building penetration: verizon vs cingular

Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
mobile and longer phone battery life.

planetx wrote:
> Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
> would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
> placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
> month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
> mobile and longer phone battery life.

To be honest, its really a moot point technology has better penetration.

One technology might might have better penetration, but the nearest tower
may be twenty miles away.

Regardless of the billion of minutes per month in your plan, trendiest
phone, coolest faceplate...if it doesn't work where you use it most....

"planetx" <planetx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184116375.876056.156750@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
> would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
> placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
> month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
> mobile and longer phone battery life.

I work for a Big Corporation in a Big Office Building. Sprint definitely has
the best building penetration here because they have repeaters scattered
throughout the building, including conference rooms in the deepest bowels of
the building where no external radio signal can reach. There are a few
Verizon repeaters in the building, but not where they are needed the most. I
don't know if my employer has a special relationship with Sprint or if
Sprint is just more proactive about putting repeaters in office buildings. I
would recommend that you make some inquiries to see if any carrier has, or
is about to have, repeaters in the building(s) where you spend most of your
time.

>
> "planetx" <planetx@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184116375.876056.156750@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>> Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
>> would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
>> placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
>> month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
>> mobile and longer phone battery life.
>>
>"Nick Danger" <yourname@yourdomain.com> wrote in message
>news:swali.409$kJ4.220@newsfe12.lga... I work for a Big Corporation in a
>Big Office Building. Sprint definitely has the best building penetration
>here because they have repeaters scattered throughout the building,
>including conference rooms in the deepest bowels of the building where no
>external radio signal can reach. There are a few Verizon repeaters in the
>building, but not where they are needed the most. I don't know if my
>employer has a special relationship with Sprint or if Sprint is just more
>proactive about putting repeaters in office buildings. I would recommend
>that you make some inquiries to see if any carrier has, or is about to
>have, repeaters in the building(s) where you spend most of your time.
>
Remember that Sprint operates at 1900 so the repeaters are a necessity in
the
"deepest bowels" of your building. The VZW repeaters are fewer because they
operate on 850 for the most part.

As to the OP's question Depends on the band that you are using.
850 will penetrate better that 1900
--
Andrew D. Sisson
LG VV-8100 on VZW. User since April 1993
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:12:55 -0000, planetx <planetx@gmail.com> wrote:

>Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
>would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
>placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
>month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
>mobile and longer phone battery life.


It's more a function of the broadcast frequency. Both Cingular and
Verizon use "Cellular" frequencies which have far better building
penetration that the higher frequency "PCS" band that Sprint and
T-Mobile are stuck with.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:50:33 -0400, "Nick Danger"
<yourname@yourdomain.com> wrote:

>
>"planetx" <planetx@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1184116375.876056.156750@o61g2000hsh.googleg roups.com...
>> Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
>> would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
>> placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
>> month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
>> mobile and longer phone battery life.
>
>I work for a Big Corporation in a Big Office Building. Sprint definitely has
>the best building penetration here because they have repeaters scattered
>throughout the building, including conference rooms in the deepest bowels of
>the building where no external radio signal can reach. There are a few
>Verizon repeaters in the building, but not where they are needed the most. I
>don't know if my employer has a special relationship with Sprint or if
>Sprint is just more proactive about putting repeaters in office buildings. I
>would recommend that you make some inquiries to see if any carrier has, or
>is about to have, repeaters in the building(s) where you spend most of your
>time.
>

That would be their home.

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:12:55 -0000, planetx <planetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
>> would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
>> placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
>> month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
>> mobile and longer phone battery life.
>
>
> It's more a function of the broadcast frequency. Both Cingular and
> Verizon use "Cellular" frequencies which have far better building
> penetration that the higher frequency "PCS" band that Sprint and
> T-Mobile are stuck with.

Cingular/AT&T also uses the 1,900 MHz band in some areas.

On 2007-07-12, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:12:55 -0000, planetx <planetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not meaning to start a flame war here, but I am curious which provider
>>> would *theoretically* have better building penetration. Granted, tower
>>> placement, etc. is the biggest concern. My verizon contract is up next
>>> month, and I am leaning towards moving to cingular for mobile to
>>> mobile and longer phone battery life.
>>
>>
>> It's more a function of the broadcast frequency. Both Cingular and
>> Verizon use "Cellular" frequencies which have far better building
>> penetration that the higher frequency "PCS" band that Sprint and
>> T-Mobile are stuck with.
>
> Cingular/AT&T also uses the 1,900 MHz band in some areas.

As does Verizon.

Dennis Ferguson