Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Questions regarding the end of Cingular/T-Mobile network s..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 5:28:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
T-Mobile, until recently.

Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?

1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
confirmed in the final terms of the deal?

2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
exactly same manner?

If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?

3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)

For customers in CA or NV:
The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
- Customer Service
- I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
plans
- T-Mobile Hotspot Service

My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:33:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

It all boils down to one thing. How good is the signal where you live
and work or wherever you use it most? Regardless of price or plan, if
one is superior for your specific needs, that's your answer. If all
things are equal in that regard, then check their coverage maps for
where you're likely to travel and compare the plans based on your usage.
My experience with ATT before they became Cingular drove me to TMo where
I have always been treated very well.
As to priority for native callers vs. roamers, you'd never get them to
admit it but back in the analog days I know it was standard practice.

From:rishi@wheresmycell.com
rishi@wheresmycell.com

> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and
> AT&T merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network
> sharing deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV
> networks to T-Mobile, until recently.
>
> Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
> legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having
> access to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real
> reason to consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is
> concerned?
>
> 1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
> be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
> confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>
> 2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
> with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls
> from T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through
> the network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
> legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
> exactly same manner?
>
> If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
> superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>
> 3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
> carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
> States and is either carrier considered to have better service than
> the other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>
> For customers in CA or NV:
> The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
> - Customer Service
> - I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
> plans
> - T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>
> My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
> either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
> consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:07:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On 8 May 2005 13:28:43 -0700, rishi@wheresmycell.com wrote:

>Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
>merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
>deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
>T-Mobile, until recently.
>

Just a small correction, Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, there was no
merger.


>Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
>legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
>to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
>consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?
>
>1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
>be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
>confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>
>2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
>with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
>T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
>network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
>legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
>exactly same manner?
>
>If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
>superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>
>3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
>carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
>States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
>other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>
>For customers in CA or NV:
>The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
> - Customer Service
> - I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
>plans
> - T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>
>My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
>either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
Related resources
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:24:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

<rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
> merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
> deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
> T-Mobile, until recently.
>
> Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
> legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
> to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
> consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?

No. Especially if you want the best coverage. I'm in San Diego, California
and I find that Cingular has better coverage than T-Mobile. With Cingular,
you get access to the pre-merger infrastructure + the post merger
Cingular/AT&T network. T-Mobile customers do not have access to the AT&T
(Blue) network in California.

>
> 1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
> be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
> confirmed in the final terms of the deal?

Correct.

>
> 2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
> with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
> T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
> network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
> legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
> exactly same manner?

The network handles all calls the same way. There is no priority for native
customers vs. roamers.
I don't know about now, but before the sale of the network to T-Mobile, the
infrastructure was operated by a jointly owned affiliate. T-Mobile and
Cingular customers had equal access to the network.

> If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
> superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>
I would think so.

> 3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
> carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
> States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
> other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>
Nationwide coverage with Cingular is better. T-Mobile works well only in
major markets. Cingular now has 850MHz and 1900MHz coverage in many areas
of the country. T-Mobile does not have access to the 850MHz
infrastructure.

> For customers in CA or NV:
> The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
> - Customer Service
> - I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
> plans
> - T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>

If you need hotspot, then T-Mobile is a better choice. Or you can subscribe
to hotspot separately.
T-Mobile price plans are cheaper but if you factor in rollover minutes your
cost per minute would be lower. Cingular allows you to start with any plan
then change to any other plan that fits your needs without affecting the
length of your contract.

> My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
> either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
> consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?

The only reason I would consider T-Mobile in California is if I get a
substantially better deal in terms of cost per minute. The same would
apply to Verizon or Sprint for that matter.
May 9, 2005 3:24:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

That was an excellent response... albeit I do disagree about
generalizing on Cingular vs TMobile in California. I have had BOTH here
in Northern California, and I am in a fringe area not near any MAJOR
city.. TMobile coverage is better in my neighborhood since they
installed a new tower about a year ago. Cingular has weaker coverage at
my home by at least 2 bars.

As for roaming on the old AT&T.. north of me (Ukiah to Eureka) has
coverage provided by another GSM company (Edge I believe is the name)
and you can roam on their network with either a Cingular or TMobible
account without being charged extra.

My point is, like others have said, every situation is unique. You
cannot generalize that one area or city has better reception. You
should try BOTH companies before finally deciding. Rates here in
California are generally cheaper for both individual and family plans
with TMobile, BUT you do get rollover on Cingular that may or may not be
a benefit to you depending on your usage.

Good luck!

SFB

PS I should say that TMobile has one year contracts and MOST (not all)
Cingular contracts are for 2 years. Also, Cingular currently has a
better selection in phones than TMobile (again only in my opinion).

Richie wrote:
> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
>>merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
>>deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
>>T-Mobile, until recently.
>>
>>Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
>>legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
>>to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
>>consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?
>
>
> No. Especially if you want the best coverage. I'm in San Diego, California
> and I find that Cingular has better coverage than T-Mobile. With Cingular,
> you get access to the pre-merger infrastructure + the post merger
> Cingular/AT&T network. T-Mobile customers do not have access to the AT&T
> (Blue) network in California.
>
>
>>1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
>>be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
>>confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>
>
> Correct.
>
>
>>2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
>>with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
>>T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
>>network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
>>legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
>>exactly same manner?
>
>
> The network handles all calls the same way. There is no priority for native
> customers vs. roamers.
> I don't know about now, but before the sale of the network to T-Mobile, the
> infrastructure was operated by a jointly owned affiliate. T-Mobile and
> Cingular customers had equal access to the network.
>
>
>>If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
>>superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>>
>
> I would think so.
>
>
>>3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
>>carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
>>States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
>>other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>>
>
> Nationwide coverage with Cingular is better. T-Mobile works well only in
> major markets. Cingular now has 850MHz and 1900MHz coverage in many areas
> of the country. T-Mobile does not have access to the 850MHz
> infrastructure.
>
>
>>For customers in CA or NV:
>>The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
>>- Customer Service
>>- I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
>>plans
>>- T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>>
>
>
> If you need hotspot, then T-Mobile is a better choice. Or you can subscribe
> to hotspot separately.
> T-Mobile price plans are cheaper but if you factor in rollover minutes your
> cost per minute would be lower. Cingular allows you to start with any plan
> then change to any other plan that fits your needs without affecting the
> length of your contract.
>
>
>>My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
>>either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>>consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>
>
> The only reason I would consider T-Mobile in California is if I get a
> substantially better deal in terms of cost per minute. The same would
> apply to Verizon or Sprint for that matter.
>
>
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:10:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

You're right, customers should make a choice based on the coverage at their
location.

For contracts, independent retailers have the best deals on Cingular.
Online and in stores, they often push 2 year contacts for any kind of
decent phone.

I like T-Mobile a lot. The company is innovative and the price is right.
If it weren't for the rollover minutes at Cingular I would have the T-Mobile
Regional Plan for $49.99.

"SFB" <news@spenceburton.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:7oKdnYV6E7OSRePfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> That was an excellent response... albeit I do disagree about generalizing
> on Cingular vs TMobile in California. I have had BOTH here in Northern
> California, and I am in a fringe area not near any MAJOR city.. TMobile
> coverage is better in my neighborhood since they installed a new tower
> about a year ago. Cingular has weaker coverage at my home by at least 2
> bars.
>
> As for roaming on the old AT&T.. north of me (Ukiah to Eureka) has
> coverage provided by another GSM company (Edge I believe is the name) and
> you can roam on their network with either a Cingular or TMobible account
> without being charged extra.
>
> My point is, like others have said, every situation is unique. You cannot
> generalize that one area or city has better reception. You should try
> BOTH companies before finally deciding. Rates here in California are
> generally cheaper for both individual and family plans with TMobile, BUT
> you do get rollover on Cingular that may or may not be a benefit to you
> depending on your usage.
>
> Good luck!
>
> SFB
>
> PS I should say that TMobile has one year contracts and MOST (not all)
> Cingular contracts are for 2 years. Also, Cingular currently has a better
> selection in phones than TMobile (again only in my opinion).
>
> Richie wrote:
>> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
>>>merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
>>>deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
>>>T-Mobile, until recently.
>>>
>>>Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
>>>legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
>>>to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
>>>consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?
>>
>>
>> No. Especially if you want the best coverage. I'm in San Diego,
>> California and I find that Cingular has better coverage than T-Mobile.
>> With Cingular, you get access to the pre-merger infrastructure + the post
>> merger Cingular/AT&T network. T-Mobile customers do not have access to
>> the AT&T (Blue) network in California.
>>
>>
>>>1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
>>>be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
>>>confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>
>>>2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
>>>with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
>>>T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
>>>network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
>>>legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
>>>exactly same manner?
>>
>>
>> The network handles all calls the same way. There is no priority for
>> native customers vs. roamers.
>> I don't know about now, but before the sale of the network to T-Mobile,
>> the infrastructure was operated by a jointly owned affiliate. T-Mobile
>> and Cingular customers had equal access to the network.
>>
>>
>>>If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
>>>superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>>>
>>
>> I would think so.
>>
>>
>>>3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
>>>carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
>>>States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
>>>other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>>>
>>
>> Nationwide coverage with Cingular is better. T-Mobile works well only in
>> major markets. Cingular now has 850MHz and 1900MHz coverage in many
>> areas of the country. T-Mobile does not have access to the 850MHz
>> infrastructure.
>>
>>
>>>For customers in CA or NV:
>>>The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
>>>- Customer Service
>>>- I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
>>>plans
>>>- T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>>>
>>
>>
>> If you need hotspot, then T-Mobile is a better choice. Or you can
>> subscribe to hotspot separately.
>> T-Mobile price plans are cheaper but if you factor in rollover minutes
>> your cost per minute would be lower. Cingular allows you to start with
>> any plan then change to any other plan that fits your needs without
>> affecting the length of your contract.
>>
>>
>>>My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
>>>either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>>>consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>>
>>
>> The only reason I would consider T-Mobile in California is if I get a
>> substantially better deal in terms of cost per minute. The same would
>> apply to Verizon or Sprint for that matter.
>>
>>
>
May 9, 2005 5:21:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:vAvfe.30258$R46.2876@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> It all boils down to one thing. How good is the signal where you live and
> work or wherever you use it most? Regardless of price or plan, if one is
> superior for your specific needs, that's your answer. If all things are
> equal in that regard, then check their coverage maps for where you're
> likely to travel and compare the plans based on your usage. My experience
> with ATT before they became Cingular drove me to TMo where I have always
> been treated very well.
> As to priority for native callers vs. roamers, you'd never get them to
> admit it but back in the analog days I know it was standard practice.

All very good points. Except that it not good enough to check the maps but
to actually have a phone in hand and try it in the places you'll likely be
using the phone. In my case lack of coverage for TMo in my area drove me to
ATT. Just as lack of coverage for Cingular GSM after the merger keeps me on
TDMA.
May 9, 2005 6:50:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

i have t-mobile in los angeles and my motorola v300 gave me horrible
coverage at home and office. i switched to an unlocked razr and it always
says cingular roaming and the razr is much more sensitive than the v300 and
the coverage is much better at home and office. during one recent call to
t-mobile, i was told they were doing software upgrades on the v300 but when
i called back to do it, they didn't know what i was talking about. so it
goes.

>
>>Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
>>merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
>>deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
>>T-Mobile, until recently.
>>
>
> Just a small correction, Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, there was no
> merger.
>
>
>>Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
>>legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
>>to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
>>consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?
>>
>>1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
>>be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
>>confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>>
>>2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
>>with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
>>T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
>>network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
>>legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
>>exactly same manner?
>>
>>If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
>>superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>>
>>3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
>>carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
>>States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
>>other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>>
>>For customers in CA or NV:
>>The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
>> - Customer Service
>> - I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
>>plans
>> - T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>>
>>My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
>>either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>>consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 7:38:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
news:SoBfe.14753$J12.2973@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> You're right, customers should make a choice based on the coverage at
> their location.
>
> For contracts, independent retailers have the best deals on Cingular.
> Online and in stores, they often push 2 year contacts for any kind of
> decent phone.
>
> I like T-Mobile a lot. The company is innovative and the price is right.
> If it weren't for the rollover minutes at Cingular I would have the
> T-Mobile Regional Plan for $49.99.
>
Doesn't that have like 3000 minutes or something? With that many minutes,
would rollover even matter?


> "SFB" <news@spenceburton.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:7oKdnYV6E7OSRePfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>> That was an excellent response... albeit I do disagree about generalizing
>> on Cingular vs TMobile in California. I have had BOTH here in Northern
>> California, and I am in a fringe area not near any MAJOR city.. TMobile
>> coverage is better in my neighborhood since they installed a new tower
>> about a year ago. Cingular has weaker coverage at my home by at least 2
>> bars.
>>
>> As for roaming on the old AT&T.. north of me (Ukiah to Eureka) has
>> coverage provided by another GSM company (Edge I believe is the name) and
>> you can roam on their network with either a Cingular or TMobible account
>> without being charged extra.
>>
>> My point is, like others have said, every situation is unique. You
>> cannot generalize that one area or city has better reception. You should
>> try BOTH companies before finally deciding. Rates here in California are
>> generally cheaper for both individual and family plans with TMobile, BUT
>> you do get rollover on Cingular that may or may not be a benefit to you
>> depending on your usage.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> SFB
>>
>> PS I should say that TMobile has one year contracts and MOST (not all)
>> Cingular contracts are for 2 years. Also, Cingular currently has a
>> better selection in phones than TMobile (again only in my opinion).
>>
>> Richie wrote:
>>> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
>>>>merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
>>>>deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
>>>>T-Mobile, until recently.
>>>>
>>>>Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
>>>>legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
>>>>to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
>>>>consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?
>>>
>>>
>>> No. Especially if you want the best coverage. I'm in San Diego,
>>> California and I find that Cingular has better coverage than T-Mobile.
>>> With Cingular, you get access to the pre-merger infrastructure + the
>>> post merger Cingular/AT&T network. T-Mobile customers do not have
>>> access to the AT&T (Blue) network in California.
>>>
>>>
>>>>1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
>>>>be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
>>>>confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>>2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
>>>>with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
>>>>T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
>>>>network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
>>>>legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
>>>>exactly same manner?
>>>
>>>
>>> The network handles all calls the same way. There is no priority for
>>> native customers vs. roamers.
>>> I don't know about now, but before the sale of the network to T-Mobile,
>>> the infrastructure was operated by a jointly owned affiliate. T-Mobile
>>> and Cingular customers had equal access to the network.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
>>>>superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would think so.
>>>
>>>
>>>>3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
>>>>carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
>>>>States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
>>>>other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nationwide coverage with Cingular is better. T-Mobile works well only
>>> in major markets. Cingular now has 850MHz and 1900MHz coverage in
>>> many areas of the country. T-Mobile does not have access to the 850MHz
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>>
>>>>For customers in CA or NV:
>>>>The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
>>>>- Customer Service
>>>>- I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
>>>>plans
>>>>- T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you need hotspot, then T-Mobile is a better choice. Or you can
>>> subscribe to hotspot separately.
>>> T-Mobile price plans are cheaper but if you factor in rollover minutes
>>> your cost per minute would be lower. Cingular allows you to start with
>>> any plan then change to any other plan that fits your needs without
>>> affecting the length of your contract.
>>>
>>>
>>>>My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
>>>>either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>>>>consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>>>
>>>
>>> The only reason I would consider T-Mobile in California is if I get a
>>> substantially better deal in terms of cost per minute. The same would
>>> apply to Verizon or Sprint for that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
May 9, 2005 10:55:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Mon, 9 May 2005 15:38:19 -0500, "Danska" <danskaNOSPAN@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
>news:SoBfe.14753$J12.2973@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> You're right, customers should make a choice based on the coverage at
>> their location.
>>
>> For contracts, independent retailers have the best deals on Cingular.
>> Online and in stores, they often push 2 year contacts for any kind of
>> decent phone.
>>
>> I like T-Mobile a lot. The company is innovative and the price is right.
>> If it weren't for the rollover minutes at Cingular I would have the
>> T-Mobile Regional Plan for $49.99.
>>
>Doesn't that have like 3000 minutes or something? With that many minutes,
>would rollover even matter?
>


I am not sure about the 49.99 plan but I do know they just started offering
1000 minutes, including free nights & weekends, for 45.99. With T-Mobile
you have to read the small print when it comes to these plans more than any
other provider. The plan I just mentioned does not include free M2M. I
think they want an extra 6.95 a month for that.


>> "SFB" <news@spenceburton.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:7oKdnYV6E7OSRePfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>> That was an excellent response... albeit I do disagree about generalizing
>>> on Cingular vs TMobile in California. I have had BOTH here in Northern
>>> California, and I am in a fringe area not near any MAJOR city.. TMobile
>>> coverage is better in my neighborhood since they installed a new tower
>>> about a year ago. Cingular has weaker coverage at my home by at least 2
>>> bars.
>>>
>>> As for roaming on the old AT&T.. north of me (Ukiah to Eureka) has
>>> coverage provided by another GSM company (Edge I believe is the name) and
>>> you can roam on their network with either a Cingular or TMobible account
>>> without being charged extra.
>>>
>>> My point is, like others have said, every situation is unique. You
>>> cannot generalize that one area or city has better reception. You should
>>> try BOTH companies before finally deciding. Rates here in California are
>>> generally cheaper for both individual and family plans with TMobile, BUT
>>> you do get rollover on Cingular that may or may not be a benefit to you
>>> depending on your usage.
>>>
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>> SFB
>>>
>>> PS I should say that TMobile has one year contracts and MOST (not all)
>>> Cingular contracts are for 2 years. Also, Cingular currently has a
>>> better selection in phones than TMobile (again only in my opinion).
>>>
>>> Richie wrote:
>>>> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
>>>>>merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
>>>>>deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
>>>>>T-Mobile, until recently.
>>>>>
>>>>>Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on the
>>>>>legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having access
>>>>>to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason to
>>>>>consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. Especially if you want the best coverage. I'm in San Diego,
>>>> California and I find that Cingular has better coverage than T-Mobile.
>>>> With Cingular, you get access to the pre-merger infrastructure + the
>>>> post merger Cingular/AT&T network. T-Mobile customers do not have
>>>> access to the AT&T (Blue) network in California.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers would
>>>>>be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
>>>>>confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA & NV
>>>>>with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls from
>>>>>T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
>>>>>network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
>>>>>legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
>>>>>exactly same manner?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The network handles all calls the same way. There is no priority for
>>>> native customers vs. roamers.
>>>> I don't know about now, but before the sale of the network to T-Mobile,
>>>> the infrastructure was operated by a jointly owned affiliate. T-Mobile
>>>> and Cingular customers had equal access to the network.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
>>>>>superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would think so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
>>>>>carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
>>>>>States and is either carrier considered to have better service than the
>>>>>other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nationwide coverage with Cingular is better. T-Mobile works well only
>>>> in major markets. Cingular now has 850MHz and 1900MHz coverage in
>>>> many areas of the country. T-Mobile does not have access to the 850MHz
>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For customers in CA or NV:
>>>>>The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
>>>>>- Customer Service
>>>>>- I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper voice/data
>>>>>plans
>>>>>- T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you need hotspot, then T-Mobile is a better choice. Or you can
>>>> subscribe to hotspot separately.
>>>> T-Mobile price plans are cheaper but if you factor in rollover minutes
>>>> your cost per minute would be lower. Cingular allows you to start with
>>>> any plan then change to any other plan that fits your needs without
>>>> affecting the length of your contract.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
>>>>>either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>>>>>consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only reason I would consider T-Mobile in California is if I get a
>>>> substantially better deal in terms of cost per minute. The same would
>>>> apply to Verizon or Sprint for that matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:34:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

<rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and
AT&T
> merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
> deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
> T-Mobile, until recently.
>
> Given the fact that that Cingular customers are allowed to roam on
the
> legacy network (T-Mobile) for the next 4 years as well as having
access
> to the new network they acquired from AT&T, is there any real reason
to
> consider T-Mobile at all as far as network coverage is concerned?
>
> 1) According to the press release last year, Cingular customers
would
> be able to roam on the old network for up to 4 years. Has this been
> confirmed in the final terms of the deal?
>
> 2) If T-Mobile & Cingular are essentially the same network IN CA &
NV
> with the exception of AT&T Wireless - is it safe to say that calls
from
> T-Mobile customers would be given 'priority' when routed through the
> network compared to Cingular users who are merely roaming on their
> legacy network? - Or are calls from either carrier handled in the
> exactly same manner?
>
> If the latter is true, then the Cingular network would obviously be
> superior for customers in CA or NV. Right?
>
> 3) How does overall nationwide service compare between the two
> carriers? Which carrier has coverage in more markets in the United
> States and is either carrier considered to have better service than
the
> other in certain parts of the country? (East coast for example)
>
> For customers in CA or NV:
> The only factors I could up with where T-Mobile could excel:
> - Customer Service
> - I haven't done a detailed comparison but perhaps cheaper
voice/data
> plans
> - T-Mobile Hotspot Service
>
> My apologies for the lengthy post. I don't have service yet with
> either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
> consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>

It depends on where you want to use your phone in both states. I live
in the SF Bay Area and had AT&TWS TDMA service until the end of
January. I was travelling a lot and it worked very well throughout
much of the country.... except around NYC, parts of NJ and most of
the west coast.

As recently as a year ago ALL cellular service was spotty at best in
Southern California. AT&TWS had no coverage in the LA basin until they
bought a 3rd rate cellular provider a few years ago. I was doing some
business consulting in San Diego and tested 5 different carriers for
my client. All were BAD and Nextel was the WORST!

In Northern CA, AT&TWS absorbed Cellular1's system several years ago.
I could look out my window and see downtown Oakland, SF, Mt. Tam and
the Golden Gate bridge but my phone would go to roam while sitting at
my desk.

Service in Northern Nevada was also very spotty. AT&TWS's GSM was
terrible in the Bay Area. I got burned out from 15 years of traveling
the country and I'm now just covering parts of Norcal. About a year
ago, I signed up with Verizon and I was very pleased with the service
until about a month and a half ago when I started having service
problems in the Oakland area where I make and receive about 25% of my
calls.

I've since been trying Cingular and Sprint. I tried a number of
Cingular phones and I'm currently using an older Nokia 6340i with
GAIT, 850/1900 GSM , 800/1900 TDMA, and 800 Mhz AMPS. The sound
quality varies from spot to spot but the service is acceptable plus it
works in my home where Verizon has ceased to function.

The best reception and sound has been from Sprint. I cover from San
Leandro north up 101 to Healdsburg and over to Napa and Sonoma. I use
up to 4000 minutes a month so I'm probably going to drop Verizon when
my contract expires in June and port my number over to Sprint. I'll
also keep a pay as you go Cingular account because a lot of people in
my company have Cingular service and I can save them money with MtoM.

You can try out all of the major carriers in California for 30 days
with no obligation except to pay for the minutes that you use.

The bottom line is what is the service coverage and sound quality in
the areas where you are going to use the phone?

Chas.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:25:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> wrote in message news:JPudndHJa4rZfx3fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>

> The best reception and sound has been from Sprint. I cover from San
> Leandro north up 101 to Healdsburg and over to Napa and Sonoma.

I use my SprintPCS phone mainly in the Vallejo/Napa/Sonoma/
Santa Rosa/Petaluma areas, and reception has been great.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:28:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:k07ge.552$Lu6.93@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
news:JPudndHJa4rZfx3fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> >
>
> > The best reception and sound has been from Sprint. I cover from
San
> > Leandro north up 101 to Healdsburg and over to Napa and Sonoma.
>
> I use my SprintPCS phone mainly in the Vallejo/Napa/Sonoma/
> Santa Rosa/Petaluma areas, and reception has been great.

Sprint even works on Mare Island where I've never had service before.

There's a few dead spots for every carrier: Hwy 121 between Sears
Point and Hwy 12, Hwy 12 heading into the backside of Santa Rosa, 101
between Petaluma and Novato at the dump and so on.

The power lines on McDowell Rd. mess up the coverage along 101 through
Petaluma at the Pengrove exit. Sprint seems to work ok there.

Cingular works great up in the Santa Rosa Airport area but there's not
much difference between Cingular and Verizon as far as reception goes
in most other areas except around Oakland.

Chas.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Thanks for the detailed responses everyone. I'll definitely try out
other carriers before making my final decision. I'm a bit confused as
to why one shouldn't generalize between T-Mobile & Cingular in CA. If
Cingular customers can roam on the legacy network which is now
T-Mobile, as well as their own, it would seem like the clear winner as
far as coverage throughout the state is concerned. Has T-Mobile
actually invested in the infrastructure while they were under the
network sharing agreement with Cingular? What about after they bought
Cingulars' CA & NV networks? It seems to me that if T-Mobile
continues to enhance their network and put up new towers in CA...
Cingular users would be benefit with current roaming agreements in
place. Or is this not the case?

Of course, I would imagine Cingular customers can only roam on T-Mobile
should there be no Cingular coverage available and then I wonder which
native network would have better coverage, reception, and reliability?


I am from the San Fernando Valley (Granada Hills, CA)... anyone have
any idea which GSM carrier would be my best option here and best
overall carrier. We're up in the hills so most cell carriers generally
don't fare too well in our area - especially indoors. I have read that
GSM 850 MHz signals travel further and penetrate deeper into
buildings... Does this finally mean being able to use my phone at home?
:) 


Rishi
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"razor" <replyingroup@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:6dqv71l18gvm600ih92t7erdmm39gp4hmq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 May 2005 15:38:19 -0500, "Danska" <danskaNOSPAN@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:SoBfe.14753$J12.2973@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>> You're right, customers should make a choice based on the coverage at
>>> their location.
>>>
>>> For contracts, independent retailers have the best deals on Cingular.
>>> Online and in stores, they often push 2 year contacts for any kind of
>>> decent phone.
>>>
>>> I like T-Mobile a lot. The company is innovative and the price is
>>> right.
>>> If it weren't for the rollover minutes at Cingular I would have the
>>> T-Mobile Regional Plan for $49.99.
>>>
>>Doesn't that have like 3000 minutes or something? With that many minutes,
>>would rollover even matter?
>>
>
>
> I am not sure about the 49.99 plan but I do know they just started
> offering
> 1000 minutes, including free nights & weekends, for 45.99. With T-Mobile
> you have to read the small print when it comes to these plans more than
> any
> other provider. The plan I just mentioned does not include free M2M. I
> think they want an extra 6.95 a month for that.
>
> I have the 45.99 plan. Yes it doesn't come with m2m. It is extra. The
> regional plan he mentioned is 3000 anytime minutes in your designated
> regional area. No m2m. Ld. chgs apply when calling out of your designated
> regional area. It's meant for people who don't use much l.d. and just use
> the phone locally. Im very happy with the 45.99 plan. Works very well. I
> always thought it was rather simple with t-mobile. The plan is advertised
> to have 1000 anytime minutes with no roaming fees. That's what it gives
> you. all ads ive seen have never mentioned anything about m2m. cingular on
> the other hand does mention m2m and rollover a lot.

this is the cingular comparable plan:
Monthly Cost: 69.99
Anytime Minutes: 1,100
Night and weekend minutes: Unlimited
m2m: unlimited
Contract Length: 2 years.

T-Mobile:
Monthly Cost: 45.99
Anytime Minutes: 1,000
Night and weekend minutes: Unlimited
m2m: Nope
Contract Length: 1 years.

It's worth losing the m2m (since i know nobody on cingular) to save the
$24.00

Besides. Unlimited mobile internet (wap) is only 4.99. Cingular is 24.99 for
unlimited use. Wow!
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:22:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"Danska" <danskaNOSPAN@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XL2dncnfP5GkV-LfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>
>>
> Doesn't that have like 3000 minutes or something? With that many minutes,
> would rollover even matter?
>
I have a family plan and I need to call outside of my region (California and
Nevada). If i were on T-Mobile, i'd have to use a calling card at
additional cost. That plan does not quite fit me, but it's a great plan.
May 13, 2005 11:52:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
news:G3Vge.16337$J12.5521@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> I have a family plan and I need to call outside of my region (California and
> Nevada). If i were on T-Mobile, i'd have to use a calling card at additional
> cost. That plan does not quite fit me, but it's a great plan.

Here in Oregon they have a Get More Promo 1000 :45.99
1000 minutes UNlimited weekend-weeknights Free domestic long distance
No digital roaming charges anywhere across the USA.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:05:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

<rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and AT&T
> merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network sharing
> deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV networks to
> T-Mobile, until recently.

<snip>

The big advantage to Cingular is that most of their GSM network is now at
800 Mhz (or they have both 800 Mhz and 1900 Mhz). The 1900 Mhz network is
markedly inferior (i.e. their old California/Nevada network). The merger
with AT&T really helped Cingular's California customers who wanted to use
their phones inside big buildings. Of course you have to get a dual band
phone to take advantage of this, and there are still a lot of Californians
with older 1900 Mhz only phones, that don't realize that if they'd change
handsets that they'd be much better off.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:08:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VtJfe.728666$w62.6962@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> All very good points. Except that it not good enough to check the maps but
> to actually have a phone in hand and try it in the places you'll likely be
> using the phone. In my case lack of coverage for TMo in my area drove me
to
> ATT. Just as lack of coverage for Cingular GSM after the merger keeps me
on
> TDMA.

While TDMA still has better coverage than GSM, the Cingular GSM coverage did
improve after the merger, at least in the western region, because AT&T had
the more valuable 800 Mhz spectrum out here.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:17:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is that
because the longer wavelength will have better building penetration or
is there something else/more? Not challenging you on this - just
wanting to learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3 in the elevator
of my office building which is a 25 story granite clad building. That
being said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the many antennas on the
building was a TMo site.

From:Steven M. Scharf
scharf.steven@linkearth.net

> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and
>> AT&T merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network
>> sharing deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV
>> networks to T-Mobile, until recently.
>
> <snip>
>
> The big advantage to Cingular is that most of their GSM network is
> now at 800 Mhz (or they have both 800 Mhz and 1900 Mhz). The 1900 Mhz
> network is markedly inferior (i.e. their old California/Nevada
> network). The merger with AT&T really helped Cingular's California
> customers who wanted to use their phones inside big buildings. Of
> course you have to get a dual band phone to take advantage of this,
> and there are still a lot of Californians with older 1900 Mhz only
> phones, that don't realize that if they'd change handsets that they'd
> be much better off.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 12:47:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

I think this issue has been discuss at nauseum on many different forums.
There does not seem to be any conscensus that lower frequency is better
inside buildings because carriers can building their networks to compensate
in many ways. The quality of the infrastructure is key.

Personally, in San Diego, I'm much happier with 850MHz. I asked Cingular to
set my phone to prefer the AT&T network and I now have super coverage at my
home and my friend's home. The coverage there was terrible before. Just my
personal observation.


"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:o 27he.14905$887.1142@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is that
> because the longer wavelength will have better building penetration or is
> there something else/more? Not challenging you on this - just wanting to
> learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3 in the elevator of my office
> building which is a 25 story granite clad building. That being said, it
> wouldn't surprise me if one of the many antennas on the building was a TMo
> site.
>
> From:Steven M. Scharf
> scharf.steven@linkearth.net
>
>> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and
>>> AT&T merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network
>>> sharing deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV
>>> networks to T-Mobile, until recently.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The big advantage to Cingular is that most of their GSM network is
>> now at 800 Mhz (or they have both 800 Mhz and 1900 Mhz). The 1900 Mhz
>> network is markedly inferior (i.e. their old California/Nevada
>> network). The merger with AT&T really helped Cingular's California
>> customers who wanted to use their phones inside big buildings. Of
>> course you have to get a dual band phone to take advantage of this,
>> and there are still a lot of Californians with older 1900 Mhz only
>> phones, that don't realize that if they'd change handsets that they'd
>> be much better off.
>
>
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:03:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Lower frequencies have better penetration thru and around obstacles.

Mike Schumann

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:o 27he.14905$887.1142@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is that
> because the longer wavelength will have better building penetration or is
> there something else/more? Not challenging you on this - just wanting to
> learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3 in the elevator of my office
> building which is a 25 story granite clad building. That being said, it
> wouldn't surprise me if one of the many antennas on the building was a TMo
> site.
>
> From:Steven M. Scharf
> scharf.steven@linkearth.net
>
>> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and
>>> AT&T merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network
>>> sharing deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV
>>> networks to T-Mobile, until recently.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The big advantage to Cingular is that most of their GSM network is
>> now at 800 Mhz (or they have both 800 Mhz and 1900 Mhz). The 1900 Mhz
>> network is markedly inferior (i.e. their old California/Nevada
>> network). The merger with AT&T really helped Cingular's California
>> customers who wanted to use their phones inside big buildings. Of
>> course you have to get a dual band phone to take advantage of this,
>> and there are still a lot of Californians with older 1900 Mhz only
>> phones, that don't realize that if they'd change handsets that they'd
>> be much better off.
>
>
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 6:35:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

OK, thanks, that's what I thought you meant. While, all things being
equal, that's true, I'm not sure if that translates to markedly better
service in a given location. Properly engineered, which might mean more
towers and/or more power, I think that performance can show up as equal
for a given coverage area. In any case, I'm glad I have a quad band
phone!

From:Mike Schumann
mike-nospam@traditions-nospam.com

> Lower frequencies have better penetration thru and around obstacles.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
> news:o 27he.14905$887.1142@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is
>> that because the longer wavelength will have better building
>> penetration or is there something else/more? Not challenging you on
>> this - just wanting to learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3
>> in the elevator of my office building which is a 25 story granite
>> clad building. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of
>> the many antennas on the building was a TMo site.
>>
>> From:Steven M. Scharf
>> scharf.steven@linkearth.net
>>
>>> <rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Being away from the US for sometime, I was aware that Cingular and
>>>> AT&T merged but I wasn't aware that Cingular & T-Mobiles' network
>>>> sharing deal ended and that Cingular actually sold their CA & NV
>>>> networks to T-Mobile, until recently.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The big advantage to Cingular is that most of their GSM network is
>>> now at 800 Mhz (or they have both 800 Mhz and 1900 Mhz). The 1900
>>> Mhz network is markedly inferior (i.e. their old California/Nevada
>>> network). The merger with AT&T really helped Cingular's California
>>> customers who wanted to use their phones inside big buildings. Of
>>> course you have to get a dual band phone to take advantage of this,
>>> and there are still a lot of Californians with older 1900 Mhz only
>>> phones, that don't realize that if they'd change handsets that
>>> they'd be much better off.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:47:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message news:vn8he.2330$Y81.1647@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>I think this issue has been discuss at nauseum on many different forums.
> There does not seem to be any conscensus that lower frequency is better
> inside buildings because carriers can building their networks to compensate
> in many ways. The quality of the infrastructure is key.

Sure there is a consensus. Ask any RF engineer, and he will tell you that,
all other things being equal, a longer wavelength will penetrate buildings
and foliage better than shorter wavelength RF. Yes, there are expensive
ways to attempt to compensate for it (more tower sites, repeaters inside
buildings, etc.) but that doesn't refute the basic premise.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 12:08:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"Michael" <mcb4u@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U72dnacF5KeyIhnfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
> "Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
> news:G3Vge.16337$J12.5521@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> I have a family plan and I need to call outside of my region (California
>> and Nevada). If i were on T-Mobile, i'd have to use a calling card at
>> additional cost. That plan does not quite fit me, but it's a great plan.
>
> Here in Oregon they have a Get More Promo 1000 :45.99
> 1000 minutes UNlimited weekend-weeknights Free domestic long distance
> No digital roaming charges anywhere across the USA.
>
>
>
>
>

That's the one im on. It's pretty sweet.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:53:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

What's even sweeter is if you are grandfathered in on the old 29 cents /
minute international roaming rates to Europe.

Mike Schumann

"Danska" <danskaNOSPAN@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:UqWdnfRbRdthPRvfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
> "Michael" <mcb4u@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:U72dnacF5KeyIhnfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:G3Vge.16337$J12.5521@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>> I have a family plan and I need to call outside of my region (California
>>> and Nevada). If i were on T-Mobile, i'd have to use a calling card at
>>> additional cost. That plan does not quite fit me, but it's a great
>>> plan.
>>
>> Here in Oregon they have a Get More Promo 1000 :45.99
>> 1000 minutes UNlimited weekend-weeknights Free domestic long distance
>> No digital roaming charges anywhere across the USA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> That's the one im on. It's pretty sweet.
>
May 15, 2005 5:08:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:24:41 GMT, "Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote:

>If you need hotspot, then T-Mobile is a better choice. Or you can subscribe
>to hotspot separately.
>T-Mobile price plans are cheaper but if you factor in rollover minutes your
>cost per minute would be lower.

"Rollover" is nothing but a gimmick. Unless you have wildly
unpredictable useage that you use tons of minutes one month and hardly
any at all another it's nothing but a gimmick. If you constantly have
lots of minutes you don't use you picked the wrong plan.

>Cingular allows you to start with any plan
>then change to any other plan that fits your needs without affecting the
>length of your contract.

And so does T-Mobile. Unless you are switching to a "promotional"
plan you do not have to extend your contract (if you are under
contract.) You can even switch plans in mid billing cycle and be
prorated.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May 15, 2005 5:12:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On 11 May 2005 21:16:42 -0700, "rishi@wheresmycell.com"
<rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote:

>Thanks for the detailed responses everyone. I'll definitely try out
>other carriers before making my final decision. I'm a bit confused as
>to why one shouldn't generalize between T-Mobile & Cingular in CA. If
>Cingular customers can roam on the legacy network which is now
>T-Mobile, as well as their own, it would seem like the clear winner as
>far as coverage throughout the state is concerned.

You might draw that conclusion not actually using the phone where you
need to use it. The bottom line is that what works for any particular
person may be different in the area they are and with the handset they
are using. Lots of variables abound.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May 15, 2005 5:15:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:17:02 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
wrote:

>Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is that
>because the longer wavelength will have better building penetration or
>is there something else/more? Not challenging you on this - just
>wanting to learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3 in the elevator
>of my office building which is a 25 story granite clad building. That
>being said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the many antennas on the
>building was a TMo site.

Anyone who says that 1900 is always inferior to what you get with 800
has not used their phone in real world situations. The *most*
important thing is where the nearest base station "tower" is located.
The "superiority" of 800 Mhz means nothing if you're too far from the
nearest base station. If a 1900 base station is closer to you you'll
get better service with that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May 20, 2005 3:31:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

<rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> I don't have service yet with
> either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
> consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?

Did you not look at prices of monthly plans, and what you get for them?

With T-Mobile (California) for $39.99 monthly I get 1000 anytime minutes,
unlimited weekends, free long distance, no roaming charges, etc. Through a
$2.99 monthly T-Zones add-on I get Internet connectivity.

Could you get a rate anywhere near as good as that for that service level
from Cingular?
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:44:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:31:43 -0700, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>
><rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I don't have service yet with
>> either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>> consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>
>Did you not look at prices of monthly plans, and what you get for them?
>
>With T-Mobile (California) for $39.99 monthly I get 1000 anytime minutes,
>unlimited weekends, free long distance, no roaming charges, etc. Through a
>$2.99 monthly T-Zones add-on I get Internet connectivity.
>
>Could you get a rate anywhere near as good as that for that service level
>from Cingular?
>

No but at least I have coverage with Cingular.
May 20, 2005 12:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

<nospam@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:8rmr8114qkj4pdbequ2fkg7bgi9jtv5nap@4ax.com...

> >Could you get a rate anywhere near as good as that for that service level
> >from Cingular?
> >
>
> No but at least I have coverage with Cingular.

I don't understand that response. Please explain.

If you mean you have had trouble getting a signal with T-Mobile (were you
formerly a T-Mobile user?), that certainly is not the case with me. I have
got good reception with T-Mobile just about every place I have been with the
phone. I have never been on Cingular, so cannot compare, but the T-Mo
coverage is certainly much better than with my former carrier, Sprint. (It's
been a couple years since I have had Sprint though, I don't know if they
have improved since then.) As the OP wrote Cingular has been using T-Mobile
towers, and I think vice versa, so I don't know how their "coverage"would be
much different.

One thing I would grant an edge to Cingular in---phone selection! Cingular
has a much better selection of phones to choose from than T-Mobile,
including smartphones, RAZR, etc. T-Mobile has been pretty lame in the area
of phone selection. Of course though, one can always buy any unlocked GSM
phone, and use it on T-Mobile. (I just got fed up myself with waiting for
T-Mobile to offer a phone I'd like, and bought an SMT5600, had it unlocked,
and am using it on T-Mo.)
May 20, 2005 7:29:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:44:32 -0400, nospam@ptd.net wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:31:43 -0700, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><rishi@wheresmycell.com> wrote in message
>>news:1115584123.016639.178000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I don't have service yet with
>>> either carrier so I just want to see if there is any real reason to
>>> consider T-Mobile - and if so, WHY?
>>
>>Did you not look at prices of monthly plans, and what you get for them?
>>
>>With T-Mobile (California) for $39.99 monthly I get 1000 anytime minutes,
>>unlimited weekends, free long distance, no roaming charges, etc. Through a
>>$2.99 monthly T-Zones add-on I get Internet connectivity.
>>
>>Could you get a rate anywhere near as good as that for that service level
>>from Cingular?
>>
>
>No but at least I have coverage with Cingular.

If you do that much backwater traveling then it's what you need. Many
people do not need it. You get what works best for you is always the
bottom line just as you don't need a quad band phone if you spend 99%
of your time in Europe or in the US.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:44:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:24:50 -0700, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>
><nospam@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:8rmr8114qkj4pdbequ2fkg7bgi9jtv5nap@4ax.com...
>
>> >Could you get a rate anywhere near as good as that for that service level
>> >from Cingular?
>> >
>>
>> No but at least I have coverage with Cingular.
>
>I don't understand that response. Please explain.
>
>If you mean you have had trouble getting a signal with T-Mobile (were you
>formerly a T-Mobile user?), that certainly is not the case with me. I have
>got good reception with T-Mobile just about every place I have been with the
>phone. I have never been on Cingular, so cannot compare, but the T-Mo
>coverage is certainly much better than with my former carrier, Sprint. (It's
>been a couple years since I have had Sprint though, I don't know if they
>have improved since then.) As the OP wrote Cingular has been using T-Mobile
>towers, and I think vice versa, so I don't know how their "coverage"would be
>much different.
>
>One thing I would grant an edge to Cingular in---phone selection! Cingular
>has a much better selection of phones to choose from than T-Mobile,
>including smartphones, RAZR, etc. T-Mobile has been pretty lame in the area
>of phone selection. Of course though, one can always buy any unlocked GSM
>phone, and use it on T-Mobile. (I just got fed up myself with waiting for
>T-Mobile to offer a phone I'd like, and bought an SMT5600, had it unlocked,
>and am using it on T-Mo.)
>

Coverage where I am in PA/NJ/NY is much better with Cingular. I just
gave up my t-mobile account after having since 98 since they just
haven't built out at all. Much better rates though.

TM coverage in the Palm Springs area as of a few years ago wasn't so
great either.

They do share tower sites in CA and the NY/NJ area but now you find
additional coverage on AT&T sites.

All that matters is what works for you.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:25:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:o 27he.14905$887.1142@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is that
> because the longer wavelength will have better building penetration or
> is there something else/more? Not challenging you on this - just
> wanting to learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3 in the elevator
> of my office building which is a 25 story granite clad building. That
> being said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the many antennas on the
> building was a TMo site.

You can read about it here:

http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/cellpcs.htm

As others have pointed out, the companies that have only 1900 Mhz (T-Mobile,
Sprint) can compensate by adding more cells. But in practice, the 800 Mhz
coverage and penetration is much better.

For the west coast, the Cingular/AT&T merger was wonderful, because
Cingular's network was so poor. Now Cingular is selling their 1900 Mhz
network out west to T-Mobile, and will use AT&T's 800 Mhz network.

If you're in Hawaii, you know about the whole mess with 1900 Mhz, at least
on the Big Island.
May 22, 2005 9:37:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:25:55 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>As others have pointed out, the companies that have only 1900 Mhz (T-Mobile,
>Sprint) can compensate by adding more cells. But in practice, the 800 Mhz
>coverage and penetration is much better.

Ideally that is true. Reality is though that a close base station
trumps anything. You can get reception that is superior to an 800 Mhz
coverage area if your 1900 tower is closer than the 800 base station.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 12:30:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Thanks for the URL, it's an interesting article and points, as I
suspected, to the lower frequency's better ability to penetrate solid
objects.
I'm on Oahu and don't get to the neighbor islands very much so I'm not
familiar with "the mess on the Big Island." Can you point me to
something about that - you've got my interest.

From:Steven M. Scharf
scharf.steven@linkearth.net

> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
> news:o 27he.14905$887.1142@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> Can you tell me more about why 1900 is markedly inferior to 800? Is
>> that because the longer wavelength will have better building
>> penetration or is there something else/more? Not challenging you on
>> this - just wanting to learn more. I have TMo now and can use my v3
>> in the elevator of my office building which is a 25 story granite
>> clad building. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of
>> the many antennas on the building was a TMo site.
>
> You can read about it here:
>
> http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/cellpcs.htm
>
> As others have pointed out, the companies that have only 1900 Mhz
> (T-Mobile, Sprint) can compensate by adding more cells. But in
> practice, the 800 Mhz coverage and penetration is much better.
>
> For the west coast, the Cingular/AT&T merger was wonderful, because
> Cingular's network was so poor. Now Cingular is selling their 1900 Mhz
> network out west to T-Mobile, and will use AT&T's 800 Mhz network.
>
> If you're in Hawaii, you know about the whole mess with 1900 Mhz, at
> least on the Big Island.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 12:58:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

> Ideally that is true. Reality is though that a close base station
> trumps anything. You can get reception that is superior to an 800 Mhz
> coverage area if your 1900 tower is closer than the 800 base station.
>
And what happens when you move 2 feet?
May 23, 2005 12:58:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:58:51 -0400, "Paw-Paw" <pawpaw@granpa.com>
wrote:

>> Ideally that is true. Reality is though that a close base station
>> trumps anything. You can get reception that is superior to an 800 Mhz
>> coverage area if your 1900 tower is closer than the 800 base station.
>>
>And what happens when you move 2 feet?

Huh? Don't over-medicate yourself. It can be dangerous.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

C'mon, you know the answer - it's the same for every single carrier no
matter what frequency or technology they employ. Move two feet and
anything from "nothing" happens to "your call is dropped" happens
depending on where you are in relation to the tower. While we can all
recognize that lower frequencies may have an advantage for building
penetration, the only thing that really matters is how many cell sites
cover an area. The "who's better" question changes daily as all carriers
add more sites and equipment. "Who's better" may be entirely different
for different people.
The other day I was having lunch in a restaurant that's in the
basement of a central downtown highrise. We were nowhere near daylight,
underground, with a concrete and steel building on top of us. Between
the three of us we had VZW, Sprint and TMo. Theoretically, based solely
on who had the "superior" frequency allocation, only VZW should have
worked - it didn't. TMo worked well enough to receive a call and Sprint
showed a couple bars of signal. My point is that any comparison based
on "superior" technology alone is meaningless. What you really want is
"superior" coverage which can only be tested on an individual basis
(unless you're a Siamese twin) by comparing useability at your home,
office and on your commute as well as roaming capabilities both domestic
and foreign.

From:p aw-Paw
pawpaw@granpa.com

>> Ideally that is true. Reality is though that a close base station
>> trumps anything. You can get reception that is superior to an 800
>> Mhz coverage area if your 1900 tower is closer than the 800 base
>> station.
> And what happens when you move 2 feet?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:01:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:VZ5ke.7018$h86.5803@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Thanks for the URL, it's an interesting article and points, as I
> suspected, to the lower frequency's better ability to penetrate solid
> objects.
> I'm on Oahu and don't get to the neighbor islands very much so I'm not
> familiar with "the mess on the Big Island." Can you point me to
> something about that - you've got my interest.

AT&T launched GSM on the Big Island and was selling 1900 Mhz-only GSM
phones. Then apparently they expanded their network by adding 800 Mhz GSM,
but those people with 1900 Mhz-only phones were stuck paying full price for
a dual-band phone, often just months after being sold a 1900 Mhz-only phone.
As with most 1900 Mhz only GSM, the coverage was not good with 1900 Mhz, so
just sticking with the old handset wasn't a viable option.

The botched GSM launch by AT&T is what ultimately led to their downfall;
they were hemmoraging high-value business customers to Verizon.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:06:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:jKake.8335$h86.3698@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> C'mon, you know the answer - it's the same for every single carrier no
> matter what frequency or technology they employ. Move two feet and
> anything from "nothing" happens to "your call is dropped" happens

<snip>

The issue is not so much in urban areas, where there are more cells than
geographically necessary (in order to have sufficient capacity). Suburban
areas is where I've noticed the problems with 1900 Mhz only (Sprint &
Cingular (until recently)). It's almost always inside office buildings and
big-box stores, where coverage on the 1900 Mhz carriers is measurably worse.

I have found a couple of places in my area where even 800 Mhz carriers have
problems. Bottom floor of Ikea in EPA, is terrible.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 8:09:21 AM

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

"800 MHz coverage and penetration is much better", ha.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 8:13:56 AM

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

1900 MHz coverage is usually just as good even though the power is a
lot less.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 12:01:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Tmobile doesnt do software upgrades... period... If the device is
otherwise faulted, they will upgrade software as part of refurb

Different phones may "exceed" basic signal sensitivity standards... so
is comparing apples and oranges

Tmobile purchsed network well before merger.. it is unrelated...

If is in area where roaming agreement allows either service to roam,
calls placed are only prioritized by emeregency encoding, and order of
register
May 27, 2005 6:12:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

And if it was 1941-45, would you think it meant let them kill Germans
and Japanese and be killed ?
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 3:58:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Leg,
A metal roof would not limit your cellular signal, it comes through the
walls and windows. But if you get no signal from Verizon, why not try any
of the other carriers in your area? They allow you to bring a phone home to
try it and give your money back if it doesn't work.

-Bill Radio @ http://www.mountainwireless.com



"Pegleg" <brian-s-jones@comcast.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4cq6915a4kvcovfg9mae4j4jqeu9cf6qfb@4ax.com...
> > I'm in a rural area in NW Washington State with Verizon and about 2
> miles from a tower but cannot use our cell phones in our home due to a
> metal roof.
>
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 6:20:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

> While TDMA still has better coverage than GSM, the Cingular GSM coverage did
>improve after the merger, at least in the western region, because AT&T had
>the more valuable 800 Mhz spectrum out here.

Does that mean what I was told by Cingular about GSM having better
coverage than TDMA (in northern CA) was not true?

When I got my first cellphone plan from AT&T in July 2003, I was told
that in my area, TDMA is better and that GSM will be getting better in
lese than a year. So I got TDMA. After a year of contract, I changed to
a lower rate AT&T plan of $29.99, but I didn't switch to GSM. I didn't
know whether GSM got better than TDMA in this area by then; I didn't
even think about buying a new phone. Because I WAS living in an old
unit, from the beginning, signal would drop, and sometimes messgaes
didn't get to my voice mail until ulater, etc. All these times, my
sister's phone of cingular service at her house, not far from where I
lived was really good in clearity.

After Cingular and AT&T merged, at a nearby cingular store, I was told
that that people with GSM (of Cingular) get better clearity than my
TDMA (now under Cingular). I held onto my cheap AT&T plan which was
just enough for me.

I was thinking to get a new service (with T-mobile which gives 1000 day
time minutes compared to 450 of Cingular for the same price) after my
current contract ends. I think I need to replace my Nokia phone which
is expensive to just buy it - may not even be available anymore. If I
get a new contract with Cingular, I would lose my current plan and must
switch GSM.

Before I decide to let go of my cheap plan, I'd like to know whether
TDMA still have better coverage than GSM in my area (northern CA). Can
anyone confirm?


My contract will end this July.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:53:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

Agreed. My house has metal roof tiles, but I have a good SprintPCS
signal all over the house. The tower signal is propagated horizontally,
not vertically.

--
John Richards


Bill Radio wrote:
> Leg,
> A metal roof would not limit your cellular signal, it comes through the
> walls and windows. But if you get no signal from Verizon, why not try any
> of the other carriers in your area? They allow you to bring a phone home to
> try it and give your money back if it doesn't work.
>
> -Bill Radio @ http://www.mountainwireless.com
>
>
>
> "Pegleg" <brian-s-jones@comcast.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4cq6915a4kvcovfg9mae4j4jqeu9cf6qfb@4ax.com...
>>> I'm in a rural area in NW Washington State with Verizon and about 2
>> miles from a tower but cannot use our cell phones in our home due to a
>> metal roof.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 7:34:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream (More info?)

You are incorrect... RF Signals propogate based on the orientation and
polarization of antenna... a metal roof can and will effect in many
cases...

As was previously stated, ask an RF engineer...

The signal is not a beam like a laser, it is more like a truncated
oriental fan... the engineering dept decide how high the tower needs to
be, and at what angle the beam will fan out from the antenna... that is
why on some points of compass, you may have signal and at others you
may not.... On my particular commute home, there is a window of about
10 degrees (probably one antenna element) where my signal gets muddy,
and may drop, until I literally turn a corner (going into another
antenna element coverage) where it bangs back to full signal and
optimum clarity...
!