Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Mediacom
| Great, 92 cities. Lots of work to do... Sorry, but T-Mo's 3G is pretty laughable. AT&T gets a bad rap around here and elsewhere for their (admittedly) sparse 3G offerings but T-Mo really stinks. They need to really ramp it up if the G1 is even a fraction as popular as folks want to believe. |
|
| said by pabster:Sorry, but T-Mo's 3G is pretty laughable. Their coverage in general is pretty laughable. Verizon, Sprint and ATT have the metro area I live in fully covered with voice, data and 3G, even pretty far out into the boonies. T-Mobile doesn't have very much coverage in the city itself and almost none outside of the city.
They need to put more energy into their coverage. 3G is nice, but when people try to use it and they get no coverage at all, they aren't going to be pleased.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to pabster
said by pabster:Sorry, but T-Mo's 3G is pretty laughable. AT&T gets a bad rap around here and elsewhere for their (admittedly) sparse 3G offerings but T-Mo really stinks. They need to really ramp it up if the G1 is even a fraction as popular as folks want to believe. Both at&t and T-mobile are a joke in my state. I guess slightly less so. Still consdiering the at&t is the local POTS provider for most of the state that's pretty sad. Meanwhile Verizon has 3G avilable to 90% of the state at&t looks REALLY pathetic. |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| reply to NetAdmin1
I must be in a rare spot where T-Mobile gets the best coverage, and all the other carriers stink. I'm at the intersection of US-I-CA-680 and US-101 in San Jose, California, so perhaps I'm getting a lot of interference from vehicle phones, or the nearby bridges and freeway walls (full of rebar).
Everyone I know in the area that has T-Mobile gets good coverage. Often, AT&T has bad coverage around here.
Who knows why -- my main theory is that AT&T oversells more than T-Mobile, although who knows what both would do if each were given the opportunity to do it (we already know what AT&T would do). P.S., iphones don't work in our house at all (zip nada nothing) -- not exactly in the boonies, here. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | There's a long story on that one in California/Nevada.
T-Mobile runs what 'was' Cingular/PacBell Wireless network, which T-Mobile and Cingular 'shared', and was built up from the ground as a GSM 1900 network in California/Nevada.
AT&T now uses what 'was' former AT&T Wireless network, which was patch work... Analog->TDMA->GSM->3G running on 2 different bands.
T-Mobile may not have always had the 'best' overall coverage, but it worked well.
AT&T's 3G uses 1900MHz (while GSM using 850/1900 here in SoCal).. giving weaker signal of the 2 bands, and allocating 5MHz for 3G voice+data, while GSM has 17.5MHz
T-Mobile's approach will work a little better for usability (not handset availability though), using 1700/2100MHz - not sacrificing existing spectrum, and using a band similar to what is already in use (1900MHz).
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 schmol
join:2001-12-26
Windsor, PA | reply to NetAdmin1
there are always people out there that bitch about everything.  |
|
| said by schmol:there are always people out there that bitch about everything.
You need to learn the difference between bitching and a legitimate complaint.
T-Mobile is trying to compete in a high competitive field, one where coverage is what makes or breaks you and T-Mobile's network has some pretty serious coverage holes, even in large metro areas. Like I said before, 3G is nice, but when you have major coverage holes, users aren't going to like not being able to use the 3G service they pay for every month.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. |
|
