John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> 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.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.

>> 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.

You in spades.