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

#73075

On 1/5/2021 9:31 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

Yes, that is what is happening.

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

The issue for former Sprint customers is not that they will lose any 
native coverage, quite the opposite, since T-Mobile's network is much 
larger than the old Sprint network, native coverage will increase.

The issue is that the Sprint postpaid customers used to enjoy extensive 
Verizon roaming, and the maps show that that roaming is gone, with 
nothing replacing it.

> 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.

Exactly. But with the end of Verizon CDMA it's not clear how much 
roaming would have remained for Sprint customers anyway. Someone said 
that the Verizon roaming was only 2G & 3G (CDMA) and not LTE. But Sprint 
also had a long list (31) of LTE roaming partners, and it's not clear 
how many of those are also T-Mobile roaming partners, but some are. 
Verizon is the big loss in terms of Sprint coverage in rural areas in 
California.

Anyway, thanks for correcting "nospam" and/or "Arlen Holder."

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 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.

In the U.S., people tend to find out the differences 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 as roaming agreements with AT&T and Verizon went away.

T-Mobile has replaced some of the lost 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 and it gains the carrier very few new customers in the areas 
where they add coverage.

I always advice T-Mobile customers to carry along a second phone that is 
on a Verizon MVNO when they travel outside urban areas. This is very 
inexpensive these days and it provides coverage in case of emergency. 
I.e. <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828>. If they have a phone with 
an eSIM plus physical SIM they can put T-Mobile on the eSIM and the 
Verizon MVNO on the physical SIM and only need to carry one phone.

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

#73077

In article <rt2b7j$vib$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Yes, that is what is happening.

no, that isn't what's happening. 

> > Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
> > map does not change).
> 
> The issue for former Sprint customers is not that they will lose any 
> native coverage, quite the opposite, since T-Mobile's network is much 
> larger than the old Sprint network, native coverage will increase.

nope. coverage of each is similar, with dead spots in different places.
they *overlap*. 

combined, the dead spots for one will be covered by the other in nearly
every case.

> The issue is that the Sprint postpaid customers used to enjoy extensive 
> Verizon roaming, and the maps show that that roaming is gone, with 
> nothing replacing it.

where 'used to' was roughly 20 years ago, when both sprint and verizon
were building out their networks, and even then, it was very rare.

you do not use sprint and you have *no* clue what you're talking about.

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

#73079

In message <rt2b7j$vib$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/5/2021 9:31 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

> <snip>

>> 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.

> Yes, that is what is happening.

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

> The issue for former Sprint customers is not that they will lose any 
> native coverage, quite the opposite, since T-Mobile's network is much 
> larger than the old Sprint network, native coverage will increase.

> The issue is that the Sprint postpaid customers used to enjoy extensive 
> Verizon roaming, and the maps show that that roaming is gone, with 
> nothing replacing it.

Hmm...

Sprint customers get access to t-mobile's larger network and their
coverage will increase, but nothing is replacing their access to Verizon
roaming.

Let's have a good long think on that and maybe, just maybe, you'll
notice your problem.



-- 
'The trouble with my friend here is that he doesn't know the
	difference between a postulate and a metaphor of human existence.
	Or a hole in the ground.' --Pyramids

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

#73083

On 1/5/2021 10:53 AM, Lewis wrote:

<snip>

> Sprint customers get access to t-mobile's larger network and their
> coverage will increase, but nothing is replacing their access to Verizon
> roaming.
> 
> Let's have a good long think on that and maybe, just maybe, you'll
> notice your problem.

Sprint users have gained a lot more _native_ coverage as a result of the 
acquisition by T-Mobile, but Sprint total coverage has been reduced as a 
result of the loss of extensive Verizon roaming. As I stated in another 
post, that may have been lost anyway as a result of the Verizon CDMA 
shutdown since the roaming onto Verizon was 2G/3G, not LTE. In any case, 
the Sprint subscribers that used to enjoy coverage, albeit roaming 2G/3G 
coverage on Verizon, have lost it and in many cases nothing has replaced it.

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

#73087

In article <rt2eje$o5p$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Sprint customers get access to t-mobile's larger network and their
> > coverage will increase, but nothing is replacing their access to Verizon
> > roaming.
> > 
> > Let's have a good long think on that and maybe, just maybe, you'll
> > notice your problem.
> 
> Sprint users have gained a lot more _native_ coverage as a result of the 
> acquisition by T-Mobile,

no they haven't. stop talking about things you know nothing about.

overall, their individual coverage was roughly the same.

sprint users gained a little bit, namely coverage of some dead spots
that sprint had and t-mobile did not, just as did t-mobile users
gaining coverage of dead spots they had that sprint did not.

> but Sprint total coverage has been reduced as a 
> result of the loss of extensive Verizon roaming. 

this is utterly false, no matter how many times you claim it.

> As I stated in another 
> post, that may have been lost anyway as a result of the Verizon CDMA 
> shutdown since the roaming onto Verizon was 2G/3G, not LTE. In any case, 
> the Sprint subscribers that used to enjoy coverage, albeit roaming 2G/3G 
> coverage on Verizon, have lost it and in many cases nothing has replaced it.

verizon roaming hasn't been needed for roughly 20 years.

you don't use sprint and have *no* clue what you're talking about.

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

#73084

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:30:09 -0800, sms wrote:

> Anyway, thanks for correcting "nospam" and/or "Arlen Holder."

Steve,

Cut the bullshit Steve.
o Just cut it.

Politicians who incessantly bullshit are expecting us to be morons.

Cut it with the bullshit.
o Nobody is fooled.

I _read_ your idiotic cites, Steve.
o You quoted forum posts from a decade ago, Steve.

And you _believe_ all their unsubstantiated bullshit Steve
o Worse, you then spout that unsubstantiated bullshit as facts, Steve.

Only a politician (or a bullshitter) pulls that trick with us Steve.
o What? You didn't expect us to _click_ on your idiotic cites, Steve? 

Hell, most of your cites were a decade old, Steve.
o None of your cites supported even a single one of your claims, Steve.

Worse, two of your cites concluded the exact _opposite_ of your claims.
o Proving you didn't even _read_ the cites you posted for God's sake.

Stop it with the bullshit.
o We get it you'll fabricate anything to support Verizon.

Me?

I don't care at all about any of the carriers.
o I only care about the facts.

And all Steve did was bullshit the entire newsgroup with every post.
o Which justs wastes our valuable time.

I get it that Steve couldn't earn an engineering or science degree...
o All I'm asking is for Steve to cut it with the utter bullshit he spouts.

Even Steve can't believe what he claims
o Because he couldn't find a _single_ factual cite to back it up.

So cut it with the bullshit, Steve.
-- 
Politicians who incessantly bullshit are expecting us to be morons.

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

#73031

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

When Pac Bell Wireless in California started up it was 1900 MHz only and 
they were supplying 1900 Mhz only phones. They were charging 
significantly lower prices than Cingular, AT&T, and Verizon, and they 
got a lot of new customers which quickly caused capacity issues.

Pac Bell got bought by SBC/Cingular and sold their 1900 MHz network to 
T-Mobile.

<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).

That's not the whole issue.

The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of 
Verizon roaming most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.

The T-Mobile customers never had that roaming, they had some roaming 
onto smaller carriers like U.S. Cellular but that didn't solve their 
coverage issues in areas where AT&T was the only GSM/LTE carrier.

The purchase of Sprint by T-Mobile was never about coverage. There are 
few areas where Sprint had native coverage but T-Mobile did not. The 
purchase was about getting more spectrum and acquiring all the Sprint 
customers.

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

#73036

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 17:58:34 -0800, sms wrote:

> The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of 
> Verizon roaming most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.
> The T-Mobile customers never had that roaming, they had some roaming 
> onto smaller carriers like U.S. Cellular but that didn't solve their 
> coverage issues in areas where AT&T was the only GSM/LTE carrier.

Steve, 

Old history is interesting, but T-Mobile told me just today I roam on:
o Verizon
o AT&T
o US Cellular
When there is no T-Mobile tower nearby (and if I set my phone to roam).

So if there wasn't free data/voice roaming in the past on T-Mobile
o There is now.

As far as I can tell, at least for unlimited voice, there is no advantage
to Verizon given T-Mobile coverage is all of Verizon, all of AT&T, all of
US Cellular, and all of T-Mobile, as far as I can tell.

But that could be wrong, which is why this thread exists.
o Hence, the question remains unanswered, which is:

Q: Is there any disadvantage to (US free T-mo) roaming in the USA?
-- 
Posted for the simple reason to obtain the factual answer to the query.

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

#73037

In article <rt0h4c$cdq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> 
> The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of 
> Verizon roaming

it's not an issue whatsoever.

> most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.

sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.

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

#73040

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 21:44:26 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of 
>> Verizon roaming
> 
> it's not an issue whatsoever.
> 
>> most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.
> 
> sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.

Hi nospam,

This post from Steve is more evidence sms is a Type II apologist.
o His entire belief system is based on no facts and all MARKETING bullshit.

Every single thing Steve has claimed in this thread turned out to be wrong.
o Dead wrong.

Who on earth is _that_ incredibly stupid?
o Not a single claim from Steve has turned out to be factually correct.

Not even one!

If there are any other adults on this newsgroup, notice that Steve Scharf
will spout his completely imaginary beliefs, where he's utterly immune to
facts.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I don't think Steve is malicious, per se, like Type III apologists are.
o Nor is Steve defending Apple MARKETING to the death, like Type I.

He's just stupid.

He gave us a plethora of cites, which I read, and comprehended.
o None were even remotely current, for heaven's sake.
o Most were from 2011 and 2014, where a _lot_ changes in a decade.

Worse, two of Steve's cites actually concluded the _opposite_ of what Steve
claimed the cites backed up.

WTF?
o Who on earth is _that_ stupid?

Steve didn't even _read_ his own cites, for heavens' sake.
-- 
What scares me is that I don't think Steve is malicious.
He's just a type II apologist, incredibily immune to basic facts.
(e.g., Steve _still_ thinks Qualcomm royalties went down!)

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

#73081

On 2021-01-04 21:44, nospam wrote:

> sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.


Are Sprint towers still broadcasting "Sprint" network or are they
already using the T-Mobile  MMC/MNO ?

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

#73082

In article <gK2JH.106379$mg2.27606@fx04.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Are Sprint towers still broadcasting "Sprint" network or are they
> already using the T-Mobile  MMC/MNO ?

sprint.

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

#73085

On 1/5/2021 11:03 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-01-04 21:44, nospam wrote:
> 
>> sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.
> 
> 
> Are Sprint towers still broadcasting "Sprint" network or are they
> already using the T-Mobile  MMC/MNO ?

Good question. If I can ever find a Sprint subscriber in this area I'll 
ask them to check! Seriously, I know a few T-Mobile subscribers that 
keep it due to the international included low-speed data and included 
SMS, but finding a Sprint customer would be a real task around here.

But in any case, the whole roaming issue for Sprint has been the loss of 
Verizon roaming, that's what changed their maps so significantly and 
caused the loss of so much coverage.

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

#73086

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:32:03 -0800, sms wrote:

> Seriously, I know a few T-Mobile subscribers


Now "he knows" a few T-Mobile subscribers.
o WTF?

Why is it that _everything_ out of Steve's mouth is bullshit?
o Everything is unsubstantiated bullshit coming from Steve.

Steve is a consumate politician - every word from him is utter bullhit.
o I can spout the same bullshit of "I know a few Verizon customers"...

Steve just makes this up...
o But worse than wasting our time with his utter bullshit...

He can't find a _single_ fact to back up his bullhit.
o Which is the final proof that EVERYTHING Steve is claiming is bullshit.

Politicians like Steve expect us to be morons & believe his bullshit.
o He doesn't have a _single_ fact backing up _any_ of his claims.

Not even one.
-- 
Note: I don't give a shit about Verizon versus T-Mobile; I only care about
facts, but I don't want consummate bullshitters like Steve wasting my time.

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

#73088

In article <rt2erl$rs9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.
> > 
> > 
> > Are Sprint towers still broadcasting "Sprint" network or are they
> > already using the T-Mobile  MMC/MNO ?
> 
> Good question.

it says sprint.

> If I can ever find a Sprint subscriber in this area I'll 
> ask them to check!

no need.

> Seriously, I know a few T-Mobile subscribers that 
> keep it due to the international included low-speed data and included 
> SMS, 

some do, but not all.

> but finding a Sprint customer would be a real task around here.

it is not.

> But in any case, the whole roaming issue for Sprint has been the loss of 
> Verizon roaming, that's what changed their maps so significantly and 
> caused the loss of so much coverage.

it's not in any way an issue nor has it been for a very, very long time.

stop talking about a carrier you do not use and likely never have used.

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

#73105

On 2021-01-05 14:57, nospam wrote:

>> Good question.
> 
> it says sprint.

Is this on an iPhone or normal phone?

On Fido in Canada, the carrier.plist for Fido was tweaked to show "Fido"
when on Roger's network.  However, doubtful SprinT/T-Mobile would have
gotten to that point yet.

Though, if you NEVER see T-Mobile when moving about, it would be a sign
that they are forcing the word "Sprint" on your phone whether you are on
Sprint of T-Mobile.

Since Sprint is to become an MVNO on T-Mobile, it is likely they will
tweak the SIM/setup to show Sprint when on T-Mobile. iPhone test mode

IOS 14, you,d have to go to field test mode ( dial *3001#12345#* ) and
then press the menu button then RAT and then kCTCellMonitorMCC and
xCTCellMonitorMNC will tell you to what network you're connected to).

You can then look at https://www.mcc-mnc.com/ tio see if the MCC/MNC
codes are for one of the PSirnt networks or T-Mobile ones.
Interestingly the USA doesn't use a single country code, its has
multiple ones).

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

#73106

In article <1b9JH.36716$rX1.12622@fx06.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > 
> > it says sprint.
> 
> Is this on an iPhone or normal phone?

iphone and android. flippers don't say anything, at least not the ones
i have handy.

> On Fido in Canada,

this is not about fido in canada.


> Since Sprint is to become an MVNO on T-Mobile,

nope. it doesn't work that way.

> it is likely they will
> tweak the SIM/setup to show Sprint when on T-Mobile. iPhone test mode

nope. 

the sprint/t-mobile merger is called t-mobile, and at some point, the
network name on the phone will change from sprint to t-mobile to match.

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

#73014

On 01/04/2021 09:05 AM, sms wrote:

> 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.

Data points from a year ago:

No T-Mobile coverage on the slopes at Snow Summit (Verizon was good) 
until you go perhaps half a mile west along Highway 18.  They just 
priced themselves out of my market, so I'll be going to a FREE place 
closer to civilization this year.

No coverage at all for T-Mobile or AT&T at Sequoia/King's Canyon NPs 
until you get down out of the mountains.


Cheers, Bev
   All the toilets were stolen out of the police station.
   The police have nothing to go on.

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

#73018

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:36:19 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> No T-Mobile coverage on the slopes at Snow Summit (Verizon was good) 
> until you go perhaps half a mile west along Highway 18.  They just 
> priced themselves out of my market, so I'll be going to a FREE place 
> closer to civilization this year.

Hi The Real Bev,

You know me for decades, it seems, where I don't doubt your anecdotal
evidence above as you have credibility and I appreciate you said it was a
year old (as such things can change in an instant)...

But I'm going to ask the basic question which is the topic of this thread.
o If you and or I are in "Snow Summit" nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if we're near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o And if I we set our phones to roaming...  
o Why wouldn't we be roaming (for voice & data) on all those networks?

> No coverage at all for T-Mobile or AT&T at Sequoia/King's Canyon NPs 
> until you get down out of the mountains.

The point is roaming, where, if there is _any_ tower from three carriers:
a. Verizon
b. AT&T
c. US Cellular

Why wouldn't we be roaming on _them_ even if there is no T-mo tower nearby?
-- 
It's a technical question about roaming which is apropos for this ng.

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

#73022

On 1/4/2021 10:36 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 01/04/2021 09:05 AM, sms wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Data points from a year ago:
> 
> No T-Mobile coverage on the slopes at Snow Summit (Verizon was good) 
> until you go perhaps half a mile west along Highway 18.  They just 
> priced themselves out of my market, so I'll be going to a FREE place 
> closer to civilization this year.
> 
> No coverage at all for T-Mobile or AT&T at Sequoia/King's Canyon NPs 
> until you get down out of the mountains.
> 
> 
> Cheers, Bev

Sounds like you go to the kinds of places we go to. Yes, Sequoia-Kings 
Canyon is an area, like Yosemite, where you really want to have Verizon 
coverage.

The “Mother Lode” area used to be Golden State Cellular which Verizon 
purchased. But that didn’t include Tulare and Fresno counties where 
Sequoia-Kings Canyon is located, I guess that those areas were always 
Verizon and Verizon just decided to spend the money on rural coverage. 
However I did stay once at Montecito-Sequoia Lodge 
<https://www.mslodge.com> and there was only Verizon coverage if you 
went up the hill behind the lodge, but they had Wi-Fi so Google Voice 
worked.

I was helping someone from Germany, at Best Buy, who wanted to buy a 
local SIM card for the duration of his vacation. He was looking at the 
assortment of prepaid SIM cards Best Buy sells, in bewilderment. I asked 
him what kind of places they would be visiting. His family wanted to 
visit several National Parks. He almost made the mistake of buying some 
of the $30 “T-Mobile Tourist SIM Kit” (no longer sold, see 
<https://www.bestbuy.com/site/t-mobile-30-tourist-sim-kit/6248603.p?skuId=6248603>). 
In Europe, all of the MVNOs have very good coverage (and their is 
roaming in all the EU countries, per EU agreement 
<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/faq/question-and-answers-roaming>) 
so it's not as critical when you choose a prepaid SIM, at least not 
based on coverage).

I had him check the IMEI of his iPhone at 
<https://www.totalwireless.com/activation/byop/collectesn?carrier=VZW> 
and then told him that buying the Total Wireless SIM card < 
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/total-wireless-keep-your-own-phone-sim/6407632.p> 
and the $35/5GB plan < 
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/total-wireless-35-unlimited-30-day-plan-digital/6386340.p> 
would be a much better option given his travel plans.

He bought four of the Total Wireless SIM cards and the family plan 
<https://www.bestbuy.com/site/total-wireless-100-unlimited-family-30-day-plan-card/6387447.p> 
so his whole family would have service during their month-long vacation, 
and added on the $10 Global Calling Card with rates to Germany of 
2-3¢/minute. $114 plus tax total, for a month--I don't recall how much 
data that plan had at the time, I think it was 60GB, now it's 100GB).

For short stays I recommend people buy the $10 Red Pocket Plan and 
activate on Verizon < https://www.redpocket.com/plans/add/M010> (as long 
as their phones pass the IMEI check for Verizon, if not I tell them to 
get Red Pocket buy activate on AT&T). Not all phones can be activated on 
Total Wireless or Red Pocket Verizon service because they lack CDMA 
support. Hopefully that restriction will soon be gone since Verizon 
supposedly has shut down CDMA.

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

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

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

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

csiph-web