It is better than Verizon. I had Verizon for 10 years and switched to Sprint
about two years ago. The coverage in SoCal is better. Another plus is that
you can force any of the Sprint phones to roam on Verizon if you would like
even if you are receiving a strong Sprint signal. No other cell phone
provider lets you do that!
I am not a Sprint Shill or a dealer, I am just satisfied with the service
that Sprint provides in SoCal.
Jar-Jar
"Homer HawgSnott" <nowhereagain@hawgsnott.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A03DC5A720DAnowherehawgsnottcom@140.99.99 .130...
> My contact is ending with verizon and am looking at a blackberry with
> unlimited data. How is the coverage and service for southern calif
> customers?
>
> JohnS
Homer HawgSnott wrote:
> My contact is ending with verizon and am looking at a blackberry with
> unlimited data. How is the coverage and service for southern calif
> customers?
>
> JohnS
In the latest Consumer Reports, while Sprint was rated last over all for
L.A. (they were last in 19 out of 20 metro areas), in the four
categories they ranked, Sprint was only a little behind Verizon.
From the people I know with Sprint in Southern California, the coverage
isn't quite as good as Verizon's in terms of "No Service" or dropped
calls, but Sprint isn't any worse than AT&T, and is better than T-Mobile.
I guess you have a reason for leaving Verizon, but understand that in
California they have the best network by a wide margin, both in the
southern and northern parts of the state.
The consumer reports assessment needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I am
with a company that did testing of both Verizon and Sprint phones, and they
found that in the Southern California Area, Sprint and Verizon were equal.
In fact, Verizon doesn't get a signal into many of the offices and labs at
the company that is located on Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad California in the
middle of a large hi-tech industrial park!! On the other hand, Sprint
provided full signal throughtout the buliding.
Don't believe that hype that you read! The folks at Consumer Reports are
biased and are smoking crack. Get a Sprint phone and give it a try. As I
stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on Verizon at
ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal. You
can't do that with any other service provider including Verizon. In reality,
there are some areas where Verizon doesn't provide a usable signal and
Sprint provided a good signal, and vice-versa. It is nice to have the
capability to be able to choose. Sprint gives you the option to choose. If
you set the phone to "roam" then you are using Verizon. Verizon doesn't give
you the option to choose. There are a lot of folks at my company that have
Verizon and wish that they could set the phone to roam on Sprint when they
want to use their phone in one of our labs or conference rooms at our
company in Carlsbad California. On the other hand, if I for any reason ever
need to roam on Verizon, all I need to do is to set the phone to "roam" and
it will use Verizon until I tell it to go back to Sprint or automatic
roaming. Therefore, with Sprint you have the best of both worlds.
"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4761e6bd$0$84163$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Homer HawgSnott wrote:
>> My contact is ending with verizon and am looking at a blackberry with
>> unlimited data. How is the coverage and service for southern calif
>> customers? JohnS
>
> In the latest Consumer Reports, while Sprint was rated last over all for
> L.A. (they were last in 19 out of 20 metro areas), in the four categories
> they ranked, Sprint was only a little behind Verizon.
>
> From the people I know with Sprint in Southern California, the coverage
> isn't quite as good as Verizon's in terms of "No Service" or dropped
> calls, but Sprint isn't any worse than AT&T, and is better than T-Mobile.
>
> I guess you have a reason for leaving Verizon, but understand that in
> California they have the best network by a wide margin, both in the
> southern and northern parts of the state.
On 2007-12-14, SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I guess you have a reason for leaving Verizon, but understand that in
> California they have the best network by a wide margin, both in the
> southern and northern parts of the state.
It really depends on what you need. Out here, 70(ish) miles northeast of
Los Angeles, Verizon has coverage where Sprint has nothing, on National
Trails Highway (old US 66) between Victorville and Barstow, but Sprint has
coverage at my old house in the Sycamore Rocks subdivision of Apple Valley,
where I was *just* out of range of Verizon. Sycamore Rocks is a rather remote
neighborhood on the edge of town.
>>As I stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on Verizon
>>at
ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal. <<
How ya do that? My phone shows roaming selections for Automatic, Sprint and
Analog....... and that's it. Is this handset-dependent?
TL Mitchell wrote:
> "Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote
>
> <snipped>
>
>>> As I stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on Verizon
>>> at
> ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal. <<
>
> How ya do that? My phone shows roaming selections for Automatic, Sprint and
> Analog....... and that's it. Is this handset-dependent?
Well until 2008, if you force it to Analog then you won't be on Sprint,
you'll be on Verizon or AT&T, or one of the many other AMPS networks
scattered around. After Verizon and AT&T shut down AMPS, some rural AMPS
will still be around.
But no, Sprint does not allow Verizon roaming unconditionally. Generally
it's only in areas where Sprint has no network. It's all controlled by
the PRL (preferred roaming list) in the phone. Sometimes if you have a
very old PRL you can roam, but an updated PRL won't roam.
If Sprint allowed subscribers to roam onto Verizon, even in areas where
Sprint had a network but lacked coverage in particular areas, then there
would be a mass migration to Sprint.
On 2007-12-14, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
> The consumer reports assessment needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I am
> with a company that did testing of both Verizon and Sprint phones, and they
> found that in the Southern California Area, Sprint and Verizon were equal.
> In fact, Verizon doesn't get a signal into many of the offices and labs at
> the company that is located on Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad California in the
> middle of a large hi-tech industrial park!! On the other hand, Sprint
> provided full signal throughtout the buliding.
As always, the BEST thing to do is to talk to people who use Carrier X in
the areas where you need coverage, to determine whether X is right for you.
On 2007-12-14, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
> The consumer reports assessment needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I am
> with a company that did testing of both Verizon and Sprint phones, and they
> found that in the Southern California Area, Sprint and Verizon were equal.
[...]
> Don't believe that hype that you read! The folks at Consumer Reports are
> biased and are smoking crack.
I've got a feeling you haven't actually looked at the Consumer Reports
survey. In Los Angeles they actually agree with you, pretty much. Sprint
and Verizon had about the same coverage, with Sprint only dropping calls
a bit more frequently. The thing is, though, Los Angeles is just about
Verizon's worst case metro area in the country according to the survey,
but is pretty close to average for Sprint.
Sprint did end up at the bottom of the "customer satisfaction" ratings
in Los Angeles, but that rating covers a lot more than just coverage and,
having been a Sprint customer for quite a few years, I can also agree that
some things at Sprint, like their billing system and customer service in
general, are truly screwed up.
> Get a Sprint phone and give it a try. As I
> stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on Verizon at
> ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal.
What model phone do you have? I've not seen a Sprint phone that would
let you do that.
Steve Sobol wrote:
> As always, the BEST thing to do is to talk to people who use Carrier X in
> the areas where you need coverage, to determine whether X is right for you.
AMEN!
Regardless of the 28,800 minutes for $60 per month, downloadable rings
tones, switchable face plates, etc...
If the phone doesn't work where use it the most, its worthless.
As I posted a few years ago, AT&T had anon-line questionnaire asking
what features were most important to you. It include switchable
faceplates, flip or candybar form factor, ringtones, wallpaper and
several other mindless non-functional things. Never did ask if voice
quality, coverage, or dropped calls was important.
And yes...I did get a mailer from MCI offering me 28,800 minutes for $60
per month! Knowing that MCI was a Southwestern Bell Mobile reseller, I
knew what the real rates were. The 28,8000 minutes was for 600 peak
minutes, and 1200 mobile to mobile minutes PER MONTH, but advertised
over a whole year.
As one cellular executive was quoted as saying around that time,
"Americans are impressed by big numbers" or to that effect.
On 2007-12-14, SMS ???? ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> TL Mitchell wrote:
>> "Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>> As I stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on Verizon
>>>> at
>> ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal. <<
>>
>> How ya do that? My phone shows roaming selections for Automatic, Sprint and
>> Analog....... and that's it. Is this handset-dependent?
[...]
> But no, Sprint does not allow Verizon roaming unconditionally. Generally
> it's only in areas where Sprint has no network. It's all controlled by
> the PRL (preferred roaming list) in the phone. Sometimes if you have a
> very old PRL you can roam, but an updated PRL won't roam.
I don't know about that. The most recent Sprint PRL I could find
decoded (20229, 7/31/2007) includes as much Verizon coverage in
California as Verizon's own PRL does. If there are roaming restrictions
they aren't being implemented with the PRL.
I just don't know what kind of Sprint phone can be forced to roam in the
presence of any level of native coverage. My Verizon phone might do
it (by forcing it to cellular only) but I've not seen a Sprint phone
with those menus intact.
No! You have a very old Sprint phone, Any of the Sprint all-digital phones
will allow you to force roaming. There are three options: Sprint Only,
Automatic, and Roaming Only.
"TL Mitchell" <tlmitchell99(nospam)@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13m5c12kagd2a7f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote
>
> <snipped>
>
>>>As I stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on
>>>Verizon at
> ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal.
> <<
>
> How ya do that? My phone shows roaming selections for Automatic, Sprint
> and Analog....... and that's it. Is this handset-dependent?
>
> TL
>
This is incorrect information. I have the latest Sprint PRL and can force
roaming on Verizon anytime that I like. The phone will stay in roaming mode
even after power-cycles. Please do some research before posting. :-)
"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4762cbea$0$84200$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> TL Mitchell wrote:
>> "Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>> As I stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on
>>>> Verizon at
>> ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal.
>> <<
>>
>> How ya do that? My phone shows roaming selections for Automatic, Sprint
>> and Analog....... and that's it. Is this handset-dependent?
>
> Well until 2008, if you force it to Analog then you won't be on Sprint,
> you'll be on Verizon or AT&T, or one of the many other AMPS networks
> scattered around. After Verizon and AT&T shut down AMPS, some rural AMPS
> will still be around.
>
> But no, Sprint does not allow Verizon roaming unconditionally. Generally
> it's only in areas where Sprint has no network. It's all controlled by the
> PRL (preferred roaming list) in the phone. Sometimes if you have a very
> old PRL you can roam, but an updated PRL won't roam.
>
> If Sprint allowed subscribers to roam onto Verizon, even in areas where
> Sprint had a network but lacked coverage in particular areas, then there
> would be a mass migration to Sprint.
Any Sprint digital phone that is less than two years old can do it. Just
select "roaming only" mode.
"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfm5rfp.4r.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> On 2007-12-14, SMS ???? ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> TL Mitchell wrote:
>>> "Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>>>> As I stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on
>>>>> Verizon
>>>>> at
>>> ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal.
>>> <<
>>>
>>> How ya do that? My phone shows roaming selections for Automatic, Sprint
>>> and
>>> Analog....... and that's it. Is this handset-dependent?
> [...]
>> But no, Sprint does not allow Verizon roaming unconditionally. Generally
>> it's only in areas where Sprint has no network. It's all controlled by
>> the PRL (preferred roaming list) in the phone. Sometimes if you have a
>> very old PRL you can roam, but an updated PRL won't roam.
>
> I don't know about that. The most recent Sprint PRL I could find
> decoded (20229, 7/31/2007) includes as much Verizon coverage in
> California as Verizon's own PRL does. If there are roaming restrictions
> they aren't being implemented with the PRL.
>
> I just don't know what kind of Sprint phone can be forced to roam in the
> presence of any level of native coverage. My Verizon phone might do
> it (by forcing it to cellular only) but I've not seen a Sprint phone
> with those menus intact.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
I have a Motorola KRZR and had a RAZR before that and a Sanyo before that.
The trick is to get a phone that is less than two years old and that is
digital only (no analog). All Sprint phones digital phones now have a
"roaming only" mode. Go into a Sprint Store and try it.
"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfm5n8c.4r.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> On 2007-12-14, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The consumer reports assessment needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I
>> am
>> with a company that did testing of both Verizon and Sprint phones, and
>> they
>> found that in the Southern California Area, Sprint and Verizon were
>> equal.
> [...]
>> Don't believe that hype that you read! The folks at Consumer Reports are
>> biased and are smoking crack.
>
> I've got a feeling you haven't actually looked at the Consumer Reports
> survey. In Los Angeles they actually agree with you, pretty much. Sprint
> and Verizon had about the same coverage, with Sprint only dropping calls
> a bit more frequently. The thing is, though, Los Angeles is just about
> Verizon's worst case metro area in the country according to the survey,
> but is pretty close to average for Sprint.
>
> Sprint did end up at the bottom of the "customer satisfaction" ratings
> in Los Angeles, but that rating covers a lot more than just coverage and,
> having been a Sprint customer for quite a few years, I can also agree that
> some things at Sprint, like their billing system and customer service in
> general, are truly screwed up.
>
>> Get a Sprint phone and give it a try. As I
>> stated previously, you can force your Sprint Phone to roam on Verizon at
>> ANYTIME reglardless of whether or not you are receiving a Sprint signal.
>
> What model phone do you have? I've not seen a Sprint phone that would
> let you do that.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
>>Any of the Sprint all-digital phones will allow you to force roaming.
>>There are three options: Sprint Only, Automatic, and Roaming Only. <<
Thanks fer the illumination. I picked up a Sanyo PM-8200 2 years ago just
after they discontinued 'em specifically so I could do the freebie
backdoor-tether when I need to. Been an often used feature so I've no plans
to upgrade anytime soon. Analog capability has saved my bacon once or twice
as well.
On 2007-12-15, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
> I have a Motorola KRZR and had a RAZR before that and a Sanyo before that.
> The trick is to get a phone that is less than two years old and that is
> digital only (no analog). All Sprint phones digital phones now have a
> "roaming only" mode. Go into a Sprint Store and try it.
Thanks for that. I tried it with a digital Sanyo in the Sprint store
in Palo Alto, CA and it did exactly what you suggested. Put it in "roaming
only" and it roams on SID 40 at 800 MHz.
That's a handy feature. My Verizon phone is unreliable in Toronto
since it keeps moving from roaming service to Verizon service that
it can sometimes hear across the lake but which is too marginal to
actually work. If my phone had that feature it would fix that problem.
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-12-15, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I have a Motorola KRZR and had a RAZR before that and a Sanyo before that.
>> The trick is to get a phone that is less than two years old and that is
>> digital only (no analog). All Sprint phones digital phones now have a
>> "roaming only" mode. Go into a Sprint Store and try it.
>
> Thanks for that. I tried it with a digital Sanyo in the Sprint store
> in Palo Alto, CA and it did exactly what you suggested. Put it in "roaming
> only" and it roams on SID 40 at 800 MHz.
>
> That's a handy feature. My Verizon phone is unreliable in Toronto
> since it keeps moving from roaming service to Verizon service that
> it can sometimes hear across the lake but which is too marginal to
> actually work. If my phone had that feature it would fix that problem.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
Now I see the catch, you have to get a digital-only phone and give up
vast areas of analog coverage in order to be able to have coverage in
metropolitan areas by being able to force the phone to roam onto
Verizon. Still for those that don't go out in the boonies, forcing the
phone to roam onto Verizon would be a very useful feature, especially in
California, where Sprint coverage is so marginal.
I was pleased to see Verizon introducing a new tri-mode phone (LG
VX5400) even when they are probably going to turn off most or all of
their AMPS in 2008, so obviously they recognize that some subscribers
still plan on using non-Verizon AMPS well into the future.
You would not want to roam on analog anyway. Any geek kid with a modified
police scanner can listen to your phone call!! Also, Sprint coverage in
Southern California is equal to if not better than Verizon coverage. Please
get a Sprint phone and do some testing like our company did before you
comment. Nevertheless, with the Sprint phone, you have the best of both
worlds. You can roam on Verizon at will if you want to do that.
"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47653c65$0$84247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2007-12-15, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> I have a Motorola KRZR and had a RAZR before that and a Sanyo before
>>> that. The trick is to get a phone that is less than two years old and
>>> that is digital only (no analog). All Sprint phones digital phones now
>>> have a "roaming only" mode. Go into a Sprint Store and try it.
>>
>> Thanks for that. I tried it with a digital Sanyo in the Sprint store
>> in Palo Alto, CA and it did exactly what you suggested. Put it in
>> "roaming
>> only" and it roams on SID 40 at 800 MHz.
>>
>> That's a handy feature. My Verizon phone is unreliable in Toronto
>> since it keeps moving from roaming service to Verizon service that
>> it can sometimes hear across the lake but which is too marginal to
>> actually work. If my phone had that feature it would fix that problem.
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> Now I see the catch, you have to get a digital-only phone and give up vast
> areas of analog coverage in order to be able to have coverage in
> metropolitan areas by being able to force the phone to roam onto Verizon.
> Still for those that don't go out in the boonies, forcing the phone to
> roam onto Verizon would be a very useful feature, especially in
> California, where Sprint coverage is so marginal.
>
> I was pleased to see Verizon introducing a new tri-mode phone (LG VX5400)
> even when they are probably going to turn off most or all of their AMPS in
> 2008, so obviously they recognize that some subscribers still plan on
> using non-Verizon AMPS well into the future.
Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> You would not want to roam on analog anyway. Any geek kid with a modified
> police scanner can listen to your phone call!!
Only half of it. In any case, there are still vast areas of the United
States where it's analog or nothing. You wouldn't want to do your
banking over AMPS, but for non-confidential conversations it's fine.
Also, Sprint coverage in
> Southern California is equal to if not better than Verizon coverage. Please
> get a Sprint phone and do some testing like our company did before you
> comment.
Sprint even lets you out of contract without an ETF in California, if
you can show a lack of coverage at your home or office. The coverage is
very poor. Just check out the latest Consumer Reports. My wife's office
was using Sprint and they had to drop it because the employees travel to
the far reaches of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties where there is no
Sprint coverage. They were having to carry along their own Verizon
phones to use, and then they were demanding reimbursement for their
personal cell phone bills, and threatening to go to the union because
they were required to be in contact, but the company wasn't paying for
the equipment that was necessary.
Now in LA it's true that Verizon doesn't beat Sprint by as much as in
Northern California, so if you never leave LA Sprint might be okay,
especially if you do the forced roaming trick.
Like you say, it depends where you are. Here in S, SE, NE Wisc.,
Sprint PCS covers all if verizon's coverage and then some. If you were
out of Sprint PCS coverage and forced, or just allowed, your phone to
roam, it would probably be on uscellular.
Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-12-16, SMS 斯蒂文• å¤ <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sprint even lets you out of contract without an ETF in California
>
> They did that for my brother-in-law when he moved up to California City
> (Kern County, north of Edwards AF. They have no native coverage there.
>
> Granted - Cal City IS in the middle of nowhere, but still.
My old boss lived in Fremont, and they let him out. Not in the middle of
nowhere at all.
One colleague of mine was asking me about which phone to get for her son
that was going to Berkeley. She told me that she had Sprint, but that
she had never had coverage at her house in Cupertino. She lived in an
area where Sprint had been wanting to cover for a long time, but there
were no good commercial areas where they could place a cell site, and
the residents all prevented them from putting a site near their homes.
Two of the major reasons why Sprint and T-Mobile have such poor coverage
in many areas are because a) they were the latecomers and didn't have
the opportunity to run around putting up sites everywhere before people
realized what was happening, and b) they are at 1900 MHz because they
were latecomers and the prime 800 MHz spectrum was gone.
DTC wrote:
> SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>> the residents all prevented them from putting a site near their homes.
>
> Fortunately the days are coming to an end where local opposition can't
> stop a tower from going up.
You can no longer stop a tower in an area where the zoning is such that
it would otherwise be allowed and it is being opposed based on fears of
radio waves, or because it is aesthetically objectionable.
The problem is getting a zoning variance for a tower in an area where it
would not normally be allowed due to the zoning. In areas where there
are large suburbs with no commercial areas close enough for a tower, the
carriers run into trouble. If there's a church in the area they'll try
for a tower inside a cross (which carrier would Jesus use?). They'll
sometimes try for a fake tree tower. This is where Sprint and T-Mobile
have run into trouble in my area. They are constantly showing up at
planning commission meetings seeking variances to put up towers, and
they are almost always not given a variance. In one recent case,
T-Mobile was allowed to put up a tower with the only restriction being
that they had to shield the equipment pod from view with some sort of a
wall of green screen on top of the building. They declined to put up the
tower because of this small extra expense.
It's very different than the FCC rules on satellite dishes on homes,
where you cannot have any zoning restrictions on them.
SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> If there's a church in the area they'll try
> for a tower inside a cross (which carrier would Jesus use?).
I found a web page that had artists' drawings of cellphone camo. One was
a picture of Jesus floating around a church steeple placing cross shaped
antennas on it.
On 2007-12-17, SMS ???? ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> realized what was happening, and b) they are at 1900 MHz because they
> were latecomers and the prime 800 MHz spectrum was gone.
The Consumer's Report data doesn't really support the view that
1900 MHz is a particular disadvantage in metro areas, or that
800 MHz is a significant advantage. Being an 800 MHz operator
didn't help AT&T in Boston, Washington DC or Minneapolis, nor did
being a 1900 MHz operator seem to hinder Verizon in Miami, Tampa
or Dallas.
On 2007-12-17, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
> The Consumer's Report data doesn't really support the view that
> 1900 MHz is a particular disadvantage in metro areas, or that
> 800 MHz is a significant advantage.
Of course not. There are a lot more people in metro areas and it's more
practical, from a financial standpoint, to put more antennas up.
> Of course not. There are a lot more people in metro areas and it's more
> practical, from a financial standpoint, to put more antennas up.
There's also a physically related issue: Although pathloss is generally
somewhat higher at 1900 MHz than at 850 MHz (10 dB for typical paths is
an often quoted number) once a carrier has paid the piper and put in the
additional density required to support full coverage with the required
shorter radio paths, that carrier is at a slight advantage. This is
because the actual decrease in signal level as a function of distance is
at least proportional to distance cubed and perhaps to the 4th power or
higher, at both frequencies.
Thus it may be a penalty at market entry since a higher density of basis
are required but once that's paid, there's potential for better coverage
at higher rates with the infrastructure. 3G performance may then be
available over a larger percentage of the total area served.
A similar effect is obvious for other services. For example, it takes
perhaps a prohibitively large amount of infrastructure and high density
to cover a metro area with WiFi. Many of the proposed deployments have
folded. However, if one DID get a whole city covered with the required
few-hundred-feet access point spacing sort of density, then there would
indeed be far better performance available to the end users, as compared
to 2G or even 3G mobile services.
Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-12-17, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> The Consumer's Report data doesn't really support the view that
>> 1900 MHz is a particular disadvantage in metro areas, or that
>> 800 MHz is a significant advantage.
>
> Of course not. There are a lot more people in metro areas and it's more
> practical, from a financial standpoint, to put more antennas up.
The problem comes when the metro areas have large suburban towns where
there is no place that the zoning allows towers. That's what's occurred
in my city, where Sprint and T-Mobile are always begging for permission
to put up towers in residential areas, and the residents in the affected
areas always organize to oppose them. There is no political upside in
approving the towers since in a recent survey it was found that Sprint
and T-Mobile have very little market share in this area.
Sprint Coverage/service in SoCal? 
. They have no native coverage there.
Linear Mode
