"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:sdkUj.16056$2g1.5430@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or
>> work
>> during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
> Maybe they do, now that their is a trial period. But I know people that
> had Sprint for _years_ without any coverage at home. Even after the
> contract was up they didn't want to change because of no number
> portability.

I have never known a time without a trial period. In the past, it was often
unreasonable (48-72 hours) rather than 14-30 days, but there was no reason
to get stuck with a phone that didn't work at home or work if you actively
worked the trial period.

>> Again, there are 70+ million 1900MHz phone users in the US. 1900MHz has
>> been used here for well over a decade. Where's the backlash of irate
>> customers?
>
> No backlash, but look at the numbers of customers of 1900 MHz and those of
> 800 MHz. Don't you think that the coverage issues of Sprint and T-Mobile,
> which have been endlessly exposed in user surveys by independent entities,
> have something to do with them being unable to catch up to Verizon and
> AT&T?

Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start? Or the
fact that all of these companies are now merger-created amalgams of smaller
companies so the numbers aren't directly comparable? Frankly, Sprint has
done pretty G-D well for building an entire nationwide network from the
ground up. Remember that before the Cingular/AT&T merger, Sprint was pretty
much neck and neck with both of them.

> You happen to live on one of the very few areas where, according to you,
> Sprint has (or had) better coverage. Don't extrapolate this to the rest of
> the country, or even to other neighborhoods in your own area.

I don't. I called it "anecdotal" for a reason. However, I'm enjoying the
irony that MY anecdote "shouldn't be extrapolated," yet yours is "all too
typical!" ;-)

You can suggest all of the personal experience, and "independant surveys"
you like, but you can't answer the simple question- if 1900MHz is so
inferior, why is ANYONE subscribing to a carrier using it? Pricing (except
for maybe T-Mo's low-balling) is relatively competitive between carriers, so
it's not like people jump from AT&T or Verizon to Sprint to save 40%. If
Verizon and AT&T are as geometrically superior due to their frequency
assignments, how are Sprint and T-Mo still in business? How do they hang on
to the 70 million suckers like myself who apparently simply haven't noticed
their phones don't work anywhere? Why hasn't the free market done it's job?