Verizon Coverage Not As Good As I Thought

[dick]

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

I have always been pleased with my Verizon National Single Rate plan,
and had never seen another carrier with better coverage. However, we
just took a trip from Prescott Arizona to Park City Utah. My wife
recently acquired an AT&T GSM phone from our daughter, and I had an
opportunity to compare coverage between the two on that 700 mile route
which took us through Kingman, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Almost
all on interstates.

There was no comparison between our Startac 7868 on Verizon and my
wife's tiny Nokia 6010 on AT&T. The Nokia easily had 10 times the
coverage of the Motorola on Verizon, and most would agree that the
Startac has one of the most sensitive receivers ever sold. The little
Nokia doesn't even have an external antenna! AT&T GSM provided nearly
solid coverage on the entire route. Verizon had coverage now and
then, and never when I wanted it. The difference was amazing! I hate
to say it, but I will be giving up my Verizon NSR for AT&T/Cingular
this week. I know all this would depend upon where you live, but for
the route we take the most, it is AT&T hands down.

 

[Mike]

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

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:59:55 -0700, Dick <LeadWinger> wrote:

>The difference was amazing! I hate
>to say it, but I will be giving up my Verizon NSR for AT&T/Cingular
>this week. I know all this would depend upon where you live, but for
>the route we take the most, it is AT&T hands down.

Well, hope you have fun over there.

Two points you should know:

1) GSM coverage has improved dramatically nationwide, from all I've
seen and heard. For one, AT&T and Cingular's networks have merged
("no roaming" wise, that is, I believe the folks who've been on AT&TWS
can roam free on Cingular's network at very least, until it is all
fully one network). For another, both carriers, and all GSM carriers,
continue their buildout nationwide. Some of them have even hooked up
with smaller, rural GSM carriers in The Middle O' Nowhere for roaming
agreements.

2) One key in your message - you were along the interstates for pretty
much your entire trip. Though as mentioned, GSM networks are building
out...many newer digital networks are still stronger along major
interstate highways than they are just a few miles off the freeway.
If you look at most coverage maps for newer networks, you'll still see
a "spiderweb" effect of coverage within a couple or few miles of an
interstate, and nothing else. Since the GSM carriers don't have
analog, they aren't using analog backup away from the populated areas.

Oh, and a 3) Most carriers are weaker in coverage out west and in the
southwest U.S. VZW is not as dominant in coverage in that area as
they are in the northeast, for example.

Mike

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsr9oq0toqq900opp3cioqq6ctsl4bu49nv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:59:55 -0700, Dick <LeadWinger> wrote:
>
>>The difference was amazing! I hate
>>to say it, but I will be giving up my Verizon NSR for AT&T/Cingular
>>this week. I know all this would depend upon where you live, but for
>>the route we take the most, it is AT&T hands down.
>
> Well, hope you have fun over there.
>
> Two points you should know:
>SNIPPED for brevity<
> 2) One key in your message - you were along the interstates for pretty
> much your entire trip. Though as mentioned, GSM networks are building
> out...many newer digital networks are still stronger along major
> interstate highways than they are just a few miles off the freeway.
> If you look at most coverage maps for newer networks, you'll still see
> a "spiderweb" effect of coverage within a couple or few miles of an
> interstate, and nothing else. Since the GSM carriers don't have
> analog, they aren't using analog backup away from the populated areas.
>
> Oh, and a 3) Most carriers are weaker in coverage out west and in the
> southwest U.S. VZW is not as dominant in coverage in that area as
> they are in the northeast, for example.
>
> Mike

Mike mentions coverage along Interstates and the "spiderweb" coverage maps.
I venture off ... far away from Interstates most of the time in CA and NV.
Between Verizon, roaming, and plain ol analog, I can make calls when the
wife's AT&T phone service has assumed room temperature. Verizon with an
above average tri-mode phone is the ticket.

--

- Philip

 

[Guest]

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

Have you considered a Verizon phone newer than the almost-decade
old Startac?

Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in news82oq0lj041ju9sm9m7n1p1bne1vp4e8ij@
4ax.com:

> I have always been pleased with my Verizon National Single Rate
plan,
> and had never seen another carrier with better coverage.
However, we
> just took a trip from Prescott Arizona to Park City Utah. My
wife
> recently acquired an AT&T GSM phone from our daughter, and I had
an
> opportunity to compare coverage between the two on that 700 mile
route
> which took us through Kingman, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City.
Almost
> all on interstates.
>
> There was no comparison between our Startac 7868 on Verizon and
my
> wife's tiny Nokia 6010 on AT&T. The Nokia easily had 10 times
the
> coverage of the Motorola on Verizon, and most would agree that
the
> Startac has one of the most sensitive receivers ever sold. The
little
> Nokia doesn't even have an external antenna! AT&T GSM provided
nearly
> solid coverage on the entire route. Verizon had coverage now and
> then, and never when I wanted it. The difference was amazing! I
hate
> to say it, but I will be giving up my Verizon NSR for
AT&T/Cingular
> this week. I know all this would depend upon where you live, but
for
> the route we take the most, it is AT&T hands down.

 

[dick]

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

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Regenbogen
<mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote:

Yes, I have. However, the Motorola Startac ST7868W tri-mode phone was
released in December 1998, so the very earliest ones were released
less than 6 years ago. When you read reviews of the 7868 compared to
more modern phones you will find that it is equal to or superior to
most of them as far as range is concerned. Doesn't have the bells and
whistles, but for a solid connection on an AMPS/CDMA tri-mode, it is
very hard to beat. That's why they still bring a premium on Ebay. I
think it provides a very, valid comparison between Verizon AMPS/CDMA
and AT&T/Cingular's GSM service.

>Have you considered a Verizon phone newer than the almost-decade
>old Startac?

 

[Guest]

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

Actual RF tests indicate otherwise...

Yeah, that 5+ year old CDMA DSP is somehow superior to a chipset made
today. Riiiiight. Think about this for a minute.

Your Pentium II running Win98 second edition kicks ass, too!

I get 14k/sec download where your oldtac is grabbing for AMPS.

JS

Dick wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Regenbogen
> <mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I have. However, the Motorola Startac ST7868W tri-mode phone was
> released in December 1998, so the very earliest ones were released
> less than 6 years ago. When you read reviews of the 7868 compared to
> more modern phones you will find that it is equal to or superior to
> most of them as far as range is concerned. Doesn't have the bells and
> whistles, but for a solid connection on an AMPS/CDMA tri-mode, it is
> very hard to beat. That's why they still bring a premium on Ebay. I
> think it provides a very, valid comparison between Verizon AMPS/CDMA
> and AT&T/Cingular's GSM service.
>
>
>>Have you considered a Verizon phone newer than the almost-decade
>>old Startac?
>
>

 

[dick]

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

When it comes to RF, signal processing doesn't have a whole lot to do
with it. Sure it can help when signals are marginal, but not if there
isn't anything to process. You either have a signal at the receiver,
or you don't. Fifty year-old radio equipment works just fine under
most conditions. I don't want to get into a discussion of data
transmission. I am interested only in voice.

I would appreciate a reference to RF tests between the Startac and
newer phones.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:45:08 -0600, Jacob Suter <j4k3@ezho.org> wrote:

>Actual RF tests indicate otherwise...
>
>Yeah, that 5+ year old CDMA DSP is somehow superior to a chipset made
>today. Riiiiight. Think about this for a minute.
>
>Your Pentium II running Win98 second edition kicks ass, too!
>
>I get 14k/sec download where your oldtac is grabbing for AMPS.
>
>JS
>
>Dick wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Regenbogen
>> <mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I have. However, the Motorola Startac ST7868W tri-mode phone was
>> released in December 1998, so the very earliest ones were released
>> less than 6 years ago. When you read reviews of the 7868 compared to
>> more modern phones you will find that it is equal to or superior to
>> most of them as far as range is concerned. Doesn't have the bells and
>> whistles, but for a solid connection on an AMPS/CDMA tri-mode, it is
>> very hard to beat. That's why they still bring a premium on Ebay. I
>> think it provides a very, valid comparison between Verizon AMPS/CDMA
>> and AT&T/Cingular's GSM service.
>>
>>
>>>Have you considered a Verizon phone newer than the almost-decade
>>>old Startac?
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

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

Dick... forgive for asking the obvious question but here goes: When was the
last time you updated the PRL (preferred roaming list) list in your phone?
--

- Philip


"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news82oq0lj041ju9sm9m7n1p1bne1vp4e8ij@4ax.com...
>I have always been pleased with my Verizon National Single Rate plan,
> and had never seen another carrier with better coverage. However, we
> just took a trip from Prescott Arizona to Park City Utah. My wife
> recently acquired an AT&T GSM phone from our daughter, and I had an
> opportunity to compare coverage between the two on that 700 mile route
> which took us through Kingman, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Almost
> all on interstates.
>
> There was no comparison between our Startac 7868 on Verizon and my
> wife's tiny Nokia 6010 on AT&T. The Nokia easily had 10 times the
> coverage of the Motorola on Verizon, and most would agree that the
> Startac has one of the most sensitive receivers ever sold. The little
> Nokia doesn't even have an external antenna! AT&T GSM provided nearly
> solid coverage on the entire route. Verizon had coverage now and
> then, and never when I wanted it. The difference was amazing! I hate
> to say it, but I will be giving up my Verizon NSR for AT&T/Cingular
> this week. I know all this would depend upon where you live, but for
> the route we take the most, it is AT&T hands down.

 

[dick]

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

It's been a while. Good point.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:44:14 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Dick... forgive for asking the obvious question but here goes: When was the
>last time you updated the PRL (preferred roaming list) list in your phone?

 

[Guest]

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

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news82oq0lj041ju9sm9m7n1p1bne1vp4e8ij@4ax.com...
>I have always been pleased with my Verizon National Single Rate plan,
> and had never seen another carrier with better coverage. However, we
> just took a trip from Prescott Arizona to Park City Utah. My wife
> recently acquired an AT&T GSM phone from our daughter, and I had an
> opportunity to compare coverage between the two on that 700 mile route
> which took us through Kingman, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Almost
> all on interstates.
>

When you're at the ass end of the earth like that, feel fortunate if you can
get shortwave reception;-)

 

[Guest]

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

"Special Ed" <chasham97NOSPAM@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
newsm3rd.10766$Ua.1242@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
> news82oq0lj041ju9sm9m7n1p1bne1vp4e8ij@4ax.com...
>>I have always been pleased with my Verizon National Single Rate plan,
>> and had never seen another carrier with better coverage. However, we
>> just took a trip from Prescott Arizona to Park City Utah. My wife
>> recently acquired an AT&T GSM phone from our daughter, and I had an
>> opportunity to compare coverage between the two on that 700 mile route
>> which took us through Kingman, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Almost
>> all on interstates.
>>
>
> When you're at the ass end of the earth like that, feel fortunate if you
> can get shortwave reception;-)

Hey city slicker. Wanna talk about "Ass end of the earth?" That would
have to be Trona/Searles Valley, CA. Between the low desert heat, borax,
salt, and especially the sulfur mining on the dry lake ... Trona is much
closer to being the ass end of the earth. About a half mile of weak digital
service during the day and darned transient analog otherwise.

 

[Guest]

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

Philip wrote:

> Hey city slicker. Wanna talk about "Ass end of the earth?" That would
> have to be Trona/Searles Valley, CA. Between the low desert heat, borax,
> salt, and especially the sulfur mining on the dry lake ... Trona is much
> closer to being the ass end of the earth. About a half mile of weak digital
> service during the day and darned transient analog otherwise.

Move to Apple Valley or Victorville - or any of the other towns in this area.
We don't stink. If you really feel you need to visit Trona, it'll be about an
hour away. And we have good cell coverage from all of the major carriers
(probably something to do with I-15 running right through the middle of the
Victor Valley

BTW, Trona would be high desert, wouldn't it?


--
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.

 

[Guest]

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

Philip wrote:

> Hey city slicker. Wanna talk about "Ass end of the earth?" That would
> have to be Trona/Searles Valley, CA. Between the low desert heat, borax,
> salt, and especially the sulfur mining on the dry lake ... Trona is much
> closer to being the ass end of the earth. About a half mile of weak digital
> service during the day and darned transient analog otherwise.

OBTW, the "We don't stink" comment was in reference to the sulfur mining. I
don't want to live anywhere that is close to a large deposit of sulfur.


--
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.

 

[Guest]

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

Begin Jacob Suter quote:

; Actual RF tests indicate otherwise...
;
; Yeah, that 5+ year old CDMA DSP is somehow superior to a chipset made
; today. Riiiiight. Think about this for a minute.

I don't have to, I can see the results side by side. My Dad has a
StarTac 7868W and I have a Kyocera 7135. Side by side at my Aunt's
place out in MetroSouth Cell-Hell, or my place in MetroNorthwest
Cell-Hell, my one year old to me Kyocera is searching for a signal, any
signal, while my Dad's 5+ year old StarTac is alternating between bare
digital signal and a half-decent analog signal. Or if we get slightly
closer to an antenna, he's got one or two bars and I've only got the
antenna icon.

Note that mine is newer, made by the CDMA developer, and with a
half-wave antenna vs the Motorola's eighth-wave stubby antenna.

My Kyo is a trimode, but it can never find an analog signal unless I
force it to analog, even when it cannot find a digital signal.

We both use Verizon.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"I want to be in on the fight. Probably the only chance I'll have in my
life for real risk." "What, the risk you run every day from lunatic
assassins isn't enough thrill for you? You want more?" (Emperor Gregor
and Miles Vorkosigan [Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Vor Game"])

 

[Guest]

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

In article <908qq01tppfoe8mleqvntrh0rsv6v411nt@news20.forteinc.com>,
Jeffrey Kaplan <acv@gordol.org> wrote:

> ; Actual RF tests indicate otherwise... ; ; Yeah, that 5+ year old
> CDMA DSP is somehow superior to a chipset made ; today. Riiiiight.
> Think about this for a minute.
>
> I don't have to, I can see the results side by side. My Dad has a
> StarTac 7868W and I have a Kyocera 7135. Side by side at my Aunt's
> place out in MetroSouth Cell-Hell, or my place in MetroNorthwest
> Cell-Hell, my one year old to me Kyocera is searching for a signal,
> any signal, while my Dad's 5+ year old StarTac is alternating between
> bare digital signal and a half-decent analog signal. Or if we get
> slightly closer to an antenna, he's got one or two bars and I've only
> got the antenna icon.

I live in a fringe area. My V60i had better reception than my 7868W
had, and my V710 has better reception than the V60i had.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:

> Note that mine is newer, made by the CDMA developer, and with a
> half-wave antenna vs the Motorola's eighth-wave stubby antenna.

Nit: Kyocera is not the company that does CDMA chipsets. Qualcomm is. They sold
their handset business to Kyocera after deciding to focus on chips instead of
chips and phones.


--
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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tD4rd.10834$Ua.10656@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Special Ed" <chasham97NOSPAM@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> newsm3rd.10766$Ua.1242@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news82oq0lj041ju9sm9m7n1p1bne1vp4e8ij@4ax.com...
>>>I have always been pleased with my Verizon National Single Rate plan,
>>> and had never seen another carrier with better coverage. However, we
>>> just took a trip from Prescott Arizona to Park City Utah. My wife
>>> recently acquired an AT&T GSM phone from our daughter, and I had an
>>> opportunity to compare coverage between the two on that 700 mile route
>>> which took us through Kingman, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Almost
>>> all on interstates.
>>>
>>
>> When you're at the ass end of the earth like that, feel fortunate if you
>> can get shortwave reception;-)
>
> Hey city slicker. Wanna talk about "Ass end of the earth?" That would
> have to be Trona/Searles Valley, CA. Between the low desert heat, borax,
> salt, and especially the sulfur mining on the dry lake ... Trona is much
> closer to being the ass end of the earth. About a half mile of weak
> digital service during the day and darned transient analog otherwise.
>
>
>

Sorry, I couldn't help myself;-)

Ed

 

[Guest]

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

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Hey city slicker. Wanna talk about "Ass end of the earth?" That would
>> have to be Trona/Searles Valley, CA. Between the low
>> desert heat, borax, salt, and especially the sulfur mining on the
>> dry lake ... Trona is much closer to being the ass end of the
>> earth. About a half mile of weak digital service during the day
>> and darned transient analog otherwise.
>
> Move to Apple Valley or Victorville - or any of the other towns in
> this area. We don't stink. If you really feel you need to visit
> Trona, it'll be about an hour away. And we have good cell coverage
> from all of the major carriers (probably something to do with I-15
> running right through the middle of the Victor Valley
>
> BTW, Trona would be high desert, wouldn't it?

I'm don't know how the word "low" got in there. TYPO! ;-)

The topography of Victorville lends itself to decent coverage due to all the
towers along I-15 ... unless you happen to be east of the interstate in
Telephone Canyon where even analog can't reach. LOL

--

- Philip

 

[Guest]

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

Philip wrote:

> The topography of Victorville lends itself to decent coverage due to all the
> towers along I-15 ... unless you happen to be east of the interstate in
> Telephone Canyon where even analog can't reach. LOL

Telephone Canyon? Ha.

My Verizon phone didn't work out here near the eastern border of Apple Valley.
I was just outside coverage. My Sprint phone does, but has a coverage hole on
old US 66 past the cement plants, and along Air Expressway for a few miles
between US 66 and Village Drive in Victorville. Of course, other than the
cement plants, there's nothing out there... and it is rather hilly.

West of the freeway is flatter and more cell-friendly, but the fact is that the
entire area has spots where cell phones work only sporadically or not at all.
The exact spots are carrier-dependent.

--
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.

 

[dick]

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

I guess it's been a long time. My PRL was 50144. When I updated, the
PRL is now 50213. I wonder what changes have taken place since 50144?

Dick

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:44:14 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Dick... forgive for asking the obvious question but here goes: When was the
>last time you updated the PRL (preferred roaming list) list in your phone?

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:49:36 -0700, Dick wrote:

> I guess it's been a long time. My PRL was 50144. When I updated, the
> PRL is now 50213. I wonder what changes have taken place since 50144?

Check justalurker.com or mountainwireless.com

 

[Guest]

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

Dick wrote:
> I have always been pleased with my Verizon National Single Rate plan,
> and had never seen another carrier with better coverage. However, we
> just took a trip from Prescott Arizona to Park City Utah. My wife
> recently acquired an AT&T GSM phone from our daughter, and I had an
> opportunity to compare coverage between the two on that 700 mile
route
> which took us through Kingman, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Almost
> all on interstates.
>
> There was no comparison between our Startac 7868 on Verizon and my
> wife's tiny Nokia 6010 on AT&T. The Nokia easily had 10 times the
> coverage of the Motorola on Verizon, and most would agree that the
> Startac has one of the most sensitive receivers ever sold. The
little
> Nokia doesn't even have an external antenna! AT&T GSM provided
nearly
> solid coverage on the entire route. Verizon had coverage now and
> then, and never when I wanted it. The difference was amazing! I
hate
> to say it, but I will be giving up my Verizon NSR for AT&T/Cingular
> this week. I know all this would depend upon where you live, but for
> the route we take the most, it is AT&T hands down.

I think I know your problem. I had a similar experience with my 7868
in December 2002 (may have changed since).

Verizon's can roam on Altell in Arizona, but they are analog A. For
some stupid reason, they are not in the Singlerate PRL. If you switch
your phone to Auto A (many customers default to Auto B), you will pick
up Altell (for free under singlerate), and have flawless coverage. I
wasn't able to drop below 4/5 bars on any interstate (I went from from
Vegas -> Grand Canyon -> Flagstaff -> Phoenix -> LA) in Arizona, and
never lost coverage anywhere I went.

-MVL