Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #72986 > unrolled thread

Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-03 21:55 +0000
    Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-03 22:06 +0000
      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-04 01:05 +0000
        Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2021-01-04 13:24 +0000
          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-04 08:48 -0500
            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-04 17:07 +0000
              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-04 12:20 -0500
                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-04 19:56 +0000
          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-04 16:39 +0000
          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-04 09:05 -0800
            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-04 12:20 -0500
              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?  Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-04 19:44 +0000
              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2021-01-04 17:46 -0500
                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-04 15:33 -0800
                  Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-04 18:48 -0500
                  Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 02:30 +0000
                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-04 18:48 -0500
                  Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2021-01-05 12:31 -0500
                    Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 17:36 +0000
                    Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 12:56 -0500
                      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 18:06 +0000
                      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2021-01-05 17:22 -0500
                        Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 18:29 -0500
                          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2021-01-05 21:57 -0500
                            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 23:19 -0500
                            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-06 08:46 -0800
                            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-06 11:54 -0800
                              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-06 15:34 -0500
                                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?  Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-06 20:46 +0000
                              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-06 20:58 +0000
                        Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-05 17:46 -0800
                          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 21:23 -0500
                          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?  Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-06 03:02 +0000
                          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-06 07:52 -0800
                            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-06 08:24 -0800
                            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?  Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-06 16:28 +0000
                            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-06 12:11 -0500
                              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-06 17:43 +0000
                                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-06 13:41 -0500
                                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-06 20:54 +0000
                    Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-05 10:30 -0800
                      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 13:45 -0500
                      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> - 2021-01-05 18:53 +0000
                        Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-05 11:27 -0800
                          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 14:57 -0500
                      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 19:30 +0000
                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-04 17:58 -0800
                  Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 02:35 +0000
                  Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-04 21:44 -0500
                    Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?  Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 04:40 +0000
                    Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2021-01-05 14:03 -0500
                      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 14:19 -0500
                      Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-05 11:32 -0800
                        Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 19:39 +0000
                        Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 14:57 -0500
                          Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2021-01-05 21:23 -0500
                            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-05 21:54 -0500
            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-04 10:36 -0800
              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-04 20:52 +0000
              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-04 15:17 -0800
                Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-05 02:22 +0000
              Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-04 17:52 -0800
            Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA? Arlen   Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-04 19:36 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#72986 — Re: Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?

UPDATE:

Based on this detailed thread today:
o FreedomPop significantly worsens offerings., by sms
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/mcANHHDIYYg>

Specifically this classic rant by sms against T-Mobile in favor of Verizon:
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/mcANHHDIYYg/m/cJiWQzhwCAAJ>

And then Steve followed up that rant against T-Mobile in favor of Verizon:
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/mcANHHDIYYg/m/uCT-BVJwCAAJ>

To which I responded:
 On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:07:58 -0800, sms wrote:

 > I know two families with T-Mobile service and they both complain 
 > constantly about coverage.

We proved to Steve, long ago, that the coverage for T-Mobile, at least in
the Silicon Valley where both Steve and I live, is about the same as the
coverage for AT&T and for Verizon.

In addition, I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (sequentially) and I've
found nothing significantly different here in the Silicon Valley.

In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be no
different (IMHO), than the _combination_ of T-Mobile + AT&T + Verizon.

Since my credibility matters and since Steve is long known to just make
shit up without any proof whatsoever (it's why I claim he's a TYPE II
apologist, because he believes _everything_ in MARKETING brochures without
ever bothering to check his facts), I would welcome someone answering a
question I asked long ago about that free T-Mobile Roaming.

o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/50DdHgmAp6Y/>

As far as I can tell, with free roaming turned on, you get _all_ major
carriers that T-Mobile contracts with, whether that's AT&T or Verizon or
anyone else (you get the superset of carriers' cell towers AFAICT).

How can that possibly be _less_ than what Verizon alone offers Steve?
o NOTE: Steve will never answer this as he doesn't believe in facts.
-- 
As always, my point of view is reasonable & factual, based on adult logic.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#72990

On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:10:35 -0800, sms wrote:

> Even though I had more than $150 
> in credit, in the San Francisco Bay Area T-Mobile coverage is spotty at 
> best once you leave the urban core, and it further deteriorated during 
> the many years that I had that $10 plan as roaming agreements with AT&T 
> expired and were not renewed.

Q: With free roaming, how can T-Mobile cover possibly be less than Verizon?

Steve is what I've termed a Type II apologist, which is basically that he's
not malicious per se, but he's not the type of person who could earn a
degree in the math, engineering, or science fields, because he's utterly
immune to facts.

He holds on to an opinion whether or not there is any basis in fact
whatsoever of that opinion (e.g., he still believes Qualcomm royalties went
down). 

Basically, if a MARKETING brochure says something, Steve doesn't have the
technical ability to discern fact from fiction.

I suspect Steve is college educated so it's not necessarily that Steve is
just stupid like the Type III apologists always prove to be (e.g., Alan
Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Lewis, Jolly Roger, et al.).

It's just that Steve's Myers-Brigg's personality type is almost certainly a
strong "intuitive" and perhaps even a strong "judgmental" personality.

Basically Steve uses only MARKETING brochures to form his opinion
o And he holds on to those opinions in the face of facts to the contrary

An example is that Steve was told by Apple MARKETING that the total cost of
ownership of iPhones is lower than that of Android, on average, where Steve
and I went over the facts but he went silent the moment I brought up the
salient facts that Apple MARKETING didn't tell him.

Basically, Steve shills for Verizon, which is fine.
o But Steve always claims incorrectly that Verizon coverage is superior.

I've had all three in the same area that Steve lives and they're all just
about the same, even here in the mountains surrounding Silicon Valley.

My point to the adults on this newsgroup is simply to take note that Steve
_always_ shills for Verizon, but _all_ his shills appear to be fact free
(mostly based on Verizon glossy MARKETING brochures), where Steve always
goes silent the instant he's asked for a single fact backing up his belief
system.

Steve's entire belief system is based on anecdotal evidence, plus whatever
he can glean from glossy Verizon MARKETING brochures. 

When asked for facts, Steve goes silent (fancy that).

For example, how could Verizon's cover possibly be "better" than T-Mobile
when T-Mobile allows free roaming, which I've asked in the past over here:
o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/50DdHgmAp6Y/>

Given I can handle any engineering or science curriculum, unlike Steve, I
would truly like to know the answer to this question I've posed before:
Q: With free roaming, how can T-Mobile cover possibly be less than Verizon?
-- 
Posted, as always, so that we can learn from what you can impart to us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72996

On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:07:58 -0800, sms wrote:

> I know two families with T-Mobile service and they both complain 
> constantly about coverage.

We proved to Steve, long ago, that the coverage for T-Mobile, at least in
the Silicon Valley where both Steve and I live, is about the same as the
coverage for AT&T and for Verizon.

In addition, I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (sequentially) and I've
found nothing significantly different here in the Silicon Valley.

In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be no
different (IMHO), than the _combination_ of T-Mobile + AT&T + Verizon.

Since my credibility matters and since Steve is long known to just make
shit up without any proof whatsoever (it's why I claim he's a TYPE II
apologist, because he believes _everything_ in MARKETING brochures without
ever bothering to check his facts), I would welcome someone answering a
question I asked long ago about that free T-Mobile Roaming.

o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/50DdHgmAp6Y/>

As far as I can tell, with free roaming turned on, you get _all_ major
carriers that T-Mobile contracts with, whether that's AT&T or Verizon or
anyone else (you get the superset of carriers' cell towers AFAICT).

How can that possibly be _less_ than what Verizon alone offers Steve?
o NOTE: Steve will never answer this as he doesn't believe in facts.
-- 
As always, my point of view is reasonable & factual, based on adult logic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73005

Arlen   Holder wrote:

>In addition, I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (sequentially) and
>I've found nothing significantly different here in the Silicon Valley.

I live in SE VA.  I also carry two phones, personal iPhone 8 with TMO
and work iPhone SE with VZW.  I typically get one more bar with VZW
than TMO.  The only difference I've noticed is indoors, especially in
brick or concrete buildings.  My TMO phone doesn't always receive calls
indoors unless I'm on WiFi calling.  Not sure if this is related to
signal strength or coverage.

Regardless of the minor difference I have chosen to stay with TMO since
2017.  With my plan (T-Mobile One Military), four lines, free Netflix,
unlimited voice/data, my monthly bill is $102.00.  Add in the superior
customer experience when calling in to customer service I haven't found
a reason to switch to any other carrier.

>In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be
>no different (IMHO), than the combination of T-Mobile + AT&T +
>Verizon.

TMO allows free data roaming.  Does that include voice?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73006

In article <xn0mshn2yfdfq9n002@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> I live in SE VA.  I also carry two phones, personal iPhone 8 with TMO
> and work iPhone SE with VZW.  I typically get one more bar with VZW
> than TMO.  The only difference I've noticed is indoors, especially in
> brick or concrete buildings.  My TMO phone doesn't always receive calls
> indoors unless I'm on WiFi calling.  Not sure if this is related to
> signal strength or coverage.

the main reason for poorer indoor coverage is the frequency band of the
signal. higher frequencies do not penetrate buildings as easily. there
are also other factors, such as building material (brick/concrete) and
number of people using the network.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73009

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:48:20 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the main reason for poorer indoor coverage is the frequency band of the
> signal. higher frequencies do not penetrate buildings as easily. there
> are also other factors, such as building material (brick/concrete) and
> number of people using the network.

I don't disagree with nospam that higher frequencies generally have lower
penetrating capabilities depending on a host of factors, as nospam noted.

My response to badgolferman is simply that T-Mobile gave me a choice of one
of three signal enhancing devices, which I believe all the carriers give:
1. A free Wi-Fi calling capable router 
2. A free cellular signal repeater
3. A free cellular tower femtocell

If people don't believe me I'll snap photos of my T-Mobile cellular
repeater and my T-Mobile femtocell, where, in practice, the femtocell
almost always wins out against the cellular repeater anyway.

The cellular repeater has two units, one of which is in an upstairs window,
while the second of which is strategically placed deep in the bowels of the
multi-story home. AFAIK, the "signal" comes in from far far away to the
upstairs receiver, which then forwards that signal to the second unit,
which itself seems to be the broadcast tower. 

When I turn off the femtocell, I can see exactly which T-mobile tower
(generally miles away, often ten miles away or so) is being repeated,
which, interestingly, isn't often the closest tower (but in mountains,
strange things happen due to line of sight issues).

On the other hand, the femtocell is attached directly to the router, where
I posit T-Mobile gets a "great deal" as they use my Internet to send their
signals about, given the femtocell works though my Internet. 

For whatever reason, the signal strength from the femtocell almost always
overpowers that of the cellular repeater in practice, which you can't
easily tell on iOS but on Android it's trivial to tell with the software I
already described, plus the following tools (all of which give cellular
signal strength over time):
o Cellular-Z (free, ad free, gsf free, and google free)
  <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>
o Network Cell Info Lite - Mobile & WiFi Signal, by M2Catalyst, LLC
  <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite>
o WiGLE WiFi Wardriving
  <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.wigle.wigleandroid>

In summary, given that T-Mobile provides free domestic roaming, I can't for
the life of me see any disadvantage of turning it on, given you get the
signal from four different companies' towers:
1. T-Mobile, and, when T-Mobile doesn't exist, then you get
2. US Cellular, plus Verizon, plus AT&T towers.

Given Steve Scharf (sms) always claims (sans any actual factual data) that
T-Mobile coverage sucks in the Silicon Valley (where we both reside), I ask
Steve (or anyone) how can that be when if you turn on this free roaming, 
you essentially get four companies' towers worth of signal (if needed)?

My question remains, although my query is specific to T-Mobile:
Q: Is there any disadvantage to (free T-Mobile) roaming in the USA?
-- 
As always this thread is posted to arrive at a technically correct answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73011

In article <rsvi0e$1ciq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Arlen   Holder
<arlen_holder@newmachines.com> wrote:

> 
> > the main reason for poorer indoor coverage is the frequency band of the
> > signal. higher frequencies do not penetrate buildings as easily. there
> > are also other factors, such as building material (brick/concrete) and
> > number of people using the network.
> 
> I don't disagree with nospam that higher frequencies generally have lower
> penetrating capabilities depending on a host of factors, as nospam noted.

that's good, because you'd be disagreeing with the laws of physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73017

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:20:51 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I don't disagree with nospam that higher frequencies generally have lower
>> penetrating capabilities depending on a host of factors, as nospam noted.
> 
> that's good, because you'd be disagreeing with the laws of physics.

Hi nospam,

I hope I don't need to repeat I went to Ivy League schools, and that I have
higher degrees in extremely technical subjects, and that I was successful
in the Silicon Valley for decades working alongside truly intelligent
people.

Facts are what I live and breathe, nospam.
o My belief system is based on facts.

Hence, if anyone makes a claim that is factual, then I agree with them.
o Facts are funny that way.

No well-educated adult disagrees with facts, nospam, IMHO.
o Since that would just be stupid (as you said above, & to which I agree).

Most people on the Apple newsgroup, however, can't tell a fact from an
assessment of that fact, which is a completely different thing, nospam.

Here is an example of a FACT:
o Apple removed the headphone jack in the current iPhones.

Here is an example of an ASSESSMENT Of that fact:
o Apple did that so they could sell more product to replace that loss.

IMHO, there are 2 statements to be made on FACT vs ASSESSMENT disagreement:
1. No actual educated adult disagrees on facts (facts are funny that way)
2. But adults often disagree on assessments (people are funny that way)

Bear in mind you don't graduate from the best schools in this country by
being wrong on facts, nospam, nor do you succeed in Silicon Valley startups
by being wrong, you should never expect me to disagree on facts.

I'm _different_ from you apologists, nospam:
a. I don't believe MARKETING bullshit unless it's substantiated by fact.
b. My credibility on facts is 100% because I don't claim a fact if it's not
c. I _read_ the cites people post (unlike apologists, who don't).
d. Better yet, I _comprehend_ what those cites claim.

So, for example, despite the legal contortions the apologists claim, I know
Apple admitted to the criminal offense of purposefully lowering the life of
iPhones, and yet, I'm well aware of the Apple MARKETING bullshit to the
contrary (and I'm also aware Apple settled a criminal case recently in the
USA on their subterfuge on why they throttled the iPhones secretly,
nospam).

Back on topic, I'd love to know the factual answer to the question:
o If I'm in the USA and yet if I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o Yet, if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o And if I have previously set my $100 Moto G7 Android phone to roam... 
o Why wouldn't I be roaming (for voice & data) on all those networks?
-- 
All I care about are the facts but most people try to feed us bullshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73007

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:24:52 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I live in SE VA.  I also carry two phones, personal iPhone 8 with TMO
> and work iPhone SE with VZW.  I typically get one more bar with VZW
> than TMO.

Hi badgolferman,

You asked _great_ questions, which I very much appreciate, as I'm all about
FACTS (which is why I come down so hard on the many Apple bullshitters).

I realize you're on iOS, but most answers below should apply to both iOS
and to Android, where I also have iOS devices (iPads) on T-Mobile (i.e.,
the free-for-the-life-of-the-iPad-or-of-TMobile 200MB/month data SIMs).

You're not an apologist so it's good to see what your questions are
o As every one of your questions is, IMHO, a valid reasonable logical query 

When I converse with apologists, I have to dumb the message down to the
kindergarten level, whereas with adults, we can get into the nuance of
detail without having the apologists claim every misspelled word is a "lie
by liars" (which is why I say the apologists ruin the Apple newsgroups).

As far as I can tell, turning on the free domestic T-Mobile roaming will
not help you if you have a decent T-Mobile tower in your area.

It only helps if you don't have a tower, which is what Steve is always
claiming, I believe.

I was tempted to ask for the 3rd level of T-Mobile customer support to ask
at what signal strength they "determine" there is no T-Mobile tower in your
area, but I didn't ask that so for now, we'll have to assume that value.

> The only difference I've noticed is indoors, especially in
> brick or concrete buildings.  My TMO phone doesn't always receive calls
> indoors unless I'm on WiFi calling.  Not sure if this is related to
> signal strength or coverage.

I realize you're on iOS, but if you can borrow an Android phone, you can
run a quick signal strength survey with graphical output and which will
tell you exactly which _unique_ cell tower you're using (which is useful to
me as I use unregistered femtocells and a cellular repeater inside the
house).

A decent app for that purpose, on Android only though, is:
o Cellular-Z, by Jersey Ho
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

Here's some output of Cellular-Z from my $100 Moto G7 where this is only
Wi-Fi (because the cellular information is so detailed I didn't feel like
doing all the redaction to get rid of my femtocell unique cellular ID & the
like):
o <https://i.postimg.cc/Hn05bQwG/wifi02.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/4xgmTTgm/wifi01.jpg>

Even as nospam claims apps that do that exist on iOS, he's just a Type I
apologist, which means he'll fabricate imaginary functionality as if it
exists whenever he sees that iOS can't do something that Android can do
(which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so very many things indeed!). 

Again, that's why apologists ruin this newsgroup, because the Type I
apologists like nospam can't stand the truth about Apple products, so they
incessantly fabricate imaginary functionality that simply doesn't exist.

Anyway, to your point about sucky signal indoors, if that indoors is your
own home, T-Mobile will (IMHO) gladly give you, gratis, either
a. A free Wi-Fi router (which I already had on my own)
b. A free Cellular Repeater (which they first gave me)
c. A free Femtocell (which they also gave me)

BTW, T-Mobile "says" they only give you one of the three, but clearly they
gave me two (I've posted pictures of both if you question my credibility).

In addition, T-Mobile "says" they'll ask for a $400 deposit for each, but
in practice, they have let me have both without any deposit (they know
where I live, although I had to sign something saying I wouldn't use it in
any other location - which is odd as why would I want to do that?).

The point is that inside your house, and around your house, oh, say at the
pool or in the corral or at the barn, or at the end of the driveway, you
have pretty good coverage, but it can drop off fast after that if you live
in mountains like I do.

Before Steve claims that's poor coverage, it is, but we don't even have
cable out here, nor do we have "city water" nor "city gas" nor "city
sewage", the point being _all_ the major carriers suck in the mountains.

> Regardless of the minor difference I have chosen to stay with TMO since
> 2017.  With my plan (T-Mobile One Military), four lines, free Netflix,
> unlimited voice/data, my monthly bill is $102.00.  Add in the superior
> customer experience when calling in to customer service I haven't found
> a reason to switch to any other carrier.

When I had Verizon, I thought the customer service was OK but I dropped
Verizon the instant my 2-year contract ran out when they upped my contract
to replace a broken phone under their replacement plan.

Then I had AT&T whose customer support seemed fine until I retired, where
when I had to pay my own bills, AT&T wouldn't let me swap the broken
blackberry for a smartphone with a data block, so I dropped AT&T the
instant that contract ran out.

I've been on T-Mobile ever since and their customer support is, as you
noted, fantastic (and I'm no easy customer!) in that I _always_ get a human
right away, where they have assigned specific humans to me, which is a nice
perk, so they get to know me (e.g., when they say "We got you covered" I
tell them that's MARKETING bullshit - and to never say that crap to me
again).

I tell them not to make anything up, and I tell them that I will call back
and ask the same question and if it's a different answer, a supervisor is
gonna have to sort it out, which keeps them a bit honest, as they never
know the answers and always have to ask for support which is fine 'cuz I
don't ask easy questions normally.

I don't know how Verizon or AT&T service is nowadays, but to your point, we
_always_ get a human right away on T-Mobile. 

Steve Scharf (sms) is always afraid of facts so he likely won't respond to
any of this as if he did, he'd have to re-consider his wholly imaginary
belief system which is based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.
o It's why Steve (sms) is a Type II apologist after all

Type II apologists aren't malicious like Type III (e.g., Lewis)
o They're just people who never seem to doublecheck their facts

Steve trusts his intuition far more than he trusts facts to the contrary
o Me? I don't trust my intuition one bit.

Specifically, I don't trust anything that MARKETING 'implies'
o I only trust in facts.

>>In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be
>>no different (IMHO), than the combination of T-Mobile + AT&T +
>>Verizon.
> 
> TMO allows free data roaming.  Does that include voice?

Good question badgolferman, where you know I care about facts.
o Hence, I called 611 and asked 3 questions:
1. Do we have free roaming in the USA?
2. What carriers?
3. Does it include voice or data & how much?

Here are the three answers T-Mobile gave me over the phone:
1. Do we have free roaming in the USA?
   o Yes.
   o But only when there is no T-Mobile tower in the area.

2. What carriers?
   o US Cellular
   o Verizon
   o AT&T
   
3. Does it include voice or data & how much?
   o Unlimited free roaming voice calls
   o Unlimited free roaming SMS text 
   o 200MB/per billing period (and then it just shuts off)
   o MMS text counts toward data
   o No charges ever but it will just shut off at 200MB
   o The data turns back on at the next billing period

   Note: The documents below indicate that this 200MB/month limit
   is dependent, apparently, on what plan & when you started it
   as some have far higher data roaming limits, but I'm on the lowest
   data that T-Mobile allows (AFAIK) as I don't generally use data.

When I asked them to prove the answer, just as I ask the Apple Apologistrs
to prove their answers (where the apologists never can prove what they
say), T-Mobile referred me to the following two documents:
o Domestic roaming data
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data>
o How to turn on/off data roaming
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/devices/android/moto-g7-power/network-apn-and-volte-moto-g7-power>

Hmmmmmmmmm..... I see what you mean when you asked about the difference
between "data" and phone calls, as these MARKETING shills are _both_ about
data.

They don't say _anything_ about voice roaming.

Nonetheless, the representative was very clear that phone calls have
unlimited free roaming, but I do agree with you that it would be nice to
see some documentation backing up what the representative told me to my
ear.

Googling, I see they put the data limits on in April 5, 2012:
o <https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/policies/data-roaming>
   Where they say:
   "This [new data limit] does not impact: (1) voice usage"

I can call them back, but unless we have reason to disbelieve them, I'm
going with the answer they gave me which is that data roaming (as of 2012)
is limited based on your data plan, while voice roaming is unlimited.

Note: In my plan, both data and voice roaming is free and unlimited when
I'm in the European countries I typically visit yearly, where T-Mobile
gives me unlimited data (even though my USA plan has limited data).
-- 
Someone needs to bring actual facts to the child-like Apple newsgroups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73008

On 1/4/2021 5:24 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> Arlen   Holder wrote:
> 
>> In addition, I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (sequentially) and
>> I've found nothing significantly different here in the Silicon Valley.
> 
> I live in SE VA.  I also carry two phones, personal iPhone 8 with TMO
> and work iPhone SE with VZW.  I typically get one more bar with VZW
> than TMO.  The only difference I've noticed is indoors, especially in
> brick or concrete buildings.  My TMO phone doesn't always receive calls
> indoors unless I'm on WiFi calling.  Not sure if this is related to
> signal strength or coverage.
> 
> Regardless of the minor difference I have chosen to stay with TMO since
> 2017.  With my plan (T-Mobile One Military), four lines, free Netflix,
> unlimited voice/data, my monthly bill is $102.00.  Add in the superior
> customer experience when calling in to customer service I haven't found
> a reason to switch to any other carrier.
> 
>> In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be
>> no different (IMHO), than the combination of T-Mobile + AT&T +
>> Verizon.
> 
> TMO allows free data roaming.  Does that include voice?

"Arlen" is wrong of course™.

T-Mobile has very limited roaming onto AT&T which is what is most needed 
in this area (Bay Area and most of California). This lack of roaming was 
not always the case! T-Mobile coverage used to be a superset of T-Mobile 
and AT&T coverage. Now T-Mobile has removed nearly all of the AT&T 
roaming and vast areas of coverage have been lost.

I took snips of the coverage maps from the four providers, for the Santa 
Cruz Mountains area. See 
<drive.google.com/file/d/1BUYu2okfVsb26Hgqq_tfQkYe_3_VACy9>. You can 
clearly see the vast coverage differences. As you move east into the 
heavily populated part of the Bay Area the coverage for all the carriers 
is much better, but clearly if you want coverage in the more rural parts 
of the Bay Area then you need to stick with one of the top tier carriers 
(AT&T or Verizon).

T-Mobile does have a lot of roaming onto GSM and LTE carriers other than 
AT&T, where those exist. There are a couple of rural parts of 
California, in the northeast, where T-Mobile can roam onto some of U.S. 
Cellular's network 
<https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/abad20/any_updates_on_us_cellular_roaming_in_california/>, 
and a tiny piece of southeastern California (Death Valley) where the 
only coverage for any of the major carriers is roaming onto Commnet 
Wireless's subsidiary, Choice Wireless 
<https://www.cellularmaps.com/parks/death-valley.shtml>. There is also 
apparently some weirdness with T-Mobile roaming onto U.S. Cellular if 
you're using an unlocked phone not purchased from T-Mobile, see 
<https://community.t-mobile.com/network-coverage-5/domestic-roaming-us-cellular-communism-31836>.

What's really sad is the loss of coverage for former Sprint subscribers 
who used to be able to roam onto Verizon, at least for voice and text. 
That roaming has been removed from the Sprint map, and presumably it 
actually no longer exists. Much of that lost coverage was in areas that 
are difficult and expensive to cover and coverage will be unlikely to 
ever return. It's only in the past few months that T-Mobile has modified 
the Sprint maps to remove Verizon roaming coverage. Of course T-Mobile 
doesn't want to be paying big bucks to a competitor for roaming, it's 
better just to write off the customers that care about coverage in those 
areas.

Another thing that happened, about ten years ago, is that roaming 
agreements that T-Mobile had with AT&T began to expire and were not 
renewed. So T-Mobile customers began losing roaming coverage and that 
coverage was rarely replaced with native coverage in rural areas. This 
was a big issue in the Santa Cruz Mountain area with a LOT of complaints 
in the cellular newsgroups. Further north, AT&T purchased Edge Wireless, 
a small carrier onto which both AT&T and T-Mobile customers had been 
able to roam < 
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080418005668/en/ATT-Completes-Acquisition-of-Edge-Wireless-to-Enhance-Wireless-Coverage> 
but again, once the roaming agreements expired that coverage was lost.

If you also recall, T-Mobile was extremely upset about how much they had 
to pay the top tier carriers for roaming, and went to the FCC to 
complain about it 
<https://www.androidheadlines.com/2014/08/sprint-sides-t-mobile-data-roaming-dispute-verizon-att.html>. 
The failed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T was supposed to result in 
T-Mobile getting 7 years of AT&T 3G roaming, but it it actually 
happened, it didn't happen in my area, and the 7 years was over in 2018 
<https://venturebeat.com/2011/12/20/att-breakup-t-mobile-3g-roaming-128-markets-aws-spectrum/>.

The other large area where you see a tremendous difference in coverage 
is in the area around Yosemite and Gold Country. The reason for this is 
that there used to be only one carrier in this area at all, Golden State 
Cellular, a CDMA/AMPS carrier. Verizon and Sprint could roam onto Golden 
State Cellular, but obviously the GSM carriers could not. Verizon bought 
out Golden State Cellular in 2014 
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/vzw/2014/06/verizon-wireless-purchases-golden-state-cellular 
and Verizon customers (and Verizon MVNO customers) now had native 
coverage. AT&T did install some cells along major highways in the area, 
but their coverage is much poorer. The reason for the big difference is 
that Golden State Cellular was putting up cells to provide coverage for 
residents of the area and if they didn’t provide good coverage they 
would not have been able to gain subscribers. The other carriers are 
just trying to cater to people traveling through the area.

Until 2019, T-Mobile had no coverage at all in Yosemite, and no roaming 
onto AT&T. Now they do have coverage in Yosemite Valley, but in other 
parts of the park, if there’s any coverage at all, it’s on Verizon. 
Until very recently, the Sprint map still showed Verizon roaming 
everywhere Verizon had coverage, but the current map has removed that 
coverage and it now shows “no coverage” on both Sprint and T-Mobile.

Another little bit of weirdness is that before Metro PCS became part of 
T-Mobile, and switched from CDMA to GSM, they were offering extra-cost 
off-network roaming on Verizon 
<https://androidforums.com/threads/metro-pcs-uses-verizons-network.336015/>. 
Of course that roaming is all gone now. It seems like every time 
T-Mobile acquires another wireless company, the customers of the 
acquired company lose out in terms of coverage.

Of course none of this is any secret. 
https://www.comparecellular.com/coverage-maps/ states:
“T-Mobile takes 3rd place in the battle of network coverage, and a look 
at their coverage map compared to Verizon’s can help you see why. There 
are considerable gaps in rural areas on the T-Mobile map where Verizon 
otherwise has a strong presence.”

What I always advise T-Mobile customers to do is to keep a second phone 
active on a Verizon MVNO if they expect to travel to, or through, more 
rural areas. This can be very inexpensive using Red Pocket 
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828> or Page Plus 
<https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/10-standard-pin/>. If you have a 
newer iPhone, or one of the few Android phones with eSIM support, you 
can have one phone with a T-Mobile eSIM and a Verizon MVNO physical SIM.

Let’s hope that in the future “Arlen” uses referenced facts when he posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73010

In article <rsvht1$f8p$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> What's really sad is the loss of coverage for former Sprint subscribers 

there is no loss of coverage for sprint subscribers.

their coverage is actually *better* since it's now a combination of
*both* sprint and t-mobile.



> 
> Let¹s hope that in the future ³Arlen² uses referenced facts when he posts.

let's hope one day you do, but everyone knows that will never happen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73016

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:20:48 -0500, nospam wrote:

> In article <rsvht1$f8p$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> What's really sad is the loss of coverage for former Sprint subscribers 
> 
> there is no loss of coverage for sprint subscribers.
> 
> their coverage is actually *better* since it's now a combination of
> *both* sprint and t-mobile.

Hi nospam,

I care about the answer to the question, which is a technical question:
Q: Is there any disadvantage to (USA free T-Mobile) voice/data roaming?

All I care about are facts, where I responded to Steve's wholly fabricated
claims (not one of which was substantiated by the numerous cites he
provided).

In fact, not only were all of Steve's so-called 'cites' dated by many years
(more than one of which was a decade old for Christ's sake), and none of
Steve's coverage maps supported what Steve claimed they did, but even
worse, at least two of Steve's cites actually concluded with the _opposite_
claims that Steve said they supported.

Can you believe that?
o *Steve's own cites conclude the exact _opposite_ of what he claimed?*

Did Steve even _read_ his own cites?
o I suspect not.

Given Steve is a Type II apologist, I already knew he's immune to facts.
o All Steve believes in is whatever MARKETING bullshit has been fed to him.

But I really don't care about Steve, nor any particular person on this ng.
o What I care about are the facts.

My belief system is based on facts.
o If the facts change, I change my belief system.

The facts I'm trying to nail down are the answers to this basic question:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o And if I set my phone to roam... 
o Why wouldn't I be roaming (for voice & data) on all those networks?
-- 
All I care about are the facts but most people try to feed us bullshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73021

On 2021-01-04 12:20, nospam wrote:

> there is no loss of coverage for sprint subscribers.
> 
> their coverage is actually *better* since it's now a combination of
> *both* sprint and t-mobile.


When Rogers bought Fido/Microcell in Canada, I lost coverage at home.

Fido was 1900 only (early PCS). My handset (GSM) was 1900 only.

Rogers was mostly an 850 shop with some 1900. When it shut the Fido
antenna, my phone would connect to the Rogers one, but Roger's 1900
antennas weren't pointed to our neighbouhood, so the signal was very
weak and din't penetrate home.

Fido (now under Rogers) agreed to subsidize a new phone for me, no
contact as they were aware of this problem.

And until I got the dual frequency phone with 850 and 1900, there were
many areas of the Rogers network outside of cities where it had 850 only
and I would have no service.

So in the case of Sprint/T-Mobile, while the maps will show increased
coverage, there is no garantee that when one of 2 antennas is turned off
in a neighbourhood, the signal strength will be as good as before
everywhere in that neighbourhood depending on location of remainibng
tower and orientation/elevation of antennas on the tower.  Sometimes,
the decision on which tower to keep is based more on real estate than
network coverage (the better one costs too much than the lesser one).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73023

On 1/4/2021 2:46 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> So in the case of Sprint/T-Mobile, while the maps will show increased
> coverage, there is no garantee that when one of 2 antennas is turned off
> in a neighbourhood, the signal strength will be as good as before
> everywhere in that neighbourhood depending on location of remainibng
> tower and orientation/elevation of antennas on the tower.  Sometimes,
> the decision on which tower to keep is based more on real estate than
> network coverage (the better one costs too much than the lesser one).

nospam is wrong of course™.

What increased for Sprint subscribers, following the acquisition by 
T-Mobile, was _native_ coverage. This was a big deal because Sprint’s 
native network footprint was very small, and T-Mobiles is much larger.

What Sprint subscribers lost was a huge amount of Verizon roaming 
coverage, and a lot of that coverage was in areas where T-Mobile has no 
native network. In the San Francisco Bay Area that meant a big loss of 
coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It also meant a big loss of 
coverage in Verizon areas in central California (“the Mother Lode”).

When you used to look at Sprint’s maps, you’d see huge roaming areas 
included, at least for voice and text, with coverage equivalent to 
Verizon coverage. Now that that roaming is gone, the _total_ area 
covered by Sprint decreased significantly. However Sprint customers did 
gain some roaming on small carriers like U.S. Cellular, in areas where 
they used to roam onto Verizon, but that didn't help in the Bay Area or 
Central California.

Let’s hope that in the future “nospam” uses referenced facts when he posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73024

In article <rt08kf$t5f$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> 
> What increased for Sprint subscribers, following the acquisition by 
> T-Mobile, was _native_ coverage. 

you're contradicting yourself.

> This was a big deal because Sprint¹s 
> native network footprint was very small, and T-Mobiles is much larger.

rubbish. sprint's native footprint was in no way small. you've clearly
never used sprint.

> What Sprint subscribers lost was a huge amount of Verizon roaming 
> coverage, and a lot of that coverage was in areas where T-Mobile has no 
> native network.

roaming on verizon was rarely needed, if ever. you've clearly never
used sprint.

> In the San Francisco Bay Area that meant a big loss of 
> coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It also meant a big loss of 
> coverage in Verizon areas in central California (³the Mother Lode²).

bullshit. i've used sprint all over the bay area, including the santa
cruz mountains, as well as many, many other areas, with *no* issues
whatsoever. you've clearly never used sprint.

> When you used to look at Sprint¹s maps, you¹d see huge roaming areas 
> included, at least for voice and text, with coverage equivalent to 
> Verizon coverage. Now that that roaming is gone, the _total_ area 
> covered by Sprint decreased significantly. However Sprint customers did 
> gain some roaming on small carriers like U.S. Cellular, in areas where 
> they used to roam onto Verizon, but that didn't help in the Bay Area or 
> Central California.

you don't know what you're looking at. you've clearly never used sprint.

> Let¹s hope that in the future ³nospam² uses referenced facts when he posts.

let's hope you knock off the bullshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73035

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:33:31 -0800, sms wrote:

> What Sprint subscribers lost was a huge amount of Verizon roaming 
> coverage, and a lot of that coverage was in areas where T-Mobile has no 
> native network. 

Steve.

I realize all you believe is in pretty Verizon MARKETING brochures
o And that you hold on to your imaginary belief system sans facts

For example, you _still_ believe Qualcomm royalties went down.
o And you still believe iPHone total cost of ownership is lower

But the salient fact remains T-Mobile data/voice roaming is free on
o Verizon towers
o AT&T towers
o US Cellular towers

So if T-Mobile has no coverage, as you claim, why would it matter?

> In the San Francisco Bay Area that meant a big loss of 
> coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains. 

Steve is bullshitting as I live smack dab in the middle of the Santa Cruz
mountains and T-Mobile coverage is no different than anyone else (based on
conversations with my neighbors, most of whom are on the major 3 carriers).

Anyway, the question remains valid:
o If T-Mobile allows free voice/data roaming 
o When there isn't a nearby T-Mobile tower
o Then what's to prevent T-Mo customers from roaming on all three?
  Verizon, AT&T, and US Cellular
-- 
Posted as a reasonable logical sensible question seeking factual responses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73025

In article <iVMIH.35589$ay6.30055@fx03.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> Fido was 1900 only (early PCS). My handset (GSM) was 1900 only.

were you able to connect it to your vax to be able to get online? as i
recall, vaxes did not have wifi.




> 
> So in the case of Sprint/T-Mobile, while the maps will show increased
> coverage, there is no garantee that when one of 2 antennas is turned off
> in a neighbourhood, the signal strength will be as good as before
> everywhere in that neighbourhood depending on location of remainibng
> tower and orientation/elevation of antennas on the tower. 

nothing is being turned off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73065

On 2021-01-04 18:48, nospam wrote:

> nothing is being turned off.


T-Mobile will be quick to start to rationalize the network. And in its
initial filings, indicated that it would retain some Sprint sites and
turn off some of its own, and vice-versa where both have coverage.

Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
map does not change).

This is really done on a site by site basis, with network engineers
looking at coverage advantage of one tower over another, any growth
likmitations in adding new antennas to support new frequencies and
accountants looking at financial/contractual aspect of each tower.


But the end result is the shutting down of redundant network
infrastructure.  The planning started months before.


Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
bigger aspect for Sprint customers. But that affects only Sprint ones.
The rationalization of the T-Mo and Sprint networks will affect
customers of both networks here and there.

As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
easy. The home carrier has tools to update the list of carriers on whom
its custoers can roam (this is stored in SIM card in the standard,
though Apple has part of this in the carrier.plist).  Part of the
standard allows one to define a roaming partner as "home" or "roaming".
Roaming on a "home" carrier allows roaming to such a carrier even if the
phone settionsg are set to block roaming.  This was used in many places,
including when AT&T switched to GSM and have a number of separate
nhetworks with different numbers, same with
Omnipoint/Voicestream/T-Mobile changes.

The roaming list incluides preferences/priorities. So it is possible for
instance to set a Sprint SIM card to have T-Mobile as highest priority
roaming partner and Verizon as lowest priority one. (Not sure if this
was done, just stating it is possible).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73066

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 12:31:12 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
> bigger aspect for Sprint customers. But that affects only Sprint ones.

Hi JF Mezei,
You're not an apologist so you should have credibility in and of itself.

I haven't bothered to keep up with the changes to Sprint customer service
now that they're part of T-mobile, but, if T-Mobile gives free voice/data
roaming on US Cellular, AT&T, and Verizon, why wouldn't Tmo give that same
free roaming to Sprint customers (particularly if they already had it)?

Do they not?

> The rationalization of the T-Mo and Sprint networks will affect
> customers of both networks here and there.

Same with _any_ merger of any company, e.g., AT&T and Verizon both gobbled
up tons of smaller outfits, and nobody seems to have complained here (it's
always just Steve Scharf shilling for Verizon, where I'm beginning to
suspect sms gets paid by the shill by Verizon to slew its MARKETING
bullshit).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73072

In article <An1JH.27089$rY1.15096@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > nothing is being turned off.
> 
> 
> T-Mobile will be quick to start to rationalize the network. And in its
> initial filings, indicated that it would retain some Sprint sites and
> turn off some of its own, and vice-versa where both have coverage.

your claim was they're turning things off to reduce coverage. that's
false.

it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
coverage will be larger than either of those individually.

obviously, if a sprint and t-mobile tower cell site shares the same
physical location and cover the same geographical area, they might turn
one of them off, or they might keep both for additional capacity.

> Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
> map does not change).

again, it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
coverage will be larger than either of those individually.


> Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
> bigger aspect for Sprint customers.

only one person did, and it's bogus. it's a ridiculous claim. he
doesn't even use sprint to make this crazy claim.

> As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
> easy. 

as were/are amps, cdma, hspa and lte.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web