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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#73074

On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:56:25 -0500, nospam wrote:

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

I agree with nospam,

Anyone who is an adult, with adult comprehensive thought process, based on
facts, logic, sense, and reason would agree with that statement above.

It's only Steve Scharf, whom I'm beginning to wonder if he doesn't get paid
by Verizon to shill for them, who posts completely unsubstantiated bullshit
(which wasn't even supported in his cites), who then _hides_ from his own
bullshit.

In fact, two of Steve's cites actually concluded the exact _opposite_ of
what Steve claimed they concluded, which just goes to show that Steve
didn't even _read_ the very cites he promoted.

Also, all of them were ages old, more than one dating back to a decade ago.

In summary, Steve's entire belief system is based on MARKETING shills from
a decade ago, where not a single one of Steve's claims was based on facts.

>> 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.

What I'd like to know, particularly since Steve's own cites showed that
Verizon coverage was only a few percentage points better than that of
T-Mobile, and that was _before_ the Sprint merger, and that didn't take
into account that T-Mobile has free data/voice roaming on US Cellular,
AT&T, and Verizon (when there's no T-Mobile tower in the area)...

Under those factual circumstances... and wouldn't T-Mobile's coverage
_always_ be better than Verizon (when the free roaming is taken into
account)?

How could it not be (far) better than Verizon?
-- 
This is a logical sensible question to ask, which is a fact-based query.

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

#73091

On 2021-01-05 12:56, nospam wrote:

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

I do not claim that they are turning off to reduce coverage. This
implies a goal of reducing coverage.

My claim is that when rationalizing networks some areas can see reduced
signal strength  because the remaining tower may be more distant, or
antennas not aimed straight at their neighbourhood and they get fringe
from 2 antennas.

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

For generic coverage maps yes. But this does not mean improved coverage
everywhere. Just that claims of coverage are increased.

> 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.

You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
the more capacity it has (better compression).  Also, turning off
reduntant radios saves you mucho money on licence/maintenance.

Think of it in terms of ability to send 1 character per time slot. Small
spectrum, you can send either 0 or 1. With twice spectrum you can send a
character with 10 different possible values 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.

So with split spectrum, you can send 4 possible values (0 or 1 on each)
in each time slot, but combine it into one chunk, and you can send one
of 10 possible values.

The whole point of the merger is for T-Mo to get Sprint's spectrum
exactlty for this.  Spectrum Aggregations tarted with 3G, but with 4G
and now 5G, the versatility increased with spectrum not having to be
contiguous to get the benefits of better compression.



>> As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
>> easy. 
> 
> as were/are amps, cdma, hspa and lte.

amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier. In
Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
or B.

CDMA is proprietary and had no international roaming. But obviously,
carriers had ability to update CDMA phones to choose roaming partner
within USA with all the various mergers and small CDMA providers.


hspa and lte are part of GSM.

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

#73093

In article <DE5JH.144149$OX1.4997@fx07.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> My claim is that when rationalizing networks some areas can see reduced
> signal strength  because the remaining tower may be more distant, or
> antennas not aimed straight at their neighbourhood and they get fringe
> from 2 antennas.

that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
areas.

redundant would be if there's a sprint and t-mobile cell site at the
*same* location, at which point they might disable one of them. they
might also choose to keep both for additional capacity, depending on
usage patterns. they might also tune it cover certain sectors, such as
one north and the other south.

> > it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
> > coverage will be larger than either of those individually.
> 
> For generic coverage maps yes. But this does not mean improved coverage
> everywhere. Just that claims of coverage are increased.

i'm not talking about maps.

> > 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.
> 
> You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
> antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
> the more capacity it has (better compression). 

that does not make any sense.

> Also, turning off
> reduntant radios saves you mucho money on licence/maintenance.

redundant radios can be repurposed as a spare or deployed elsewhere
where it's needed.

the point is that they are not necessarily redundant.




> 
> >> As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
> >> easy. 
> > 
> > as were/are amps, cdma, hspa and lte.
> 
> amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier.

amps roamed among various carriers in either a or b.

initially, roaming had to be activated when arriving in the new area so
that calls were forwarded to the new location (don't remember the
*code), then it became automatic upon first connecting to the tower.

there was also an inbound access number, usually ending in x7626, the
digits corresponding to 'roam', so that people could make a local call
to connect to a roaming customer who had a long distance number.

> In
> Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
> despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
> your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
> or B.

where 'reprogram' is a *code to tell the system to forward calls.

> CDMA is proprietary and had no international roaming. But obviously,
> carriers had ability to update CDMA phones to choose roaming partner
> within USA with all the various mergers and small CDMA providers.

cdma roamed without the user doing anything.

> hspa and lte are part of GSM.

some people lump everything into gsm, but that's technically wrong, as
they are separate protocols and air interfaces.

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

#73107

On 2021-01-05 18:29, nospam wrote:

> that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
> areas.

There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs.  Unlike
Sprint which bothed its network acquisitions, T-Mobile has been good and
you can expect a lot of rationalization where both networks were present.



>> You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
>> antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
>> the more capacity it has (better compression). 
> 
> that does not make any sense.

You need to read up on spectrum aggregation. It's how HSPA+ allowed some
networks to reach very high speeds for instance.

Consider this:

say you can send 8 beeps per second.
Option 1: no beep or beep.  so 8 bits per second.

option 2: you can send a beep that has 256 different frequencies.  In
this case, you can send 2048 bits per second because each beep represent
one of 256 possible values.

The more spectrum you have for a radio, the more possible values each
symbol (beep) can have and thus increase in capacity.  The compression
charactesistics are suhc that 1 6mhz channel has much more capacity than
2 separate 3mhz channels.

So there is strong disincentive to keep 2 separate towers in same area
that split spectrum since ocmbining the spectrum in one radio gives you
more capacity than with 2 separate radios.

CDMA which was really 2.5G didn't kow about this, but HSPA+ did, and LTE
made a big thing about spectrum aggregation, same with 5G.


> redundant radios can be repurposed as a spare or deployed elsewhere
> where it's needed.

deployed elsewhere = removed from that neighbourhood, leavcing only one
radio.  Which is the argument I am making.


> the point is that they are not necessarily redundant.

In almost all cases, yes. There are cases with very high desity where
thet may wish to split an area into 2 areas and orient antennas to have
little to no overlap. (each tower has less coverage).


>> amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier.
> 
> amps roamed among various carriers in either a or b.

But as there could only be 1 A or 1 B carrier in any region, you phone
didn't have to choose roaming partner. If you were programmed in B, you
phobe only looked at B roaming partners, and it would picjup whatever B
it saw and ask if it was willing to handle roaming for this phone.

With GSM, you SIM card has a table of prefered roaming partners in a
certain priority order so it can choose the best one that is available
in a locaton.  And there is the ability to define a partner as "home" so
that you phone will roam on it wthout cnsidering whether roaming is
enabled or not in your preferences.



> where 'reprogram' is a *code to tell the system to forward calls.

No. Roamiung on AMPS was automatic. Your phone on "B" identified itself
to whatever B network was available where you were, and that B network
would then contact your home network for authorzation to roam, and at
that point inconung phone calls to your gome number would be forwarded
to the B network hosting you.

The special numbers existed to avoid having to make 2 long distance
calls. One to your home city, and one from your home city back to where
you are.



>> hspa and lte are part of GSM.
> 
> some people lump everything into gsm, but that's technically wrong, as
> they are separate protocols and air interfaces.


GSM is a family of protocols eith an evolution path between each
version, use of common protocols for provisioning of SIM cards etc.

GSM Association manages this, for 2G, 2,5G (GPRS/EDGE)  , 3G
(UMTS/HSPA), LTE and 5G.

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

#73111

In article <HG9JH.30811$V_1.9828@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
> > areas.
> 
> There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
> is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs. 

in some cases they might, but overall no. 

> Unlike
> Sprint which bothed its network acquisitions, T-Mobile has been good and
> you can expect a lot of rationalization where both networks were present.

sprint is perfectly fine.

> >> You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
> >> antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
> >> the more capacity it has (better compression). 
> > 
> > that does not make any sense.
> 
> You need to read up on spectrum aggregation. It's how HSPA+ allowed some
> networks to reach very high speeds for instance.

you're confused about modulation.

> Consider this:

no.



> 
> > redundant radios can be repurposed as a spare or deployed elsewhere
> > where it's needed.
> 
> deployed elsewhere = removed from that neighbourhood, leavcing only one
> radio.  Which is the argument I am making.

that might happen in a rural areas, but in most places, especially
urban areas, both will be useful for the additional capacity.

keep in mind that after the merger, they will have significantly more
users, so they will need the additional capacity.



> 
> > where 'reprogram' is a *code to tell the system to forward calls.
> 
> No. Roamiung on AMPS was automatic. 

not initially, it wasn't.

early on, you had to call 611 and ask for roaming to be activated, then
at some point, they added a *code to simplify that, and then further
simplified it to be automatic once the phone registered on the other
network.

> Your phone on "B" identified itself
> to whatever B network was available where you were, and that B network
> would then contact your home network for authorzation to roam, and at
> that point inconung phone calls to your gome number would be forwarded
> to the B network hosting you.

as i said above, that came later. 

one of the marketing names was follow-me roaming.

> The special numbers existed to avoid having to make 2 long distance
> calls. One to your home city, and one from your home city back to where
> you are.

that number mainly existed so that people could call you while you were
visiting as a local call, without needing to make a long distance call
back to your home city.

it was also handy for accessing voicemail as a local call, and if
called from a landline, did not incur airtime fees to hear messages.

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

#73123

On 1/5/2021 6:57 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-01-05 18:29, nospam wrote:
> 
>> that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
>> areas.
> 
> There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
> is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs.

In many urban markets that's true. But remember, it's not just coverage, 
it's also capacity. In cities, carriers have continued to increase the 
number of cells even though coverage was complete, simply because of the 
increased demand for data capacity.

It's an big issue in local governments where residents oppose cells 
being put in near their homes, insisting that the coverage is already 
fine, while the carriers desperately want to be able to sell more data.

Now you have the carriers, especially Verizon, wanting to put mmWave 5G 
on enough streetlight poles to be able to sell broadband service to 
homes. Since unlike Comcast and AT&T they haven't put in fiber to the 
home (except in a few places) they see mmWave 5G as their entry into 
broadband. T-Mobile will likely also try to make a play in that market 
once they get their act together with mmWave 5G; low-band 5G is fine for 
phones though not much faster than LTE, and isn't going to cut it for 
home broadband.

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

#73131

On 1/5/2021 6:57 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-01-05 18:29, nospam wrote:
> 
>> that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
>> areas.
> 
> There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
> is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs.  Unlike
> Sprint which bothed its network acquisitions, T-Mobile has been good and
> you can expect a lot of rationalization where both networks were present.

Educating people about the relative coverage quality of the different 
carriers, in different areas, is something that a lot of people 
appreciate, especially people that are visiting the U.S. and that don’t 
realize that buying a SIM card for use in the U.S. requires 
considerations that are likely not necessary in their own country.

I remember back in the early days of GSM I would advise foreign visitors 
to just buy a cheap Tracfone CDMA phone, instead of a SIM card, since 
GSM coverage was so poor. It was counter-intuitive to buy a whole phone 
instead of a SIM card, but it was a much better option, and I told them 
to just pass the phone on to a friend that was visiting the U.S.. Back 
then you could buy a Tracfone-locked dumb phone for as little as $20, 
and now they sell reconditioned smart phones for as little as $5.

In the U.S., people tend to find out the coverage differences between 
carriers for themselves pretty quickly, based on where they live and 
based on the places they travel to. For those that never travel outside 
the urban core, they can now pretty much get by with any of the three 
major carriers. It’s when they go to (or through) less populated areas, 
that there are issues, and a lot of tourists want to go to places like 
National Parks.

I mention Yosemite and the Santa Cruz Mountain areas often because those 
are two places that I go to pretty often and where I’ve had people ask 
me how I’m able to use my phone when they are not. Also, over the years, 
the coverage situation in those areas has drastically changed, and not 
always for the better! T-Mobile and Sprint have lost a tremendous amount 
of roaming coverage as roaming agreements with AT&T and Verizon went 
away. Sprint had only CDMA voice and text, and low-speed CDMA data, 
roaming on Verizon and Verizon has shut down their CDMA network so that 
would have went away no matter what.

It's important to use current, referenced data when evaluating coverage. 
  This is a comparison done on January 6th, 2021 that looks at coverage 
on AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon, on the coast of northern Santa 
Cruz County and southern San Mateo County. You can see the vast coverage 
differences, see <https://postimg.cc/q6swmTdg>. The Sprint coverage has 
vastly decreased due to the loss of Verizon roaming.

T-Mobile has replaced some of Sprint’s lost Verizon roaming coverage 
with their own cells, but in many areas where Sprint and T-Mobile 
subscribers formerly had roaming coverage T-Mobile still has no native 
coverage.

T-Mobile promised that if the merger was approved that they would 
address rural coverage issues, but that is a very time-consuming and 
expensive undertaking. Back when the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile failed 
to go through one of the things T-Mobile was supposed to get, for a 
limited number of years, was more roaming onto AT&T.

The bottom line is that if you want the best coverage you need to listen 
to all the experts when choosing a carrier, not to uninformed individual 
that get upset when someone points out facts that they don’t like! 
Remember that posters like “Arlen Holder” and “nospam” never provide any 
references for their bizarre statements.

<https://www.comparecellular.com/coverage-maps/compare-coverage-maps/>

<https://www.reviews.org/mobile/best-cell-phone-coverage/>

<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>

<https://www.jdpower.com/sites/default/files/file/2020-09/2021-US_WirelessNetworkQuality-Redesign_MS_revFINAL_090220.pdf>

Let’s hope that in the future “Arlen”and “nospam” decide to  use 
referenced facts when they post. Their credibility right now is 
extremely low based on all the misinformation that they promulgate.

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

#73135

In article <rt54hq$bf0$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Educating people about the relative coverage quality of the different 
> carriers, in different areas, is something that a lot of people 
> appreciate,

only by those who have used and *are* *using* the relevant carriers.

anyone else is not in a position to comment about their coverage.

you are in the second group. 

you are just babbling, hoping that people believe you.

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

#73136

On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:34:52 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you are just babbling, hoping that people believe you.

Hi nospam,
What Steve is doing is _worse_ than just "babbling".
o Steve is bullshitting us, expecting us to be morons if we believe him.

Steve doesn't have a _single_ reliable cite for all his claims.
o Not even one.

In fact, two of his so-called cites _contradicted_ his very claims
o But even so, none of his cites were even close to recent

Most were wholly unsubstantiated bullshit from anonymous forum posters
o Not one of Steve's claims has he backed up with a reliable cite.

Steve is bullshitting us, expecting us to be morons if we believe him.
o That's worse than him just babbling.
-- 
Steve expects us to be so stupid as to believe his incessant bullshit.

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

#73138

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 11:54:33 -0800, sms wrote:

> Let┬ hope that in the future Arlenand nospam decide to  use 
> referenced facts when they post. Their credibility right now is 
> extremely low based on all the misinformation that they promulgate.

Steve,

Cut the bullshit.
o Just cut it.

Be a man for once.
o Not a coward.

You're the one who handed us a dozen bullshit worthless cites, Steve.
o Two of which concluded the exact _opposite_ of what you claimed, Steve.

All of which were dated, two of which were from 2011 for Christs' sake.
o Most were bullshit shills and wholly unsubstantiated forum posts.

So cut the crap Steve.
o Be a man.

Stop being a coward.
o Stop bullshitting us.
-- 
I'm not afraid of facts; but I'm allergic to bullshitters like Steve.

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

#73102

On 1/5/2021 2:22 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> The whole point of the merger is for T-Mo to get Sprint's spectrum
> exactlty for this.  Spectrum Aggregations tarted with 3G, but with 4G
> and now 5G, the versatility increased with spectrum not having to be
> contiguous to get the benefits of better compression.

Well that was one of the major reasons. Another reason was to gain 
economies of scale by significantly increasing the number of subscribers 
and reducing the total number of retail stores. Another reason was to 
end the desperation pricing model that Sprint had adopted and that was 
holding down prices. Remember when Sprint was giving away a free year of 
service? 
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/free-year-sprint-unlimited,news-29565.html>. 
Sprint and T-Mobile were big competitors as the two second-tier carriers 
competing on price rather than quality of service, and it's tough to 
compete against free.

<snip>

> amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier. In
> Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
> despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
> your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
> or B.

I appreciated having AMPS capability when traveling to out-of-the-way 
places. I used it extensively in parts of Alaska, Oregon, and even in 
South Florida. It was rather ironic being in the Everglades, with a 
Verizon CDMA/AMPS phone, roaming onto AT&T, especially because AT&T had 
switched to GSM and their own customers couldn't access the AT&T AMPS 
network, but Verizon customers could (well unless the AT&T customer had 
a GAIT phone (Nokia 6340i 
<https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=201> or Sony-Ericsson 
T62u <https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=117>). Nokia also 
sold an "AMBS back" for the 6190 
<https://www.manualslib.com/manual/299954/Nokia-6190.html?page=86>. But 
not many of those GSM/TDMA/AMPS phones were sold.

> CDMA is proprietary and had no international roaming.

Actually there was international roaming on CDMA at its peak. There was 
CDMA roaming in China, Taiwan, Israel, and South Korea to name a few. 
And of course Canada and Mexico, as well as some other Central and South 
American countries. When I was going to Korea a lot for work there 
wasn't any GSM at all, if you didn't have a CDMA phone and pay for 
international roaming, you could rent a phone at the airport. See 
<https://www.sprint.com/cdma/assets/pdfs/travel_tips/ace/Israel_ACETips.pdf>

> But obviously,
> carriers had ability to update CDMA phones to choose roaming partner
> within USA with all the various mergers and small CDMA providers.

There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List) 
to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example). 
Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the 
1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The 
problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida, 
Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split 
between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).

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

#73104

In article <rt34ov$e8p$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>  Another reason was to 
> end the desperation pricing model that Sprint had adopted and that was 
> holding down prices.

that's a crazy spin. it was not desperation whatsoever. it's called
competition.

> Remember when Sprint was giving away a free year of 
> service? 

all carriers have some sort of perk for new customers.

also, it wasn't entirely free and they know that most people will stay
after the first year.

it's not just cell phone carriers either that offer perks. for example,
banks and credit card companies offer bonuses for new accounts,
sometimes quite substantial.

> > amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier. In
> > Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
> > despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
> > your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
> > or B.
> 
> I appreciated having AMPS capability when traveling to out-of-the-way 
> places. I used it extensively in parts of Alaska, Oregon, and even in 
> South Florida.

not recently you haven't. amps has been gone for about 15 years.

> 
> 
> There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List) 
> to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example). 

no there wasn't, nor was the coverage better.

your verizon shilling and trolling is quite obvious.

> Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the 
> 1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The 
> problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida, 
> Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split 
> between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).

no such trick was needed, assuming it would even work.

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

#73108

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 17:46:05 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sprint and T-Mobile were big competitors as the two second-tier carriers 
> competing on price rather than quality of service, and it's tough to 
> compete against free.

T-Mo Customer Support QOS is fantastic, IMHO.

While I don't care which carrier is better, I think it was "The Real Bev"
(or maybe "badgolferman") who recently said, and I agree, the quality of
the T-Mobile customer service is _fantastic_.

I _always_ get a human, and they _assign_ a small set of the same humans to
me, and they follow up with the calls with documents texted to me.

While when I had Verizon (long ago), I was happy with their customer
service, nospam and others seemed to say that Verizon is a bitch when you
just want to use another phone, whereas, T-Mobile is completely
transparent.

Any phone you want (assuming it's unlocked & GSM, of course)
o You just pop in the SIM card.

It just works
o You don't even have to call T-Mobile (AFAICT).

AFAIK, they don't care _what_ phone you pop your SIM card into.
o I do it all the time.
-- 
As always, I only care about the facts (but I abhor bullshitters).

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

#73119

On 1/5/2021 5:46 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List) 
> to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example). 
> Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the 
> 1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The 
> problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida, 
> Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split 
> between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).

The Android App that turned off the 1900 MHz radio was called “Roam 
Control” and was available for some HTC and Samsung phones on Sprint. It 
pulled off the Android App Store for understandable reasons, likely due 
to complaints by Sprint.

You can read about it here: 
<https://sites.google.com/site/roamcontrol/home> and the archived web 
page is here: 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20151212093544/http://www.roamctrl.com/>.

At the time Sprint was very upset about users that had figured out how 
to force Verizon roaming by modifying the PRL or by turning off the 1900 
MHz radio with Roam Control, or by other means. They went so far as 
kicking off subscribers that were excessively roaming.

Even though, at the time, Sprint users could roam on Verizon in areas 
where Sprint did not have its own towers, the problem was that if the 
Sprint phone detected any Sprint signal, even one too weak to actually 
place or receive a call, it would not roam onto Verizon. The PRL 
modifications and Roam Control were a workaround. It was ironic that 
Sprint users were easily able to get signal in areas where Sprint did 
not have any presence at all, by roaming, but in areas where Sprint did 
have a presence they were often both unable to get a usable Sprint 
signal and unable to roam unless they did one of these hacks.

It wasn’t just to be able to get a usable signal that people were doing 
these hacks, it was also to increase data speeds. There’s a Youtube 
video that shows “before” and “after” with the PRL modification. 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1bQdO3-FE0>. The comment stated that 
his Sprint contract was cancelled due to excessive roaming, which was 
the common Sprint response, it wasn’t an idle threat.

A Usenet post 
<https://groups.google.com/g/ba.internet/c/JF4PQg5JaWY/m/EcuHKxzKk6sJ> 
on 2014 from someone that worked in Santa Cruz stated “One of my friends 
had Sprint service on 5 assorted handsets 2 of which are smartphones. He 
lives in Bonny Doon which has zero Sprint service and only marginal 
Verizon service. On his way to work and back, he passes exactly two 
Sprint towers. Coverage elsewhere is roaming into Verizon. About 2 years 
ago, he got a letter from Sprint informing him that since the family use 
was almost totally roaming into the Verizon system, they're 
discontinuing his account and recommended that he move to Verizon (at a 
higher rate). Sprint pulled the plug a month later.”

Bonny Doon is on the coast in northern Santa Cruz County, the western 
edge of the Santa Cruz mountains. Sprint always relied on Verizon 
roaming for coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains, including the portions 
of the mountains in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, just as T-Mobile 
depended on AT&T roaming for coverage in those areas. The Sprint map for 
voice and text was identical to the Verizon map, due to Sprint roaming 
onto Verizon. This is another area where coverage for Sprint users has 
been dramatically reduced due to the loss of Verizon roaming. You can 
see the coverage maps of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon compared here: 
<https://postimg.cc/K4jCQxm1>. The bottom line is that if you want 
coverage in the far reaches of Bay Area Counties you have to be on the 
AT&T or Verizon networks.

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

#73121

On 1/6/2021 7:52 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> The Android App that turned off the 1900 MHz radio was called “Roam 
> Control” and was available for some HTC and Samsung phones on Sprint. It 
> pulled off the Android App Store for understandable reasons, likely due 
> to complaints by Sprint.
> 
> You can read about it here: 
> <https://sites.google.com/site/roamcontrol/home> and the archived web 
> page is here: 
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20151212093544/http://www.roamctrl.com/>.
> 
> At the time Sprint was very upset about users that had figured out how 
> to force Verizon roaming by modifying the PRL or by turning off the 1900 
> MHz radio with Roam Control, or by other means. They went so far as 
> kicking off subscribers that were excessively roaming.

Forgot to mention, there were also custom ROMs for rooted Android phones 
that allowed the phone to be forced into "Roam Only" mode. That's not a 
setting that any phone manufacturer included. "I use a HTC Droid 
Incredible 2 phone that I installed Cyanogenmod 7.2 custom ROM. That ROM 
has the ability to switch to a 'Roam Only' mode. And in my area, it will 
always roam to US Cellular."

Also see 
<https://forums.androidcentral.com/htc-evo-4g-rooting-roms-hacks/24643-forced-roam-hack-cyanogenmod-nightly-build.html>

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

#73122

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:52:13 -0800, sms wrote:

> The bottom line is that if you want 
> coverage in the far reaches of Bay Area Counties you have to be on the 
> AT&T or Verizon networks.

People like Steve who incessantly bullshit are consummate politicians.
o It almost seems as if sms gets paid by Verizon by the post to shill them

Why can't Steve find even a _single_ independent reliable cite to support
his bogus claims?

HINT: I've had Verizon & AT&T & T-Mobile over the years (sequentially), and
my neighbors have all three, and I live smack dab in the middle of the
Santa Cruz Mountains, where the only physical utilities are electrical and
telephone wire (i.e., no water piped in, no gas piped in, no septic piped
out, and no cable - and no - DSL won't work either as we're too far away).

The three big players, in my experience, are just about the same in terms
of coverage where I need it (all three, AFAIK, will give residents a free
cellular repeater).

Note: I don't care about the three companies; but what I care about is that
I am allergic to the incessant infantile bullshit Steve constantly spews.

All his cites turned out to be bullshit, and yes, I read them all.
o Two of Steve's cites concluded with the exact _opposite_ of what Steve
claimed.

Does Steve even _read_ his own cites?
o Note: Most were a decade old; none were current.

Worse, most of Steve's cites are unsubstantiated two-line forum posts for
Christs' sake. The rest were marketing shills.

Why can't Steve find even a _single_ independent reliable cite to support
his bogus claims?
-- 
People like Steve who incessantly bullshit are consummate politicians.

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

#73124

In article <rt4mbg$np0$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List) 
> > to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example). 
> > Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the 
> > 1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The 
> > problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida, 
> > Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split 
> > between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).
> 
> The Android App that turned off the 1900 MHz radio

there is no need to turn off any radios to force roaming. that's
crazy-talk.

sprint has been around since the late 1990s, long before there was
android or ios, without any need to deliberately roam.

in the early days, as both carriers were building out their networks,
there was a need for roaming in *both* directions (sprint on verizon
*and* verizon on sprint), but that hasn't been the case for nearly 20
years.



> At the time Sprint was very upset about users that had figured out how 
> to force Verizon roaming by modifying the PRL or by turning off the 1900 
> MHz radio with Roam Control, or by other means. They went so far as 
> kicking off subscribers that were excessively roaming.

that had absolutely nothing to do with verizon, and 'excessive' was
more than 50% of the time away from their *home* area, even with native
service, something which had to be abused to be booted off.

what carriers did not want, and not just sprint, was someone getting
cell service in one city and primarily using it in a totally different
city, usually to pay a lower plan price as well as avoiding local
taxes.


> 
> It wasn¹t just to be able to get a usable signal that people were doing 
> these hacks, it was also to increase data speeds. 

no it wasn't.

both sprint and verizon used the same cdma technology and speeds were
essentially the same.

it's possible that one company updated their towers before the other,
so in some cases, speeds might be faster on one (assuming a capable
phone), but that would soon match when the other updated their towers.

> 
> Bonny Doon is on the coast in northern Santa Cruz County, the western 
> edge of the Santa Cruz mountains. Sprint always relied on Verizon 
> roaming for coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains, including the portions 
> of the mountains in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties,

bullshit. bull fucking shit.

i've been all over the santa cruz mountains, including bonny doon, as 
well as the rest of the bay area, with various sprint devices without
roaming on verizon. 

you are so full of shit.

>    The bottom line is that if you want 
> coverage in the far reaches of Bay Area Counties you have to be on the 
> AT&T or Verizon networks.

nope.

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

#73127

On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:11:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

> bullshit. bull fucking shit.
> 
> i've been all over the santa cruz mountains, including bonny doon, as 
> well as the rest of the bay area, with various sprint devices without
> roaming on verizon. 
> 
> you are so full of shit.

I have to agree with nospam, which, if you know me, means a lot.
o My credibility is 100% (well, 99.999%!) on facts (typos happen).

The problem with consummate politicians like Steve is they expect us to
actually believe their shill' bullshit if they keep repeating it enough.

Clearly, we need _adults_ on this ng to hold Steve's bullshit to the fire.
1. Steve's cites are a decade old;
2. Most are forum rants (one was labeled "Communism" for God's sake);
3. Some are clearly click-bait shills;
4. His coverage maps weren't labeled as to date, time, or even carrier; 
5. Worse, two of his cites concluded the _opposite_ of what Steve claimed.

Steve is a consummate bullshitting politician.
o That means he's so used to bullshit, he thinks we _believe_ his bullshit.

I've been all over the Santa Cruz Mountains, for decades, on Verizon, AT&T,
and T-Mobile (sequentially) where their coverage is just about the same.

And I don't shill for any of them.
o I don't get paid by any (Steve almost seem to be paid by Verizon).

Way up in the mountains, and I mean way up on the top, miles and miles away
from the highway and towns, where nobody has any city utilities other than
electrical and phone wires (i.e., no gas, no water, no septic, and no cable
or DSL), the closest cellular tower for _any_ company, is miles away.

With a few hilltops scattered in between.
o Such that we get our Internet from the air.

In our case of living in the Santa Cruz Mountains, all three companies will
lend you a cellular repeater or a femtocell for your home and its environs,
but on the main roads and in the towns, all three are the same in the "Bay
Area Counties" that Steve speaks of in terms of coverage.

Why does Steve bullshit us to much about his vaunted Verizon coverage?
o I don't know why.

I just know that he does.

In summary, it's rare that I will echo nospam's sentiment, but you folks
know I'm 100% credibile as I have no ax to grind whether it's Verizon,
AT&T, or T-Mobile.

I would like to ask any _adults_ on this newsgroup to hold Steve's bullshit
claims to the fire by asking for _credible_ cites backing up his bullshit
claims.
-- 
The problem with consummate politicians like Steve is they expect us to
actually believe their shill' bullshit if they keep repeating it enough.

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

#73130

In article <rt4sr4$1g84$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Arlen Holder
<arlen_holder@newmachines.com> wrote:

> 
> Why does Steve bullshit us to much about his vaunted Verizon coverage?
> o I don't know why.

it's quite obvious that he has a vested interest. he doesn't even try
to hide it.

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

#73137

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 17:43:01 +0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> I have to agree with nospam, which, if you know me, means a lot.
> o My credibility is 100% (well, 99.999%!) on facts (typos happen).

Speaking of "typos happen", notice how the apologists scream bloody murder
if we delete a space (at the request of badgolferman).

It's more proof that what ruins the Apple newsgroups, is apologists exist!

See details posted moments ago in this thread by badgolferman:
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2020
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EP2upy3c2_o>
-- 
What turns Apple newsgroups into the childish cesspool that they are, is
simply that apologists exist. 

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web