On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:11:56 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45ed84c2$0$27177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>In the San Francisco Bay Area there are vast areas with no GSM coverage
>at all, where you can get at least a Verizon AMPS signal. ...

Not true, as shown by Verizon's own coverage maps, as I noted in "
Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area"
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizon/msg/d8c71beb2d9e5179?hl=en&>.

>> Because I would assume when AMPs gets turned off, or if I move off my
>> tri-mode phone(I am always in digital areas) that the coverage between
>> the two carriers may be more equal? Am I off-base here?
>
>The Verizon CDMA coverage is better than the Cingular or T-Mobile GSM
>coverage, ...

Not true -- the combined Cingular/T-Mobile network and old ATTWS network
provide the best digital coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area.

>Don't think that AMPS coverage is immediately going away the instant the
>FCC allows AMPS to be turned off. ...

AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
actions and their words.

>... In North America, CDMA service is much better than
>GSM service,

Again, simply not true -- GSM has the best digital coverage in the USA.

>and Verizon's high speed data service has much better
>coverage than Cingular's (Sprint also has much wider coverage with high
>speed data than Cingular).

Again, simply not true -- Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) has the widest high speed
coverage of any carrier, and even higher speed UMTS/HSDPA coverage is
now available in most major markets.

>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. ...

Stop. You are badly mangling that newsgroup with these rude partial
threads, shooting yourself in the foot.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>