Re: Doesn't Surprise Me

Author	All Replies
MrMaster jetsetter Premium join:2000-12-16 St Thomas, VI Reviews: ·Sprint Mobile Br.. ·Virgin Mobile Br..	reply to dcdeadbeat5 Re: Doesn't Surprise Me said by dcdeadbeat5: That's your opinion. However I live in D.C. and even when 4 million flooded the City for the inauguration there were no interruptions in service. AT&T worked fine. All of the carriers are good in some areas and bad in others. You cannot expect the carriers which are struggling financially to spend lots of money on temporary events. So get over it and realize that cell phones are a "nicety" but not an "necessity". Have you ever tried using your Sprint or Verizon phone in a third world country? Oh wait, you usually can't because most of the world uses UTMS not CDMA. What planet do you live on? AT&T has billions to spend. Are you even in the right thread? Cell phones are more reliable than landlines in most 3rd world countries. AT&T is not CDMA We are talking data here, some of us who are paying $39.99 a month for so we damn well better have a working service. Austin specifically, has had data issues for as long as I lived here (2.5 years) but AT&T has better coverage than Verizon for me, especially in the Hill Country.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-03-16 11:18:48 ·
dcdeadbeat5 join:2008-10-07 Washington, DC 3 edits	said by MrMaster: What planet do you live on? Is there another one to live on? said by MrMaster: AT&T has billions to spend. Are you even in the right thread? AT&T does not have billions to spend on network upgrades. Please research their financial records before making such as statement. I did. And yes I am in the right thread. said by MrMaster: Cell phones are more reliable than landlines in most 3rd world countries. That's not entirely accurate since the cellphones actually work by interfacing with the PSTN. If the PSTN is unreliable in third world countries, then the cell phones are also going to be unreliable. Unless you are suggesting that AT&T runs private networks to all third world countries and then backhauls the traffic back to the US so it can send it back to its origination. That would be horribly inefficient and simply not the way it is done. said by MrMaster: AT&T is not CDMA That is correct. I never said AT&T is CDMA. They use UTMS for voice and HSPA for data. When neither is available, it falls back to GSM or roams on another GSM carrier. Sprint and Verizon user CDMA for voice and EVDO for data. And a very small number of their phones will actually have a secondary radio inside them that can access GSM and UTMS networks. said by MrMaster: We are talking data here, some of us who are paying $39.99 a month for so we damn well better have a working service. Actually we are talking about both, depending upon the network since AT&T can actually send Voice and DATA GSM/UTMS/HSPA unlike it's competitors which cannot do simultaneous voice and data over their networks. Sprint and Verizon use CDMA for voice and 1xRTT/EVDO for data. But they cannot send both voice and data at the same time due to the technology of CDMA. said by MrMaster: Austin specifically, has had data issues for as long as I lived here (2.5 years) but AT&T has better coverage than Verizon for me, especially in the Hill Country. I have actually found my Verizon card to work better in Austin than my AT&T phone or card. However, Sprint beats them both in that particular area since they seem to roam better with some of the rural and private carriers (such as the oil companies). I am not advocating any single carrier. Just do your research and find the one that works the best in your area most of the time. And let's all stop believing that cell phones are perfect. All wireless technologies have weaknesses. That's why backbone connections are (can we all say it together) WIRED.
dcdeadbeat5 join:2008-10-07 Washington, DC 3 edits	to forum · permalink · 2009-03-16 11:55:15 ·

AT&T Faces SXSW Bandwidth Woes > Doesn't Surprise Me