|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > February 2006 > Re: when my plan expires... Switch To Sprint!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: when my plan expires... Switch To Sprint!
|
|
| Jeremy 2006-02-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-E8876A. 02382819022006@nntp3
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <sVPJf.2906$GQ.1940@trnddc03>, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Around here, Sprint has a reputation for having bad signal. I've known
> about this problem for over 5 years.
>
> I guess Sprint finally admitted it, because they're not running ads
> touting that they've fixed it.
>
> I'm half tempted to give them a try to see what's what with that. I
> would even switch from Cingular if it works.
>
I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And,
since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether
Cingular's Allover Network has broader geographic coverage than Sprint's
National PCS Network. All I ever travel to is New York City, and the
NY-Washington corridor is well covered by every carrier.
The superiority of Sprint's coverage was, for me, so pronounced over that of
Cingular's that I'd have switched even if I had no other issues with
Cingular. I've never had such crystal clear calls or such high signal
strength before. I was driving around Philadelphia yesterday, and the
signal strength icon was at the max every time I checked it.
As for their customer service, I've had nothing but positive experiences so
far. Yesterday, when I called to inquire if they could permanently block my
company name from displaying on outbound caller ID on my three lines (my
account is billed to my company), the rep offered to change the ID to
display our names, individually for each phone, rather than the company! I
didn't even know they could do that. Sure enough, within minutes I saw each
phone line associated with the user's name when I checked my account on the
Sprint web site. And a few hours later, the personal names began displaying
when I tested the phones by calling my house line and seeing what came up on
the Caller ID box.
So I just don't know what all the fuss is about their allegedly lousy
customer service. And I have been a Sprint long distance customer for over
a decade, and have never had a single problem. In fact, I would rate their
LD service as superior both technically and service-wise.
Given that I rarely roam, will never exceed my Anytime Minutes allotment,
have a Sprint tower 2 blocks from my house and get a great signal, and have
gotten a great package along with a great price, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Unless Cingular buys Sprint, I should be just fine!!!!
Lots of people here post messages suggesting that Cingular is arrogant, and
I agree. But I have found that there is at least one alternative out
there--one that has done handstands to cultivate my business and that gives
me better service than I ever got from those dogs at Cingular. For me, in
my particular circumstance, switching was a no-brainer.
| |
|
| Jeremy wrote:
> I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And,
> since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether
> Cingular's Allover Network has broader geographic coverage than Sprint's
> National PCS Network. All I ever travel to is New York City, and the
> NY-Washington corridor is well covered by every carrier.
In my area, the 1900 Mhz carriers (Sprint and T-Mobile) have poor
coverage compared to Verizon and Cingular. When Cingular was 1900 Mhz
only (prior to their acquistion of AT&T) they also had poor coverage, as
well as insufficient capacity.
In areas with a lot of suburbs, 1900 Mhz usually has poorer coverage,
because 1900 Mhz requires more towers to cover a given area. It can be
very difficult to place towers in suburban areas. In my city, Sprint and
T-Mobile are always facing opposition to new towers from neighbors, and
invariably the carriers lose. The planning commission is unimpressed
with the carrier's explanantion of why they need those locations, when
Cingular and Verizon are able to provide complete coverage without the
need for so many towers in inappropriate locations.
In dense cities, 1900 Mhz doesn't have the problem of coverage, though
the issue of in-building signal strength is still a big issue with 1900 Mhz.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-02-19, 5:48 pm |
| Jeremy wrote:
> I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And,
> since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether
> Cingular's Allover Network has broader geographic coverage than Sprint's
> National PCS Network. All I ever travel to is New York City, and the
> NY-Washington corridor is well covered by every carrier.
Some pepel have a life outside of Philadelphia, so roaming is critical
to them.
> The superiority of Sprint's coverage was, for me, so pronounced over that of
> Cingular's that I'd have switched even if I had no other issues with
> Cingular.
YMMV...Go with the carrier that has the better coverage.
> I didn't even know they could do that. Sure enough, within minutes I saw each
> phone line associated with the user's name when I checked my account on the
> Sprint web site.
True...Sprint can do that. Its a policy thing from Cingular that
prevents them from doing that.
> And I have been a Sprint long distance customer for over
> a decade, and have never had a single problem. In fact, I would rate their
> LD service as superior both technically and service-wise.
Not relevant. Its an entirely different infrastructure. Personally, for
me Sprint LD is terrible about dropping a phone from it LD subscriber
list and not allowing LD calls from that telephone land line.
> Given that I rarely roam, will never exceed my Anytime Minutes allotment,
> have a Sprint tower 2 blocks from my house and get a great signal, and have
> gotten a great package along with a great price, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Walmart might decide to put a store on your property and exercise
eminent domain and you are forced to move to a location with poor Sprint
coverage.
> Lots of people here post messages suggesting that Cingular is arrogant, and
> I agree.
And lots of people don't feel that way.
| |
| Jeremy 2006-02-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:43f886b0$0$9592
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>
> In my area, the 1900 Mhz carriers (Sprint and T-Mobile) have poor coverage
> compared to Verizon and Cingular. When Cingular was 1900 Mhz only (prior
> to their acquistion of AT&T) they also had poor coverage, as well as
> insufficient capacity.
>
> In areas with a lot of suburbs, 1900 Mhz usually has poorer coverage,
> because 1900 Mhz requires more towers to cover a given area. It can be
> very difficult to place towers in suburban areas. In my city, Sprint and
> T-Mobile are always facing opposition to new towers from neighbors, and
> invariably the carriers lose. The planning commission is unimpressed with
> the carrier's explanantion of why they need those locations, when Cingular
> and Verizon are able to provide complete coverage without the need for so
> many towers in inappropriate locations.
>
> In dense cities, 1900 Mhz doesn't have the problem of coverage, though the
> issue of in-building signal strength is still a big issue with 1900 Mhz.
Fortunately for me, coverage is excellent--far superior to my old TDMA
service. I did read that Sprint had recently been building out on the 800
MHz band, but I don't know the details.
Also, I have a reduced level of expectation regarding wireless service. I
don't expect perfect performance, as I would on a landline. I can live with
dead spots. I can't live with mean-spirited plans to deliberately cut back
on the availability of a signal, such as Cingular did to us when they took
control of the ATTWS towers. And I was angry over the prospect that the
situation would only become progressively worse with each passing month,
until I acted to either give in to Cingular or went elsewhere.
It was the kick in the butt that I needed. Sprint stepped right up to the
plate, and the problem is resolved. I just want others to realize that they
are not as captive as Cingular would like them to believe.
| |
| Richard 2006-02-19, 5:48 pm |
| What is so bad about GSM? I thought that most of the rest of the world uses
it, and the reason Cingular switched was to be more internationally
compatible.
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pJ1Kf.20193$6f2.15509@trnddc02...
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:43f886b0$0$9592
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> Fortunately for me, coverage is excellent--far superior to my old TDMA
> service. I did read that Sprint had recently been building out on the 800
> MHz band, but I don't know the details.
>
> Also, I have a reduced level of expectation regarding wireless service. I
> don't expect perfect performance, as I would on a landline. I can live
> with dead spots. I can't live with mean-spirited plans to deliberately
> cut back on the availability of a signal, such as Cingular did to us when
> they took control of the ATTWS towers. And I was angry over the prospect
> that the situation would only become progressively worse with each passing
> month, until I acted to either give in to Cingular or went elsewhere.
>
> It was the kick in the butt that I needed. Sprint stepped right up to the
> plate, and the problem is resolved. I just want others to realize that
> they are not as captive as Cingular would like them to believe.
>
| |
| Jeremy 2006-02-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"Richard" <rick749@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iM3Kf.21$_06.13@fe09.lga...
> What is so bad about GSM? I thought that most of the rest of the world
> uses it, and the reason Cingular switched was to be more internationally
> compatible.
>
Nothing is bad about GSM. I just wanted to leave Cingular because I was
pissed at them.
I rarely roam, and I don't travel outside the US, so the international
roaming capabilities were not relevant to my circumstances.
| |
| DonR. 2006-02-19, 11:48 pm |
| Actually, they switched to it because it is an adaption of TDMA.
"Richard" <rick749@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iM3Kf.21$_06.13@fe09.lga...
> What is so bad about GSM? I thought that most of the rest of the world
> uses it, and the reason Cingular switched was to be more internationally
> compatible.
>
>
> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:pJ1Kf.20193$6f2.15509@trnddc02...
>
>
| |
| John Navas 2006-02-21, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <ZiZJf.2627$HU.2474@trnddc04> on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:14:49 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And,
>since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether
>Cingular's Allover Network has broader geographic coverage than Sprint's
>National PCS Network. All I ever travel to is New York City, and the
>NY-Washington corridor is well covered by every carrier.
>
>The superiority of Sprint's coverage was, for me, so pronounced over that of
>Cingular's that I'd have switched even if I had no other issues with
>Cingular. I've never had such crystal clear calls or such high signal
>strength before. ...
But given that you only had experience with "blue" (old ATTWS) D-AMPS
("TDMA"), not Cingular ("orange") GSM (with ENS), which is now far superior to
blue D-AMPS, that's a meaningless comparison.
Please give it a rest.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-02-21, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 43f886b0$0$95927$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 06:54:45
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Jeremy wrote:
>
>
>In my area, the 1900 Mhz carriers (Sprint and T-Mobile) have poor
>coverage compared to Verizon and Cingular. When Cingular was 1900 Mhz
>only (prior to their acquistion of AT&T) they also had poor coverage, as
>well as insufficient capacity.
>
>In areas with a lot of suburbs, 1900 Mhz usually has poorer coverage,
>because 1900 Mhz requires more towers to cover a given area. It can be
>very difficult to place towers in suburban areas. In my city, Sprint and
>T-Mobile are always facing opposition to new towers from neighbors, and
>invariably the carriers lose. The planning commission is unimpressed
>with the carrier's explanantion of why they need those locations, when
>Cingular and Verizon are able to provide complete coverage without the
>need for so many towers in inappropriate locations.
>
>In dense cities, 1900 Mhz doesn't have the problem of coverage, though
>the issue of in-building signal strength is still a big issue with 1900 Mhz.
Complete rubbish. The FAQ has the facts.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|