|
uniqs
36 |
|
 |
|
| |
to fuziwuzi
Re: More aggressive pricingsaid by fuziwuzi:
There you go again, spewing the same crap that everyone has debunked again and again. I have to give you credit for being persistent... persistently wrong, nonetheless.
TMobile coverage and sproostgin coverage is HORRIBLE.. Tmobile should rename to TMetro.I would loose coverage on a route I travel daily for work for over an hour. Which VZW quite nicely covers very well. No need for an external antenna, amp, or foil... This is most decidely a rural area, and if VZW and before the acquistion AllTel could cover it then so could the others... The towers were/are there, yeah the leases for space were probably not that great, but when your hurting for coveage you pay till you invest (oh theres a concept) in your own.. There won't been any NIMBY nazis in this area. Sproostgin.. NOPE, not *natively*, the only coverage is via roaming on VZW and if your on the boost or virgin MVNO's NO COVERAGE, period till you get back to native sprint. At least sproostgin's coverage map is more accurate then Tmobiles. And not trying to stretch it and hide the dead zones.. Tmobles is so dependendt on perfect conditions its pathetic... Real world phones from Tmobile and sproostgin don't work. VZW does. All in an area Tmobile is saying is "Satisfactory" only if your cheating with an external amp, antenna, on a spectrum analyzer, v. a phone with no real antenna, 1/2 the sensitivity, 1/3 the selectivity thats behind a body mass which just loves to absorb RF... Same goes for sproostgin in a urban area.. their MVNO fails to cover an area that is not rural... major holes... sprint customers get coverage by...wait for it... VZW! mvno's suckers... All you have to do is a look at coverage map for Tmobile and notice all the white areas v. their blessed magenta (or green in their online case) or sprint in many areas their *NATIVE* coverage is a joke, and were it not for roaming there would be no coverage, and compared to VZW who has native coverage there. Tmobile and sproostgin MVNO's may work if you never ever stray from native coverage of the mother ship.. but for most thats not the case and will find out what a crock these 2 networks are... You want coverage, you get VZW, period. You want 3rd rate coverage you get crApTT, you want 5th rate coverage take your pick from MetroPCS, sproostgin, Tmobile, cricket and any one else. Cell phone coverage stating "coveraging 96% of the US..." yeah thats 96% of the population, thats WORTHLESS! If you covered 96% of the US you would have spend more in WV on cell sites alone than you spend on 5 states combined to get that level of coverage. Even VZW doesn't cover as much of WV as they should, but its better and has been for decades than any of the others. Coverage costs, and yes VZW has made some crap moves in re data and some other items, but if I have a phone it better work when I need it or theres not reason to have it.. Tmobile and sproostgin fail that test. | |  tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2012-Sep-23 9:17 am
said by TuxRaiderPen2:said by fuziwuzi:
There you go again, spewing the same crap that everyone has debunked again and again. I have to give you credit for being persistent... persistently wrong, nonetheless.
TMobile coverage and sproostgin coverage is HORRIBLE.. Tmobile should rename to TMetro.I would loose coverage on a route I travel daily for work for over an hour. Which VZW quite nicely covers very well. No need for an external antenna, amp, or foil... This is most decidely a rural area, and if VZW and before the acquistion AllTel could cover it then so could the others... The towers were/are there, yeah the leases for space were probably not that great, but when your hurting for coveage you pay till you invest (oh theres a concept) in your own.. There won't been any NIMBY nazis in this area. Sproostgin.. NOPE, not *natively*, the only coverage is via roaming on VZW and if your on the boost or virgin MVNO's NO COVERAGE, period till you get back to native sprint. At least sproostgin's coverage map is more accurate then Tmobiles. And not trying to stretch it and hide the dead zones.. Tmobles is so dependendt on perfect conditions its pathetic... Real world phones from Tmobile and sproostgin don't work. VZW does. All in an area Tmobile is saying is "Satisfactory" only if your cheating with an external amp, antenna, on a spectrum analyzer, v. a phone with no real antenna, 1/2 the sensitivity, 1/3 the selectivity thats behind a body mass which just loves to absorb RF... Same goes for sproostgin in a urban area.. their MVNO fails to cover an area that is not rural... major holes... sprint customers get coverage by...wait for it... VZW! mvno's suckers... All you have to do is a look at coverage map for Tmobile and notice all the white areas v. their blessed magenta (or green in their online case) or sprint in many areas their *NATIVE* coverage is a joke, and were it not for roaming there would be no coverage, and compared to VZW who has native coverage there. Tmobile and sproostgin MVNO's may work if you never ever stray from native coverage of the mother ship.. but for most thats not the case and will find out what a crock these 2 networks are... You want coverage, you get VZW, period. You want 3rd rate coverage you get crApTT, you want 5th rate coverage take your pick from MetroPCS, sproostgin, Tmobile, cricket and any one else. Cell phone coverage stating "coveraging 96% of the US..." yeah thats 96% of the population, thats WORTHLESS! If you covered 96% of the US you would have spend more in WV on cell sites alone than you spend on 5 states combined to get that level of coverage. Even VZW doesn't cover as much of WV as they should, but its better and has been for decades than any of the others. Coverage costs, and yes VZW has made some crap moves in re data and some other items, but if I have a phone it better work when I need it or theres not reason to have it.. Tmobile and sproostgin fail that test. YMMV. Verizon is shit in the middle of my city. Dropped calls. reception crap. Garbled voices. ATT, TMO, and Sprint are all better (although my ATT line drops calls, it's still better than VZW here, lulz). To play off your words, this is most decidely an urban area, and if TMO, ATT, and Sprint can cover it then so could VZW... The towers were/are there, yeah the leases for space were probably not that great, but when your hurting for coveage you pay till you invest (oh theres a concept) in your own.. There aren't been any NIMBY nazis in this area. Again. YMMV. Not sure why people rag on TMO so much. So it doesn't work for you? Whoop-de-fkin-doo. They don't force you to use their network. From your hatred, you make it sound like they raped your mother, buried her in a ditch, then raped her again. VZW doesn't work for me. And FOR ME, ATT still drops calls, Sprint's data is slow, and T-Mobile's the only reliable service for my personal needs. Y.M.M.V. | | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
to TuxRaiderPen2
Part right part wrong. AT&T and Verizon both have large, capable networks. T-Mobile and Sprint don't. There are many areas AT&T covers that Verizon doesn't and visa versa, but the same can't be said about Sprint or T-Mobile. | |  j1349705
Premium Member
join:2006-04-15
Holly Springs, NC |
to tiger72
said by tiger72:YMMV. Verizon is shit in the middle of my city. Dropped calls. reception crap. Garbled voices.
ATT, TMO, and Sprint are all better (although my ATT line drops calls, it's still better than VZW here, lulz).
To play off your words, this is most decidely an urban area, and if TMO, ATT, and Sprint can cover it then so could VZW... The towers were/are there, yeah the leases for space were probably not that great, but when your hurting for coveage you pay till you invest (oh theres a concept) in your own.. There aren't been any NIMBY nazis in this area.
Again. YMMV. Not sure why people rag on TMO so much. So it doesn't work for you? Whoop-de-fkin-doo. They don't force you to use their network. From your hatred, you make it sound like they raped your mother, buried her in a ditch, then raped her again.
VZW doesn't work for me. And FOR ME, ATT still drops calls, Sprint's data is slow, and T-Mobile's the only reliable service for my personal needs. Y.M.M.V.
Same here with Verizon... they have issues in a few places in the city that other carriers don't seem to struggle with. Then again, they work fine in other places (especially rural areas in NC... 850MHz has its advantages, and there's no 850MHz GSM in the state). The T-Mobile and Sprint bashing that occurs so often in forums just doesn't make sense. No wireless carrier works everywhere, but so many people assume that their bad experience applies to everyone. For what it is worth, I have found T-Mobile's coverage map to be fairly accurate. No coverage map is ever going to be perfect for marketing reasons and technical limitations. A lot of things can impact wireless signals, so predicting how they will travel isn't easy. The maps provide a general idea of how the service will be. Verizon actually has the least detailed maps of the 4 nationwide carriers... just "yes or no" for 1X/EV-DO and "strong/weak" for LTE. | | | | j1349705 |
to BiggA
said by BiggA:Part right part wrong. AT&T and Verizon both have large, capable networks. T-Mobile and Sprint don't. There are many areas AT&T covers that Verizon doesn't and visa versa, but the same can't be said about Sprint or T-Mobile.
Sprint and T-Mobile still cover most people, as well as the places that most people travel. | | tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
to BiggA
said by BiggA:Part right part wrong. AT&T and Verizon both have large, capable networks. Oh, ok. So my ATT sim must just be broken, where it causes my phone to drop data. I know the phone works fine, because the data drops don't happen when my phone's on the ?un-capable? T-Mobile network. Go figure! Thanks again for your deep, knowledgeable input. | |
|
