John Navas wrote on [Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:27:02 -0700]:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:52:07 -0700, in
> <4c5bb113$0$22130$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Of the big four, I'm arguing only T-Mo users benefit from a "dramatic"
>>> chance of increased coverage by lugging around a PP phone. AT&T operates
>>> a large mature network just like Verizon, with a similar footprint, and
>>> Sprint has far more roaming on Verizon than T-Mo has on AT&T. I think
>>> your perception of AT&T is "tainted" by a few coverage holes in your
>>> immediate area. In most places they're the old legacy 800MHz Yin to
>>> Verizon's Yang.
>>
>>The footprint of AT&T/GSM roaming is much smaller than that of
>>Verizon/CDMA roaming. That's based on first hand experience as well as
>>the carrier's own maps.
>
> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
> Not to mention verizon commercials. This is a classic case in point.
> Coverage only matters in places you actually go.
>
>>[SNIP meaningless personal anecdote]
>
>>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
>>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
>>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
>
> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.

Not according to EVERY SINGLE tech journalist who lives there