Re: Helio is MAD!!

Cross posted in the alt.cellular.cingular and alt.cellular.sprintpcs NGs.

jatkinshelion wrote:
> "Helio Ocean is the iPhone Killer!" - Wall Street Journal


http://www.helio.com

http://compare.helio.com/#homepage

Not bad...not bad at all.

Looks like it uses the Sprint network:

1) "Helio devices are automatically switched between 3G and 1x data
networks depending on availability."

2) Map looks very very much like Sprint's coverage. In fact their map looks
EXACTLY (but not in coverage area) like a typical Sprint map from 2 years
ago with the colors and coverage (two years ago)in my area.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:32:10 -0500, DTC
<no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:

>Cross posted in the alt.cellular.cingular and alt.cellular.sprintpcs NGs.
>
>jatkinshelion wrote:
>> "Helio Ocean is the iPhone Killer!" - Wall Street Journal
>
>
>http://www.helio.com
>
>http://compare.helio.com/#homepage
>
>Not bad...not bad at all.
>
>Looks like it uses the Sprint network:
>
>1) "Helio devices are automatically switched between 3G and 1x data
>networks depending on availability."
>
>2) Map looks very very much like Sprint's coverage. In fact their map looks
>EXACTLY (but not in coverage area) like a typical Sprint map from 2 years
>ago with the colors and coverage (two years ago)in my area.


Yes - for better or worse - Helio uses the Spint PCS Network.

And for worse you're on PCS 1900 MHz, with its poorer coverage per
tower, and poorer building penetration.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...lio/2007-04-09

On Jul 30, 7:46 am, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:32:10 -0500, DTC

> And for worse you're on PCS 1900 MHz, with its poorer coverage per
> tower, and poorer building penetration.

But better due to less probability of congestion that would cause
drops/blocks.

carcarx wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:46 am, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:32:10 -0500, DTC
>
>> And for worse you're on PCS 1900 MHz, with its poorer coverage per
>> tower, and poorer building penetration.
>
> But better due to less probability of congestion that would cause
> drops/blocks.
>

I would much rather have the better coverage on a 800 MHz network and
just go with a carrier that has a good infrastructure.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:04:48 -0000, carcarx <carcarx@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 30, 7:46 am, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:32:10 -0500, DTC
>
>> And for worse you're on PCS 1900 MHz, with its poorer coverage per
>> tower, and poorer building penetration.
>
>But better due to less probability of congestion that would cause
>drops/blocks.


In Houston, TX; I have far, far fewer dropped calls on Cingular/ATT
than I ever did on Sprint; and don't have to be near a window to use
my cell. My son in Los Angeles experienced the same issues. Surely a
made up fact that Sprint is less likely to drop calls.

On 2007-07-30 10:34:34 -0400, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net said:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:04:48 -0000, carcarx <carcarx@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 30, 7:46 am, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:32:10 -0500, DTC
>>
>>> And for worse you're on PCS 1900 MHz, with its poorer coverage per
>>> tower, and poorer building penetration.
>>
>> But better due to less probability of congestion that would cause
>> drops/blocks.
>
>
> In Houston, TX; I have far, far fewer dropped calls on Cingular/ATT
> than I ever did on Sprint; and don't have to be near a window to use
> my cell. My son in Los Angeles experienced the same issues. Surely a
> made up fact that Sprint is less likely to drop calls.

Well, i have the exact same opposite. Sprint user since 2000, dropped
calls with Cingular/ATT the few days i tried them out.

Southwest side, Westheimer, bellaire, galeria area, alief, sugar land,
TMC area...you name it. Generally, i can't stand GSM in the states, it
is so poor..calls fade in and out, choppy quality and so forth.