Questions regarding the end of Cingular/T-Mobile network sharing:

On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:24:50 -0700, "MS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >Could you get a rate anywhere near as good as that for that service level
>> >from Cingular?
>> >
>>
>> No but at least I have coverage with Cingular.
>
>I don't understand that response. Please explain.
>
>If you mean you have had trouble getting a signal with T-Mobile (were you
>formerly a T-Mobile user?), that certainly is not the case with me. I have
>got good reception with T-Mobile just about every place I have been with the
>phone. I have never been on Cingular, so cannot compare, but the T-Mo
>coverage is certainly much better than with my former carrier, Sprint. (It's
>been a couple years since I have had Sprint though, I don't know if they
>have improved since then.) As the OP wrote Cingular has been using T-Mobile
>towers, and I think vice versa, so I don't know how their "coverage"would be
>much different.
>
>One thing I would grant an edge to Cingular in---phone selection! Cingular
>has a much better selection of phones to choose from than T-Mobile,
>including smartphones, RAZR, etc. T-Mobile has been pretty lame in the area
>of phone selection. Of course though, one can always buy any unlocked GSM
>phone, and use it on T-Mobile. (I just got fed up myself with waiting for
>T-Mobile to offer a phone I'd like, and bought an SMT5600, had it unlocked,
>and am using it on T-Mo.)
>

Coverage where I am in PA/NJ/NY is much better with Cingular. I just
gave up my t-mobile account after having since 98 since they just
haven't built out at all. Much better rates though.

TM coverage in the Palm Springs area as of a few years ago wasn't so
great either.

They do share tower sites in CA and the NY/NJ area but now you find
additional coverage on AT&T sites.

All that matters is what works for you.

---

› See More: Questions regarding the end of Cingular/T-Mobile network sharing:

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is that
> because the longer wavelength will have better building penetration or
> is there something else/more? Not challenging you on this - just
> wanting to learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3 in the elevator
> of my office building which is a 25 story granite clad building. That
> being said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the many antennas on the
> building was a TMo site.

You can read about it here:

http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/cellpcs.htm

As others have pointed out, the companies that have only 1900 Mhz (T-Mobile,
Sprint) can compensate by adding more cells. But in practice, the 800 Mhz
coverage and penetration is much better.

For the west coast, the Cingular/AT&T merger was wonderful, because
Cingular's network was so poor. Now Cingular is selling their 1900 Mhz
network out west to T-Mobile, and will use AT&T's 800 Mhz network.

If you're in Hawaii, you know about the whole mess with 1900 Mhz, at least
on the Big Island.

Thanks for the URL, it's an interesting article and points, as I
suspected, to the lower frequency's better ability to penetrate solid
objects.
I'm on Oahu and don't get to the neighbor islands very much so I'm not
familiar with "the mess on the Big Island." Can you point me to
something about that - you've got my interest.

From:Steven M. Scharf
[email protected]

> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is
>> that because the longer wavelength will have better building
>> penetration or is there something else/more? Not challenging you on
>> this - just wanting to learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3
>> in the elevator of my office building which is a 25 story granite
>> clad building. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of
>> the many antennas on the building was a TMo site.
>
> You can read about it here:
>
> http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/cellpcs.htm
>
> As others have pointed out, the companies that have only 1900 Mhz
> (T-Mobile, Sprint) can compensate by adding more cells. But in
> practice, the 800 Mhz coverage and penetration is much better.
>
> For the west coast, the Cingular/AT&T merger was wonderful, because
> Cingular's network was so poor. Now Cingular is selling their 1900 Mhz
> network out west to T-Mobile, and will use AT&T's 800 Mhz network.
>
> If you're in Hawaii, you know about the whole mess with 1900 Mhz, at
> least on the Big Island.

> Ideally that is true. Reality is though that a close base station
> trumps anything. You can get reception that is superior to an 800 Mhz
> coverage area if your 1900 tower is closer than the 800 base station.
>
And what happens when you move 2 feet?

C'mon, you know the answer - it's the same for every single carrier no
matter what frequency or technology they employ. Move two feet and
anything from "nothing" happens to "your call is dropped" happens
depending on where you are in relation to the tower. While we can all
recognize that lower frequencies may have an advantage for building
penetration, the only thing that really matters is how many cell sites
cover an area. The "who's better" question changes daily as all carriers
add more sites and equipment. "Who's better" may be entirely different
for different people.
The other day I was having lunch in a restaurant that's in the
basement of a central downtown highrise. We were nowhere near daylight,
underground, with a concrete and steel building on top of us. Between
the three of us we had VZW, Sprint and TMo. Theoretically, based solely
on who had the "superior" frequency allocation, only VZW should have
worked - it didn't. TMo worked well enough to receive a call and Sprint
showed a couple bars of signal. My point is that any comparison based
on "superior" technology alone is meaningless. What you really want is
"superior" coverage which can only be tested on an individual basis
(unless you're a Siamese twin) by comparing useability at your home,
office and on your commute as well as roaming capabilities both domestic
and foreign.

From:Paw-Paw
[email protected]

>> Ideally that is true. Reality is though that a close base station
>> trumps anything. You can get reception that is superior to an 800
>> Mhz coverage area if your 1900 tower is closer than the 800 base
>> station.
> And what happens when you move 2 feet?

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for the URL, it's an interesting article and points, as I
> suspected, to the lower frequency's better ability to penetrate solid
> objects.
> I'm on Oahu and don't get to the neighbor islands very much so I'm not
> familiar with "the mess on the Big Island." Can you point me to
> something about that - you've got my interest.

AT&T launched GSM on the Big Island and was selling 1900 Mhz-only GSM
phones. Then apparently they expanded their network by adding 800 Mhz GSM,
but those people with 1900 Mhz-only phones were stuck paying full price for
a dual-band phone, often just months after being sold a 1900 Mhz-only phone.
As with most 1900 Mhz only GSM, the coverage was not good with 1900 Mhz, so
just sticking with the old handset wasn't a viable option.

The botched GSM launch by AT&T is what ultimately led to their downfall;
they were hemmoraging high-value business customers to Verizon.

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> C'mon, you know the answer - it's the same for every single carrier no
> matter what frequency or technology they employ. Move two feet and
> anything from "nothing" happens to "your call is dropped" happens

<snip>

The issue is not so much in urban areas, where there are more cells than
geographically necessary (in order to have sufficient capacity). Suburban
areas is where I've noticed the problems with 1900 Mhz only (Sprint &
Cingular (until recently)). It's almost always inside office buildings and
big-box stores, where coverage on the 1900 Mhz carriers is measurably worse.

I have found a couple of places in my area where even 800 Mhz carriers have
problems. Bottom floor of Ikea in EPA, is terrible.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 05:06:14 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The issue is not so much in urban areas, where there are more cells than
>geographically necessary (in order to have sufficient capacity). Suburban
>areas is where I've noticed the problems with 1900 Mhz only (Sprint &
>Cingular (until recently)). It's almost always inside office buildings and
>big-box stores, where coverage on the 1900 Mhz carriers is measurably worse.
I'm in a rural area in NW Washington State with Verizon and about 2
miles from a tower but cannot use our cell phones in our home due to a
metal roof.

We had hoped to use our cell phones and drop our land line but no go
unless I install a repeater and antenna...big $$$$ for home use.

Pegleg
U.S. Navy Retired
Support Our Troops

I wonder what _Support our Troops_ means. Let them get killed in Iraq. And
let them kill Iraqis. And shut up?


"Pegleg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 05:06:14 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The issue is not so much in urban areas, where there are more cells than
>>geographically necessary (in order to have sufficient capacity). Suburban
>>areas is where I've noticed the problems with 1900 Mhz only (Sprint &
>>Cingular (until recently)). It's almost always inside office buildings and
>>big-box stores, where coverage on the 1900 Mhz carriers is measurably
>>worse.
> I'm in a rural area in NW Washington State with Verizon and about 2
> miles from a tower but cannot use our cell phones in our home due to a
> metal roof.
>
> We had hoped to use our cell phones and drop our land line but no go
> unless I install a repeater and antenna...big $$$$ for home use.
>
> Pegleg
> U.S. Navy Retired
> Support Our Troops

Well, it beats the alternatives, desertion or treason.

--
John Richards


"Richie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>I wonder what _Support our Troops_ means. Let them get killed in Iraq. And
> let them kill Iraqis. And shut up?

Tmobile doesnt do software upgrades... period... If the device is
otherwise faulted, they will upgrade software as part of refurb

Different phones may "exceed" basic signal sensitivity standards... so
is comparing apples and oranges

Tmobile purchsed network well before merger.. it is unrelated...

If is in area where roaming agreement allows either service to roam,
calls placed are only prioritized by emeregency encoding, and order of
register

And if it was 1941-45, would you think it meant let them kill Germans
and Japanese and be killed ?

Leg,
A metal roof would not limit your cellular signal, it comes through the
walls and windows. But if you get no signal from Verizon, why not try any
of the other carriers in your area? They allow you to bring a phone home to
try it and give your money back if it doesn't work.

-Bill Radio @ http://www.mountainwireless.com



"Pegleg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > I'm in a rural area in NW Washington State with Verizon and about 2
> miles from a tower but cannot use our cell phones in our home due to a
> metal roof.
>

Agreed. My house has metal roof tiles, but I have a good SprintPCS
signal all over the house. The tower signal is propagated horizontally,
not vertically.

--
John Richards


Bill Radio wrote:
> Leg,
> A metal roof would not limit your cellular signal, it comes through the
> walls and windows. But if you get no signal from Verizon, why not try any
> of the other carriers in your area? They allow you to bring a phone home to
> try it and give your money back if it doesn't work.
>
> -Bill Radio @ http://www.mountainwireless.com
>
>
>
> "Pegleg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> I'm in a rural area in NW Washington State with Verizon and about 2
>> miles from a tower but cannot use our cell phones in our home due to a
>> metal roof.

> While TDMA still has better coverage than GSM, the Cingular GSM coverage did
>improve after the merger, at least in the western region, because AT&T had
>the more valuable 800 Mhz spectrum out here.

Does that mean what I was told by Cingular about GSM having better
coverage than TDMA (in northern CA) was not true?

When I got my first cellphone plan from AT&T in July 2003, I was told
that in my area, TDMA is better and that GSM will be getting better in
lese than a year. So I got TDMA. After a year of contract, I changed to
a lower rate AT&T plan of $29.99, but I didn't switch to GSM. I didn't
know whether GSM got better than TDMA in this area by then; I didn't
even think about buying a new phone. Because I WAS living in an old
unit, from the beginning, signal would drop, and sometimes messgaes
didn't get to my voice mail until ulater, etc. All these times, my
sister's phone of cingular service at her house, not far from where I
lived was really good in clearity.

After Cingular and AT&T merged, at a nearby cingular store, I was told
that that people with GSM (of Cingular) get better clearity than my
TDMA (now under Cingular). I held onto my cheap AT&T plan which was
just enough for me.

I was thinking to get a new service (with T-mobile which gives 1000 day
time minutes compared to 450 of Cingular for the same price) after my
current contract ends. I think I need to replace my Nokia phone which
is expensive to just buy it - may not even be available anymore. If I
get a new contract with Cingular, I would lose my current plan and must
switch GSM.

Before I decide to let go of my cheap plan, I'd like to know whether
TDMA still have better coverage than GSM in my area (northern CA). Can
anyone confirm?


My contract will end this July.