On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
> plans
> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
2. Very limited handset selection. Probably no tethering.
In article <4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in
<4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
>> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
>> plans
>> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
>> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
>
>1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.
>2. Very limited handset selection. Probably no tethering.
--
John
If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
On 7/20/2010 1:54 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>
> actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.
Depends, their network is nothing to write home about in many areas
(including this one) plus they have the built in handicap of being on
PCS so they have issues with building penetration.
John Navas wrote on [Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:57:28 -0700]:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in
> <4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
>>> plans
>>> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
>>> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
>>
>>1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>
> Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.
Only if you live near a major highway in this area.
In article <i246ef$781$1@news.eternal-september.org>, nospam@insightbb.com says...
>
> Only if you live near a major highway in this area.
Depends on your area. In the Cleveland area, Sprint had a tower at Ohio
306 and Lake Shore Boulevard and because of that, they were the only
carrier that had good coverage in Mentor On The Lake, where I lived.
I had Verizon at the time, and I wrote to the Dublin, Ohio corporate
office asking them to add coverage in MOL, and they eventually did, but
they lagged way behind Sprint in providing coverage there.
On 19/07/10 10:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>
> actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.
You've got to be really careful about distinguishing between postpaid
Sprint coverage and coverage on prepaid services that use Sprint's
network. They are two very different animals, and many people are misled
by clever marketing of the MVNOs (though technically since Sprint now
owns Virgin, it's no longer an MVNO). A postpaid Sprint phone has _far_
greater coverage than a phone on Virgin Mobile, and roaming is a
necessary and essential part of Sprint's coverage (as it also is with
Verizon though to a lesser extent).
If you're on Sprint on postpaid, the coverage is okay because you can
roam onto other CDMA cellular and PCS networks. If they have a presence
in the area you often won't roam onto other CDMA networks unless you can
force the handset to only use the 800 MHz CDMA network, so you don't
automatically get the combined coverage of Sprint, Verizon, U.S.
Cellular, etc.. This means issues with in-building coverage due to
Sprint being on the less desirable 1900 MHz frequency.
The big problem is with the prepaid services that use Sprint's native
network exclusively. Sprint's native network is extremely limited, as
their coverage maps show.
You can see the difference between regular Sprint coverage (which
includes roaming) and Virgin coverage (which does not) by comparing maps.
"http://i31.tinypic.com/27ymjd.jpg"
If you never travel to the white areas on the Virgin map (gray on the
Sprint map) then you'd be fine on Virgin. But there are a LOT of places,
often not all that far out into the boonies, that a Virgin phone won't
have coverage but a Sprint phone will have coverage.
I.e., drive to Yosemite National Park from San Francisco, and you'll
lose Virgin coverage outside of Oakdale and you'll have no coverage in
the park. On Sprint proper you'll roam onto Golden State Cellular as
soon as you leave Oakdale, and you'll have coverage most of the way into
the park, and good coverage in Yosemite Valley.
In short, if you go with Virgin Mobile, or other prepaid providers using
Sprint's network exclusively, you have to understand that your coverage
will be very limited.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:35:37 -0400, in
<i241m6$baq$1@news.eternal-september.org>, George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>On 7/20/2010 1:54 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>
>> actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.
>
>Depends, their network is nothing to write home about in many areas
>(including this one)
All carriers have areas in which they aren't so great.
>plus they have the built in handicap of being on
>PCS so they have issues with building penetration.
That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
really matters is tower location.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:35:40 -0700, in
<4c45a626$0$22115$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>The big problem is with the prepaid services that use Sprint's native
>network exclusively. Sprint's native network is extremely limited, as
>their coverage maps show.
>
>You can see the difference between regular Sprint coverage (which
>includes roaming) and Virgin coverage (which does not) by comparing maps.
>
>"http://i31.tinypic.com/27ymjd.jpg"
>
>If you never travel to the white areas on the Virgin map (gray on the
>Sprint map) then you'd be fine on Virgin. But there are a LOT of places,
>often not all that far out into the boonies, that a Virgin phone won't
>have coverage but a Sprint phone will have coverage.
>
>I.e., drive to Yosemite National Park from San Francisco, and you'll
>lose Virgin coverage outside of Oakdale and you'll have no coverage in
>the park. On Sprint proper you'll roam onto Golden State Cellular as
>soon as you leave Oakdale, and you'll have coverage most of the way into
>the park, and good coverage in Yosemite Valley.
>
>In short, if you go with Virgin Mobile, or other prepaid providers using
>Sprint's network exclusively, you have to understand that your coverage
>will be very limited.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".
If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PL.
--
John
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in
<i246ef$781$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
wrote:
>John Navas wrote on [Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:57:28 -0700]:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in
>> <4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>>> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
>>>> plans
>>>> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
>>>> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
>>>
>>>1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>>even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>>areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>>including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>
>> Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.
>
>Only if you live near a major highway in this area.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
which is actually good, not "very limited".
If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PL.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in
> <i246ef$781$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote on [Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:57:28 -0700]:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in
>>> <4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>>>> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
>>>>> plans
>>>>> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
>>>>> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
>>>>
>>>>1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>>>even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>>>areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>>>including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>>
>>> Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.
>>
>>Only if you live near a major highway in this area.
>
> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
> -Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
>
> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>
> If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
> provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PL.
Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC), in
<i24cu2$v43$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
wrote:
>John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>>
>> If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
>> provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PL.
>
>Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?
Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
too many issues that can interfere with the signal.
It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
as to do the job.
If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
a passive or active (picocell) repeater.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:58:49 -0700]:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC), in
> <i24cu2$v43$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
>
>>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>>>
>>> If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
>>> provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PL.
>>
>>Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?
>
> Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
> too many issues that can interfere with the signal.
>
> It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
> as to do the job.
>
> If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
> a passive or active (picocell) repeater.
On 20/07/10 7:47 AM, Justin wrote:
> John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:47 +0000 (UTC), in
>> <i246ef$781$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin<nospam@insightbb.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote on [Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:57:28 -0700]:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in
>>>> <4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>>>>> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
>>>>>> plans
>>>>>> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
>>>>>> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>>>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>>>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>>>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.
>>>
>>> Only if you live near a major highway in this area.
>>
>> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
>> -Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
>>
>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>>
>> If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
>> provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PL.
>
> Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?
The problem is that some carries try to use the sales pitch that goes
something like 'all carriers are about equal because no carrier provides
100% coverage.' I had that used on me once when I was changing carriers
because there was no coverage at my house. It's clever, but ultimately
faulty logic though unfortunately some people that lack critical
thinking skills are naive enough to fall for that kind of thing.
In reality there are very large differences in coverage. It's not a
matter of chance, it's directly related to a) the technology used (CDMA
is much better than GSM in terms of coverage for a given tower
distribution) b) frequency (cellular is much better than PCS), and c)
how much the carrier is willing to spend on towers in non-urban areas
that are sparsely populated. In non-urban areas the differences are
often huge. In urban areas the differences can be small, though not
always. If you look at the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon provides
coverage that is far superior to the other three major carriers and
every independent survey (since the old AT&T Wireless turned off their
TDMA/AMPS network) has verified this fact. OTOH, in the more densely
packed and flatter areas like the eastern seaboard there are less
differences in quality of coverage between carriers.
There is also a very big difference between "remote areas" and rural or
non-urban areas. Besides coverage in their own local area, what matters
to most people is having coverage in areas they drive through and to.
It's true that no carrier has 100% coverage, but as the coverage maps
clearly show, that does not mean all carrier are equal--far from it. A
few weeks ago someone in the group I was with had their brakes go out on
CA 128 between Albion and Boonville. Fortunately they had Verizon, and
they had roaming coverage on U.S. Cellular, so they could summon
assistance. GSM coverage in this area is very spotty, confined to some
high ridges, while the road is down in the valley. It's definitely
rural, but it's not very remote. Here's the map and where they broke down:
"http://i26.tinypic.com/v6pxer.jpg"--no, there's not 100% coverage, but
there's a very big difference in coverage!
That's why Verizon is consistently ranked as the best carrier by every
statistically sound independent survey, including those from J.D. Power,
Consumers Union, Consumer Checkbook, Yankee Group, etc.. AT&T was
furious, to the point of suing, when Verizon pointed out the significant
coverage differences in their clever, but accurate, "There's a Map for
That" ad campaign. AT&T eventually gave up and dropped the suit after
they were denied an injunction. That ad was only about the 3G coverage
differences, which are very great, but there are also very big
differences in voice coverage.
The problem is that some people get very defensive when the significant
differences between carriers are pointed out to them, and will say
anything to rationalize their own specific purchasing choices, when no
rationalization is really necessary. If someone wants to arrange his
travel routes in a way that he or she is assured of coverage on his or
her carrier then he or she is free to do so. But it's clear that the
vast majority of Americans prefer carriers and networks that provides
the maximum available coverage, be it native or roaming. That's one of
the big reasons that AT&T consistently ranks last in customer satisfaction.
The best advice for someone enticed by the Virgin $25 plan is to at
least carry a prepaid phone on PagePlus with them as a back-up. It will
work on all CDMA networks in the U.S. and Canada. There will be roaming
charges if you're off of Verizon's native network, but at least the
phone will work. It costs as little as $2.50 a month to keep the phone
active. You can simplify things by signing up for Google Voice and
giving out that number, then letting Google Voice try the Virgin number
first, then the PagePlus number.
Consumers who have no technical knowledge of the reasons for the
differences in quality of coverage and service between carriers are
legal prey for the mis-leading advertising employed by some carriers in
their marketing and sales. At least the original poster in this thread
was smart enough to inquire about a plan that on the surface seems to
good to be true.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:03:38 -0700, in
<4c45c8d4$0$22156$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>In reality there are very large differences in coverage. It's not a
>matter of chance, it's directly related to a) the technology used (CDMA
>is much better than GSM in terms of coverage for a given tower
>distribution)
No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.
>) frequency (cellular is much better than PCS),
No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.
>nd c)
>how much the carrier is willing to spend on towers in non-urban areas
>that are sparsely populated.
In such areas, the real issue is roaming coverage agreements.
>In non-urban areas the differences are
>often huge.
But not biased in favor of any one carrier.
>In urban areas the differences can be small, though not
>always. If you look at the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon provides
>coverage that is far superior to the other three major carriers and
>every independent survey (since the old AT&T Wireless turned off their
>TDMA/AMPS network) has verified this fact. ...
No support for that claim, not terribly surprising since it's not true.
>[SNIP rest of anti-GSM, pro-Verizon advocacy]
--
John
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
>What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas, which
>is actually good, not "very limited".
Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the Tragedy of
the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and avaricious landlords
charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit coverage, too. Case in point:
any iPhone article in the tech press, clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk
about navel-gazing!).
Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m. while
you're on the street in Midtown.
Penetration: anything over 500MHz has trouble getting through 1920s thick
plaster and stone walls, and steel building frames, and mesh lathing.
Penetration even varies with the ambient humidity (summer stinks). Thus the
persistence of pagers here well into the new century. They're still de rigeur
for physicians on call in some hospitals.
-Frank, who's enjoyed your broadband tips for what, twelve years now?
On 20/07/10 11:23 AM, Justin wrote:
> ps56k wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:55:01 -0500]:
>> thanks for hijacking the thread on basically the 2nd posting ....
>
> Ironic that you reply to a post that is 100% on topic and *****
>
>> I was focused on the PLANS - and their implied unlimited usage -
I thought that he/she wanted to know the catch(es) on these plans and
why they're so cheap versus other unlimited plans. I was wrong. Maybe
he/she already signed up and is now trying to justify the decision, who
knows?
Yes the usage for messaging, e-mail, data, and web is unlimited, but
they're doing this because a) the coverage is only on Sprint's
relatively limited native network so they have no roaming costs, and b)
they're not offering smart phones and there's no tethering so the data
usage will be minimal (people have gotten tethering to work on some
Virgin Mobile U.S. phones, but it violates the acceptable use policy, so
if you were using it for large quantities of data they'd catch on).
If someone can live with the coverage issues, and doesn't care about a
smart phone, and isn't not going to tether (or is going to tether in
violation of the terms of use) then indeed it's a very good price.
There is no low cost prepaid unlimited (or large quantity) data where
smart phones and tethering are allowed, and at least roaming is allowed
on the voice part of the network.
On 7/20/2010 10:41 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:35:37 -0400, in
> <i241m6$baq$1@news.eternal-september.org>, George
> <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2010 1:54 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article<4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>>
>>> actually sprint's coverage is quite good, no roaming necessary.
>>
>> Depends, their network is nothing to write home about in many areas
>> (including this one)
>
> All carriers have areas in which they aren't so great.
>
>> plus they have the built in handicap of being on
>> PCS so they have issues with building penetration.
>
> That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
> penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
> really matters is tower location.
>
Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
one reason being what I mentioned.
On 7/20/2010 1:43 PM, Frank Haber wrote:
>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>
> Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the
> Tragedy of the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and
> avaricious landlords charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit
> coverage, too. Case in point: any iPhone article in the tech press,
> clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk about navel-gazing!).
>
> Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m.
> while you're on the street in Midtown.
I go there a lot and have never had an issue using VZW. AT&T however is
a much different story.
>
> Penetration: anything over 500MHz has trouble getting through 1920s
> thick plaster and stone walls, and steel building frames, and mesh
> lathing. Penetration even varies with the ambient humidity (summer
> stinks). Thus the persistence of pagers here well into the new century.
> They're still de rigeur for physicians on call in some hospitals.
>
> -Frank, who's enjoyed your broadband tips for what, twelve years now?
On 7/20/2010 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
> John Navas wrote on [Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:57:28 -0700]:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:46:02 -0700, in
>> <4c453813$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/07/10 10:20 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>>> What are we missing in reading about these basic $25 unlimited text/web
>>>> plans
>>>> compared to the ATT, Sprint (VM Carrier), Verizon, T-Mobile plans..
>>>> http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-...alk-plans.html
>>>
>>> 1. Virgin Mobile is limited to Sprint's native network, no roaming, not
>>> even at extra cost. That means that the coverage, outside major urban
>>> areas, sucks. With regular Sprint you can roam onto other CDMA networks
>>> including Verizon, U.S. Cellular, etc.
>>
>> Wrong again: Sprint's coverage is actually quite good.
>
> Only if you live near a major highway in this area.
Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
highways.
On 7/20/2010 10:58 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC), in
> <i24cu2$v43$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin<nospam@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote on [Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:46:26 -0700]:
>
>>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>>>
>>> If you need good coverage in remote areas, no cell carrier is going to
>>> provide it -- you need satallite phone (or PL.
>>
>> Apartment complexes in subdivisions are remote areas?
>
> Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
> too many issues that can interfere with the signal.
>
Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
band they are hand. Couple that with fewer installed sites in many areas
and it just doesn't work out so well.
> It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
> as to do the job.
>
Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.
> If you need better indoor coverage, then either switch carriers, or get
> a passive or active (picocell) repeater.
>
On 20/07/10 10:43 AM, Frank Haber wrote:
>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>
> Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the
> Tragedy of the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and
> avaricious landlords charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit
> coverage, too. Case in point: any iPhone article in the tech press,
> clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk about navel-gazing!).
>
> Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m.
> while you're on the street in Midtown.
I've been in midtown Manhattan many times and never had a problem on
Verizon. AT&T is a disaster there. My nephew lives near Union Square and
his iPhone is unusable in his apartment, whether it's 5:30 p.m. or 5:30
a.m.. He had to give up AT&T when he moved to NYC from Florida for his
internship.
It should not be this way. GSM cell spacing can be denser than CDMA cell
spacing so more subscribers can be served. OTOH For the same amount of
traffic a CDMA network requires less cell sites than a GSM network.
The problems with GSM in NYC are caused by the carriers not deploying
enough cells to meet the demand. While CDMA equipment is more expensive
than GSM equipment, the bigger cost is in the actual real estate for the
cell site.
> Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
> some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.
It's definitely luck. You and I were lucky enough to go to institutions
of higher learning where we could gain the critical thinking skills
necessary to understand that all carriers are not created equal, and
that some spend much more money on their network and some chose newer
and more costly technology that is able to handle more network traffic.
Others were not so lucky and grew more and more clueless, and believe
that wireless coverage is just a matter of luck so they may as well
choose the cheapest carrier. They are the legal prey of the carriers
that provide poorer coverage.
Actually learning critical thinking skills begins much earlier than
college. Those that believe that coverage is a matter of luck are sad
testament to our declining public education system. Watch the movie
_Idiocracy_--it's really happening.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:12 -0400, in
<i2553r$jsg$1@news.eternal-september.org>, George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>On 7/20/2010 10:41 AM, John Navas wrote:
>> That's largely an urban myth -- the higher frequency actually tends to
>> penetrate openings like windows better than lower frequency, but what
>> really matters is tower location.
>>
>Exactly, the frequencies required for PCS require closer spacing with
>one reason being what I mentioned.
That's largely another urban myth -- tower spacing is dominated by
capacity and siting issues.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:02:04 -0700, in
<4c462ae7$0$22163$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 20/07/10 10:43 AM, Frank Haber wrote:
>>> What actually matters to most people is coverage in non-remote areas,
>>> which is actually good, not "very limited".
>>
>> Then there are the really dense areas, like my Manhattan, where the
>> Tragedy of the Commons rules. Overuse, municipal red tape, and
>> avaricious landlords charging lots for parapet space sometimes limit
>> coverage, too. Case in point: any iPhone article in the tech press,
>> clotted together in SF, NYC and DC (talk about navel-gazing!).
>>
>> Case in point: trying to get a call through on any carrier at 5:30 p.m.
>> while you're on the street in Midtown.
>
>I've been in midtown Manhattan many times and never had a problem on
>Verizon. AT&T is a disaster there. My nephew lives near Union Square and
>his iPhone is unusable in his apartment, whether it's 5:30 p.m. or 5:30
>a.m.. He had to give up AT&T when he moved to NYC from Florida for his
>internship.
Does the word anecdotal mean nothing to you?
Because it's bad for him, it must be bad for everyone. Right
Just like the coverage issue in your wife's office that started you on
your anti-GSM crusade.
>It should not be this way. GSM cell spacing can be denser than CDMA cell
>spacing so more subscribers can be served. OTOH For the same amount of
>traffic a CDMA network requires less cell sites than a GSM network.
Neither one of those statements is true. The two technologies have
roughly the same Erlangs, as I documented long ago.
>The problems with GSM in NYC are caused by the carriers not deploying
>enough cells to meet the demand. While CDMA equipment is more expensive
>than GSM equipment, the bigger cost is in the actual real estate for the
>cell site.
Problems with all carriers in NYC are caused by (a) high subscriber
density, (b) siting issues, and (c) urban canyons.
--
John
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:44:36 -0400, in
<i255c2$jsg$4@news.eternal-september.org>, George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>On 7/20/2010 10:58 AM, John Navas wrote:
>> Indoor coverage is not guaranteed with any cellular service -- there are
>> too many issues that can interfere with the signal.
>
>Sure, any one of them that handicaps Sprint and tmobile is they higher
>band they are hand. ...
Not true, as I explained earlier.
>> It's just a matter of luck as to which carriers have towers located so
>> as to do the job.
>
>Luck? more likely who opened their wallet. You may not realize it but
>some folks are quite familiar with infrastructure.
The luck is in where you choose to live.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others 
.
Linear Mode
