Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 02 Apr 2008 09:26:16 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> T-Mobile has never tried to market themselves as a carrier for those
>> that are concerned about coverage.
>
> Because they don't have te coverage to back up such a claim.
>
> It's not like they advertise lack of coverage either! Sprint never
> pushed the coverage card in their ads either- they pushed call quality
> ("pin drop.")

Sprint used to advertise that they had the largest all-digital network.
This was actually true. Of course they had one of the smallest digital
networks, and still do, but since they had no AMPS they were all
digital, while Cingular, AT&T, and Verizon could not claim to be
all-digital.

> You're correct that international travelers would be less interested, but
> those folks that travel that often quite possibly aren't interested in a
> phone service that only works domestically anyhow.

Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon
can? The number of countries with both CDMA and GSM networks is growing,
including India, China, Taiwan, and Israel. In Korea there is no GSM,
only CDMA.

>> Sprint is a non-player to me. They don't have coverage where I live
>> in Northern California, and in all the independent surveys show that
>> their California coverage, north and south, is much worse than other
>> carriers, which has also been the experience of every Sprint customer
>> in California that I know personally. Of course these customers didn't
>> know enough to force their handsets to roam onto Verizon, assuming
>> their handsets had the capability.
>
> But you know better WRT the forced roaming, and know of the SERO plans, so
> why is Sprint a "non-player" for you?

Because you can't always be roaming onto Verizon without them getting
upset and possibly canceling your service. That and because even SERO
would be more expensive than what I'm paying on Verizon.