"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:41m1249e60vukuot7gso190utli6mbiohf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:38 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million
>>customers
>>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS
>>or
>>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
>>for the stellar CS!
>
> Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs?
Poor coverage causes CSRs to quit? Ok, I'll bite- it should be entertaining
to hear you try and connect those dots!
On 2008-05-06, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS,
> etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a
> guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had
> an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the
> time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area.
I believe that, but MetroPCS isn't a Sprint MVNO and doesn't use
Sprint's network so that particular anecdote says nothing about Sprint.
MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay
area is not too wonderful.
Sprint's coverage isn't too bad, it improved dramatically over the
years I had service with them. I'm sure you can find Sprint coverage
holes, but I can also find coverage holes for the two carriers whose
phones I carry now (AT&T and Verizon).
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:kV3Uj.13496$GE1.6614@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Ron wrote:
>> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints 1900 Mhz
>> poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.
>
> It's worse than that actually. Not only do the Sprint MVNO's have to deal
> with Sprint's coverage (which according to every independent survey is
> much worse than Verizon's), they don't get to roam onto other CDMA
> carriers to compensate (a trick that many Sprint subscribers have
> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon).
That's up to the MVNO. Qwest customers have the same roaming abilities as
Sprint customers.
> If you have Virgin, MetroPCS, etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_.
> Yesterday I got a call from a guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said
> to him that I thought he had an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too
> expensive to use all the time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in
> the Bay Area.
MetroPCS has their own licenses, spectrum and infrastructure- they aren't an
MVNO. They typically build tiny systems covering the smallest possible area
to launch a viable service.
> The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with 1900
> MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can install
> enough towers.
Fair enough. That generally covers 80+% of the population.
> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible Sprint
> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
> doesn't allow for cell sites.
That's an atypical situation, though.
> It's a tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site someplace
> where they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers essentially surround the
> residential neighborhoods with sites in the commercial areas, and it's
> good enough to provide good coverage.
That's why it's atypical- in most cases the 1900MHz carriers can do exactly
the same thing, unless extreme distance or topography interfere.
On 2008-05-06, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:54:14 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
><sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Poor coverage is not the problem. Shitty customer service is the problem.
>
>
> No argument from me about the Customer Service.
And we all know why it tanked. You and I disagree about the level of customer
service pre-merger. I didn't have any problems at all pre-merger. But after
the merger went through...
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-06, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> You mean Todd was wrong? and its not just <poor> Customer Service ?
Steven is wrong, unless MetroPCS is a Sprint MVNO. And as far as I
know, none of the flat-rate wireless providers are Sprint MVNO's --
not Metro, not Cricket, not Revol (and I know for sure Revol isn't; I
got a phone a month after they launched, back when they were still
Northcoast PCS, and they were building out their own network then).
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2008-05-06, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS,
>> etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a
>> guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had
>> an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the
>> time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area.
>
> I believe that, but MetroPCS isn't a Sprint MVNO and doesn't use
> Sprint's network so that particular anecdote says nothing about Sprint.
> MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay
> area is not too wonderful.
Yes, my mistake. MetroPCS leases infrastructre from Sprint, but they are
not an MVNO. Their coverage is worse than a Sprint MVNO's because they
are using a subset of Sprint's towers. You're still using Sprint sites
only, just not all of them.
> MetroPCS has their own licenses, spectrum and infrastructure- they
> aren't an MVNO. They typically build tiny systems covering the smallest
> possible area to launch a viable service.
In the bay area they use a subset of Sprint's towers. But yes, they're
not a Sprint MVNO, and I shouldn't have implied that.
>> The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with
>> 1900 MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can
>> install enough towers.
>
> Fair enough. That generally covers 80+% of the population.
At least in their home area.
>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible
>> Sprint and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large
>> residential areas doesn't allow for cell sites.
>
> That's an atypical situation, though.
I don't agree with that. It's a situation that is common in California,
and I suspect in other areas with bedroom communities surrounding large
cities.
>> It's a tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site
>> someplace where they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers
>> essentially surround the residential neighborhoods with sites in the
>> commercial areas, and it's good enough to provide good coverage.
>
> That's why it's atypical- in most cases the 1900MHz carriers can do
> exactly the same thing, unless extreme distance or topography interfere.
They can't because 1900 MHz requires far more sites to cover the same
area, especially to provide good indoor coverage.
On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:56:52 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible Sprint
>> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
>> doesn't allow for cell sites.
>
>That's an atypical situation, though.
That's an all too common situation.
With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:o17324lk3qm8ni85pb18qnkk607gjaodu9@4ax.com...
>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible
>>> Sprint
>>> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
>>> doesn't allow for cell sites.
>>
>>That's an atypical situation, though.
>
>
> That's an all too common situation.
>
> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
during the 14-30 day 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? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship
back to 800MHz carriers long ago.
When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years
ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the
incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until
relatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evidence" game too...
If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two
companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the
Johnny-Come-Latelies?
When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint
(1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is
very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this
isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in
SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..."
Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So
1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and
suburban areas this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are
needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway,
so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in
populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant
disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is
why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just
covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns.
Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with
roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer
an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS
NG seems to bear out, despite your insistence that scores of folks are
complaining about coverage.
"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:o17324lk3qm8ni85pb18qnkk607gjaodu9@4ax.com...
>>> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible
>>> Sprint
>>> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
>>> doesn't allow for cell sites.
>>
>>That's an atypical situation, though.
>
>
> That's an all too common situation.
>
> With 1900 MHz used by Sprint and T-Mobile doing less well at building
> penetration, all too often Sprint customers discover too late their
> cell phone won't work at home, or at work. One need only to
> read the SprintPCS newsgroup to realize the angst caused by that fact.
"Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
during the 14-30 day 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? If this situation was "all too common" we'd all have jumped ship
back to 800MHz carriers long ago.
When I moved to my southwest suburb in the Denver Front Range four years
ago, only T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel worked here. Verizon and AT&T, the
incumbent 800MHz cellular carriers didn't cover my neighborhood until
releatively recently, so I can play SMS' "anecdotal evedence" game too...
If "coming late to the party" prevented coverage, why couldn't the two
companies servicing my area for 25 YEARS provide service before the
Johnny-Come-Latelies?
When I visit my mother in suburban Providence, RI, Verizon (800), Sprint
(1900) and T-Mo (1900) provide excellent service, where AT&T (800 MHz!) is
very hit or miss (and was back in the analog/TDMA days as well, so this
isn't a "GSM" issue, either, which ranks a close #2 behind "1900 MHz" in
SMS' list of "Why All Carriers Other Than Verizon Blow Chunks..."
Are their situations were 800MHz performs better than 1900? Sure. So
1900MHz carriers have to compensate with additional towers. In urban and
suburban ares this is generally not a hardship, because more towers are
needed for capacity issues than are required for bare-bones coverage anyway,
so it's not like they need any more towers than 800 MHz carriers do in
populated areas. In rural areas, however, 1900 certainly has a significant
disadvantage, in the number of towers needed for a full build-out, which is
why they typically lack robust coverage in those areas, instead just
covering the interstates, tourist traps, and towns.
Sprint and T-Mobile have building out their networks, and supplementing with
roaming for over a decade. Coverage, for the most part, is simply no longer
an issue for the vast majority of consumers, as a reading of the SprintPCS
NG seems to bear out, despite your insistance that scores of folks are
complaining about coverage.
Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall
Linear Mode
