On 8/30/2010 2:46 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 8/25/2010 9:36 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> No, not really- again, there's very little AT&T roaming left,
>
> Unfortunately, personally experienced it today, you're right, and it
> sucks. This also explains the some problems my friend's from Minnesota
> were having with their T-Mobile phone earlier this month. If I didn't
> have so much money on my T-Mobile account I'd let the account go.

My buddies wife works for some agency that has or had a super deal on
tmobile. One thing tmobile can never be accused of is throwing money at
their system in my area. My friend is pretty knowledgeable about carrier
infrastructure and hesitantly went with them but found out it was mostly
suitable for their families use because of the roaming. That was until
the roaming ended. Now he and his family had phones they better serve as
paperweights and he moved them to a VZW family plan.


>
> The roaming agreement with AT&T ended, and T-Mobile updated their maps
> to reflect the reduced coverage, but they certainly didn't notify their
> existing customers in advance about the impending loss of coverage. They
> did waive ETFs for customers that complained about a loss of coverage,
> but I'd have hated to have bought even a subsidized expensive smart
> phone and then have had to cancel for no coverage, only getting the ETF
> waived.
>
> Can't blame AT&T since the roaming agreement was just too much of an
> enabler for T-Mobile.
>
> I wonder if Verizon has considered doing the same thing to Sprint in
> terms of roaming. If you look at the coverage maps for the Bay area,
> AT&T and Verizon have far greater coverage than Sprint and T-Mobile, and
> the areas where Sprint and T-Mobile decided to not cover are pretty
> similar. Or perhaps Verizon has decided that Sprint isn't enough of a
> threat to make it worth it to give up roaming revenue.