pltrgyst wrote:

> Well, your personal case where only Sprint provides coverage at your home is one
> thing.
>
> But in general?
>
> Let's see, my January 2008 Consumer Reports arrived yesterday. Several
> California cities were specifically rated.
>
> Let's start up north... San Francisco: Sprint rated last. Decisively.
>
> San Diego: Sprint rated last. Decisively.
>
> Los Angeles: Sprint rated last. Decisively.

Sprint's problems in California are often caused by a combination of
NIMBY's and Sprint's operation at 1900 MHz. The city I live in is a
microcosm of the rest of the state. T-Mobile and Sprint have terrible
coverage because they have not been able to install all the towers they
need to provide equivalent coverage to AT&T and Verizon. they need far
more towers because 1900 MHz doesn't provide the range that 800 MHz
provides, and because 1900 MHz penetrates into buildings less well.

In my town the subscriber breakdown, based on a recent survey by the
city (which is trying to address the complaints about coverage) were:

44% Verizon
38% AT&T
7% Sprint
6% T-Mobile

The rest are MVNO customers but the people doing the survey were too
dumb to know how to allocate the remaining respondents.

Of course many of the same people complaining about Sprint and T-Mobile
coverage are the ones that vehemently oppose any towers within view of
their houses.

To T-Mobile's credit, they freely admit their coverage problems. Sprint
does not.