 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / May 2008Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its customers http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080505/tc_pcworld/145503 > Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its > customers > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080505/tc_pcworld/145503 Sort of. Currently Qwest sells "Qwest Wireless" to it's customers, not Sprint. Qwest just happens to be a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) like, for example, Virgin Mobile is. Qwest buys airtime at wholesale from Sprint but in all other respects, is just like a cellular company themselves- they sell handsets, offer their own rate plans, and bill customers directly. The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon service AS Verizon service- not rebranding it as "Qwest" and competing against Sprint, Verizon, etc. for customers. They'll sell it like they sell DirecTV for TV service- as an already popular "parner" product you can bundle with your Qwest home phone/DSL bill to save a few bucks a month. After four years, Qwest still has less than 1,000,000 wireless customers, so this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market wireless (they used to be the incumbent wireline 800MHz cellular carrier in their market and sold their entire system to Verizon, which is why they had to go the MVNO route in the first place!) rather than any reflection on Sprint. Qwest had a 5-year MVNO deal and seems to simply be bailing out of the biz at it's expiration. >> Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its >> customers [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market >wireless Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration. \= >(they used to be the incumbent wireline 800MHz cellular carrier in >their market and sold their entire system to Verizon, which is why they had >to go the MVNO route in the first place!) rather than any reflection on >Sprint. Qwest had a 5-year MVNO deal and seems to simply be bailing out of >the biz at it's expiration. >>The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a >>retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints > 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration. Look Phillipe, we all know about your axe to grind with Sprint, so stick a sock in it. Only an absolute idiot would believe a single word you post about Sprint, knowing your history. As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around for the stellar CS! Even the bulk of their current customer hemmoraging is coming from the Nextel side, not the PCS service. Look over the complaints in the SprintPCS newsgroup (other than the 400 or so you've inserted via various sockpuppets)- the majority are about billing issues, surrepitious extensions of contracts, etc. VERY few complaints here are about coverage. As to Qwest, I live in a Qwest market (Denver.) I know a load of people with Sprint service (most of whom are relatively happy.) I don't know a single Qwest Wireless user! Again, they're not dumping Sprint due to any issues with Sprint- they simply haven't been able to market a successful wireless service in the 25+ years of cellular's existence. Heck, when I moved to Denver 4 years ago, Qwest was still hawking LOCAL plans at the prices other carriers sold nationwide service for, and charged outlandish roaming fees when you roamed off of "their" (Sprint's) network, despite the fact that Sprint itself offered better plans with no roaming fees! Whatever problems Sprint may have, Qwest created far more of their own! Qwest Wireless' problems are on Qwest- not Sprint. Qwest has just never taken wireless seriously- it's as if they only offer it at all because "bundling" internet, phone, TV and wireless is expected of a telco or cableco these days. Bundling services people actually know and use (like DirecTV or Verizon) makes more sense than trying to launch or increase awareness of their own brand. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] >> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints >> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > As to the "poor coverage," Poor coverage is not the problem. Shitty customer service is the problem. > extensions of contracts, etc. VERY few complaints here are about coverage. Didn't have any when I was a Sprint customer either.  SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers >despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or >they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around >for the stellar CS! Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs? >>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers >>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or >>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around >>for the stellar CS! >Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs? Have you stopped beating your wife? >>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million >>customers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs? Poor coverage causes CSRs to quit? Ok, I'll bite- it should be entertaining to hear you try and connect those dots! > Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints > 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration. It's worse than that actually. Not only do the Sprint MVNO's have to deal with Sprint's coverage (which according to every independent survey is much worse than Verizon's), they don't get to roam onto other CDMA carriers to compensate (a trick that many Sprint subscribers have mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS, etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area. The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with 1900 MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can install enough towers. However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible Sprint and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas doesn't allow for cell sites. It's a tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site someplace where they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers essentially surround the residential neighborhoods with sites in the commercial areas, and it's good enough to provide good coverage. >> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints >> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >residential neighborhoods with sites in the commercial areas, and it's >good enough to provide good coverage. You mean Todd was wrong? and its not just <poor> Customer Service ? ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] > You mean Todd was wrong? and its not just <poor> Customer Service ? Steven is wrong, unless MetroPCS is a Sprint MVNO. And as far as I know, none of the flat-rate wireless providers are Sprint MVNO's -- not Metro, not Cricket, not Revol (and I know for sure Revol isn't; I got a phone a month after they launched, back when they were still Northcoast PCS, and they were building out their own network then). SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS, > etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a > guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had > an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the > time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area. I believe that, but MetroPCS isn't a Sprint MVNO and doesn't use Sprint's network so that particular anecdote says nothing about Sprint. MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay area is not too wonderful. Sprint's coverage isn't too bad, it improved dramatically over the years I had service with them. I'm sure you can find Sprint coverage holes, but I can also find coverage holes for the two carriers whose phones I carry now (AT&T and Verizon). Dennis Ferguson >> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS, >> etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay > area is not too wonderful. Yes, my mistake. MetroPCS leases infrastructre from Sprint, but they are not an MVNO. Their coverage is worse than a Sprint MVNO's because they are using a subset of Sprint's towers. You're still using Sprint sites only, just not all of them. >>> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS, >>> etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are using a subset of Sprint's towers. You're still using Sprint sites > only, just not all of them. Somehow that just doesn't sound right. I found a MetroPCS phone someone left in a cafe not too long ago, and I took a look at the system menu before turning it in. It was connected to SID 5037 and operating on a PCS block C channel, so they aren't sharing Sprint's CDMA base stations or operating in Sprint's spectrum. The only MetroPCS cell site I happen to know the location of (in East Palo Alto) is on a tower all by itself; the Sprint cell site is on a building on the other side of the highway. I find it hard to believe Sprint is providing them backhaul since Sprint itself is short of that around here; they frequently whine to the California PUC about how much AT&T charges for that. And Sprint and MetroPCS don't seem friendly at all, in fact MetroPCS is one of the very few US CDMA operators which Sprint's PRL blocks roaming on. So what infrasture does MetroPCS lease from Sprint? I believe they share towers some places just because everyone shares towers some places; Sprint, AT&T and Verizon share a tower in the parking lot where I work. Beyond this I don't see, and have never heard of, the connection, though I may have missed something. Dennis Ferguson >> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints 1900 Mhz >> poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > carriers to compensate (a trick that many Sprint subscribers have > mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). That's up to the MVNO. Qwest customers have the same roaming abilities as Sprint customers. > If you have Virgin, MetroPCS, etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. > Yesterday I got a call from a guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said > to him that I thought he had an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too > expensive to use all the time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in > the Bay Area. MetroPCS has their own licenses, spectrum and infrastructure- they aren't an MVNO. They typically build tiny systems covering the smallest possible area to launch a viable service. > The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with 1900 > MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can install > enough towers. Fair enough. That generally covers 80+% of the population. > However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible Sprint > and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas > doesn't allow for cell sites. That's an atypical situation, though. > It's a tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site someplace > where they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers essentially surround the > residential neighborhoods with sites in the commercial areas, and it's > good enough to provide good coverage. That's why it's atypical- in most cases the 1900MHz carriers can do exactly the same thing, unless extreme distance or topography interfere. > MetroPCS has their own licenses, spectrum and infrastructure- they > aren't an MVNO. They typically build tiny systems covering the smallest > possible area to launch a viable service. In the bay area they use a subset of Sprint's towers. But yes, they're not a Sprint MVNO, and I shouldn't have implied that. >> The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with >> 1900 MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can >> install enough towers. > > Fair enough. That generally covers 80+% of the population. At least in their home area. >> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible >> Sprint and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large >> residential areas doesn't allow for cell sites. > > That's an atypical situation, though. I don't agree with that. It's a situation that is common in California, and I suspect in other areas with bedroom communities surrounding large cities. >> It's a tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site >> someplace where they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's why it's atypical- in most cases the 1900MHz carriers can do > exactly the same thing, unless extreme distance or topography interfere. They can't because 1900 MHz requires far more sites to cover the same area, especially to provide good indoor coverage. >> MetroPCS has their own licenses, spectrum and infrastructure- they aren't >> an MVNO. They typically build tiny systems covering the smallest >> possible area to launch a viable service. > > In the bay area they use a subset of Sprint's towers. But yes, they're not > a Sprint MVNO, and I shouldn't have implied that. AFAIK, while they might rent space on some of SPC's towers, they don't really use a "subset" of anything. (Frankly if they negotiated any type of sharing with Sprint, why wouldn't they extend it to the entire network?) They have their own spectrum (generally one of the small 10-15k PCS licenses), equipment and sites. They tend to use a lot of cheap "microsites" on top of whatever roofs they can negotiate access to. Compared to the major carriers they are a real shoestring operation, but represent an excellent value to a particular value-oriented but less-mobile niche (mostly high-use teens and low-income users substituting Metro for landlines) with very low-cost unlimited voice/text plans and relatively cheap phones. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] > Compared to the major carriers they are a real shoestring operation, but > represent an excellent value to a particular value-oriented but less-mobile > niche (mostly high-use teens and low-income users substituting Metro for > landlines) with very low-cost unlimited voice/text plans and relatively > cheap phones. Los Angeles is a MetroPCS market. Our local broadcast TV stations are the Los Angeles stations (we could, by some metrics, be considered on the very extreme outer edge of the Los Angeles metro area), so I see a lot of Metro ads. I wish I could get a Metro phone for my daughter. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible Sprint >> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas >> doesn't allow for cell sites. > >That's an atypical situation, though. That's an all too common situation. With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact. >>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible >>> Sprint [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to > read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact. "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work during the 14-30 day trial period? Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate customers? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship back to 800MHz carriers long ago. When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until relatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evidence" game too... If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the Johnny-Come-Latelies? When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint (1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..." Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So 1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and suburban areas this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway, so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns. Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS NG seems to bear out, despite your insistence that scores of folks are complaining about coverage. >>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible >>>> Sprint [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work >during the 14-30 day trial period? I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly at alt.cellular.sprintpcs. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] > I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly > at alt.cellular.sprintpcs. The problem with your premise is that you know (well before the trial period ends) whether the coverage will be good enough, and if you don't cancel before the end of the trial period, how is that the carrier's fault? (SPCS or any other carrier) SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work > during the 14-30 day trial period? Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number portability. > Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has > been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate > customers? No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those of 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and T-Mobile, which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by independent entities, have something to do with them being unable to catch up to Verizon and AT&T? You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you, Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest of the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area. >> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or >> work [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number > portability. I have never known a time without a trial period. In the past, it was often unreasonable (48-72 hours) rather than 14-30 days, but there was no reason to get stuck with a phone that didn't work at home or work if you actively worked the trial period. >> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has >> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have something to do with them being unable to catch up to Verizon and > AT&T? Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start? Or the fact that all of these companies are now merger-created amalgams of smaller companies so the numbers aren't directly comparable? Frankly, Sprint has done pretty G-D well for building an entire nationwide network from the ground up. Remember that before the Cingular/AT&T merger, Sprint was pretty much neck and neck with both of them. > You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you, > Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest of > the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area. I don't. I called it "anecdotal" for a reason. However, I'm enjoying the irony that MY anecdote "shouldn't be extrapolated," yet yours is "all too typical!" ;-) You can suggest all of the personal experience, and "independant surveys" you like, but you can't answer the simple question- if 1900MHz is so inferior, why is ANYONE subscribing to a carrier using it? Pricing (except for maybe T-Mo's low-balling) is relatively competitive between carriers, so it's not like people jump from AT&T or Verizon to Sprint to save 40%. If Verizon and AT&T are as geometrically superior due to their frequency assignments, how are Sprint and T-Mo still in business? How do they hang on to the 70 million suckers like myself who apparently simply haven't noticed their phones don't work anywhere? Why hasn't the free market done it's job? ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] >> 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and T-Mobile, >> which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by independent entities, >> have something to do with them being unable to catch up to Verizon and >> AT&T? > > Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start? Good point. Let's look at the facts. Verizon. Formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Verizon Wireless included those properties plus the properties of Vodafone AirTouch Cellular and PrimeCo (A 1900MHz carrier, Phillippe, FYI). Now, let's look at the history in my hometown. ** GTE was in Cleveland in the 90's with AMPS. My first phone was a GTE Mobilnet AMPS handset in 1993. CDMA was introduced in 1995. ** Cleveland had a CellularONE network for quite some time. About the same time everyone went digital, CellularONE Cleveland became AirTouch. So, both networks went digital in the mid-90's. In 2000-2001, AirTouch became Verizon Wireless. Due to anti-trust concerns, GTE Wireless's Cleveland network was spun off to Alltel. Now, I've never been an AT&T customer but I believe they went digital in Cleveland about a year or two after GTE/Airtouch did. All three networks -- GTE, AirTouch and what used to be Ameritech Cellular and is now AT&T -- had been around in some form for at least ten years. Cleveland was one of the last markets T-Mobile launched, in 2000-2001, and even then they had coverage in some rural spots that I was surprised they'd cover. Sprint's network, much newer than the incumbents, had coverage at my house along Lake Erie in a neighborhood no one else covered until a year after I moved there, and Verizon's coverage in Ashtabula was horrible where Sprint's was very good. Ashtabula is about an hour east of Cleveland; smallish town, but not middle-of-nowhere small. > I don't. I called it "anecdotal" for a reason. However, I'm enjoying the > irony that MY anecdote "shouldn't be extrapolated," yet yours is "all too > typical!" ;-) Heh > their phones don't work anywhere? Why hasn't the free market done it's job? Well, that's the thing, the free market IS doing its job. I believe that was your point. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > > Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start? > > Good point. Let's look at the facts. In THIS thread? Why start now? ;-) > Verizon. Formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Verizon Wireless > included those properties plus the properties of Vodafone AirTouch > Cellular and PrimeCo (A 1900MHz carrier, Phillippe, FYI). Funny you mentioned the 1900MHz bit. I was going to throw Consumer Reports' cellular survey back at Steven Scharf in my last post but forgot to get around to it- despite his "Verizon-dominates-independent-surveys" as "proof" 1900 MHz is inferior to 800MHz, CR's survey ranked Verizon as best in the Miami market (like in many cities) in the No Signal, and Dropped Calls categories as well as overall score. The "punchline" of course, is that Verizon is a 1900MHz-only carrier in Miami. AT&T owns both 800MHz licenses there. (T-Mobile often came in second to Verizon many markets in the CR survey, above AT&T, despite AT&T being 800 and T-Mobile 1900. Maybe Verizon is just a little better at building out a network than the others, and it has nothing to do with frequency? Or maybe an even simpler explanation is the "can you hear me now" brainwashing is market independent?) > Sprint's network, much newer than the incumbents, had coverage at my house > along Lake Erie in a neighborhood no one else covered until a year after I > moved there, and Verizon's coverage in Ashtabula was horrible where > Sprint's was very good. Ashtabula is about an hour east of Cleveland; > smallish town, but not middle-of-nowhere small. Bah! Anecdotal! ;-) > > Why hasn't the free market done it's job? > > Well, that's the thing, the free market IS doing its job. > > I believe that was your point. Guilty as charged! >Funny you mentioned the 1900MHz bit. I was going to throw Consumer >Reports' cellular survey back at Steven Scharf in my last post but forgot >to get around to it- despite his "Verizon-dominates-independent-surveys" Consumer Reports did mention how Sprint was WORST for dropped calls. >> Verizon. Formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Verizon Wireless >> included those properties plus the properties of Vodafone AirTouch [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > explanation is the "can you hear me > now" brainwashing is market independent?) Yes, that's correct. In fact the Consumer Reports survey covers three markets where Verizon is a 1900 MHz carrier: Miami, Tampa and Dallas. Verizon's coverage is rated no worse there than anywhere else in the country. And a couple of the very worst coverage scores in that survey are for AT&T in Washington, DC and Boston, where AT&T is a cellular operator. Dennis Ferguson > Yes, that's correct. In fact the Consumer Reports survey covers > three markets where Verizon is a 1900 MHz carrier: Miami, Tampa > and Dallas. Verizon's coverage is rated no worse there than anywhere > else in the country. And a couple of the very worst coverage scores in > that survey are for AT&T in Washington, DC and Boston, where AT&T is a > cellular operator. Last time I was in South Florida (where I am originally from) in December 2006, I roamed onto AT&T AMPS with my Verizon phone out in the Everglades. Kind of amusing that the AT&T GSM customers had no coverage at all out there, nor did the Verizon customers with digital-only phones. Now of course, presuming AT&T turned off both of their AMPS network, Verizon and AT&T have equal coverage out there, which is none. But as to the reason Verizon is not hampered by 1900 MHz in those markets, it's probably because you don't have the kind of local opposition to towers you have out West. >> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work >> during the 14-30 day trial period? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest >of the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area. The 1900 Mhz phones have also spawned a thriving industry of cellular repeaters for folks to use at their home or office. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] > The 1900 Mhz phones have also spawned a thriving industry of cellular > repeaters for folks to use at their home or office. Really. Point me to a company that sells repeaters or antennas for 1900MHz handsets, that DOESN'T also sell devices for use with 800MHz handsets. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible >>> Sprint [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to > read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact. "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work during the 14-30 day trial period? Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate customers? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship back to 800MHz carriers long ago. When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until releatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evedence" game too... If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the Johnny-Come-Latelies? When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint (1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..." Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So 1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and suburban ares this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway, so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns. Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS NG seems to bear out, despite your insistance that scores of folks are complaining about coverage. >>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible >>>> Sprint [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate >customers? Again - Read alt.cellular.sprintpcs. Or look at all the folks making a good living selling repeaters for folks with 1900 Mhz phones. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] > Again - Read alt.cellular.sprintpcs. Or look at all the folks > making a good living selling repeaters for folks with 1900 Mhz phones. There have been plenty of complaints here about Sprint. Most of them have NOT been about coverage. Please tell me to go read alt.cellular.sprintpcs so I can laugh at you -- as you know, I've read and posted here for years. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] > "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work > during the 14-30 day trial period? That would make sense, but you have to understand you're talking to a liar and troll. Troll because, although he sometimes does post the truth, more often he posts half-truths in an attempt to make SPCS look bad. Liar because he repeatedly said a couple years ago that he was never going to post in the SPCS newsgroup again. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.