Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year

On 8/22/2011 10:34 AM, nospam wrote:

<snip>

> there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> matter.

Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
capacity but they charge so much for it. Well except Pageplus, which
recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5¢ each
(from 8¢), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
2000 to 3000.

In article <4e52d850$0$2182$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> > messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> > matter.
>
> Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
> capacity but they charge so much for it.

it's true that text messages are ridiculously overpriced, but that's
not the point.

if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
and text for *free). they do use data but since text messages are
small, it will have minimal impact.

> Well except Pageplus, which
> recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5¢ each
> (from 8¢), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
> 2000 to 3000.

can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.

On 8/22/2011 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:

> can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
> good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
> text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.

Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.

In article <4e52e2c7$0$2170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.

on-network roaming is outside your home city but on their towers (in
this case, sprint since it's an mvno). off-network is for other towers.

On 8/22/2011 4:26 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4e52e2c7$0$2170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
>> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

Not according to Sprint's and Platinumtel's own maps.

Some of my test zips when evaluating carriers are (with Platinumtel
coverage listed):

Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
Yosemite NP, 95389: None
Glacier NP, 59434: None
Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

Every one of those locations has coverage on Sprint postpaid because of
included roaming onto Verizon, Golden State Cellular, or U.S. Cellular.
But on Platinumtel or Virgin you can't roam, even at extra cost. That's
always been the issue with Sprint MVNOs, they are okay in urban areas
where Sprint has a network, but useless in most rural areas (other than
for 911 calls), where Sprint coverage is roaming coverage.

Everyone of those locations also has coverage on Pageplus, albeit at
extra cost if it's on U.S. Cellular or Golden State Cellular. I got
dinged on that last month in Oregon, but only for 29¢. I was coming into
Medford on Crater Lake Highway and was roaming onto U.S. Cellular.

Sprint can be a very good deal because of roaming, other than the
problem that the phone won't roam if it detects a Sprint signal too weak
to make or receive calls on. This is a big problem with Sprint in my
area, where they have coverage, but it's marginal in may areas. You can
no longer force the handset to roam onto Verizon.

On 8/22/2011 5:00 PM, SMS wrote:

> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> Glacier NP, 59434: None
> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.

In article <4e52ef9d$0$2165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> > Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> > Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> > Glacier NP, 59434: None
> > Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> > Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>
> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.

those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
much coverage there.

On 8/22/2011 5:32 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4e52ef9d$0$2165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
>>> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
>>> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
>>> Glacier NP, 59434: None
>>> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
>>> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>>
>> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>
> those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
> much coverage there.

But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.

But yes, if you never leave urban areas, you can get by with a carrier
that has poor rural coverage, and I know there are people that never go
on trips outside cities. A while back I recall one person stating that
because of Cingular's lack of coverage in many parts of northern
California he had to plan his vacation travels around where they had
coverage! Personally I can't imagine doing this sort of thing. Even if I
had a carrier with poor rural coverage for $30 a year I'd keep a phone
active on Pageplus just as a safety net.

In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
> >
> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
> > much coverage there.
>
> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.

there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
and t-mobile to care.

nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>> >
>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>> > much coverage there.
>>
>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>
> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
> and t-mobile to care.

Glacier: 2216109 last year
Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

In article <j2v0th$utf$1@dont-email.me>, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
wrote:

> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

so at best, a little more than 1% of the population.

In article <4e52ef9d$0$2165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...

> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.


No, it would *not.*

Yes, some rural areas would be covered under the merged company that
weren't previously covered by one carrier or the other.

The benefit wouldn't be all that great. Certainly not as awesome as AT&T
wants to claim.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

In article <j2v0th$utf$1@dont-email.me>, Justin says...

> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

The question is whether PagePlus has hired Mr. Scharf yet. He'd make a
good shill.

Seriously, Steven, we all know you're happy with PagePlus. We're aware
that there are areas covered by Verizon that aren't covered by the other
carriers. But could you do all of us a favor and stop crowing about how
PagePlus is God's gift to the American cellular consumer? Because it
isn't. It's not the perfect solution for everyone.



--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>>> >
>>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>>> > much coverage there.
>>>
>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>>
>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>> and t-mobile to care.
>
>Glacier: 2216109 last year
>Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

Would it be safe to assume that those are visitor totals?

If so, how many are US citizens? I know when I go to a National Park
I'm much more likely to hear people speaking languages other than
English.

Second, of the visitors who live in this country, how many are at&t
customers, or T-Mo customers, or even Sprint customers? A few
thousand? A hundred thousand? Not nearly enough for the carriers to
worry about.

--
Paul Miner

On 8/22/2011 6:12 PM, nospam wrote:

> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
> and t-mobile to care.

In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. In 2010, over 4
million people visited Yosemite, and 1.6 million visited Glacier
National Park.

It's clearly enough for AT&T to have put in a cell in Yosemite Valley.
Verizon and Sprint rely on a roaming partner. T-Mobile has no coverage
at all (other than 911).

Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:59:47 -0500]:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>>> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>>>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>>>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>>>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>>>> > much coverage there.
>>>>
>>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>>>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>>>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>>>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>>>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>>>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>>>
>>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>>> and t-mobile to care.
>>
>>Glacier: 2216109 last year
>>Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
>
> Would it be safe to assume that those are visitor totals?
>
> If so, how many are US citizens? I know when I go to a National Park
> I'm much more likely to hear people speaking languages other than
> English.
>
> Second, of the visitors who live in this country, how many are at&t
> customers, or T-Mo customers, or even Sprint customers? A few
> thousand? A hundred thousand? Not nearly enough for the carriers to
> worry about.

Why do you have to live in the US to have a cell phone?
I know when I travel abroad I buy a burner and a local SIM

EVery time I have been to Glacier, and it's 7 or 8 times as we used to
have close by relatives, the visitors were very white and mostly american.

At 22 Aug 2011 16:14:07 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.


It's not that strange.

If you recall, the original definition of "roaming" was simply using your
phone outside your home market. Until (the old) AT&T offered the "One
Rate" plan in the late 90s ushering in the current era of "nationwide
coverage", you paid roaming charges when traveling outside your home area
even in areas covered by your own carrier. T-Mobile and Alltel still
offered low-cost regional plans that charged for in-network roaming up
until just a few years ago. (When I lived in Missouri back at the turn
of the century, I had a $50/month T-Mo plan that included 3000minutes for
calls placed from and to Kansas and Missouri. Roaming outside those two
states cost $0.49/min, and calling outside those states cost $0.10/min
long-distance!)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:59:18 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:59:47 -0500]:
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>>>> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>>>>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>>>>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>>>>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>>>>> > much coverage there.
>>>>>
>>>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>>>>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>>>>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>>>>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>>>>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>>>>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>>>>
>>>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>>>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>>>> and t-mobile to care.
>>>
>>>Glacier: 2216109 last year
>>>Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
>>
>> Would it be safe to assume that those are visitor totals?
>>
>> If so, how many are US citizens? I know when I go to a National Park
>> I'm much more likely to hear people speaking languages other than
>> English.
>>
>> Second, of the visitors who live in this country, how many are at&t
>> customers, or T-Mo customers, or even Sprint customers? A few
>> thousand? A hundred thousand? Not nearly enough for the carriers to
>> worry about.
>
>Why do you have to live in the US to have a cell phone?

I assume you meant to ask, why do you have to live in the US to be a
customer of one of our wireless providers? I suppose the answer is
that it mostly depends on their respective billing policies. Maybe
they want their customers to have a billing address in this country to
make collections easier. *shrug*

>I know when I travel abroad I buy a burner and a local SIM
>
>EVery time I have been to Glacier, and it's 7 or 8 times as we used to
>have close by relatives, the visitors were very white and mostly american.

I visited Glacier about 25-30 times between 1991 and 1997 and I
definitely heard non-English far more than not. I suppose both of our
experiences are valid.

--
Paul Miner

At 22 Aug 2011 19:13:29 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 6:12 PM, nospam wrote:
>
> > there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
> > glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
> > and t-mobile to care.
>
> In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. In 2010, over
> 4 million people visited Yosemite, and 1.6 million visited Glacier
> National Park.
>
> It's clearly enough for AT&T to have put in a cell in Yosemite Valley.
> Verizon and Sprint rely on a roaming partner. T-Mobile has no coverage
> at all (other than 911).


Verizon uses a roaming partner because they have no license to operate in
that area.

There are opposite examples, of course. Large swaths of New Mexico
(including a good chunk of highway between Santa Fe and Roswell) have no
Verizon service but both AT&T and T-Mo have coverage because the sole
carrier there (Plateau Wireless) happens to be GSM rather than CDMA, so
Verizon can't roam on them.

My own neighborhood, a twenty year-old subdivision in suburban Denver had
no Verizon or AT&T service when I moved here in 2003, but had decent
Sprint, T-Mo and Nextel service. Verizon finally had coverage by 2005 or
so, and AT&T a year or so after that. (That situation shook my faith in
the supposed superiority of 800MHz carriers!)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:38:57 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>If you recall, the original definition of "roaming" was simply using your
>phone outside your home market... you paid roaming charges when
> traveling outside your home area even in areas covered
>by your own carrier.

Yep, I'm still on one of those Verizon voice plans. It's called a
Legacy plan because it hasn't been offered to new customers in several
years. If I'm anywhere outside my home metro area I'm charged roaming
for voice calls, even if I'm on a Verizon network. Interestingly, I
also have unlimited data on the same phone and there are no extra data
charges no matter where I am (in the US) or whose network I'm on...

On 22/08/11 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:

> if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
> messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
> and text for *free).

This is completely worthless for people to text YOU for the first time.
I frequently use text messaging to reach someone who I am trying to
call (not anyone I know) who has a voicemail box that has not be set up
yet, or is full. I figure if they don't have a working voicemail box
odds are good that they prefer text messages to voicemail. But if they
don't have a text messaging plan and rely solely on some non-standard
text ap, I can't reach them by sending a text message to their cell
phone number.

jc

In article <j2vl1a$okf$1@dont-email.me>, jcdill
<jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> > if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
> > messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
> > and text for *free).
>
> This is completely worthless for people to text YOU for the first time.

not at all. it works just fine.

> I frequently use text messaging to reach someone who I am trying to
> call (not anyone I know) who has a voicemail box that has not be set up
> yet, or is full. I figure if they don't have a working voicemail box
> odds are good that they prefer text messages to voicemail. But if they
> don't have a text messaging plan and rely solely on some non-standard
> text ap, I can't reach them by sending a text message to their cell
> phone number.

there's nothing non-standard and you can send a text message to their
cellphone number.

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:220820112032502273%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <4e52ef9d$0$2165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
>> > Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
>> > Yosemite NP, 95389: None
>> > Glacier NP, 59434: None
>> > Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
>> > Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>>
>> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>
> those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
> much coverage there.

I have no dog in this fight but I've used both Sprint and PP. And
interestingly enough I do go to rural and some not so rural areas where PP
works and Sprint does not.

On 8/23/2011 12:31 AM, jcdill wrote:
> On 22/08/11 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>> if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
>> messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
>> and text for *free).
>
> This is completely worthless for people to text YOU for the first time.

That's true, unless you give out your Google Voice number to people
rather than your cell phone number. I now give out my Google Voice
number because a) I'd rather pick up the call on a landline if I'm at
home or work than on the cell phone because of the voice quality, and b)
I prefer the voice mail on Google since it e-mails a transcription of
the call to me.

> I frequently use text messaging to reach someone who I am trying to call
> (not anyone I know) who has a voicemail box that has not be set up yet,
> or is full. I figure if they don't have a working voicemail box odds are
> good that they prefer text messages to voicemail. But if they don't have
> a text messaging plan and rely solely on some non-standard text ap, I
> can't reach them by sending a text message to their cell phone number.

Few people turn off pay-as-you-go texting even if they have no texting
plan, though they are often annoyed at receiving junk texts. And of
course for sending text messages, you can do it via the web to their
cell phone number using Google Voice, or via e-mail using one of the
e-mail to text e-mail addresses:

Sprint: phonenumber@messaging.sprintpcs.com
Verizon/Pageplus: phonenumber@vtext.com
T-Mobile: phonenumber@tmomail.net
AT&T: phonenumber@txt.att.net
Virgin: phonenumber@vmobl.com
Boost: phonenumber@myboostmobile.com
Nextel: phonenumber@messaging.nextel.com
MetroPCS: phonenumber@mymetropcs.com

The bottom line is that if you have unlimited data already, you can
structure things to use very few text messages.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>and t-mobile to care.

Exactly.

It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.

Most people don't travel out of the country, and if they do they don't
care about whether it can get overseas 3G or even bringing their phone
with them and (1) get dinged on roaming charges or (2) unlock their
phone and use a foreign SIM. And most people don't flip out if their
phone's camera isn't a good as a DSLR.

On 8/23/2011 7:30 AM, Anonymous wrote:

> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
> take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
> of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
> 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.

Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users have
consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in
selecting a carrier. The top tier carriers have formed cross-roaming
agreements with smaller carriers in order to provide rural coverage.

In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. including 4
million to Yosemite, and 1.6 million to Glacier. Of course some of those
280 million people were counted multiple times because they visited
multiple parks. Probably only 75-100 million individuals. Ditto for
Yosemite where some of those 4 million visitors were double counted. But
still, it's a significant number of people, and AT&T felt it prudent to
install cells in the busiest part of the park, and Verizon and Sprint
felt it prudent to have a cross-roaming agreement with the rural CDMA
carrier, Golden State Cellular.

Besides coverage in the park itself, the adjacent areas to the park also
need to be considered. For example, if you drive to Yosemite from the
San Francisco Bay Area, you'll lose native coverage on Sprint, Verizon,
AT&T, and T-Mobile somewhere outside of Oakdale on CA 120. On Sprint and
Verizon you'll roam at no charge on Golden State Cellular (with spotty
coverage) until Yosemite. AT&T covers Yosemite Valley, but Golden State
Cellular covers some other parts of the park like down by Yosemite West.
With T-Mobile you have no coverage, they do not have a cross-roaming
agreement with AT&T for this area. With Platinumtel, Virgin, or any MVNO
that does not include roaming off of Verizon or Sprint you'll have no
coverage. With CDMA MVNOs that allow roaming, even if it's at extra
cost, you will have coverage. With AT&T's MVNO's you'll have coverage.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/23/2011 7:30 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
>> take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
>> of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
>> 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.
>
>Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users have
>consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in
>selecting a carrier. The top tier carriers have formed cross-roaming
>agreements with smaller carriers in order to provide rural coverage.
>
>In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. including 4
>million to Yosemite, and 1.6 million to Glacier. Of course some of those
>280 million people were counted multiple times because they visited
>multiple parks. Probably only 75-100 million individuals.

Delusional. There are 388 national parks. The few you mention are a
minor percentage.
Besides visiting multiple parks, visitors visit the same park multiple
times. Your numbers are vastly inflated.
How many times a year do you go to Yosemite to yak on a cell phone?
Coverage is indeed the most important factor to me, then price.
But if price is too high coverage doesn't matter. I'll do without.
T-Mobile prepaid works fine for my needs.
I'm never out of coverage where I go.
And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
on my cell phone.
But if Yosemite coverage is important to you, I won't argue with that.

--Vic

On 8/23/2011 8:53 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

> And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
> on my cell phone.

It's not a question of wanting to yak on a phone, it's a question of
needing to do so under certain circumstance. For example two years ago
we went to Yosemite in the winter. I went to get the keys to the place
we were rented which should have been left out, but weren't. Since I had
coverage I could call the night number and someone came with a key. If I
hadn't been able to use the available network I'd have to have driven
about an hour, in a snowstorm, to a pay phone, then back again.

The excuse that since you're in a national park, or especially driving
to a park, you would have no need for a cell phone is very weak.
Especially since so many pay phones have been removed.

My estimates were very conservative. Most people visit not more than one
National Park per year, some visit more than ten per year, or have
repeat visits. It's not a stretch to say that the 280 million visits
represent 75 million separate visitors, but even at 50 million, 25
million, or 10 million, it's still significant.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:02:24 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/23/2011 8:53 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
>> on my cell phone.
>
>It's not a question of wanting to yak on a phone, it's a question of
>needing to do so under certain circumstance. For example two years ago
>we went to Yosemite in the winter. I went to get the keys to the place
>we were rented which should have been left out, but weren't. Since I had
>coverage I could call the night number and someone came with a key. If I
>hadn't been able to use the available network I'd have to have driven
>about an hour, in a snowstorm, to a pay phone, then back again.
>
>The excuse that since you're in a national park, or especially driving
>to a park, you would have no need for a cell phone is very weak.
>Especially since so many pay phones have been removed.
>
>My estimates were very conservative. Most people visit not more than one
>National Park per year, some visit more than ten per year, or have
>repeat visits. It's not a stretch to say that the 280 million visits
>represent 75 million separate visitors, but even at 50 million, 25
>million, or 10 million, it's still significant.

You're doing right to have coverage at Yosemite in a snowstorm.
I don't live so dangerously.
You're right about scarcity of pay phones too.
75 million is 25% of the U.S. population. Doubtful.
Season and lifetime "senior" passes make for repeat visitors.
Again, that's 388 parks, not the few you mentioned, so that number is
irrelevant to coverage in national parks.
I have relatives in Florida who go to Disney World 6-8 times every
year. Unbelievable.
Anyway, even if the number is many millions visiting national parks,
I'm not one of them, so it's immaterial to my needed coverage.

--Vic

On 23/08/11 12:35 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<j2vl1a$okf$1@dont-email.me>, jcdill
> <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
>>> messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
>>> and text for *free).
>>
>> This is completely worthless for people to text YOU for the first time.
>
> not at all. it works just fine.
>
>> I frequently use text messaging to reach someone who I am trying to
>> call (not anyone I know) who has a voicemail box that has not be set up
>> yet, or is full. I figure if they don't have a working voicemail box
>> odds are good that they prefer text messages to voicemail. But if they
>> don't have a text messaging plan and rely solely on some non-standard
>> text ap, I can't reach them by sending a text message to their cell
>> phone number.
>
> there's nothing non-standard and you can send a text message to their
> cellphone number.

Can you explain how the cell company's equipment knows to deliver a text
sent to their cell phone number to this free text messaging app when the
customer doesn't have text enabled with the cell company? Because I'm
having a hard time imaging why or how the cell company would allow a
text sent into their system to be delivered to the app without the
customer paying some fee to the cell company for text messaging on that
number.

jc