Sprint Coverage/service in SoCal?

"Jar-Jar Binks" <[email protected]> wrote

>>Any of the Sprint all-digital phones will allow you to force roaming.
>>There are three options: Sprint Only, Automatic, and Roaming Only. <<

Thanks fer the illumination. I picked up a Sanyo PM-8200 2 years ago just
after they discontinued 'em specifically so I could do the freebie
backdoor-tether when I need to. Been an often used feature so I've no plans
to upgrade anytime soon. Analog capability has saved my bacon once or twice
as well.

TL

---

› See More: Sprint Coverage/service in SoCal?

On 2007-12-15, Jar-Jar Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a Motorola KRZR and had a RAZR before that and a Sanyo before that.
> The trick is to get a phone that is less than two years old and that is
> digital only (no analog). All Sprint phones digital phones now have a
> "roaming only" mode. Go into a Sprint Store and try it.

Thanks for that. I tried it with a digital Sanyo in the Sprint store
in Palo Alto, CA and it did exactly what you suggested. Put it in "roaming
only" and it roams on SID 40 at 800 MHz.

That's a handy feature. My Verizon phone is unreliable in Toronto
since it keeps moving from roaming service to Verizon service that
it can sometimes hear across the lake but which is too marginal to
actually work. If my phone had that feature it would fix that problem.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-12-15, Jar-Jar Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have a Motorola KRZR and had a RAZR before that and a Sanyo before that.
>> The trick is to get a phone that is less than two years old and that is
>> digital only (no analog). All Sprint phones digital phones now have a
>> "roaming only" mode. Go into a Sprint Store and try it.
>
> Thanks for that. I tried it with a digital Sanyo in the Sprint store
> in Palo Alto, CA and it did exactly what you suggested. Put it in "roaming
> only" and it roams on SID 40 at 800 MHz.
>
> That's a handy feature. My Verizon phone is unreliable in Toronto
> since it keeps moving from roaming service to Verizon service that
> it can sometimes hear across the lake but which is too marginal to
> actually work. If my phone had that feature it would fix that problem.
>
> Dennis Ferguson

Now I see the catch, you have to get a digital-only phone and give up
vast areas of analog coverage in order to be able to have coverage in
metropolitan areas by being able to force the phone to roam onto
Verizon. Still for those that don't go out in the boonies, forcing the
phone to roam onto Verizon would be a very useful feature, especially in
California, where Sprint coverage is so marginal.

I was pleased to see Verizon introducing a new tri-mode phone (LG
VX5400) even when they are probably going to turn off most or all of
their AMPS in 2008, so obviously they recognize that some subscribers
still plan on using non-Verizon AMPS well into the future.

You would not want to roam on analog anyway. Any geek kid with a modified
police scanner can listen to your phone call!! Also, Sprint coverage in
Southern California is equal to if not better than Verizon coverage. Please
get a Sprint phone and do some testing like our company did before you
comment. Nevertheless, with the Sprint phone, you have the best of both
worlds. You can roam on Verizon at will if you want to do that.


"SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2007-12-15, Jar-Jar Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I have a Motorola KRZR and had a RAZR before that and a Sanyo before
>>> that. The trick is to get a phone that is less than two years old and
>>> that is digital only (no analog). All Sprint phones digital phones now
>>> have a "roaming only" mode. Go into a Sprint Store and try it.
>>
>> Thanks for that. I tried it with a digital Sanyo in the Sprint store
>> in Palo Alto, CA and it did exactly what you suggested. Put it in
>> "roaming
>> only" and it roams on SID 40 at 800 MHz.
>>
>> That's a handy feature. My Verizon phone is unreliable in Toronto
>> since it keeps moving from roaming service to Verizon service that
>> it can sometimes hear across the lake but which is too marginal to
>> actually work. If my phone had that feature it would fix that problem.
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> Now I see the catch, you have to get a digital-only phone and give up vast
> areas of analog coverage in order to be able to have coverage in
> metropolitan areas by being able to force the phone to roam onto Verizon.
> Still for those that don't go out in the boonies, forcing the phone to
> roam onto Verizon would be a very useful feature, especially in
> California, where Sprint coverage is so marginal.
>
> I was pleased to see Verizon introducing a new tri-mode phone (LG VX5400)
> even when they are probably going to turn off most or all of their AMPS in
> 2008, so obviously they recognize that some subscribers still plan on
> using non-Verizon AMPS well into the future.

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> You would not want to roam on analog anyway. Any geek kid with a modified
> police scanner can listen to your phone call!!

Only half of it. In any case, there are still vast areas of the United
States where it's analog or nothing. You wouldn't want to do your
banking over AMPS, but for non-confidential conversations it's fine.


Also, Sprint coverage in
> Southern California is equal to if not better than Verizon coverage. Please
> get a Sprint phone and do some testing like our company did before you
> comment.

Sprint even lets you out of contract without an ETF in California, if
you can show a lack of coverage at your home or office. The coverage is
very poor. Just check out the latest Consumer Reports. My wife's office
was using Sprint and they had to drop it because the employees travel to
the far reaches of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties where there is no
Sprint coverage. They were having to carry along their own Verizon
phones to use, and then they were demanding reimbursement for their
personal cell phone bills, and threatening to go to the union because
they were required to be in contact, but the company wasn't paying for
the equipment that was necessary.

Now in LA it's true that Verizon doesn't beat Sprint by as much as in
Northern California, so if you never leave LA Sprint might be okay,
especially if you do the forced roaming trick.

On 2007-12-16, SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sprint even lets you out of contract without an ETF in California

They did that for my brother-in-law when he moved up to California City
(Kern County, north of Edwards AFB). They have no native coverage there.

Granted - Cal City IS in the middle of nowhere, but still.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Like you say, it depends where you are. Here in S, SE, NE Wisc.,
Sprint PCS covers all if verizon's coverage and then some. If you were
out of Sprint PCS coverage and forced, or just allowed, your phone to
roam, it would probably be on uscellular.

Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-12-16, SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sprint even lets you out of contract without an ETF in California
>
> They did that for my brother-in-law when he moved up to California City
> (Kern County, north of Edwards AFB). They have no native coverage there.
>
> Granted - Cal City IS in the middle of nowhere, but still.

My old boss lived in Fremont, and they let him out. Not in the middle of
nowhere at all.

One colleague of mine was asking me about which phone to get for her son
that was going to Berkeley. She told me that she had Sprint, but that
she had never had coverage at her house in Cupertino. She lived in an
area where Sprint had been wanting to cover for a long time, but there
were no good commercial areas where they could place a cell site, and
the residents all prevented them from putting a site near their homes.

Two of the major reasons why Sprint and T-Mobile have such poor coverage
in many areas are because a) they were the latecomers and didn't have
the opportunity to run around putting up sites everywhere before people
realized what was happening, and b) they are at 1900 MHz because they
were latecomers and the prime 800 MHz spectrum was gone.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> the residents all prevented them from putting a site near their homes.

Fortunately the days are coming to an end where local opposition can't
stop a tower from going up.

DTC wrote:
> SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>> the residents all prevented them from putting a site near their homes.
>
> Fortunately the days are coming to an end where local opposition can't
> stop a tower from going up.

You can no longer stop a tower in an area where the zoning is such that
it would otherwise be allowed and it is being opposed based on fears of
radio waves, or because it is aesthetically objectionable.

The problem is getting a zoning variance for a tower in an area where it
would not normally be allowed due to the zoning. In areas where there
are large suburbs with no commercial areas close enough for a tower, the
carriers run into trouble. If there's a church in the area they'll try
for a tower inside a cross (which carrier would Jesus use?). They'll
sometimes try for a fake tree tower. This is where Sprint and T-Mobile
have run into trouble in my area. They are constantly showing up at
planning commission meetings seeking variances to put up towers, and
they are almost always not given a variance. In one recent case,
T-Mobile was allowed to put up a tower with the only restriction being
that they had to shield the equipment pod from view with some sort of a
wall of green screen on top of the building. They declined to put up the
tower because of this small extra expense.

It's very different than the FCC rules on satellite dishes on homes,
where you cannot have any zoning restrictions on them.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> If there's a church in the area they'll try
> for a tower inside a cross (which carrier would Jesus use?).

I found a web page that had artists' drawings of cellphone camo. One was
a picture of Jesus floating around a church steeple placing cross shaped
antennas on it.

On 2007-12-17, SMS ???? ? <[email protected]> wrote:
> realized what was happening, and b) they are at 1900 MHz because they
> were latecomers and the prime 800 MHz spectrum was gone.

The Consumer's Report data doesn't really support the view that
1900 MHz is a particular disadvantage in metro areas, or that
800 MHz is a significant advantage. Being an 800 MHz operator
didn't help AT&T in Boston, Washington DC or Minneapolis, nor did
being a 1900 MHz operator seem to hinder Verizon in Miami, Tampa
or Dallas.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2007-12-17, Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Consumer's Report data doesn't really support the view that
> 1900 MHz is a particular disadvantage in metro areas, or that
> 800 MHz is a significant advantage.

Of course not. There are a lot more people in metro areas and it's more
practical, from a financial standpoint, to put more antennas up.



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-12-17, Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Consumer's Report data doesn't really support the view that
>> 1900 MHz is a particular disadvantage in metro areas, or that
>> 800 MHz is a significant advantage.
>
> Of course not. There are a lot more people in metro areas and it's more
> practical, from a financial standpoint, to put more antennas up.

The problem comes when the metro areas have large suburban towns where
there is no place that the zoning allows towers. That's what's occurred
in my city, where Sprint and T-Mobile are always begging for permission
to put up towers in residential areas, and the residents in the affected
areas always organize to oppose them. There is no political upside in
approving the towers since in a recent survey it was found that Sprint
and T-Mobile have very little market share in this area.

Nor does it hinder verizon or Sprint PCS in Milwaukee.