On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:02:58 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a7df4d$0$84201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:

>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's TDMA
>> areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built out
>> (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get added to
>> increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the system hasn't
>> really changed _significantly_ in some time for the legacy 800MHz carriers.
>
>The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly
comparable.

>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but you
>can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.

Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.

>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
>> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
>> subscribers! ;-)
>
>LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile, it
>was Cingular that was trying).
>
>However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the
>Bay Area.

Again, not true.

>The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.

In fact doing quite well in this area.

>I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says about
>the quality of Bay Area coverage.

Believe you instead?

>Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they were
>tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with AT&T a
>distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.

It said nothing of the kind.

Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>