Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #70361 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-01 04:44 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-01-13 04:55 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 133 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-01 04:44 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2020-08-01 10:50 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-01 18:24 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2020-08-01 19:29 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-02 02:08 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-02 13:19 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2020-08-02 11:21 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-02 16:10 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2020-08-02 08:55 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-02 22:08 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2020-08-02 20:29 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-02 20:57 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 00:04 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-02 22:43 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 22:08 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 22:03 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 00:03 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-02 20:43 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 00:05 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-02 22:43 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-02 13:54 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> - 2020-08-02 16:07 -0500
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2020-08-02 16:16 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-02 16:31 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-02 19:38 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2020-08-02 16:47 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-03 08:37 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 12:36 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-03 10:24 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 13:41 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 18:21 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-03 17:19 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 21:48 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-03 19:27 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 10:05 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-04 08:15 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 12:27 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-04 12:13 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-03 17:13 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-04 03:19 +0000
Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-04 10:10 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-08-04 14:42 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 18:00 -0400
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-05 00:41 +0000
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-08-05 08:18 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-06 07:15 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-06 10:27 -0400
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2020-08-05 11:34 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 18:18 -0400
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2020-08-05 20:28 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-06 07:13 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-06 10:27 -0400
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 18:43 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-06 19:24 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 00:58 -0400
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 09:07 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-07 10:44 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 14:39 -0400
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2020-08-10 14:45 +0000
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-10 10:54 -0400
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-06 09:48 -0700
Re: Keeping a phone active at no monthly cost [was: Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls] Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-06 06:24 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> - 2020-08-02 19:16 -0500
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2020-08-02 17:40 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2020-08-02 14:56 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2020-08-05 14:10 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2020-08-05 15:14 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 18:18 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-02 21:56 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2020-08-02 15:56 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 18:40 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 18:02 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 22:05 +0200
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-03 13:12 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 21:12 +0000
Re: Ignoring posts "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 23:15 +0200
Re: Ignoring posts Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 21:53 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-03 17:21 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-04 09:51 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 13:07 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2020-08-04 17:56 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 14:09 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-04 23:49 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 00:47 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-05 02:03 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 02:25 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-05 22:02 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 22:08 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-05 21:07 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-06 00:17 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-05 04:50 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 08:13 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-05 14:06 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-05 22:11 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-06 19:08 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-07 08:31 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 11:40 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-07 14:31 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 14:39 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-07 12:56 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 15:59 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-07 16:36 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 19:47 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-07 17:32 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> - 2020-08-07 19:29 -0500
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 20:34 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-07 23:52 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 19:56 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> - 2020-08-07 19:14 -0500
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 20:21 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> - 2020-08-07 19:20 -0500
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-08 22:29 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-05 05:30 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 08:48 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-05 18:18 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 22:08 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-04 11:35 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 14:41 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-04 12:47 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 16:14 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 21:18 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-03 12:47 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2020-08-03 11:04 -0700
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 14:23 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 18:52 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 14:54 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 21:44 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 18:54 -0400
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2020-08-03 20:18 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> - 2020-08-03 21:43 +0000
Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-13 04:55 +0000
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-04 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgc3mm$f83$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70425 |
On 8/3/2020 2:21 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of Sprint/T-Mobile, > coverage ius much better. Wow, who mentioned that? Sprint and T-Mobile pretty much both had the same very limited non-urban coverage, so combining coverage wouldn't have helped much. What Sprint had (and still has for now according to their map) is extensive Verizon roaming, at least for voice, SMS, and 3G data, as well as some LTE data. If you look at Sprint's maps, you still see a lot of cross-hatched yellow areas with coverage, where T-Mobile's maps show none, but that's for postpaid Sprint, "Extended 4G LTE These roaming areas are included in your plan. Some services may not be available." If you switch the map to "voice" the Verizon roaming expands dramatically, for now, but once CDMA is gone, probably that roaming will be gone. In the less populated parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, Sprint still offers (according to their map) a great deal of Verizon roaming for voice and SMS. These are not areas "in the middle of nowhere," they're often just a few miles outside of urban areas, where neither Sprint nor T-Mobile have their own coverage. I can't imagine that T-Mobile will retain all of Sprint's Verizon roaming going forward When Verizon's CDMA network is shut down they'll automatically lose vast areas of voice coverage where T-Mobile has no native coverage. If you're a Sprint subscriber that was okay with Sprint's limited native coverage, because Verizon roaming compensated for it, then you're probably going to be very unhappy when that roaming is no longer available.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-04 13:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <040820201307286909%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70454 |
In article <rgc3mm$f83$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > > Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of Sprint/T-Mobile, > > coverage ius much better. > > Wow, who mentioned that? common sense, since they each cover areas the other does not. combined, it will be better than each alone. > Sprint and T-Mobile pretty much both had the same very limited non-urban > coverage, so combining coverage wouldn't have helped much. nonsense. sprint's coverage is better than verizon, according to actual surveys. <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Plans-In-San-Francisc o> While no carrier's perfect, all four of the major networks perform well throughout San Francisco. AT&T and Sprint's networks blanket San Francisco, while Verizon and T-Mobile are only a few percentage points away. sprint in particular is in second place with a 99.98% coverage, whereas verizon is *last* at 94.93%, behind t-mobile at 95.02%. > If you're a Sprint subscriber that was okay with Sprint's limited native > coverage, because Verizon roaming compensated for it, then you're > probably going to be very unhappy when that roaming is no longer available. sprint does not have limited native coverage. far from it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-04 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0mh9c7jjlfkx6000@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70455 |
nospam wrote: >In article <rgc3mm$f83$1@dont-email.me>, sms ><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > >> > Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of >>Sprint/T-Mobile, > coverage ius much better. >> >> Wow, who mentioned that? > >common sense, since they each cover areas the other does not. >combined, it will be better than each alone. > >> Sprint and T-Mobile pretty much both had the same very limited >>non-urban coverage, so combining coverage wouldn't have helped >>much. > >nonsense. > >sprint's coverage is better than verizon, according to actual surveys. > ><https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Plans-In-San-Francisc >o> > While no carrier's perfect, all four of the major networks perform > well throughout San Francisco. AT&T and Sprint's networks blanket > San Francisco, while Verizon and T-Mobile are only a few percentage > points away. > >sprint in particular is in second place with a 99.98% coverage, >whereas verizon is last at 94.93%, behind t-mobile at 95.02%. > > >> If you're a Sprint subscriber that was okay with Sprint's limited >>native coverage, because Verizon roaming compensated for it, then >>you're probably going to be very unhappy when that roaming is no >>longer available. > >sprint does not have limited native coverage. far from it. I'm suspicious of coverage maps. As I mentioned in an earlier message, TMO and VZW show the same coverage at my house but VZW signal strength must be stronger. whatever the case I know the VZW cellular connection works better than my TMO connection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-04 14:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <040820201409380701%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70457 |
In article <xn0mh9c7jjlfkx6000@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm suspicious of coverage maps. As I mentioned in an earlier message, > TMO and VZW show the same coverage at my house but VZW signal strength > must be stronger. whatever the case I know the VZW cellular connection > works better than my TMO connection. what i cited is *not* a coverage map from the carrier. it's an independent survey of actual coverage. also, what you may be seeing is the propagation of different frequency bands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-04 23:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j%pWG.104038$GQ4.31116@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #70458 |
On 2020-08-04 14:09, nospam wrote: > it's an independent survey of actual coverage. On the year I used T-Mo for my trip to Delaware, one spot in Port henry NY was marked as covered by T-Mo. And indeed, there was signal, except it was AT&T signal. When I tried to make a phone call, it was rejected. So a lot of the advertised coverage is "shared" with on of the big guys but only usable with postpaid plans. The merger promotional materials to get approval to buy Sprint mentioned increased coverage by combing both networks. In many cases, this ould mean the map doesn't change, but by being able to use the Sprint tower, the T-Mbile customer gets stronger signal. Remember that maps are overly optimistic marketing docuemnts. Internally they have real maps. I had not considered Sprint roaming on Verizon. Curous how T-Mo will handle that one. Obviouslt T-Mo customers won't roam on it. And new Sprint Customers won't roam on it (likely won't have CDMA enabled on new phones starting today). But existing customers may be grandfathered and may continue to roam till CDMA is shut down in 2021, after which, all customers being on LTE/VoLTE would liekly roam on AT&T instead of Verizon. Remains to be see if Verizon might *want* the roaming revenue or be gland to get rid of it since T0-Mo would have an "inferio" network to its own.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 00:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <050820200047514458%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70474 |
In article <j%pWG.104038$GQ4.31116@fx02.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > I had not considered Sprint roaming on Verizon. that's good, because they don't anymore, nor can they. it was true for cdma, where they both could roam on each other's networks if there was no native coverage, which only affected rural areas where their coverage did not overlap. for urban areas, there was never a need to roam. for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands are different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 02:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9ZrWG.249186$eN2.196786@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #70476 |
On 2020-08-05 00:47, nospam wrote: > that's good, because they don't anymore, nor can they. Did it stop on the day the merger was signed? If not, when? > for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands > are different. Differeent bands make no difference to roaming. I can go roam in Australia or Europe that use different bands than in Canada. This was an issue in early phones that supported only 1 band, then supported 2 or 3, then 4. But they have now supported a whole bunch of bands for a long time. If Sprint has some "odd" spectrum for which there is no handset support on LTE or 5G, it may not deploy it until/unless it gains support from everyone. It learned its lesson having to put 3G on 1700 which nobody else in USA had. Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then. The faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it needs to buy from Verizon. But once T-Nio is a single network with LTE for both voice and data, it can shop around for which of AT&T or Verizon it gets its LTE from. I beleive it has FCC mandate to get some from AT&T, but what if Verizon offers better price? This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody else has.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 02:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <050820200225427415%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70478 |
In article <9ZrWG.249186$eN2.196786@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > that's good, because they don't anymore, nor can they. > > Did it stop on the day the merger was signed? If not, when? when lte came along, long ago. > > for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands > > are different. > > Differeent bands make no difference to roaming. I can go roam in > Australia or Europe that use different bands than in Canada. different bands absolutely *do* make a difference. if the phone lacks the necessary bands for a particular carrier, it *can't* connect at all, roaming or native. > This was an issue in early phones that supported only 1 band, then > supported 2 or 3, then 4. But they have now supported a whole bunch of > bands for a long time. recent iphones have lte bands for all four carriers, but that was not always the case. android phones vary quite a bit in what bands they support. in general, the higher tier phones support more bands than the cheapos. put simply, no roaming. > If Sprint has some "odd" spectrum for which there is no handset support > on LTE or 5G, it may not deploy it until/unless it gains support from > everyone. nonsense. > It learned its lesson having to put 3G on 1700 which nobody > else in USA had. that was t-mobile 3g aws and completely irrelevant to lte, cdma or anything being discussed. > Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at > learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then. cdma is no longer used except by old cdma-only phones (mostly flip phones), which are rare. > The > faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it > needs to buy from Verizon. nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support and have for years, although different bands. > But once T-Nio is a single network with LTE for both voice and data, it > can shop around for which of AT&T or Verizon it gets its LTE from. I > beleive it has FCC mandate to get some from AT&T, but what if Verizon > offers better price? nonsense. nobody needs to shop around for lte. why do you make up such shit?? > This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to > lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody > else has. there is no roaming revenue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 22:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <GwJWG.154869$575.152444@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #70479 |
On 2020-08-05 02:25, nospam wrote: > nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support > and have for years, although different bands. Supporting LTE is one thing. Supporting VoLTE is anther. Many LTE phones don't have VolTE or support for VoLTE on T-Mo/Sprint. (think older phones, alnd also embeded devices). Remember that Sprint has a lot of MVNOs that target the low end. A handset that doesn't have LTE bands for T-Mo, Sprint and Verizon is not likely t also have supported VoLTE. Of those that have VoLTE supported on the new T-Mo network, they likely have all the bands needed to opperated on T-Mo/Sprint as well as AT&T or Verizon. > nonsense. nobody needs to shop around for lte. why do you make up such > shit?? The combined T-Mo and Sprint networks will still have a smaller footprnt compared to either At&T and Verizon. So will T-Mo still have a need to be able to roam onto the larger network? > there is no roaming revenue. Ar you kidding me? AT&T or Verizon allowing T-Mo to roam on their network brings in lots of cash. But it is a marketing issue because their advantage of having better coverage is less marked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 22:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <050820202208251530%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70504 |
In article <GwJWG.154869$575.152444@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support > > and have for years, although different bands. > > Supporting LTE is one thing. Supporting VoLTE is anther. they support both and have for years. stop making up shit. > Many LTE phones > don't have VolTE or support for VoLTE on T-Mo/Sprint. nonsense. nearly everything in the past 5 years supports volte. stop making up shit. > (think older phones, alnd also embeded devices). embedded devices aren't used for calls. > Remember that Sprint has a lot of MVNOs that target the low end. not really, but so what? they'll buy a refurb iphone or android phone. > A handset that doesn't have LTE bands for T-Mo, Sprint and Verizon is > not likely t also have supported VoLTE. complete nonsense. stop making up shit. > Of those that have VoLTE supported on the new T-Mo network, they likely > have all the bands needed to opperated on T-Mo/Sprint as well as AT&T or > Verizon. recent iphones have all lte bands. some android phones do, but most have a subset, sometimes only one carrier. > > nonsense. nobody needs to shop around for lte. why do you make up such > > shit?? > > The combined T-Mo and Sprint networks will still have a smaller footprnt > compared to either At&T and Verizon. So will T-Mo still have a need to > be able to roam onto the larger network? not only do you not answer the question but you make up even more shit. > > there is no roaming revenue. > > Ar you kidding me? AT&T or Verizon allowing T-Mo to roam on their > network brings in lots of cash. But it is a marketing issue because > their advantage of having better coverage is less marked. you snipped to alter context again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 21:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgfvn0$ck1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70504 |
On 8/5/2020 7:02 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2020-08-05 02:25, nospam wrote: > >> nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support >> and have for years, although different bands. > > Supporting LTE is one thing. Supporting VoLTE is anther. Many LTE phones > don't have VolTE or support for VoLTE on T-Mo/Sprint. > (think older phones, alnd also embeded devices). > > Remember that Sprint has a lot of MVNOs that target the low end. > > A handset that doesn't have LTE bands for T-Mo, Sprint and Verizon is > not likely t also have supported VoLTE. While there are old phones like that on some MVNOs, the reality is that even mid-range Android phones, and all iPhones, have supported sufficeint LTE bands of all four carriers for several years. Sometimes a carrier may add new LTE bands in order to increase capacity, and an older phone won't have the new bands, but carriers are very good about not abandoning legacy bands when they put in new cell sites. One of the main reasons for keeping service even on legacy LTE bands is for people roaming from other countries. A phone from the EU may not have T-Mobile's band 66 and 71, but they'll almost certainly have 2, 4, and/or 5. A super cheap, locked phone, that is sold by an MVNO, may not have the LTE bands needed to roam, but those providers rarely provide roaming anyway. > Ar you kidding me? AT&T or Verizon allowing T-Mo to roam on their > network brings in lots of cash. But it is a marketing issue because > their advantage of having better coverage is less marked. True. It's a trade-off that has to be weighed carefully. How many customers do you lose by not having coverage versus how much it costs to provide that roaming. A good article about this whole thing here: <https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-sprint-get-into-war-words-over-data-roaming-rules>. The bottom line: Sprint relies on roaming and wants to pay Verizon less for it while Verizon wants to charge Sprint more to offset the cost of providing widespread coverage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-06 00:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <060820200017165400%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70515 |
In article <rgfvn0$ck1$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > While there are old phones like that on some MVNOs, the reality is that > even mid-range Android phones, and all iPhones, have supported > sufficeint LTE bands of all four carriers for several years. iphones yes, android no. very few android phones have lte bands for all four carriers. > Sometimes a > carrier may add new LTE bands in order to increase capacity, and an > older phone won't have the new bands, but carriers are very good about > not abandoning legacy bands when they put in new cell sites. additional bands do not replace existing ones. > One of the > main reasons for keeping service even on legacy LTE bands is for people > roaming from other countries. A phone from the EU may not have > T-Mobile's band 66 and 71, but they'll almost certainly have 2, 4, and/or 5. international roaming has nothing to do with it. > A super cheap, locked phone, that is sold by an MVNO, may not have the > LTE bands needed to roam, but those providers rarely provide roaming anyway. yes they do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rge6de$kkl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70478 |
On 8/4/2020 11:03 PM, JF Mezei wrote: <snip> > Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at > learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then. The > faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it > needs to buy from Verizon. Well obviously the CDMA roaming from Sprint onto Verizon CDMA can't continue once Verizon shuts down CDMA. But there is also Sprint roaming onto Verizon LTE. That's something that T-Mobile obviously doesn't want to keep paying for, at least in areas where both T-Mobile and Verizon have coverage. > But once T-Nio is a single network with LTE for both voice and data, it > can shop around for which of AT&T or Verizon it gets its LTE from. I > beleive it has FCC mandate to get some from AT&T, but what if Verizon > offers better price? The FCC thing was regarding T-Mobile's complaint that they were being charged too much for roaming by the other carriers. The contention by AT&T and Verizon was that it cost them a lot of money to put in all that coverage in sparsely populated areas and that they should not be required to provide that coverage to competitors at low cost. > This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to > lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody > else has. Perhaps, but for now the roaming agreements Sprint had with Verizon are still in existence. While the LTE roaming is less than the CDMA roaming, you can still see a large amount of LTE roaming onto Verizon as well. It's not unlimited roaming and Sprint has all sorts of language warning users about excessive roaming <https://www.sprint.com/en/support/solutions/connectivity/learn-more-about-data-roaming.html>: "• Roaming service is offered as a convenience so you can gain access to data networks in situations when you are temporarily out of reach of the Sprint network. • Please note that it is not Sprint's intention to have roaming be the primary source of your coverage." If T-Mobile's goal is to retain a large percentage of the Sprint customers that it acquired then they'll need to tread carefully. While Sprint's native footprint was much smaller than T-Mobile's, their total coverage (for postpaid) was actually much larger than T-Mobile's, thanks to extensive roaming onto Verizon, and that coverage was in a lot of areas where T-Mobile has no native coverage to replace Verizon coverage. An example I'm familiar with in my area is 95140. Go to <https://coverage.sprint.com/coveragemap?>, put in that Zip Code and toggle between Voice and Data. You can see all the LTE roaming and the greater amount of voice roaming. If you look at that same area on the T-Mobile map <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map> you can see that the LTE and voice roaming that a Sprint user has access to is clearly NOT on T-Mobile. If you then go to <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map> and switch between T-Mobile and Verizon, you can see the vast advantage in coverage that Verizon has. This Zip code is a low populated area partly in eastern San Jose and partly in unincorporated western Stanislaus County, along CA State Road 130. It's not a route many people would use by car because of how windy (wine-dee) and steep it is (unless you're driving up to the observatory at the top) it is but it's very popular among cyclists. 95140 is just one example. try 94074 in <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map> and <https://coverage.sprint.com/coveragemap?> as well. All those areas with no T-Mobile coverage currently get Verizon roaming on Sprint. The Bay Area is really a place where you want to have Verizon best case and AT&T worst case, if you ever go to the less populated parts of the counties. It would be highly unlikely to find an area with T-Mobile or Sprint native coverage that did not have Verizon coverage, though if you looked hard enough you might find somewhere that this is the case. The reference to the WhistleOut web site, regarding coverage, was especially amusing and revealing. If you look at it, you quickly see that it was not a survey at all, it was just based on the carrier provided maps. They listed the "Percentage of Geographic Area Covered" with the disclaimer "Coverage data generated August 2019 from carrier maps." It's not like they went out and surveyed tens of thousands of users like Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and Yankee Group have done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 08:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <050820200813379171%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70480 |
In article <rge6de$kkl$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > > Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at > > learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then. The > > faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it > > needs to buy from Verizon. > > Well obviously the CDMA roaming from Sprint onto Verizon CDMA can't > continue once Verizon shuts down CDMA. But there is also Sprint roaming > onto Verizon LTE. That's something that T-Mobile obviously doesn't want > to keep paying for, at least in areas where both T-Mobile and Verizon > have coverage. there is no lte roaming between sprint and verizon, nor can there be due to using different bands. > > > This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to > > lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody > > else has. > > Perhaps, but for now the roaming agreements Sprint had with Verizon are > still in existence. While the LTE roaming is less than the CDMA roaming, as in zero. > you can still see a large amount of LTE roaming onto Verizon as well. nope. > It's not unlimited roaming and Sprint has all sorts of language warning > users about excessive roaming > > <https://www.sprint.com/en/support/solutions/connectivity/learn-more-about-dat > a-roaming.html>: not relevant for lte, and they don't enforce it anyway. > > If T-Mobile's goal is to retain a large percentage of the Sprint > customers that it acquired then they'll need to tread carefully. While > Sprint's native footprint was much smaller than T-Mobile's, their total > coverage (for postpaid) was actually much larger than T-Mobile's, thanks > to extensive roaming onto Verizon, and that coverage was in a lot of > areas where T-Mobile has no native coverage to replace Verizon coverage. absolutely false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arlen Holder <arlenholder@newmachine.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rgeecr$e2p$2@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #70480 |
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 04:50:03 -0700, sms wrote: > The FCC thing was regarding T-Mobile's complaint that they were being > charged too much for roaming by the other carriers. The contention by > AT&T and Verizon was that it cost them a lot of money to put in all that > coverage in sparsely populated areas and that they should not be > required to provide that coverage to competitors at low cost. Given T-Mobile roaming is free, I've asked this question before: o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/t65fMFrPCVw> If T-Mobile has roaming agreements, and if, as SMS claims, T-Mobile coverage is spotty, then, with the free roaming switch turned on my phone, why wouldn't I get the best of all worlds? -- Usenet allows purposefully helpful adults to exchange useful information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-05 22:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <LFJWG.249371$eN2.3283@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #70480 |
On 2020-08-05 07:50, sms wrote: > • Please note that it is not Sprint's intention to have roaming be the > primary source of your coverage." Intention is likely an understatement. In Canada, there was a lot of regulatory debate on this issue. Incumbents got a lot of wording in regulations to prevent new entrants from selling service where they had no coverage to ensure coverage was incidental and that they didn't compete against incumbents using incumbent's networks in "permanent roaming". I suspect AT&T and Verzion had similar language in their contracts with T-Mo and Sprint respectiveley. With T-Mo now having larger market share having absorbed the corpse of Sprint, AT&T and Verizon may become more predatory againat T-Mo and be far more reluctant to offer roaming, even if it means reduced revenues. Current contracts between Sprint and Verizon and T-Mo/AT&T will continue, but when they come up for renewwall, it will become very interesting to see what happens. Remember that T-Mo was bragging to FCC that if allowed to buy Sprint, it would have greater 5G coverage than AT?T or Verizon. If T-Mo has a lot of customers in an area where they depend on roaming, then expect it to use some of its now redundnat equipment to deploy service there. However, setting up an antenna or renting space on another guy doesn't get done quickly (on purpose by the big guys), so thyey may have to pay expensive roaming for these customers for a while until their setup their own service, or decided it isn't worth keeping them and let them move to AT&T or Verizon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-06 19:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgid2d$ca7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70478 |
On 8/4/2020 11:03 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-08-05 00:47, nospam wrote:
<snip>
>> for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands
>> are different.
>
> Differeent bands make no difference to roaming. I can go roam in
> Australia or Europe that use different bands than in Canada.
Some people (well one person anyway!) may not understand that roaming
often occurs on different bands than their own carrier's native bands,
and that this is normal.
If you look at popular phones, sold in the last five years (and longer),
you can see that they support a LOT of LTE bands and the manufacturers
do this so they don't have to qualify a gazillion different models,
based on what carrier is selling or using the phone
iPhone 6s (2015) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,30,
38,39,40,41
iPhone 7 (2016) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,30,
38,39,40,41
iPhone 8 (2017) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,30,
34,38,39,40,41, 66
iPhone Xs (2018) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,25,26,
29,30,32,34,38,39,40,41,46,66,71
MotoX4 (2018) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17, 20,25,26, 28,
38, 41, 66
Galaxy S8 (2017) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18, ,20,25,26, ,29
38,39,40,41,46,66
Galaxy S9,(2018) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,25,26, 28,
32, 38,39,40,41,46,66,71
Galaxy S10,(2019):1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,25,26, 28,29,30,
38,39,40,41,46,66,71
You can see that even five years ago popular phones had the necessary
LTE bands to work on all the U.S. carriers and many foreign carriers. As
carriers added more bands the phone manufacturers added support for
those new bands.
There are some very low-end phones, often sold by MVNOs, that lack a lot
of LTE bands, but those MVNOs don't allow roaming anyway, and the phones
are not unlocked for use on other carriers.
For postpaid, all the carriers have roaming. All four (counting Sprint
separately) have reciprocal roaming agreements with small rural
carriers, but Sprint and T-Mobile also have roaming on Verizon and AT&T.
The previous CEO of Sprint, Marcelo Claure, once said, as he was trying
to reduce roaming on AT&T and Verizon and increase it on rural carriers
"I don't like writing checks for hundreds of millions of dollars to my
two biggest competitors." The problem Claure (and Legere) ran into is
that AT&T and Verizon acquired a lot of the rural carriers (Edge, Golden
State Cellular, Alltel West Virginia Wireless, Ramcell, Rural Cellular
Corporation, SureWest Communications, etc.). Of course nothing stopped
Sprint and T-Mobile from making offers on these rural carriers. Sprint
did buy Nextel, which was a disaster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgjs55$7lf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70524 |
On 8/6/2020 7:08 PM, sms wrote: <snip> > Of course nothing stopped > Sprint and T-Mobile from making offers on these rural carriers. Sprint > did buy Nextel, which was a disaster. Didn't mean to imply that Nextel was a rural carrier, they were anything but!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 11:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <070820201140322835%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70527 |
In article <rgjs55$7lf$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > > Of course nothing stopped > > Sprint and T-Mobile from making offers on these rural carriers. Sprint > > did buy Nextel, which was a disaster. > > Didn't mean to imply that Nextel was a rural carrier, they were anything > but! it was a disaster for nextel. sprint killed it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 14:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <K5hXG.76361$BL.10038@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #70528 |
On 2020-08-07 11:40, nospam wrote: > it was a disaster for nextel. sprint killed it. Actually the problem is that Sprint bought it and didn't shut it down fast. (in part because CDMA didn't offer the "push to talk" functionality of iDEN. ) T-Mobile killed CDMA on MetroPCS quickly after purchase and will do the same for Sprint which is the right thing to do. Yopu gain efficiencies only when you shut down the purchased network ASAP and move the customers to your own network, and increase your network's capacity with the spectrum of the purchased company. Abnd in the FCC filings to justify buying Sprint, T-Mobile promised swift action to move Sprint customers over to T-Mogile network to shut down Sprint ASAP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web