FYI: SW Oregon coverage

[Guest]

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

I just got back from a trip to southwestern Oregon, and just over the
California border to the redwoods, then back up the coast and home to
Eugene.

Verizon has included both 800Mhz (A and B) in the PRL, folks can roam free
on AC via Ramcell (preferred), US Cellular, and Sprint. The odd part is
that making Ramcell preferred over US Cellular actually reduces the quality
of coverage-- if I were a PRL maker, I'd leave the same carriers in the mix,
but reduce Ramcell's priority below both Sprint and US Cellular. i.e. I'd
have it be Sprint, US Cellular, then Ramcell for best digital coverage. As
it is, most of my travels were in analog on Ramcell. Even their posted
coverage map is incorrect, as they only have digital coverage in a handful
of places-- they're mostly analog.
- Luckily my phone has "digital-only" as a setting that's easily selectable
which dramatically improves things by excluding ramcell's analog coverage,
unless I needed it, which I did at the Oregon Caves (just selected
"automatic" again). Not all phones have manual selections for digital,
analog, etc. The Kyocera's do have this setting and I find it very useful.

Overall all is well in SW Oregon, with literally every carrier you can roam
on included with AC. I'm pleased they added Ramcell to the PRL. I do wish
they'd change the order to prefer carriers with more digital service, but
otherwise coverage is as good as ever.

-Dan

PS: I carried TDMA and GSM phones with me. GSM has improved, but lags
behind TDMA and analog in this neck of the woods. I'm happy my primary phone
isn't GSM.

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

 

[Guest]

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

In article <iJudnXlastEg1M_cRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
>Verizon has included both 800Mhz (A and B) in the PRL, folks can roam free
>on AC via Ramcell (preferred), US Cellular, and Sprint. The odd part is
>that making Ramcell preferred over US Cellular actually reduces the quality
>of coverage-- if I were a PRL maker, I'd leave the same carriers in the mix,
>but reduce Ramcell's priority below both Sprint and US Cellular. i.e. I'd
>have it be Sprint, US Cellular, then Ramcell for best digital coverage. As
>it is, most of my travels were in analog on Ramcell. Even their posted
>coverage map is incorrect, as they only have digital coverage in a handful
>of places-- they're mostly analog.

When ordering the PRL, and deciding what in extended network, whether
the provider is digital vs. analog is less important than the cost of the
roaming agreement that VZW has negotiated with the provider. Presumably,
Ramcell has offered a better deal to VZW than SPCS and US Cellular.

 

[Guest]

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

> When ordering the PRL, and deciding what in extended network, whether
> the provider is digital vs. analog is less important than the cost of the
> roaming agreement that VZW has negotiated with the provider. Presumably,
> Ramcell has offered a better deal to VZW than SPCS and US Cellular.

You're exactly correct. I'd add that with Ramcell offering 500 peak minutes
for $19.99/mo, and unlimited plans at $40, they seem to be desperate and
"giving away the farm." I mean that I've never seen anyone offer so many
peak minutes for $20.

In my tests (Bandon, Port Orford, Coos Bay, Reedsport etc.) they
consistently failed to deliver 5/6 phone calls. (Yes I called myself to
test). Their own coverage maps show much more digital coverage than they
actually have, and coverage that they do have, say out hwy 38 is only usable
with a bag phone.

My phone frequently found 1 or zero analog bars (in places where US Cellular
had full digital 1x signal). Of course they're higher in the PRL so you can
guess what was automatically selected. Digital-only phones will have an
"advantage" in this instance. Also those saavy enough to manually select
"digital-only" at least at times.

-Dan

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

 

[Bean]

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

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in
news:lMydnTcw5aaHbsncRVn-pA@comcast.com:

> My phone frequently found 1 or zero analog bars (in places where US
> Cellular had full digital 1x signal). Of course they're higher in the
> PRL so you can guess what was automatically selected. Digital-only
> phones will have an "advantage" in this instance. Also those saavy
> enough to manually select "digital-only" at least at times.
>


Dan - this is an interesting comment on analog comverage, and almost an
argument of going with an all digital phone. I realize that there are areas
without digital coverage, but do you think it's safe to say that most new
coverage is digital everywhere? I live in a somewhat rural area, and while
I don't have Verizon, my neighbor does. He just got a new phone, and the
store is encouraging locals to go the all digital route. Since he got his
phone, he's said that his local coverage is exactly the same.

I read a post someplace else that some people report that even when they
have an analog signal, it's to weak or too cruddy to use anyway.

Thanks for your detailed posts - I find them useful.

Bean

 

[Guest]

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

> Dan - this is an interesting comment on analog comverage, and almost an
> argument of going with an all digital phone. I realize that there are
> areas
> without digital coverage, but do you think it's safe to say that most new
> coverage is digital everywhere?

--> Actually, the really odd bit here is that Verizon used to have US
Cellular
as preferred provider in these areas (and they've been digital for years).
In any
event, the addition of Ramcell as preferred providers had the effect of
dramatically
reducing digital coverage at least for tri-mode phones. So yes, oddly, in
this case
an all-digital phone would have an advantage of sorts.

> I live in a somewhat rural area, and while
> I don't have Verizon, my neighbor does. He just got a new phone, and the
> store is encouraging locals to go the all digital route. Since he got his
> phone, he's said that his local coverage is exactly the same.

--> This varies by location. Here in Oregon there are stretches covering
hundreds
of miles that are analog only, not to mention our ski area at Willamette
Pass. In
other words, someone from Eugene OR with an all-digital phone would simply
see "no service" when traveling in these areas. On the other hand, a
tri-mode phone
would find much usable analog signal including in ski areas.

> I read a post someplace else that some people report that even when they
> have an analog signal, it's to weak or too cruddy to use anyway.

--> Analog provided by US Cellular at Willamette pass, and in eastern Oregon
is actually quite good and quite usable. Aside from the very poor battery
life
I have few complaints with regard to analog. Anyway, I'd say it all depends
on location and carrier.

To optimize someone's use here in Oregon, I would still recommend a
tri-mode phone, but I'd add it may be useful to find one like Kyocera
or LG that typically enable a "digital-only" setting which the user
can optionally select when it makes sense to do so. I suspect Ramcell
will eventually add digital everywhere as they are in the process of
upgrading their network so this particular problem should go away.

> Thanks for your detailed posts - I find them useful.
--> Thanks for your kind words.

Dan

 

[Guest]

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

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message news:<gf6dnVhIOMoLd8XcRVn-pg@comcast.com>...
> In any
> event, the addition of Ramcell as preferred providers had the effect of
> dramatically
> reducing digital coverage at least for tri-mode phones. So yes, oddly, in
> this case
> an all-digital phone would have an advantage of sorts.
>
> > I live in a somewhat rural area, and while
> > I don't have Verizon, my neighbor does. He just got a new phone, and the
> > store is encouraging locals to go the all digital route. Since he got his
> > phone, he's said that his local coverage is exactly the same.
>
> --> This varies by location. Here in Oregon there are stretches covering
> hundreds
> of miles that are analog only, not to mention our ski area at Willamette
> Pass. In
> other words, someone from Eugene OR with an all-digital phone would simply
> see "no service" when traveling in these areas. On the other hand, a
> tri-mode phone
> would find much usable analog signal including in ski areas.
>
> > I read a post someplace else that some people report that even when they
> > have an analog signal, it's to weak or too cruddy to use anyway.
>
> --> Analog provided by US Cellular at Willamette pass, and in eastern Oregon
> is actually quite good and quite usable. Aside from the very poor battery
> life
> I have few complaints with regard to analog. Anyway, I'd say it all depends
> on location and carrier.
>
> To optimize someone's use here in Oregon, I would still recommend a
> tri-mode phone, but I'd add it may be useful to find one like Kyocera
> or LG that typically enable a "digital-only" setting which the user
> can optionally select when it makes sense to do so. I suspect Ramcell
> will eventually add digital everywhere as they are in the process of
> upgrading their network so this particular problem should go away.
>

Getting a phone with a digital only setting is a much better solution,
IMO than an all digital. An all digital is for Verizon's costs
benefit.

Audiovox/Toshiba phones also have detailed "prefered mode" selections,
including... Analog only, digital only, cdma only, PCS only, cellular
only. My 9500 also includes a PCS channel direct input. Just pop in
the correct Sprint channel number and it bypasses the PRL, for Sprint
roaming. To find the SPCS channel just go to Andrew Shepherds page and
get the info...

http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/main.html

-
David