Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dropped ATT for Verizon

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 15, 2004 12:51:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Not that it is a big deal, but I just grew weary of ATT's bad coverage
(GSM in the Washington, DC, area, and southern Maryland suburbs),
atrocious customer service (overseas reps who spoke poor English) and
the snotty and unhelpful attitude of ATT-owned store personnel.

I'd been an ATT Wireless customer for around seven years.

Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
least in my area.

HK

More about : dropped att verizon

Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 15, 2004 9:48:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.

I live in Fredericksburg, VA and go to the DC area quite often (was up
there this morning). I have great reception all around the DC area
including Northern VA and suburban MD (wife's family lives in Wheaton,
MD).

Welcome to Verizon. If you have questions, just ask and we'll try to
help.

Dave
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 16, 2004 1:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.

Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
the DC area.

-- Larry
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 16, 2004 2:07:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

pltrgyst wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
> <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>>least in my area.
>
> Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
> and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
> the DC area.
>
> -- Larry
>

I've found ATT's GSM "weak" in many of the office buildings I visit, and
in those same buildings, the Verizon CDMA works. Also, Verizon seems to
work in many underground METRO stations. Finally, where I live, adjacent
to Chesapeake Bay, ATT's signals are sketchy, but the Verizon signal is
present.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 2:31:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I don't have ATT GSM [yet] - have been holding off as it's my
understanding that they have a [ long ? ] way to go in building out
their GSM network.

QE
============


On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:07:29 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

|pltrgyst wrote:
|> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
|> <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>
|>>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in
the
|>>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
|>>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
|>>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless,
at
|>>least in my area.
|>
|> Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and
have both ATT
|> and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance
anywhere in
|> the DC area.
|>
|> -- Larry
|>
|
|I've found ATT's GSM "weak" in many of the office buildings I visit,
and
|in those same buildings, the Verizon CDMA works. Also, Verizon seems
to
|work in many underground METRO stations. Finally, where I live,
adjacent
|to Chesapeake Bay, ATT's signals are sketchy, but the Verizon signal
is
|present.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 4:07:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <2lq5r5FfflonU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Harry Krause <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
>pltrgyst wrote:
>I've found ATT's GSM "weak" in many of the office buildings I visit, and
>in those same buildings, the Verizon CDMA works. Also, Verizon seems to
>work in many underground METRO stations.

Given that Verizon has had antennas in the Metro tunnels for quite a few
years, having coverage in Metro is not suprising. They are now digital.
They were required to share the analog system with the other cellular
provider, but that doesn't help GSM users, who don't have analog.

Do non-AMPS non-CDMA users have any coverage in the D.C. Metro tunnels?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 8:23:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:45:20 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
><piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>>least in my area.
>
>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>the DC area.

Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Well, I'm sorry. We live in a world with heterosexuals. There are a lot of
them and they created us, God bless them." - Boy George, on complaints
about the heterosexual love story at the heart of his autobiographical
musical, 'Taboo.'
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 4:38:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
wrote:

>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>>the DC area.
>
>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?

Yes. 8;) One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.

-- Larry
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 4:38:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> wrote in message
news:D flif093as0kithsjmtmgtd43sast5muna@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have
both ATT
> >>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance
anywhere in
> >>the DC area.
> >
> >Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
>
> Yes. 8;) One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.
>
> -- Larry
>

Strange, I always heard Verizon was CDMA, and doesn't have GSM nor sell or
support GSM phones. Don't see how it can possibly be a Verizon.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 8:49:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:40 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>>>the DC area.
>>
>>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
>
>Yes. 8;) One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.

A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.

B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Cigars and golf--they're not just a habit, they're a lifestyle."
- slogan of the Cigar Smoking Golfers Association
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 8:49:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

David S wrote:

> A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
>
> B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

"maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)

I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
charges.

It felt dirty ;) 

JS
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 9:56:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:49:19 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:40 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
>chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>everything:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>>>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>>>>the DC area.
>>>
>>>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
>>
>>Yes. 8;) One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.
>
>A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.

And I answered: one of each. The one my wife uses is TDMA (SmartTac), the one I
use is GSM (Ericsson T618).

>B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

Correct. That was an error on my part, sorry. I ported that number from an ATT
GSM account (which was not easy, and took over three weeks).

-- Larry
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 9:56:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> wrote in message
news:hp7jf0112b0g4smoob65h83i1t57j7edef@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:49:19 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:40 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
> >chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
> >everything:
> >
> >>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have
both ATT
> >>>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance
anywhere in
> >>>>the DC area.
> >>>
> >>>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
> >>
> >>Yes. 8;) One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.
> >
> >A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
>
> And I answered: one of each. The one my wife uses is TDMA (SmartTac), the
one I
> use is GSM (Ericsson T618).
>
> >B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
> Correct. That was an error on my part, sorry. I ported that number from an
ATT
> GSM account (which was not easy, and took over three weeks).
>
> -- Larry
>

Actually, now that I think about it, you may actually be in the only part of
the country where verizon even has GSM sites. On embassy row in Wash DC they
run GSM sites for the ambassadorial staff to be able to use their GSM phones
on verizon... No idea how far away you are from there though, and Verizon
does not sell phones or provide service that work on GSM phones outside
those areas (they just provide GSM on verizon for diplomats). (I hear they
do the same near the United Nations too, but have no idea where). The first
part of B above may have to be modified :) 

Don't you just love exceptions :) 
July 17, 2004 11:45:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
: David S wrote:

: > A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
: >
: > B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

: "maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)

: I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
: made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
: charges.

Sounds like it would be possible if you use analog only (you can after
all do 911 from any phone to any carrier), and if Verizon has roaming
agreements for the analog, you wouldn't get charged for roaming. But,
you can't use GSM or TDMA on a CDMA system - analog only.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 17, 2004 11:45:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Andrew wrote:

> Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
> : David S wrote:
>
> : > A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
> : >
> : > B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
> : "maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)
>
> : I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
> : made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
> : charges.
>
> Sounds like it would be possible if you use analog only (you can after
> all do 911 from any phone to any carrier), and if Verizon has roaming
> agreements for the analog, you wouldn't get charged for roaming. But,
> you can't use GSM or TDMA on a CDMA system - analog only.

Of course. It was analog only here in VZW-only turf (cingular couldn't
be bothered to maintain their tower here). When I drove toward AT&T
service it hopped right onto their TDMA network ([D] on the screen) and
worked just as you'd expect a roaming TDMA call to work.

Its pretty sad that CDMA phones weren't designed to handle TDMA
fallback, at least. The CDMA handset's signal processor could handle a
TDMA call easily with the correct programming. A native TDMA chipset
handling a CDMA call would be impossible...

JS
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 18, 2004 12:28:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

A 911 call can not be made from any phone to any carrier. The
different protocols are all mutually exclusive, by definition. A Sprint
PCS phone and a tmobile phone can not make calls on each other's system.
Some (or is it all) tmobile phones and some Sprint PCS phones, I think
some verizon phones now too, can not make an analog call. An analog
call can not be made on a CDMA, tdma or gsm system. However, while some
carriers operate both a digital and an analog system, they do have areas
where all they offer is digital and there may be no other analog signal
available, so if you have an analog only phone, you would not be able to
make any calls, even 911.


Andrew wrote:

> Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
> : David S wrote:
>
> : > A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
> : >
> : > B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
> : "maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)
>
> : I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
> : made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
> : charges.
>
> Sounds like it would be possible if you use analog only (you can after
> all do 911 from any phone to any carrier), and if Verizon has roaming
> agreements for the analog, you wouldn't get charged for roaming. But,
> you can't use GSM or TDMA on a CDMA system - analog only.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
July 18, 2004 1:33:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Killer Madness wrote:

> The T730 doesn't even get 3 hours talk time. That alone I would assume deter
> some one from buying it or spending an money on getting one. Did you know
> the Sony Ericsson gets 9 hour talk time and 12.5 days standby??? That's
> right...if a phone is designed correctly and right, talk times that high are
> very easy. Moto on the other hand knows they make millions on battery sales,
> so there you go. Corporate fat greed takes over.
>
> I still can't believe it...9 hour talk time.

Wow, 9 hours!! I have to get a new phone. I've never had a Sony
Ericsson, only Nokias. Which models do you recommend? I'd like something
more up to date than what I have now, preferable tri-band as I travel to
Europe a lot.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 18, 2004 3:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Mee too about a week ago . Much better signal in Atlanta too . I

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Not that it is a big deal, but I just grew weary of ATT's bad coverage
>(GSM in the Washington, DC, area, and southern Maryland suburbs),
>atrocious customer service (overseas reps who spoke poor English) and
>the snotty and unhelpful attitude of ATT-owned store personnel.
>
>I'd been an ATT Wireless customer for around seven years.
>
>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.
>
>HK
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 18, 2004 5:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Carole wrote:
>
> Killer Madness wrote:
>
>> The T730 doesn't even get 3 hours talk time. That alone I would assume deter
>> some one from buying it or spending an money on getting one. Did you know
>> the Sony Ericsson gets 9 hour talk time and 12.5 days standby??? That's
>> right...if a phone is designed correctly and right, talk times that high are
>> very easy. Moto on the other hand knows they make millions on battery sales,
>> so there you go. Corporate fat greed takes over.
>>
>> I still can't believe it...9 hour talk time.
>
> Wow, 9 hours!! I have to get a new phone. I've never had a Sony
> Ericsson, only Nokias. Which models do you recommend? I'd like something
> more up to date than what I have now, preferable tri-band as I travel to
> Europe a lot.
>
>


If your life is such that you think you need nine hours of "talktime" on
a cell phone between recharges...

Many of simply use cellphones as a personal or business convenience, and
have the minimal monthly time plan. I do. I have 400 minutes a month.
Most months, I don't use 400 minutes.

Standby time is worthwhile, though. Five such days seems sufficent.

To each his/her own.
July 18, 2004 6:38:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Harry Krause wrote:

> If your life is such that you think you need nine hours of "talktime" on
> a cell phone between recharges...

I don't but I often forget to re-charge the dumb thing as I don't use it
that often. So the longer life would be nicer than what I have now.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 18, 2004 7:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:06:30 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>David S wrote:
>
>> A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
>>
>> B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
>"maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)
>
>I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
>made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
>charges.

Okay, so you programmed your ATT TDMA phone with your VZW account
information and went online at VZW and activated this phone. Sounds like
you were still using the ATT (or its roaming partners) towers but your
calls were billed to your VZW account.

>It felt dirty ;) 

You rotten, cheating scum...

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Such is the power of child nagging that some parents are, incredibly,
still getting through to the toys. So the Institute of Defensive Packaging
is working on a new system: Soon, toys will be immobilized inside Lucite
blocks, like giant paperweights, so the child can only look at them and cry
while the parent checks the Yellow Pages under 'Acetylene Torch Rental.'
Homes will burn down; people will die. But that is the price a society pays
for safe packaging." - Dave Barry
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 19, 2004 5:42:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:38:40 -0700, Carole <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>Harry Krause wrote:
>
>> If your life is such that you think you need nine hours of "talktime" on
>> a cell phone between recharges...
>
>I don't but I often forget to re-charge the dumb thing as I don't use it
>that often. So the longer life would be nicer than what I have now.

That's all well and good, but the source of this claim is a well-known
troll -- take his comments with a pound of salt.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Dr. Atkins' discovery meant that -- incredible though it seemed -- as long
as you avoided carbohydrates, you could, without guilt, eat high-fat,
high-calorie foods such as cheese, bacon, lard, pork rinds and whale. You
could eat an entire pig, as long as the pig had not recently been exposed
to bread." - Dave Barry
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 19, 2004 9:14:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:00:49 -0400, "Killer Madness"
<killermo@cnet.com> wrote:

>The T730 doesn't even get 3 hours talk time. That alone I would assume deter
>some one from buying it or spending an money on getting one. Did you know
>the Sony Ericsson gets 9 hour talk time and 12.5 days standby??? That's
>right...if a phone is designed correctly and right, talk times that high are
>very easy. Moto on the other hand knows they make millions on battery sales,
>so there you go. Corporate fat greed takes over.
>
>I still can't believe it...9 hour talk time.

Sez you. Any proof ??
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 5, 2004 5:18:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Me too in Atlanta. I pay more but what a difference
in coverage . ( VZW in Atlanta is mostly 850 mhz)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause


<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Not that it is a big deal, but I just grew weary of ATT's bad coverage
>(GSM in the Washington, DC, area, and southern Maryland suburbs),
>atrocious customer service (overseas reps who spoke poor English) and
>the snotty and unhelpful attitude of ATT-owned store personnel.
>
>I'd been an ATT Wireless customer for around seven years.
>
>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.
>
>HK
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 6, 2004 4:49:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <wvGQc.3199$yh.1873@fed1read05> on Fri, 6 Aug 2004 00:33:49 -0700,
"Halogen8" <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:

>It really doesnt matter if a technology is supperior on paper. It all comes
>down to real world experience. ...

Amen. Worth repeating.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 7, 2004 3:01:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.verizon Halogen8 <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
> ATT's GSM coverage might not have been comparable to TDMA when it first came
> out, but as of a few months ago, I think it was as good, if not better in
> both the bay area and San Diego. Of course this is a matter of opinion, and
> therefore not really a provable point.

Last year, an overly-pushy sales agent working for an AT&T Wireless authorized
retail agent at the Mall of Victor Valley in Victorville, CA really, REALLY,
*REALLY* wanted to sell me a phone. Pushed the hell out of AT&T's TDMA service
but even he said "don't go with Next Generation" (GSM). Said the coverage
wasn't good enough for him to recommend it.

What does that tell y'all? This is in Southern California, 90 miles (roughly)
northeast of Los Angeles, along the I-15.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 7, 2004 9:49:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Halogen8 <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
> No, actually they have quite a few analog areas. You can see for yourself
> on verizons site:
>
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/coveragemap.js...'s%20Choice<sup>sm</sup>
>
> The pink areas are NOT digital.

The pink areas aren't owned by Verizon, they're owned by roaming partners.

The only areas where Verizon owns their own networks are dark red.

For example, most of KY's coverage is owned by someone other than Verizon.

*ALL* native Verizon coverage is digital.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 8, 2004 3:23:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I never meant ATTWS GSM is better everywhere. (I wouldn't know, I've only
used it in a few places.) However in California I feel ATTWS GSM coverage
is better than Verizon.

I feel that the GSM standard, in general, is better than CDMA (even though
on paper CDMA is technologically superior, eg. soft handoffs, etc). GSM has
better compatiblity worldwide, better phone selection, SIM cards, better
battery life, much better call control, etc.

With that being said, I would not automatically choose GSM over CDMA without
looking at network coverage in my area of use. However if both networks
have the same coverage level, I would take GSM over CDMA for the above
mentioned reasons.


"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
news:t2p9h0hpu34alc01akb236v4tffff7s2pj@4ax.com...
> But you come off as claiming that GSM is superior to CDMA everywhere, and
> that's not true. They both have good and bad spots in Chicago, and lots of
> people here tell the exact opposite story as you about the east coast.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 8, 2004 3:29:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

You are right, I didnt think of that.

Is a local plan coverage area the same? If you look at
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/coveragemap.js...

It shows some areas as non digital, are those also non-verizon networks that
VZW customers are allowed to use?

When it comes down to it, does it really matter that all VZW native network
is digital? What really matters is the networks available to VZW customers,
and not all of them are digital.


"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:J5edneOSltsNwYjcRVn-rw@lmi.net...
> Halogen8 <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
> > No, actually they have quite a few analog areas. You can see for
yourself
> > on verizons site:
> >
> >
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/coveragemap.js...'s%20Choice<sup>sm</sup>
> >
> > The pink areas are NOT digital.
>
> The pink areas aren't owned by Verizon, they're owned by roaming partners.
>
> The only areas where Verizon owns their own networks are dark red.
>
> For example, most of KY's coverage is owned by someone other than Verizon.
>
> *ALL* native Verizon coverage is digital.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 8, 2004 5:54:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Halogen8 <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
> You are right, I didnt think of that.
>
> Is a local plan coverage area the same? If you look at
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/coveragemap.js...
>
> It shows some areas as non digital, are those also non-verizon networks that
> VZW customers are allowed to use?

Sometimes "home areas" on Local DigitalChoice plans DO include non-Verizon
networks. I can't come up with any good examples at this time, but I know they
do exist.

> When it comes down to it, does it really matter that all VZW native network
> is digital? What really matters is the networks available to VZW customers,
> and not all of them are digital.

Yup

As I said on this newsgroup last week, I even got a tri-mode phone when I
switched to Sprint in July, and Sprint is and has always been 100% digital,
100% 1900MHz CDMA. This way I'm covered if I happen to roam off their network
onto a network where my phone will only work in analog. They've finally
started to allow digital roaming, but I figure this way I'm covered Just In
Case.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
August 8, 2004 7:36:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <SbuRc.3537$yh.1675@fed1read05>,
"Halogen8" <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:


> GSM has
> better compatiblity worldwide,

This becomes a deciding factor for some.

Yet, this is probably said more by people who never travel.



It's like people who don't swim, who won't go away on vacation to a
place without a pool.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 8, 2004 7:36:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

True, and I most likely wouldn't make phone calls overseas, however SMS
would still work, and would be a very innexspensive way to stay in touch
when traveling. I do really think I would use this. Not that I'm overseas
alot, it would just be nice when I go on vacation for it to work.


"Steve" <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Steve-364D96.15360308082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <SbuRc.3537$yh.1675@fed1read05>,
> "Halogen8" <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
>
>
> > GSM has
> > better compatiblity worldwide,
>
> This becomes a deciding factor for some.
>
> Yet, this is probably said more by people who never travel.
>
>
>
> It's like people who don't swim, who won't go away on vacation to a
> place without a pool.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 8, 2004 11:04:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Back when verizon did still have analog areas, or at least I
thought they did, I said so. Now that they do not have, hardly, if any
analog areas, that is now what I say. Not that verizon is my favorite
carrier, but I will not malign their coverage as still being analog.


Halogen8 wrote:

> You are right, I didnt think of that.
>
> Is a local plan coverage area the same? If you look at
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/coveragemap.js...
>
> It shows some areas as non digital, are those also non-verizon networks that
> VZW customers are allowed to use?
>
> When it comes down to it, does it really matter that all VZW native network
> is digital? What really matters is the networks available to VZW customers,
> and not all of them are digital.
>
>
> "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:J5edneOSltsNwYjcRVn-rw@lmi.net...
>
>>Halogen8 <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No, actually they have quite a few analog areas. You can see for
>
> yourself
>
>>>on verizons site:
>>>
>>>
>
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/coveragemap.js...'s%20Choice<sup>sm</sup>
>
>>>The pink areas are NOT digital.
>>
>>The pink areas aren't owned by Verizon, they're owned by roaming partners.
>>
>>The only areas where Verizon owns their own networks are dark red.
>>
>>For example, most of KY's coverage is owned by someone other than Verizon.
>>
>>*ALL* native Verizon coverage is digital.
>>
>>--
>>JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
>>Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
>
> sjsobol@JustThe.net
>
>>PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
>>Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
>
>
>
August 9, 2004 6:43:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <fRvRc.3566$yh.877@fed1read05>,
"Halogen8" <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:

> True, and I most likely wouldn't make phone calls overseas, however SMS
> would still work, and would be a very innexspensive way to stay in touch
> when traveling. I do really think I would use this. Not that I'm overseas
> alot, it would just be nice when I go on vacation for it to work.
>
>
> "Steve" <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:Steve-364D96.15360308082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <SbuRc.3537$yh.1675@fed1read05>,
> > "Halogen8" <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > GSM has
> > > better compatiblity worldwide,
> >
> > This becomes a deciding factor for some.
> >
> > Yet, this is probably said more by people who never travel.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's like people who don't swim, who won't go away on vacation to a
> > place without a pool.

Halogen8,

Just for the record, I hope you know I wasn't knocking you when I posted
my reply.

It was just a thought in general, since I see so many people mention the
worldwide compatibility thing.



Steve
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 10, 2004 4:54:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <EMydnSsSQYNIYYncRVn-sg@lmi.net> on Sat, 07 Aug 2004 11:01:25 -0500, Steven
J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Halogen8 <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
>> ATT's GSM coverage might not have been comparable to TDMA when it first came
>> out, but as of a few months ago, I think it was as good, if not better in
>> both the bay area and San Diego. Of course this is a matter of opinion, and
>> therefore not really a provable point.
>
>Last year, an overly-pushy sales agent working for an AT&T Wireless authorized
>retail agent at the Mall of Victor Valley in Victorville, CA really, REALLY,
>*REALLY* wanted to sell me a phone. Pushed the hell out of AT&T's TDMA service
>but even he said "don't go with Next Generation" (GSM). Said the coverage
>wasn't good enough for him to recommend it.
>
>What does that tell y'all? ...

That your information is at least 8 months out of date, and thus not terribly
meaningful today.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 10, 2004 11:57:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

No problem at all. I understood what you meant. Its true, most people do
find worldwide compatability a big selling point when they probably will
never use it. I find it a plus to GSM, but definitely not a deal breaker
for most of us.


"Steve" <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Steve-51EEEE.02435809082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> Halogen8,
>
> Just for the record, I hope you know I wasn't knocking you when I posted
> my reply.
>
> It was just a thought in general, since I see so many people mention the
> worldwide compatibility thing.
>
>
>
> Steve
!