had SPCS coverage for a long time, if you ever had it
> in the past. Do you subscribe to SPCS service now, and use it?
I have a data point different from John Navas. My wife and I have used SprintPCS
exclusively for the past four years. Initially there were some gaps in coverage,
but it has gotten much better. We travel mostly in the northern Bay area:
Solano, Napa and Sonoma counties. Incidentally, our kids use T-Mobile (it's
cheap), but T-Mobile's coverage is nowhere near as good as Sprint, at least
in our area. I've heard anecdotal remarks from friends that Cingular's coverage
is good in the east and south bay areas, but not that great in the north country.
--
John Richards
› See More: Biggest network?
- 11-04-2004, 10:33 AM #47John NavasGuest
Re: Biggest network?
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Thu, 04 Nov 2004
16:26:19 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, Cingular has much better coverage
>> than
>>> SprintPCS.
>>
>> Oh? And how would you know John? I'm not trying to start an argument, but it
>> seems that you haven't had SPCS coverage for a long time, if you ever had it
>> in the past. Do you subscribe to SPCS service now, and use it?
>
>I have a data point different from John Navas. My wife and I have used SprintPCS
>exclusively for the past four years. Initially there were some gaps in coverage,
>but it has gotten much better. We travel mostly in the northern Bay area:
>Solano, Napa and Sonoma counties. Incidentally, our kids use T-Mobile (it's
>cheap), but T-Mobile's coverage is nowhere near as good as Sprint, at least
>in our area. I've heard anecdotal remarks from friends that Cingular's coverage
>is good in the east and south bay areas, but not that great in the north country.
Fair enough -- although I was in Napa recently, I travel mostly around the Bay
(SF, Marin, Richmond, East, Peninsula, and South).
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 11-04-2004, 08:40 PM #48XFFGuest
Re: Biggest network?
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 2 Nov 2004
> 16:51:40 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >I couldn't see anything in that thread that says 280 million. It's
> >still 240 million:
> >
> >http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ue...tworkAdvantage
>
> <http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/Pa...der_id=1371443>:
>
> "... reaching more than 280 million people..."
The first quote refers to the SPCS native network (including
affiliates, but not roaming partners). The second quote refers to the
total coverage available with the Free & Clear America Plan, which
does include numerous non-affiliated roaming partners. The second
quote says nothing about native coverage on the SPCS network,
therefore the first quote is correct in reference to SPCS native
coverage.
- 11-04-2004, 11:29 PM #49John NavasGuest
Re: Biggest network?
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 4 Nov 2004 18:40:42
-0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on 2 Nov 2004
>> 16:51:40 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >I couldn't see anything in that thread that says 280 million. It's
>> >still 240 million:
>> >
>> >http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ue...tworkAdvantage
>>
>> <http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/Pa...der_id=1371443>:
>>
>> "... reaching more than 280 million people..."
>
>The first quote refers to the SPCS native network (including
>affiliates, but not roaming partners). The second quote refers to the
>total coverage available with the Free & Clear America Plan, which
>does include numerous non-affiliated roaming partners. The second
>quote says nothing about native coverage on the SPCS network,
>therefore the first quote is correct in reference to SPCS native
>coverage.
Irrelevant.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 11-05-2004, 12:44 PM #50XFFGuest
Re: Biggest network?
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 4 Nov 2004 18:40:42
> -0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>
> >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> In <[email protected]> on 2 Nov 2004
> >> 16:51:40 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >I couldn't see anything in that thread that says 280 million. It's
> >> >still 240 million:
> >> >
> >> >http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ue...tworkAdvantage
> >>
> >> <http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/Pa...der_id=1371443>:
> >>
> >> "... reaching more than 280 million people..."
> >
> >The first quote refers to the SPCS native network (including
> >affiliates, but not roaming partners). The second quote refers to the
> >total coverage available with the Free & Clear America Plan, which
> >does include numerous non-affiliated roaming partners. The second
> >quote says nothing about native coverage on the SPCS network,
> >therefore the first quote is correct in reference to SPCS native
> >coverage.
>
> Irrelevant.
What exactly are you talking about? What is irrelevant? A delta of
40 million people certainly is not irrelevant when comparing native
coverage areas of various carriers. Any carrier can claim to cover
280 million people (essentially the entire population of the United
States - the 2000 census totalled 281.4 million people) when they
include non-affiliated roaming partners in the calculation. So if
anything, your claim of 280 million people is irrelevant as it doesn't
pertain to SPCS at all but rather to the total available CMRS coverage
availability in the United States - a figure that was not under
dispute in this thread.
- 11-05-2004, 01:00 PM #51Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Biggest network?
In alt.cellular.sprintpcs XFF <[email protected]> wrote:
> 280 million people (essentially the entire population of the United
> States - the 2000 census totalled 281.4 million people) when they
Current estimate is 294,686,178 people in the United States.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at [email protected].
- 11-05-2004, 02:13 PM #52Bob SmithGuest
Re: Biggest network?
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs XFF <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 280 million people (essentially the entire population of the United
> > States - the 2000 census totalled 281.4 million people) when they
>
> Current estimate is 294,686,178 people in the United States.
And the difference of 14,000,000 applies to those husbands, wives, sisters,
brothers (you pick the respective relationship) in KY, WV & MS ... which are
not counted ... <eg>
Bob
- 11-05-2004, 02:51 PM #53John NavasGuest
Re: Biggest network?
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 5 Nov 2004 10:44:21
-0800, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Irrelevant.
>
>What exactly are you talking about? What is irrelevant? ...
This hairsplitting over exactly what Sprint was claiming. The fact remains
that Sprint has been throwing around a 280 million number (my point), just as
it also has a 240 million number.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 12-03-2004, 08:42 AM #54+ Rob +Guest
Re: Biggest network?
"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hey, I see the merger's been approved. http://www.newCingular.com/ crows
about
> the combined company having the largest network, but the fine print at the
> bottom of the page says
>
> The ALLOVER(SM) Network covers 268 million people.
>
> Sprint was saying a couple years ago that their network covers 280 million
people.
>
> Interesting...
Regardless of what they say, it's all BS anyway.
Unless they're counting the populations of other countries, it's
basically impossible for either of them to cover as many people as they
claim to, since the U.S. "only" has 281 million residents. Think about it: a
Sprint coverage area of 280 million people would mean 99.6% coverage of the
entire nation, with dead spots limited to places with a combined population
of North Dakota and/or Wyoming. Sorry, but we all know from experience that
the dead spots are bigger and a lot more widespread than areas covering only
1 million people nationwide. Heck.....throw in Canada and it's still next to
impossible, requiring combined 89.7% (combined pop. 312 million) coverage.
Rob
- 12-03-2004, 10:17 PM #55XFFGuest
Re: Biggest network?
"+ Rob +" <frankr#N1O2@S3P4A5M6#mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> "Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Sprint was saying a couple years ago that their network covers 280 million people.
> >
> > Interesting...
>
> Regardless of what they say, it's all BS anyway.
>
> Unless they're counting the populations of other countries, it's
> basically impossible for either of them to cover as many people as they
> claim to, since the U.S. "only" has 281 million residents. Think about it: a
> Sprint coverage area of 280 million people would mean 99.6% coverage of the
> entire nation, with dead spots limited to places with a combined population
> of North Dakota and/or Wyoming. Sorry, but we all know from experience that
> the dead spots are bigger and a lot more widespread than areas covering only
> 1 million people nationwide. Heck.....throw in Canada and it's still next to
> impossible, requiring combined 89.7% (combined pop. 312 million) coverage.
SPCS itself covers 197 Million POPS, if you include affiliates they
cover 251 Million POPS. It's all in last quarter's investor update
(http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/3q04.pdf) page 22. Case
closed!
- 12-03-2004, 10:17 PM #56XFFGuest
Re: Biggest network?
"+ Rob +" <frankr#N1O2@S3P4A5M6#mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> "Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Sprint was saying a couple years ago that their network covers 280 million people.
> >
> > Interesting...
>
> Regardless of what they say, it's all BS anyway.
>
> Unless they're counting the populations of other countries, it's
> basically impossible for either of them to cover as many people as they
> claim to, since the U.S. "only" has 281 million residents. Think about it: a
> Sprint coverage area of 280 million people would mean 99.6% coverage of the
> entire nation, with dead spots limited to places with a combined population
> of North Dakota and/or Wyoming. Sorry, but we all know from experience that
> the dead spots are bigger and a lot more widespread than areas covering only
> 1 million people nationwide. Heck.....throw in Canada and it's still next to
> impossible, requiring combined 89.7% (combined pop. 312 million) coverage.
SPCS itself covers 197 Million POPS, if you include affiliates they
cover 251 Million POPS. It's all in last quarter's investor update
(http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/3q04.pdf) page 22. Case
closed!
- 12-04-2004, 03:28 AM #57Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Biggest network?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (XFF) wrote:
> "+ Rob +" <frankr#N1O2@S3P4A5M6#mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > "Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Sprint was saying a couple years ago that their network covers 280
> > > million people.
> > >
> > > Interesting...
> >
> > Regardless of what they say, it's all BS anyway.
> >
> > Unless they're counting the populations of other countries, it's
> > basically impossible for either of them to cover as many people as they
> > claim to, since the U.S. "only" has 281 million residents. Think about it:
> > a
> > Sprint coverage area of 280 million people would mean 99.6% coverage of the
> > entire nation, with dead spots limited to places with a combined population
> > of North Dakota and/or Wyoming. Sorry, but we all know from experience that
> > the dead spots are bigger and a lot more widespread than areas covering
> > only
> > 1 million people nationwide. Heck.....throw in Canada and it's still next
> > to
> > impossible, requiring combined 89.7% (combined pop. 312 million) coverage.
>
> SPCS itself covers 197 Million POPS, if you include affiliates they
> cover 251 Million POPS. It's all in last quarter's investor update
> (http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/3q04.pdf) page 22. Case
> closed!
Nice try. Now use a generally accepted method of counting.
- 12-04-2004, 12:50 PM #58XFFGuest
Re: Biggest network?
Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>
> > SPCS itself covers 197 Million POPS, if you include affiliates they
> > cover 251 Million POPS. It's all in last quarter's investor update
> > (http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/3q04.pdf) page 22. Case
> > closed!
>
> Nice try. Now use a generally accepted method of counting.
Sorry, I don't follow you. What is it you're disagreeing with? Are
you saying SPCS issues cooked up financial statements?
- 12-04-2004, 01:47 PM #59Steve SobolGuest
Re: Biggest network?
XFF wrote:
> Sorry, I don't follow you. What is it you're disagreeing with? Are
> you saying SPCS issues cooked up financial statements?
You can safely ignore "Jack". He started whining about AT&T Wireless and Sprint
after signing up for service with them. He was crowing in the Sprint newsgroup
about going over to Cingular, and now he's slamming Cingular for just about the
dumbest reason imaginable (building signage). He's not happy unless he's
shooting off his mouth about something.
--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
- 12-04-2004, 04:32 PM #60Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Biggest network?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>
> SPCS itself covers 197 Million POPS, if you include affiliates they
> cover 251 Million POPS. It's all in last quarter's investor update
> (http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/3q04.pdf) page 22. Case
> closed!
Cingular is better !!
" Cingular's ALLOVER(SM) network covers 268 million people and is
growing."
Last time I looked 268 is more than 251.
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...8644&TICK=CING
UL1&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004>
Similar Threads
- Samsung
- Nokia
- Games
- General Cell Phone Forum
Venta de autos
in Chit Chat