Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <pt4vs2leubcod0vpkvvf0khd4qkg4m0715@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)
>
> And John Navas never trolls, does he.
>
> Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.

Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!

I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
AMPS coverage, not even including San Benito County. My wife's company
just dumped 200 Nextel accounts and went to Verizon with the V325i, and
one of the reasons was the AMPS coverage (the other was Verizon's GPS
system, which is more accurate than the TDOA system that the U.S. GSM
carriers use, and they needed the increased accuracy (though I don't
like the reason they need it!)).

There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
provided out of the urban core. It was huge sample size, and the results
are indisputable. However I would concede that the socio-economic
make-up of Consumer Reports readers make it more likely that they would
travel to areas outside the urban core. Their readers tend to be higher
income, more highly educated, and more liberal, all of which contributes
to more travel into non-urban areas than lower income, less educated,
and more conservative users. This would translate to higher
dissatisfaction with the carriers that don't provide coverage in these
areas.