Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall

Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its
customers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2008...pcworld/145503

"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:q49v14dt80v3mupn9omtbkgogflokpshjb@4ax.com...
>
> Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its
> customers
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2008...pcworld/145503

Sort of. Currently Qwest sells "Qwest Wireless" to it's customers, not
Sprint. Qwest just happens to be a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network
Operator) like, for example, Virgin Mobile is. Qwest buys airtime at
wholesale from Sprint but in all other respects, is just like a cellular
company themselves- they sell handsets, offer their own rate plans, and bill
customers directly.

The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a
retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon
service AS Verizon service- not rebranding it as "Qwest" and competing
against Sprint, Verizon, etc. for customers. They'll sell it like they sell
DirecTV for TV service- as an already popular "parner" product you can
bundle with your Qwest home phone/DSL bill to save a few bucks a month.

After four years, Qwest still has less than 1,000,000 wireless customers, so
this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market
wireless (they used to be the incumbent wireline 800MHz cellular carrier in
their market and sold their entire system to Verizon, which is why they had
to go the MVNO route in the first place!) rather than any reflection on
Sprint. Qwest had a 5-year MVNO deal and seems to simply be bailing out of
the biz at it's expiration.

On Tue, 6 May 2008 08:05:51 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>
>"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:q49v14dt80v3mupn9omtbkgogflokpshjb@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its
>> customers
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2008...pcworld/145503
>
>Sort of. Currently Qwest sells "Qwest Wireless" to it's customers, not
>Sprint. Qwest just happens to be a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network
>Operator) like, for example, Virgin Mobile is. Qwest buys airtime at
>wholesale from Sprint but in all other respects, is just like a cellular
>company themselves- they sell handsets, offer their own rate plans, and bill
>customers directly.
>
>The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a
>retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon
>service AS Verizon service- not rebranding it as "Qwest" and competing
>against Sprint, Verizon, etc. for customers. They'll sell it like they sell
>DirecTV for TV service- as an already popular "parner" product you can
>bundle with your Qwest home phone/DSL bill to save a few bucks a month.
>
>After four years, Qwest still has less than 1,000,000 wireless customers, so
>this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market
>wireless

Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.



\=
>(they used to be the incumbent wireline 800MHz cellular carrier in
>their market and sold their entire system to Verizon, which is why they had
>to go the MVNO route in the first place!) rather than any reflection on
>Sprint. Qwest had a 5-year MVNO deal and seems to simply be bailing out of
>the biz at it's expiration.
>
>
>
>

"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
newsn4124ll7mvsj8mjou2hkoma5g3jj7eal7@4ax.com...
>>The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a
>>retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon
>>service AS Verizon service- not rebranding it as "Qwest" and competing
>>against Sprint, Verizon, etc. for customers. They'll sell it like they
>>sell
>>DirecTV for TV service- as an already popular "parner" product you can
>>bundle with your Qwest home phone/DSL bill to save a few bucks a month.
>>
>>After four years, Qwest still has less than 1,000,000 wireless customers,
>>so
>>this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market
>>wireless
>
> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.

Look Phillipe, we all know about your axe to grind with Sprint, so stick a
sock in it. Only an absolute idiot would believe a single word you post
about Sprint, knowing your history.

As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers
despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or
they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
for the stellar CS! Even the bulk of their current customer hemmoraging is
coming from the Nextel side, not the PCS service. Look over the complaints
in the SprintPCS newsgroup (other than the 400 or so you've inserted via
various sockpuppets)- the majority are about billing issues, surrepitious
extensions of contracts, etc. VERY few complaints here are about coverage.

As to Qwest, I live in a Qwest market (Denver.) I know a load of people
with Sprint service (most of whom are relatively happy.) I don't know a
single Qwest Wireless user! Again, they're not dumping Sprint due to any
issues with Sprint- they simply haven't been able to market a successful
wireless service in the 25+ years of cellular's existence. Heck, when I
moved to Denver 4 years ago, Qwest was still hawking LOCAL plans at the
prices other carriers sold nationwide service for, and charged outlandish
roaming fees when you roamed off of "their" (Sprint's) network, despite the
fact that Sprint itself offered better plans with no roaming fees!

Whatever problems Sprint may have, Qwest created far more of their own!
Qwest Wireless' problems are on Qwest- not Sprint. Qwest has just never
taken wireless seriously- it's as if they only offer it at all because
"bundling" internet, phone, TV and wireless is expected of a telco or
cableco these days. Bundling services people actually know and use (like
DirecTV or Verizon) makes more sense than trying to launch or increase
awareness of their own brand.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-06, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
>> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.
>
> Look Phillipe, we all know about your axe to grind with Sprint, so stick a
> sock in it. Only an absolute idiot would believe a single word you post
> about Sprint, knowing your history.
>
> As to the "poor coverage,"

Poor coverage is not the problem. Shitty customer service is the problem.

> extensions of contracts, etc. VERY few complaints here are about coverage.

Didn't have any when I was a Sprint customer either.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

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). 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.

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. 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. 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.

On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:38 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>

>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers
>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or
>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
>for the stellar CS!

Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs?

On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:20:54 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>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). 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.
>
>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. 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. 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.


You mean Todd was wrong? and its not just <poor> Customer Service ?

On Tue, 06 May 2008 17:14:38 -0500, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:38 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
><elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>>

>>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers
>>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or
>>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
>>for the stellar CS!

>Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:41m1249e60vukuot7gso190utli6mbiohf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:38 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million
>>customers
>>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS
>>or
>>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
>>for the stellar CS!
>
> Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs?

Poor coverage causes CSRs to quit? Ok, I'll bite- it should be entertaining
to hear you try and connect those dots!

On 2008-05-06, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). 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.

I believe that, but MetroPCS isn't a Sprint MVNO and doesn't use
Sprint's network so that particular anecdote says nothing about Sprint.
MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay
area is not too wonderful.

Sprint's coverage isn't too bad, it improved dramatically over the
years I had service with them. I'm sure you can find Sprint coverage
holes, but I can also find coverage holes for the two carriers whose
phones I carry now (AT&T and Verizon).

Dennis Ferguson

"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.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-06, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> You mean Todd was wrong? and its not just <poor> Customer Service ?

Steven is wrong, unless MetroPCS is a Sprint MVNO. And as far as I
know, none of the flat-rate wireless providers are Sprint MVNO's --
not Metro, not Cricket, not Revol (and I know for sure Revol isn't; I
got a phone a month after they launched, back when they were still
Northcoast PCS, and they were building out their own network then).

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2008-05-06, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). 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.
>
> I believe that, but MetroPCS isn't a Sprint MVNO and doesn't use
> Sprint's network so that particular anecdote says nothing about Sprint.
> MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay
> area is not too wonderful.

Yes, my mistake. MetroPCS leases infrastructre from Sprint, but they are
not an MVNO. Their coverage is worse than a Sprint MVNO's because they
are using a subset of Sprint's towers. You're still using Sprint sites
only, just not all of them.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> 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.

In the bay area they use a subset of Sprint's towers. But yes, they're
not a Sprint MVNO, and I shouldn't have implied that.


>> 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.

At least in their home area.

>> 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.

I don't agree with that. It's a situation that is common in California,
and I suspect in other areas with bedroom communities surrounding large
cities.

>> 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.

They can't because 1900 MHz requires far more sites to cover the same
area, especially to provide good indoor coverage.

On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:56:52 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>
>> 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.


That's an all too common situation.

With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.

"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news17324lk3qm8ni85pb18qnkk607gjaodu9@4ax.com...

>>> 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.
>
>
> That's an all too common situation.
>
> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.

"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
during the 14-30 day trial period?

Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
customers? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship
back to 800MHz carriers long ago.

When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years
ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the
incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until
relatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evidence" game too...
If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two
companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the
Johnny-Come-Latelies?

When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint
(1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is
very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this
isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in
SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..."

Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So
1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and
suburban areas this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are
needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway,
so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in
populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant
disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is
why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just
covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns.

Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with
roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer
an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS
NG seems to bear out, despite your insistence that scores of folks are
complaining about coverage.

"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news17324lk3qm8ni85pb18qnkk607gjaodu9@4ax.com...

>>> 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.
>
>
> That's an all too common situation.
>
> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.

"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
during the 14-30 day trial period?

Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
customers? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship
back to 800MHz carriers long ago.

When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years
ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the
incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until
releatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evedence" game too...
If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two
companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the
Johnny-Come-Latelies?

When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint
(1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is
very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this
isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in
SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..."

Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So
1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and
suburban ares this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are
needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway,
so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in
populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant
disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is
why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just
covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns.

Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with
roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer
an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS
NG seems to bear out, despite your insistance that scores of folks are
complaining about coverage.

On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:28:46 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>
>"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news17324lk3qm8ni85pb18qnkk607gjaodu9@4ax.com.. .
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> That's an all too common situation.
>>
>> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
>> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
>> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
>> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
>
>"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
>during the 14-30 day trial period?
>


I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly
at alt.cellular.sprintpcs.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
> during the 14-30 day trial period?

Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that
had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the
contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number portability.

> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
> customers?

No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those
of 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and
T-Mobile, which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by
independent entities, have something to do with them being unable to
catch up to Verizon and AT&T?

You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you,
Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest
of the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:sdkUj.16056$2g1.5430@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or
>> work
>> during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
> Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that
> had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the
> contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number
> portability.

I have never known a time without a trial period. In the past, it was often
unreasonable (48-72 hours) rather than 14-30 days, but there was no reason
to get stuck with a phone that didn't work at home or work if you actively
worked the trial period.

>> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
>> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
>> customers?
>
> No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those of
> 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and T-Mobile,
> which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by independent entities,
> have something to do with them being unable to catch up to Verizon and
> AT&T?

Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start? Or the
fact that all of these companies are now merger-created amalgams of smaller
companies so the numbers aren't directly comparable? Frankly, Sprint has
done pretty G-D well for building an entire nationwide network from the
ground up. Remember that before the Cingular/AT&T merger, Sprint was pretty
much neck and neck with both of them.

> You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you,
> Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest of
> the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area.

I don't. I called it "anecdotal" for a reason. However, I'm enjoying the
irony that MY anecdote "shouldn't be extrapolated," yet yours is "all too
typical!" ;-)

You can suggest all of the personal experience, and "independant surveys"
you like, but you can't answer the simple question- if 1900MHz is so
inferior, why is ANYONE subscribing to a carrier using it? Pricing (except
for maybe T-Mo's low-balling) is relatively competitive between carriers, so
it's not like people jump from AT&T or Verizon to Sprint to save 40%. If
Verizon and AT&T are as geometrically superior due to their frequency
assignments, how are Sprint and T-Mo still in business? How do they hang on
to the 70 million suckers like myself who apparently simply haven't noticed
their phones don't work anywhere? Why hasn't the free market done it's job?

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:alfUj.14591$V14.7391@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> 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.
>
> In the bay area they use a subset of Sprint's towers. But yes, they're not
> a Sprint MVNO, and I shouldn't have implied that.

AFAIK, while they might rent space on some of SPC's towers, they don't
really use a "subset" of anything. (Frankly if they negotiated any type of
sharing with Sprint, why wouldn't they extend it to the entire network?)
They have their own spectrum (generally one of the small 10-15k PCS
licenses), equipment and sites. They tend to use a lot of cheap
"microsites" on top of whatever roofs they can negotiate access to.
Compared to the major carriers they are a real shoestring operation, but
represent an excellent value to a particular value-oriented but less-mobile
niche (mostly high-use teens and low-income users substituting Metro for
landlines) with very low-cost unlimited voice/text plans and relatively
cheap phones.

On Wed, 07 May 2008 08:54:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
>> during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
>Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that
>had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the
>contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number portability.
>
>> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
>> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
>> customers?
>
>No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those
>of 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and
>T-Mobile, which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by
>independent entities, have something to do with them being unable to
>catch up to Verizon and AT&T?
>
>You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you,
>Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest
>of the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area.


The 1900 Mhz phones have also spawned a thriving industry of cellular
repeaters for folks to use at their home or office.

On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:29:05 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>
>"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news17324lk3qm8ni85pb18qnkk607gjaodu9@4ax.com.. .
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> That's an all too common situation.
>>
>> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
>> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
>> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
>> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
>
>"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
>during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
>Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
>been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
>customers?

Again - Read alt.cellular.sprintpcs. Or look at all the folks
making a good living selling repeaters for folks with 1900 Mhz phones.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
> during the 14-30 day trial period?

That would make sense, but you have to understand you're talking to a liar
and troll. Troll because, although he sometimes does post the truth, more
often he posts half-truths in an attempt to make SPCS look bad. Liar because
he repeatedly said a couple years ago that he was never going to post in the
SPCS newsgroup again.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Again - Read alt.cellular.sprintpcs. Or look at all the folks
> making a good living selling repeaters for folks with 1900 Mhz phones.

There have been plenty of complaints here about Sprint. Most of them have
NOT been about coverage. Please tell me to go read alt.cellular.sprintpcs so
I can laugh at you -- as you know, I've read and posted here for years.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly
> at alt.cellular.sprintpcs.

The problem with your premise is that you know (well before the trial period
ends) whether the coverage will be good enough, and if you don't cancel before
the end of the trial period, how is that the carrier's fault? (SPCS or
any other carrier)

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>> 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and T-Mobile,
>> which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by independent entities,
>> have something to do with them being unable to catch up to Verizon and
>> AT&T?
>
> Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start?

Good point. Let's look at the facts.

Verizon. Formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Verizon Wireless
included those properties plus the properties of Vodafone AirTouch Cellular
and PrimeCo (A 1900MHz carrier, Phillippe, FYI).

Now, let's look at the history in my hometown.

** GTE was in Cleveland in the 90's with AMPS. My first phone was a GTE
Mobilnet AMPS handset in 1993. CDMA was introduced in 1995.

** Cleveland had a CellularONE network for quite some time. About the same
time everyone went digital, CellularONE Cleveland became AirTouch.

So, both networks went digital in the mid-90's. In 2000-2001, AirTouch became
Verizon Wireless. Due to anti-trust concerns, GTE Wireless's Cleveland
network was spun off to Alltel.

Now, I've never been an AT&T customer but I believe they went digital in
Cleveland about a year or two after GTE/Airtouch did.

All three networks -- GTE, AirTouch and what used to be Ameritech Cellular
and is now AT&T -- had been around in some form for at least ten years.

Cleveland was one of the last markets T-Mobile launched, in 2000-2001, and
even then they had coverage in some rural spots that I was surprised they'd
cover.

Sprint's network, much newer than the incumbents, had coverage at my house
along Lake Erie in a neighborhood no one else covered until a year after I
moved there, and Verizon's coverage in Ashtabula was horrible where
Sprint's was very good. Ashtabula is about an hour east of Cleveland; smallish
town, but not middle-of-nowhere small.

> I don't. I called it "anecdotal" for a reason. However, I'm enjoying the
> irony that MY anecdote "shouldn't be extrapolated," yet yours is "all too
> typical!" ;-)

Heh

> their phones don't work anywhere? Why hasn't the free market done it's job?

Well, that's the thing, the free market IS doing its job.

I believe that was your point.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> The 1900 Mhz phones have also spawned a thriving industry of cellular
> repeaters for folks to use at their home or office.

Really. Point me to a company that sells repeaters or antennas for 1900MHz
handsets, that DOESN'T also sell devices for use with 800MHz handsets.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> Compared to the major carriers they are a real shoestring operation, but
> represent an excellent value to a particular value-oriented but less-mobile
> niche (mostly high-use teens and low-income users substituting Metro for
> landlines) with very low-cost unlimited voice/text plans and relatively
> cheap phones.

Los Angeles is a MetroPCS market. Our local broadcast TV stations are the
Los Angeles stations (we could, by some metrics, be considered on the very
extreme outer edge of the Los Angeles metro area), so I see a lot of Metro
ads. I wish I could get a Metro phone for my daughter.



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol