how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to NetAdmin1
Re: Great, 92 cities. Lots of work to do... 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 | |
|
