"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:kV3Uj.13496$GE1.6614@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Ron wrote:

>> 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).

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.