Results 1 to 15 of 69
- 07-29-2005, 09:07 PM #1daniel cairnsGuest
Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
Queen on the television solving all those problems with family members
talking to each other I notice they don't even mention how great or even
mediocre the coverage is. But they girl is beautiful so that is what really
matters.
Thanks for listening,
Daniel Cairns
"Viper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72...
> Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's plan
> pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and offer more
> instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More flexible +
> more features + better pricing = happy customer.
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
>> Coverage Check.
>>
>> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
>>
>> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
>> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
>> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
>>
>
>
› See More: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
- 07-29-2005, 09:57 PM #2daniel cairnsGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> daniel cairns wrote:
>> Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
>> they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
>> metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
>> down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.
>> Heres the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that
>> was awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00.
>> What I have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the
>> Beauty Queen
>
> Ok, as a guy, would you rather watch Catherine Zeta-Jones or the Sprint
> PCS dude? :P
>
> (of course, in asking that question, I'm assuming you're heterosexual)
You are correct sir! The "skirt" is attractive fer sure, I honestly see
right through the BS though. There is so much riding on any kind of ad
campaign I guess. It's just that T-Mobile has a ton of phones that work with
their service, they are literally so easy to come by, that I do miss that
company. And I would still be with them and not even be paying any attention
to this group if they had a working cell tower right smack in the heart of
downtown Dearborn Michigan. Am still stumped with all the retoric from the
CSR about trying a different phone(tried 4 different phones) maybe a new SIM
card, or maybe the proverbial Trouble Report would get me a signal. What did
me in was when went to a TM store in Dearborn and within 4 seconds the dude,
after knowing right where I worked, said " you are in a dead spot". I said
good day and within 30 Mins I had new service with Sprint with my # from TM.
Oops, I did not answer your question. I like watching the dude better 'cause
he conveys a smart assey sarcasm that I have not yet mastered.
DC
>
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Company website: http://JustThe.net/
> Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
> E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
- 07-30-2005, 07:47 PM #3ViperGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's plan
pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and offer more
instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More flexible + more
features + better pricing = happy customer.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
> Coverage Check.
>
> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
>
> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
>
- 07-30-2005, 08:04 PM #4LarryGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
"Viper" <[email protected]> wrote in news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72:
> Now why can't Verizon have features like that?
How could they lie if there was a REAL RF coverage map just sitting there
exposing the truth? Don't hold your breath.
These maps exist. They are filed with the FCC, who does nothing to force
the companies to actually cover the territory they are licensed to provide
real service for. All companies have poor coverage, some poorer than
others. If a broadcast station provided this type of coverage, FCC would
fine them $10,000/day until they complied with filling their coverage area
with a good level of signal.
FCC used to tell us "it's because it's new and they're still in the
buildout phase". It's kind of hard to swallow this BS, now, so far in the
future, any more. FCC needs to provide coverage, one way or the
other....you either put up the towers necessary or you are forced to share
(allow company-paid roaming) on other systems IN MARKET. FCC also needs to
inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
have now.
--
Larry
- 07-30-2005, 08:40 PM #5Steve SobolGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
daniel cairns wrote:
> Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
> they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
> metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
> down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
> the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
> awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
> have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
> Queen
Ok, as a guy, would you rather watch Catherine Zeta-Jones or the Sprint PCS
dude? :P
(of course, in asking that question, I'm assuming you're heterosexual)
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
- 07-30-2005, 09:07 PM #6NotanGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
daniel cairns wrote:
>
> <snip>
YO, DANIEL!
Check your system clock... You're ~1 day behind!!!
Notan
- 07-30-2005, 09:12 PM #7Ben SkverskyGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
I've been with T-Mobile for ten days. So far the service is great. No
dropped calls. 1000 minute family plan for $69.99.
"daniel cairns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
> they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
> metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
> down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
> the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
> awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
> have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
> Queen on the television solving all those problems with family members
> talking to each other I notice they don't even mention how great or even
> mediocre the coverage is. But they girl is beautiful so that is what
> really matters.
> Thanks for listening,
> Daniel Cairns
>
> "Viper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72...
>> Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's
>> plan pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and
>> offer more instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More
>> flexible + more features + better pricing = happy customer.
>>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
>>> Coverage Check.
>>>
>>> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
>>>
>>> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
>>> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
>>> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
- 07-31-2005, 12:57 AM #8Richard NessGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
39bB contours are what is on file. Always has been.
Your contention that's something of higher detail is "on file"
is a 100% TOTAL crock of ****. YOU are also full of crap.
As usual, you are spouting total bull ****, not knowing what the facts are.
You bring up this 'FCC should dictate' **** often also. Wake up, we are not
in the old USSR, China or somewhere government rules with iron fist.
Does 'free market economy' mean anything to you?? The FCC has let
a free market decide. The idea that it's all some conspiracy to prevent
churn
is idiotic, paranoid and sheer stupidity.
You demonstrate cranial rectal insertion just about every time you post.
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Viper" <[email protected]> wrote in news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72:
>
>> Now why can't Verizon have features like that?
>
> How could they lie if there was a REAL RF coverage map just sitting there
> exposing the truth? Don't hold your breath.
>
> These maps exist. They are filed with the FCC, who does nothing to force
> the companies to actually cover the territory they are licensed to provide
> real service for. All companies have poor coverage, some poorer than
> others. If a broadcast station provided this type of coverage, FCC would
> fine them $10,000/day until they complied with filling their coverage area
> with a good level of signal.
>
> FCC used to tell us "it's because it's new and they're still in the
> buildout phase". It's kind of hard to swallow this BS, now, so far in the
> future, any more. FCC needs to provide coverage, one way or the
> other....you either put up the towers necessary or you are forced to share
> (allow company-paid roaming) on other systems IN MARKET. FCC also needs
> to
> inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
> this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
> have now.
>
>
>
> --
> Larry
- 07-31-2005, 08:01 AM #9Jim SeymourGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Sobol <[email protected]> writes:
[snip]
>
> Ok, as a guy, would you rather watch Catherine Zeta-Jones or the Sprint PCS
> dude? :P
[snip]
Catherine Zeta-Jones, of course . But, as I was telling my wife
just recently: T-Mobile sounds nice. There's a portability advantage
with GSM. But their coverage sucks, and even Catherine Zeta-Jones
can't make up for that.
Speaking of coverage... So my wife, who's on VZ, has been telling me,
who's on SPCS, that VZ' coverage is better. We went out to a big,
big, *big* park yesterday. Guess who had solid coverage and who was
out-of-service?
--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
[email protected] | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
- 07-31-2005, 08:34 AM #10LarryGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
"Richard Ness" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> You bring up this 'FCC should dictate' **** often also. Wake up, we
> are not in the old USSR, China or somewhere government rules with iron
> fist. Does 'free market economy' mean anything to you?? The FCC has
> let a free market decide. The idea that it's all some conspiracy to
> prevent churn
> is idiotic, paranoid and sheer stupidity.
>
FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
the Commission. Cellular airwaves belong to the PUBLIC and are used under
license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
license for the PUBLIC good. Those licenses could be pulled away and the
systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
radio service sold to consumers.
You cellular boys think the goddamned companies own the airwaves. They do
not.
--
Larry
- 07-31-2005, 09:27 AM #11John NavasGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
Because those features must not be sufficiently compelling to subscribers. If
those features were sufficiently compelling, presumably more subscribers would
migrate from Verizon to T-Mobile (aided by number portability), and Verizon
would have to respond. That's how the free market works, and that's not
happening -- Verizon continues to have low churn.
In <65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:47:46 GMT,
"Viper" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Now why can't Verizon have features like that? I also like T Mobile's plan
>pricing. Verizon needs to be more flexible with there plans and offer more
>instead of take away from users ( from what I heard ). More flexible + more
>features + better pricing = happy customer.
>
>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
>> Coverage Check.
>>
>> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
>>
>> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
>> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
>> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 09:35 AM #12John NavasGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:04:33 -0400,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Viper" <[email protected]> wrote in news:65WGe.199564$x96.160011@attbi_s72:
>
>> Now why can't Verizon have features like that?
>
>How could they lie if there was a REAL RF coverage map just sitting there
>exposing the truth? Don't hold your breath.
>
>These maps exist. They are filed with the FCC,
They are? Then presumably they are available to the public, under Freedom of
Information if nothing else. Form or Docket Number please.
>who does nothing to force
>the companies to actually cover the territory they are licensed to provide
>real service for.
Under what statute or regulation?
>All companies have poor coverage,
Actually pretty good in my experience.
>some poorer than
>others.
True.
>If a broadcast station provided this type of coverage, FCC would
>fine them $10,000/day until they complied with filling their coverage area
>with a good level of signal.
Huh? Then why is broadcast radio and TV coverage so bad here in the East Bay
part of the San Francisco Bay Area? Cellular coverage is better by far!
>FCC used to tell us "it's because it's new and they're still in the
>buildout phase". It's kind of hard to swallow this BS, now, so far in the
>future, any more. FCC needs to provide coverage, one way or the
>other....you either put up the towers necessary or you are forced to share
>(allow company-paid roaming) on other systems IN MARKET.
No need for that -- let the market continue to work.
>FCC also needs to
>inform cellular what digital modulation scheme they must use, instead of
>this hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense invented to prevent churning we
>have now.
Really Bad Idea! The "hodge-podge" has now sorted itself out in the market
into two principal standards, which fosters competition.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 09:40 AM #13John NavasGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:34:36 -0400,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Richard Ness" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> You bring up this 'FCC should dictate' **** often also. Wake up, we
>> are not in the old USSR, China or somewhere government rules with iron
>> fist. Does 'free market economy' mean anything to you?? The FCC has
>> let a free market decide. The idea that it's all some conspiracy to
>> prevent churn
>> is idiotic, paranoid and sheer stupidity.
>
>FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
>services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
>the Commission.
Really? What specific (paragraph and section of) law?
>Cellular airwaves belong to the PUBLIC and are used under
>license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
>license for the PUBLIC good.
Where are you getting that "PUBLIC good" stuff? Spectrum is allocated and
licensed for specific purposes, not various kinds of "PUBLIC good."
>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>radio service sold to consumers.
Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples?
>You cellular boys think the goddamned companies own the airwaves. They do
>not.
Actually they pretty much do. They paid for them, and the government couldn't
take them back without REALLY good justification that just doesn't exist.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 07-31-2005, 12:42 PM #14Steve SobolGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
Ben Skversky wrote:
> I've been with T-Mobile for ten days. So far the service is great. No
> dropped calls. 1000 minute family plan for $69.99.
Again, coverage varies.
Sprint and T-Mobile *both* used to suck a whole lot more than they do now,
coverage-wise.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
- 07-31-2005, 12:44 PM #15Steve SobolGuest
Re: Signal coverage--truth in advertising
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per daniel cairns:
>
>>Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
>>they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
>>metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
>>down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint.
>
>
> That's almost exactly where I am right now - but I'm still on T-Mob until the
> contract runs out.
Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
Also, I'm on a nationwide FamilyTime share plan. I can roam onto other
carriers, including Cingular (at no extra charge!) if I happen to hit a
T-Mobile dead spot or travel somewhere where they don't have coverage, and
apparently that includes the area where I live even though T-Mobile has
native coverage here. Do you have a local or regional plan, or a nationwide
plan?
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
The Ukrainian Review
in Chit Chat