T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls

[Arlen Holder]

Did those of you on T-Mobile or Sprint get this message today?
<https://i.postimg.cc/MHSTXbX2/scamcalls01.jpg>

Everything below is verbatim...

Subject: Say goodbye to scam calls
We're hanging up on scammers for good.
Now that Sprint and T-Mobile have merged, our network is bigger
and better than ever before, with advanced spam-blocking protection
built into its core.

So customers can be better protected at no extra charge.

This means Caller ID is now free for you!

Download the Scam Shield app to turn on Scam Block and Caller ID
and start saying BUH-BYE to scammers.

Get to know all five layers of Scam Shield protection:
* Advanced network technology
* Scam ID and Scam Block
* Caller ID
* PROXY by DIGITS
* Free yearly number changes

Download the Scam Shield app to turn on free Caller ID
and free Scam Block.

Download on the App Store
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1367276365>

Get it on Google Play
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.services.nameid>
--
Qual'g service & capable device req'd. Turning on Scam Block might block
calls you want; disable any time. PROXY: Qual'g service & capable device
req'd. 1 per account; may be cancelled for non-use. In some circumstances,
access to 911 may be limited. See DIGITS Terms of Use for additional 911
information.

This is an automated e-mail. Please do not reply.
If you have questions regarding your order or T‑Mobile service, please
visit my.t-mobile.com.

This email was sent by:
T‑Mobile USA, Inc.
P.O. Box 37380
Albuquerque, NM 87176, USA

T-Mobile, the T logo, Magenta and the magenta color are registered
trademarks of Deutsche Telekom AG. ©2020 T‑Mobile USA, Inc.
| Terms of Use | Terms & Conditions | Return Policy | Privacy Policy

[badgolferman]

Yes, I installed it. Haven’t gotten any scam calls yet. Wish there was a
way to know what it’s blocking though.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 10:50:48 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

>> Download on the App Store
>> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1367276365>
>>
>> Get it on Google Play
>> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.services.nameid>
>
> Yes, I installed it. Haven't gotten any scam calls yet. Wish there was a
> way to know what it's blocking though.

Hi The Real Bev,

I have a family plan where I pay for a lot of the kids and grandkids since
the family plan is a decent deal (about $25/month per line with unlimited
US calls & text and 4GB high-speed data) - where I saw something that
intimated it might only work for one line... so I need to test that out.

This is a new app to all of us, where, for privacy reasons, I don't keep
any contacts in the default sqlite database simply because Google uploads
them even when you don't ask Google to do that (there is no real protection
other than to have an empty default sqlite contacts database).

Luckily, I find free, ad free, gsf free apps for contacts and phone which
use their own private contacts database, _outside_ of the highly insecure
default contacts sqlite database that other people use without thinking of
the inherent loss of privacy consequences of uploading your friends,
family, kids, and grandkids' contacts to the Internet.

So it will be interesting if this new free, ad free, GSF dependent T-Mobile
"Scam Shield" app will work, given I don't even have a Google ID on my
phone, and given I've turned off all Google services possible on my phone.

I will install T-Mobile Scam Shield version 4.0.0.3205.3205 on my $100 Moto
G7, which I recently updated to Android 10 (just to test it out) and let
you know how it works out.

Apparently you can't "authenticate" it on Wi-Fi; you must authenticate the
Scam Shield while on Mobile Data.

Apparently the Scam Shield updates on T-Mobile's network every 6 minutes,
according to what the app is telling me in the Scam Shield intro.

1. When installing, it gives you the option to enable free caller id.
2. In Settings > Scam Shield features" is a "proxy" phone number.
3. Also at that location, you can change your number for free yearly.

Of course, they try to foist upon you a "Premium" service by saying "I'm
eligible" for their free for 30 days (I'll stick to the "Basic" plan!)
where the $4/month "Premium" service apparently adds:
a. Manage blocked numbers
b. Send call types to voicemail
{i.e., nuisance, telemarketing, survey, political, charity, prison}
c. Reverse number lookup
d. Voicemails sent to your SMS (via visual voicemail)

But I'll stick with the basic plan as I never pay for any software on a
mobile device, since you can get everything you need for free if you're
smart about it.

I'm testing it out now, where it says "Scam Block is on", and where it says
they'll block known scams for me automatically.

They seem to allow you to create three lists inside the Basic app:
A. A list of favorites (which they will never block)
B. A list of unwanted callers to block (logged in the activity log)
C. A list of numbers to send straight to voice mail

And you can set, inside the app, notifications for:
a. A likely scam call is blocked (basic plan)
b. A caller is blocked (premium plan)
c. A call category is sent to voicemail (premium plan)

It shows what your caller ID is that other people see.

Then there's this "PROXY by Digits" thingey...
"You can get one free PROXY number per account on any of our
Magenta or Essential plans"

That's about it for a one-minute inspection of the app so far.
--
The cost of freeware is in testing and finding those which work best.

[badgolferman]

Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 10:50:48 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>
>>> Download on the App Store
>>> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1367276365>
>>>
>>> Get it on Google Play
>>> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.services.nameid>
>>
>> Yes, I installed it. Haven't gotten any scam calls yet. Wish there was a
>> way to know what it's blocking though.
>
> Hi The Real Bev,
>
> I have a family plan where I pay for a lot of the kids and grandkids since
> the family plan is a decent deal (about $25/month per line with unlimited
> US calls & text and 4GB high-speed data)

I have T-Mobile One Military with four lines. Same things you mentioned
plus free calls to Canada/Mexico, free SMS to Europe, free 2G data Europe,
Netflix Basic. $102.00

I’ve shopped around to the other carriers since T-Mobile sometimes has
spotty coverage but haven’t found it worth it to switch yet, especially
considering the excellent customer service T-Mobile provides.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:29:42 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I have T-Mobile One Military with four lines. Same things you mentioned
> plus free calls to Canada/Mexico, free SMS to Europe, free 2G data Europe,
> Netflix Basic. $102.00
>

> I▔e shopped around to the other carriers since T-Mobile sometimes has

> spotty coverage but haven't found it worth it to switch yet, especially
> considering the excellent customer service T-Mobile provides.

Hi badgolferman,

I apologize for thinking you were "The Real Bev", which was a momentary
"thinko" (where the apologists would be all over me were you an apologist,
for having gotten a "material fact" wrong, hehhehheh).

I am pretty sure I get the same stuff you get, where I don't call Canada or
Mexico where I also get free SMS/MMS to/from Europe, with unlimited data in
Europe but no tethering for the iPads that have the free-for-life T-Mobile
SIM with 200MB/month of data.

Your plan seems very similar to mine with the exception of the Netflix
Basic, where mine, for four lines, would be almost exactly what yours is
for four lines.

Dunno how the Sprint merger will change things though, but like you, I've
had Verizon, AT&T, and then T-Mobile in series in the Silicon Valley, where
I've assessed the coverage is "about teh same" (but don't let Steve Scharf
see that, where on purpose he ignores facts so he won't see this).

Shockingly, nospam and I have been explaining patiently to Steve for years
that, sure, coverage is spotty for all carriers, but the coverage by
T-Mobile is pretty good and, better yet, the prices (last I checked) were
damn good.

My history with T-Mobile is that I was on Verizon from the start of
cellphones (those analog things with pullout antennas that lasted about
half a day at best with LED displays) but I got mad at Verizon when they
upped my 2-year contract (which the company was paying but it was the
principle) when I had a phone replaced under the maintenance contract.

When I switched to AT&T out of dislike of Verizon's practices, I was
pleasantly surprised that the coverage was "about the same" and that the
price was 'slightly lower'. Again, the company was paying, so it didn't
really matter that I was paying a decent amount for a "data plan" on my
blackberry at that time.

Then when my blackberry clit stopped working, I wanted a new phone but I
was retired by then, so I simply wanted the data block to apply to a new
"smartphone", where AT&T told me they'd charge me for data even if I had a
data block. I was livid. I complained to the FCC in fact, and the FCC made
AT&T call me, where they made the kind of comments nospam makes all the
time.

The VP told me a smartphone was no good without data!

I had to ask that VP if she ever graduated from high school, since a
smartphone is just fine on WiFi or off the net, but she _insisted_ that a
smartphone is worthless without a data plan.

Just as with the apologists, I shook my head in sad assessment:
a. Either this AT&T VP was really that incredibly stupid, or,
b. She was simply bold in her brazen lies that she, herself, didn't believe.

Either way, I dropped AT&T the moment the contract ran out (we had
contracts in those days as you know) and then went to T-Mobile who didn't
ask for a contract, said I could have voice & text without data (although
the text was limited to something like 200/month which the kids couldn't
keep to) and best of all I could use any phone I wanted to, smart or
otherwise.

I've been on T-Mobile every since, where my initial plan was about $15 per
month, but I needed European perks (which you noted you also have), so I
upped it to a $25/month per line plan which I've used many times in Europe,
which started, I think, at 1GB of data, then 2.5GB, and now it's 4GB where
I don't ask them for data - they just keep giving it to me (I use only
kilobytes, but, again, the kids and grandkids are data hogs as they don't
have any concept of setting switches on a mobile device to keep their stuff
off the net).

As for the excellent service, I agree, although Verizon was pretty good and
AT&T ok, but for a while, T-Mobile gave us "personalized" people, where,
astonishingly, we got the SAME people time and again, which is a nice perk.

I like that t-Mobile doesn't make me wade though a ton of automatrons to
get to a human, as I almost always ask questions only a human can answer.

I simply say "representative" and one comes on within a minute or less in
most cases, which is really nice (have you had the same experience?).

Over time, I think all the carriers now offer no contract plans, where you
can use your own phone, and unlimited everything (except perhaps data),
but, like you, I haven't found the need nor desire to switch.

In fact, I'm still (professionally) mad at Neflix for doubling their rates
(effectively) a few years ago by halving their service and charging for the
second half, such that... on principle... I'll never have a paid Netflix
subscription for the rest of my life, nor will I give it as a gift.

Hence, on principle, I doubt I'd switch back to Verizon or T-Mobile because
they screwed me and didn't care that they screwed me, which T-Mobile hasn't
done to me.

Again, let's keep this away from SMS because if he catches wind we're
saying good things about T-Mobile, he'll start claiming the coverage is far
worse than the other two - and - in my experience - where I live - it's
just not.

Besides, I'm in mountains, where nobody has good coverage, but they all
give us femtocells for our homes, and cellular repeaters (I have both) for
free, so, at least INSIDE the house, we have perfect coverage.

That coverage doesn't extend to the barn or to the pool or even to the end
of the driveway, but inside the house, it's perfect.

To my knowledge, just like everyone here has a rooftop antenna for WiFi, we
all have either the femotcell or the repeater in our homes (I have a big
house so they gave me both).

Good to know you're also happy (so far) with T-Mobile, where I don't know
how Sprint matters.

As an aside, I got a handful of the $300 Moto G7s for $100 from Google
where I signed up for Google Fi as part of the deal and then dropped it in
a few days after (with no penalty). Google Fi was, as I recall, $20 per
month with essentially the same coverage, but the data was an extra charge
(but I barely use data).

Hence, Google Fi, for me, without much data, might have been a lower-cost
approach, but, I only got Google Fi because the phone price required it
(and I checked with Google very bluntly beforehand that I could cancel the
very next day with no penalty - which they honored).

I haven't gotten any calls yet on my phone so I'll have to let you know,
and you can let us know, how the Scam Blocker works.
--
There are all types of people on Usenet... some of whom are well educated.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 02/08/2020 04.08, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:29:42 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:


>
> The VP told me a smartphone was no good without data!
>
> I had to ask that VP if she ever graduated from high school, since a
> smartphone is just fine on WiFi or off the net, but she _insisted_ that a
> smartphone is worthless without a data plan.

She is right :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-08-02 07:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> She is right
Can you not reply to the troll?

[123456789]

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Arlen Holder wrote:

>> The [carrier's] VP told me a smartphone was no good without data! I

>> had to ask that VP if she ever graduated from high school, since a
>> smartphone is just fine on WiFi or off the net, but she _insisted_
>> that a smartphone is worthless without a data plan.

> She is right :-P

Depends on your intended use.

I picked up a smartphone on my local Target department store discount
rack awhile back for $15 US. I use it when puttering around the house as
an Android iPod. It also streams radio stations from around the world.
Works great without either a data plan OR a phone plan...

[Arlen Holder]

To badgolferman and any other actual _adult_ on this newsgroup:
o Valueless trolls like Alan Browne are what ruins these mobile newsgroups.

Notice the proof Alan Browne is utterly incapable of adding value.
o People like Alan Browne, who can't ever add value, are what ruins a ng.

1. I clearly posted something of value, both temporally & functionally.
2. You and I clearly discussed the technical merits of that value added.
3. Carlos & Alan Browne clearly and obviously proved they are children.

All I have to do is _point_ to EXACTLY what they wrote, to prove the fact.
--
Valueless trolls like Alan Browne are what ruins these mobile newsgroups.

[Carlos E.R.]

Sure. I have one mobile which doesn't have a data connection, nor do my
tablets have one (they both can, they have a SIM socket).

Nevertheless, generally speaking, a smartphone without a dataplan is
useless. I can not check the map while I'm on the street; I can not get
a message (here we don't use SMS, we use Whatsapp). I can not do many
things that I do normally till I arrive home to my wifi. These days, to
get the menu listing of a restaurant, I have to make a photo of its QR
code at the door and look it up online, as it is not printed in a board.

So of course I need a data plan to use a smartphone as intended, as
designed. It is a gadget invented to be used on the move with Internet
access.

That you can live without it? Sure.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[badgolferman]

You can use Google Maps offline by downloading the map to the phone. You
will need the gps to work though.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 22:08:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Nevertheless, generally speaking, a smartphone without a dataplan is
> useless. I can not check the map while I'm on the street

Carlos,

Every time you post, it scares me... that you're allowed to vote.
o It's shocking that people as stupid as you are, actually exist.

Did you seriously claim that you can't route without cellular data?
o Really?

Do you realize intelligent people have no problem with directions & GPS
routing on a smartphone (i.e., _without_ ever needing cellular data)?

Your baseless claims remind me of that AT&T executive who apparently
couldn't fathom that a basic smartphone was smarter than she was.
--
What petrifies me is that people as dumb as Carlos... are allowed to vote.

[sms]

On 8/2/2020 1:08 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> So of course I need a data plan to use a smartphone as intended, as
> designed. It is a gadget invented to be used on the move with Internet
> access.

In the U.S. you can get a data plan for very low cost (even free!). I
have one phone that has a 1GB per month data plan that costs me $2.58
per month, and one with 200MB per month that is free.

There's really no good reason to not have a data plan unless you're
using the phone solely as a music player, remote control for a Roku, or
some other use where a cellular data connection is unnecessary.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 20:29:08 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> You can use Google Maps offline by downloading the map to the phone. You
> will need the gps to work though.

Hi badgolferman,

Thanks.
o You explained Carlos' error far more tactfully than I ever could! :)

I just don't have the patience for people like Carlos, whose entire belief
system, is always completely imaginary (i.e., based on exactly zero facts).

Since you can deal with people like Carlos better than I can, I'll let you
clarify for Carlos that GPS-based offline directions & routing works just
fine, in a multitude of apps, including in offline Google Maps.

What's sadly shocking is that Carlos appears to _believe_ what he claims.
o Just like that AT&T Vice President did!
--
What's petrifyingly scary is that these same people are allowed to vote.

[*Hemidactylus*]

There is the potential for retiring an older obsolete iPhone into service
as an iPod/bookreader.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 13:54:37 -0700, sms wrote:

> In the U.S. you can get a data plan for very low cost (even free!). I
> have one phone that has a 1GB per month data plan that costs me $2.58
> per month, and one with 200MB per month that is free.
>
> There's really no good reason to not have a data plan unless you're
> using the phone solely as a music player, remote control for a Roku, or
> some other use where a cellular data connection is unnecessary.

While I too have a free-for-life T-Mobile 200MB/month data plan on some of
my iPads (which turns the iPad into a free US calls POTS-capable
incoming/outgoing speakerphone for example)...

And while I agree that data is inexpensive anyway, in many cases, at least
in the US, we do have to realize Carlos is in, oh, as I recall, one of the
Iberian Peninsula countries (AFAICR).

However, even with zero data, there are very few things someone who is
intelligent can't do (I have a few threads on that topic alone, in the
Android ng).

For example:
o What decent free offline no-login privacy-enabled road map apps exist for Android users to enjoy?
<https://groups.google.com/topic/comp.mobile.android/YadPNimUcu8>

o How to Send and Receive Text Messages Without a Phone Plan or SIM Card
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/RVGqku3UtRg>

o Offline speech-to-text recorder/transcription unofficial Google Recorder APK port now available for many Android phones
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/_Amn35T16NA>

There are still "some" things which are easier with data than without:
o Is there a non Google freeware traffic app
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Ve_2cgliiGk>

o Let's document the best known current free REPLACEMENTS for Google "mail" account - so all benefit from our efforts
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/YUdwh4QgoRQ>

But not many...
o And certainly those few functionalities work fine when you're on Wi-Fi.
--
People who can't comprehend facts are doomed to be ruled by MARKETING.

[Carlos E.R.]

Sure, in theory. I have done that, and the google maps doesn't work on
the mountains of my area. Which means, that my car GPS doesn't work.
Besides that, even if the map of the area works, the online status doesn't.

I prefer to use openmaps for offline maps, anyway.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 02/08/2020 22.43, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 22:08:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless, generally speaking, a smartphone without a dataplan is
>> useless. I can not check the map while I'm on the street
>
> Carlos,
>
> Every time you post, it scares me... that you're allowed to vote.
> o It's shocking that people as stupid as you are, actually exist.

Ho ho ho!

>
> Did you seriously claim that you can't route without cellular data?
> o Really?
>
> Do you realize intelligent people have no problem with directions & GPS
> routing on a smartphone (i.e., _without_ ever needing cellular data)?
>
> Your baseless claims remind me of that AT&T executive who apparently
> couldn't fathom that a basic smartphone was smarter than she was.
>

Ho ho ho! :-D

That classifies you as troll, Arlen.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 02/08/2020 22.57, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 20:29:08 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>
>> You can use Google Maps offline by downloading the map to the phone. You
>> will need the gps to work though.
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> Thanks.
> o You explained Carlos' error far more tactfully than I ever could! :)
>
> I just don't have the patience for people like Carlos, whose entire belief
> system, is always completely imaginary (i.e., based on exactly zero facts).

Ho ho ho! :-D

>
> Since you can deal with people like Carlos better than I can, I'll let you
> clarify for Carlos that GPS-based offline directions & routing works just
> fine, in a multitude of apps, including in offline Google Maps.
>
> What's sadly shocking is that Carlos appears to _believe_ what he claims.
> o Just like that AT&T Vice President did!
>


--

Cheers, Carlos.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 00:05:18 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Ho ho ho!

It's instructive to note how Carlos turns into an instant child... in the
face of something as simple as a mere fact.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 00:04:28 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> I just don't have the patience for people like Carlos, whose entire belief
>> system, is always completely imaginary (i.e., based on exactly zero facts).
>
> Ho ho ho! :-D

Hi Carlos,

Most of us are decades ahead of you in terms of technical capability.
o For example, I posted this, from an offline non-cellular iPad, literally
_years_ ago:
*Google Map App:*
<http://i.cubeupload.com/mqIyq9.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/1Xu1Ze.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/j1qofb.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/Jg4N8H.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/wsbeK5.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/ZcSHbq.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/i7OQM5.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/n8SHCP.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/vTWsf6.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/9eGl0p.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/islMuS.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/Ywb7Zr.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/XZps1p.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/3J1768.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/l5gDkM.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/YxEkk9.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/CI1jmZ.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/AJZUc1.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/nvsdj5.gif>
<http://i.cubeupload.com/J3bcjj.gif>

*Apple Map App:*
<http://i.cubeupload.com/AXV0S1.gif>

Based on your infantile retort above to mere basic facts, I realize you
always seem to turn into instant child, whenever you're confronted with
something as trivial as a simple fact...

Facts instantly destroy wholly imaginary belief systems, such as yours.

But I'll let badgolferman explain to you how a smartphone can easily
perform routing & directions offline, since badgolferman seems to have
infinitely more patience than I do, for people like you whose wholly
imaginary belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) facts.

Since the iOS users are included in this thread, and since badgolferman is
an iOS user, he might even explain how the Apple Maps apps can perform the
same task, where I ran a study, long ago, on a non-cellular iPad, which
worked just fine in Google Maps offline but which failed to route, offline,
in Apple Maps.
o *Can the Apple Map App do offline mapping, tracking & routing?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/trJ9QTfZ-sY>
--
Bringing truth to mobile device newsgroups previously devoid of fact.

[123456789]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> 123456789 wrote:

>> I picked up a smartphone on my local Target department store
>> discount rack awhile back for $15 US. I use it when puttering
>> around the house as an Android iPod. It also streams radio stations
>> from around the world. Works great without either a data plan OR a
>> phone plan...

> a smartphone without a dataplan is useless.

The smartphone mentioned above is quite USEFUL to me. At $15 it was
quite a bit cheaper than I originally paid for my old iPod and I use it
for pretty much the same thing.

> I can not check the map while I'm on the street; I can not get a
> message (here we don't use SMS, we use Whatsapp). I can not do many
> things that I do normally till I arrive home to my wifi. These days,
> to get the menu listing of a restaurant, I have to make a photo of
> its QR code at the door and look it up online, as it is not printed
> in a board.

Course not. Neither can I. I have another considerably more expensive
smartphone for my regular smartphone business. That doesn't mean my
el-cheapo around-the-house smartphone isn't USEFUL. It's about the third
the size and fits in my shirt pocket nicely. Very USEFUL. And BTW did I
mention that it's USEFUL?

> So of course I need a data plan to use a smartphone as intended, as
> designed. It is a gadget invented to be used on the move with
> Internet access.

Of course you do. As always YMMV.

> That you can live without it? Sure.

I think you are actually arguing with Arlen here. He's the one the one
that wants a sans-data plan phone. I simply pointed out that a disemboweled
smartphone can actually be quite USEFUL... ;)

[Carlos E.R.]

Well, I pointed out that I agreed with the *generic* statement that a
smartphone without a dataplan is useless, with a big smile. You can
demonstrate exceptions, and so can I; I have an active smartphone
without a dataplan. But instead of having a conversation as everybody
else here and having a good time, he resorts to insulting me because I
do not agree with him.

{chuckle}


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 18:40:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Well, I pointed out that I agreed with the *generic* statement that a
> smartphone without a dataplan is useless, with a big smile. You can
> demonstrate exceptions, and so can I; I have an active smartphone
> without a dataplan. But instead of having a conversation as everybody
> else here and having a good time, he resorts to insulting me because I
> do not agree with him.

Play your worthless silly childish games Carlos...
o This is what transpired (verbatim):

> I had to ask that VP if she ever graduated from high school, since a
> smartphone is just fine on WiFi or off the net, but she _insisted_ that a
> smartphone is worthless without a data plan.

Carlos: She is right :-P

The point is that a smartphone without a data plan, for an _intelligent_
person, is perfectly functional.

Just like a smart phone without a cloud account is perfectly functional.

It's my opinion that the dumber people are, the more they need crutches:
a. Data plan
b. Cloud storage

There's a _reason_ MARKETING pushes this stuff to the ignorati, Carlos:
o Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the Internet (if so, for what gain?)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/E0TkTd-zLuk>

Only the ignorati would claim that a smartphone is useless without a
cellular connection to the Internet - and they did - she and you both.
--
The less intelligent the person, the more they require the cloud.

[sms]

On 8/1/2020 12:29 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

US calls & text and 4GB high-speed data)
>
> I have T-Mobile One Military with four lines. Same things you mentioned
> plus free calls to Canada/Mexico, free SMS to Europe, free 2G data Europe,
> Netflix Basic. $102.00
>
> I’ve shopped around to the other carriers since T-Mobile sometimes has
> spotty coverage but haven’t found it worth it to switch yet, especially
> considering the excellent customer service T-Mobile provides.

I could also get the military discount on T-Mobile but after trying
T-Mobile a few years ago, for a European trip, when we returned to
California my family would have left me if I had stayed with T-Mobile!
So I confine the military discount usage to Home Depot and Lowe's!

Seriously, the T-Mobile coverage in the Bay Area, and in California, is
an order of magnitude worse than what is offered on Verizon or AT&T, and
every independent survey and test has verified this, "T-Mobile sometimes
has spotty coverage" is the understatement of the year in my area! We do
a lot of road trips, often traveling through less-populated rural areas,
where having Verizon or AT&T is essential.

In the Santa Cruz mountains, where we visit often, you can see the vast
coverage differences, see <https://photos.app.goo.gl/ckTBkvAFZPagCBx18>.
I like cycling in those areas with no T-Mobile coverage, and really
would prefer to have coverage! It's the same situation throughout
California in more rural, sparsely populated, areas.

See <https://www.reviews.org/app/uploads/2020/06/4g-graph.png> which is
from <https://www.reviews.org/mobile/best-cell-phone-coverage/>. But
that graph doesn't tell the whole story--yes Sprint has very poor native
coverage but Sprint had (or has) extensive roaming on Verizon to make up
for it, while T-Mobile has been reducing AT&T roaming. Lots of
complaints by T-Mobile customers when roaming agreements with AT&T
expire and are not renewed.

Someday T-Mobile may have equivalent coverage to the top-tier carriers,
but it probably won't be in my lifetime unless I live to be 100 years
old! When people say that "in a few years T-Mobile will catch up" I'm
reminded of the Grand Canyon Flintstones' episode where Wilma sees the
tiny stream and says: "So that's the Grand Canyon huh? Hmph, well
doesn't look like much to me," and Fred replies: "Not now, but they
expect it to be a big thing someday."
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf4pUZPaz5k>.

The T-Mobile included 2G foreign data (actually it's just throttled to
2G, it's actually on LTE) was of limited use because of how slow it was.
Last year I was in Europe twice (Austria, Germany, Italy) and just
bought prepaid SIM cards. I was in China and did the same. On the
non-family trips (China and Italy) I was letting other people on the
trip, that had T-Mobile, hotspot into my phone or iPad to use my
high-speed data because the 2G data was so slow (probably okay for
e-mail, but not good for the web or navigation). You can pay T-Mobile
extra for limited amounts of foreign high-speed data, but if you have a
recent iPhone with eSIM plus physical SIM you're better off using the
eSIM for your U.S. carrier and sticking in a prepaid foreign SIM for
high-speed data.

For my U.S. carrier I have two Total Wireless (Verizon MVNO) three-line
plans, at about $85 each. One for my wife and two adult kids, and one
for me with three devices, that is reimbursed by my employer. Each plan
has 60GB of shared high speed data. TW's 4 line plan has 100GB of shared
high speed data (a tad under $100 with tax). I get around 100Mb/s. I
find that the shared data works well because the different users use
vastly different quantities of data. There is unlimited low-speed data
if you use of your high-speed data, but I've never come close to doing
that. Hotspot is included (10GB per line).

I never understood the obsession with customer service. There is almost
never a need to contact a carrier's customer service department once you
have established service. Well about ten months ago, on the flight from
San Francisco to Milan, I was putting my Vodafone SIM card into my phone
and my Total Wireless SIM card went flying, never to be found. When I
returned home, a three-minute online chat session had them activate a
replacement SIM card that I inserted.

Personally I greatly prefer online chat to voice calls because rather
than reading out an IMEI or SIN card number you can just type it in.
Also, you can ask very specific, succinct questions, that they can't
give evasive answers to.

I had Consumer Cellular for a while, and they tout their award winning
customer service. But I found their customer service frustrating because
they had no online chat and they could not give a straight answer to a
simple question, regarding international roaming. They have very
conflicting information on their web site. Which one is true?:

"Consumer Cellular phone will not work beyond the U.S. borders, thus
protecting them from any outrageous international roaming fees, which
are mostly unregulated and can vary widely."

or

"Substantial charges may be incurred if your phone is taken out of the
U.S. even if no Services are intentionally used."

In any case, IMVAIO, all the stuff T-Mobile throws in like a basic
Netfliz account, international SMS & low speed data, and free Taco Bell
tacos (now ended), are not worth it if you have poor coverage.

[nospam]

In article <rg9jkd$b8u$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Seriously, the T-Mobile coverage in the Bay Area, and in California, is
> an order of magnitude worse than what is offered on Verizon or AT&T,

it isn't, and laughably wrong on its face.

> and
> every independent survey and test has verified this

no it hasn't.

your shilling gets old, really fast.

all four carriers work quite well in the san francisco bay area and
have for a very long time, and with sprint/t-mobile merging, their
combined coverage is even better.

<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Plans-In-San-Francisc
o>
While no carrier's perfect, all four of the major networks perform
well throughout San Francisco. AT&T and Sprint's networks blanket
San Francisco, while Verizon and T-Mobile are only a few percentage
points away. 

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:23:27 -0400, nospam wrote:

> all four carriers work quite well in the san francisco bay area and
> have for a very long time, and with sprint/t-mobile merging, their
> combined coverage is even better.

I've had three of the four in the Silicon Valley, including the exact same
areas Steve says T-Mobile sucks, and now, with the merger of T-Mobile with
Sprint, I guess I have had all four.

As nospam said, they're about the same in practice, where, except when I'm
hiking, I always have service on T-Mobile, and, way up in the mountains
where there isn't even cable service, all the carriers provide, free of
charge, femtocells and cellular repeaters, so that inside the houses, even
in the boonies, the service is reasonable.

Steve has this thing for Verizon that we can predict years in advance.
--
BTW, T-mobile will lend you a phone so that you can check out the service,
side by side, with your current carrier, if you are making good choices.

[nospam]

In article <rg9mdl$r8l$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:

> Steve has this thing for Verizon that we can predict years in advance.

it's very clear that he's a paid shill.

[sms]

On 8/3/2020 9:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> Well, I pointed out that I agreed with the *generic* statement that a
> smartphone without a dataplan is useless, with a big smile. You can
> demonstrate exceptions, and so can I; I have an active smartphone
> without a dataplan. But instead of having a conversation as everybody
> else here and having a good time, he resorts to insulting me because I
> do not agree with him.

Agreed. I can think of times when an unactivated smart phone can be useful.

I have an old Virgin Mobile phone that I used as a Roku remote, before
all of our TVs were Smart TVs. A lot easier to search for things, and
enter user IDs and passwords, using a phone than the Roku remote.

Stick a MicroSD card with 128GB worth of music into an old phone and it
can be a source for music at home or in the car. In our backyard I built
a car stereo into the bar I built, so I'd have a sound system with
Bluetooth. We connect our phone to or (gasp) use CDs.

One place I worked, to do setup of our industrial device you used an
Android phone or tablet, and there was no way to use an iPhone because
of the iPhone's lack of GPS NMEA data as well as missing Bluetooth
profiles. After hearing customers complain that they couldn't use their
iPhone and that they didn't have an Android device, we just sent them a
$20 Tracfone Android phone with the necessary applications installed.

So yeah, there are times for a device with no wireless plan, or no plan
with data. But as I pointed out, it doesn't really cost you anything per
month to have a basic plan.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 03/08/2020 20.02, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 18:40:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Well, I pointed out that I agreed with the *generic* statement that a
>> smartphone without a dataplan is useless, with a big smile. You can
>> demonstrate exceptions, and so can I; I have an active smartphone
>> without a dataplan. But instead of having a conversation as everybody
>> else here and having a good time, he resorts to insulting me because I
>> do not agree with him.
>
> Play your worthless silly childish games Carlos...

I stop reading here.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 03/08/2020 00.43, Arlen Holder wrote:
> Based on your infantile retort above to mere basic facts, I realize you
> always seem to turn into instant child, whenever you're confronted with
> something as trivial as a simple fact...

Says the child. You can not keep a normal chat, as soon as I disagree
with what you say you resort to insults. So, if you say others are
children, it is more probable that you are the child.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[sms]

On 8/3/2020 1:05 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> I stop reading here.

But you follow-up anyway! Please don't! For the majority of us, that
have filtered out the most obnoxious troll,s it creates more posts to
ignore, though now I guess I'm guilty of it it too.

[badgolferman]

Arlen Holder wrote:

>BTW, T-mobile will lend you a phone so that you can check out the
>service, side by side, with your current carrier, if you are making
>good choices.

I have two phones, a personal iPhone 7 with T-mobile, and a work iPhone
SE with Verizon. I also have a work MiFi hotspot device with Verizon.
I live in SE Virginia.

There is no doubt the Verizon coverage and signal strength is superior
to T-Mobile from my experience. This is also true in areas away from
my home whenever I have traveled. I used to complain to VZW several
years ago that I got terrible signal in my house so they gave me a
minitower which hooked up to the router. When I switched to T-Mobile
they gave me a free minitower right out the door when I told them I
have trouble getting cellular service with VZW.

Sitting in my den right now I see the VZW phone has three bars and the
TMO phone has one bar, sometimes zero bars. When I was going to the
office I had the same problems and that's why I chose the VZW service
for my work phone.

Having said all that it's not worth it for me to switch my personal
service to VZW. The overall cost of ownership for the service and free
Netlix make TMO a better choice for my family. I've had VZW before and
do not like their customer service. I also used to be a Verizon FiOS
network technician and know what happens in the background when
something breaks. Granted VZW is not the same as FiOS, but it's the
same company and I don't want to give them my money.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:12:06 -0700, sms wrote:

>> I stop reading here.
>
> But you follow-up anyway! Please don't! For the majority of us, that
> have filtered out the most obnoxious troll,s it creates more posts to
> ignore, though now I guess I'm guilty of it it too.

Notice Steve filters out all facts about Apple he simply doesn't like.
o It's why we've proved, many times, sms is ignorant of basic facts.

For one example, Steve _still_ believes Apple now pays less per iPhone than
before the Qualcomm surrender; which is simply patently false.

The fact apologists filter out facts is why they're always so ignorant.
--
The real problem with Apple newsgroups is that the apologists exist.

[Carlos E.R.]

Why don't you tell your filter to kill the entire thread? :-?
Or any followups to his posts?
Thunderbird can do that easily.

Create filter:

match any
[From] [is] [arlen...]
[From] [is] [arlen2...]
[From] [is] [arlen3...]
[From] [is] [arlen4...]


Perform these actions
Ignore Subthread.

;-)


I'm tempted, but sometimes he brings up interesting issues, but with a
ton of verbiage and insults if you dare to not agree with him, which I
forget and fall again in the trap.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:05:09 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> Play your worthless silly childish games Carlos...
>
> I stop reading here.

And yet, you incessantly play your infantile games, Carlos.
o All I need to do is point to EXACTLY what you post to prove that fact.

The main reason people like you and Steve Scharf are so ignorant is simply
that you both own brains that can't comprehend even the simplest of facts.

For example, Steve Scharf was shown, conclusively, that T-Mobile coverage
wasn't what he repeatedly claims it was, numerous times, very clearly so.

And yet, Steve is fantastically _immune_ to facts, just as you are Carlos.
o It's why both you and Steve Scharf are easily proven to be ignorant.

Your weakness... is fact.

[JF Mezei]

Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of Sprint/T-Mobile,
coverage ius much better.


Have normal people seen a difference already from the merger?

Have they just enabled T-Mobile custoemrs to roam on Sprint and vice versa?

Or have they already "relabeled" all the SPrint towers to serve the
T-Mobile MNO so T-Mobile customers are at "home" on those towers, and
Sprint customers always roaming on T-Mobile already?

(You can program OTA SIM cards to consider X network to be considered a
"home" network even though the SIM card is attached to Y, which is how
MVNOs work. on iPhone, Apple even allows carriers to rename other networks.

Fo instance, in Canada, the Fido SIM cards consider the Rogers network
to be "Fido" (Rogers shut down the Fido network when it bought it and
moved all Fido customers to RogerKs network), and Fido renamed Bell and
Telus's network to "Fido EXT" when roaming on bell or Telus. This also
affect the manual network selection.

So I am curious how T-Mobile is doing the integration.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 20:18:55 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I have two phones, a personal iPhone 7 with T-mobile, and a work iPhone
> SE with Verizon. I also have a work MiFi hotspot device with Verizon.
> I live in SE Virginia.

Hi badgolferman,

Yours is a reasonable and logically sensible view on things.

To your point, I have many relatives back on the east coast who, like you,
are long-time Verizon (and AT&T) customers.

> There is no doubt the Verizon coverage and signal strength is superior
> to T-Mobile from my experience.

When T-Mobile gave out the free 200MB/month SIM for tablets, I shilled that
deal to all my friends and relatives, some of whom took T-Mobile up on the
offer, even in the east cost (about where you live, but further north).

The AT&T customers were delighted but the Verizon customers weren't, so,
rest assured, I'm not saying T-Mobile beats out Verizon everywhere as I
wouldn't know that - what I do know is I've had all three (now four)
sequentially - and I had not noticed any coverage difference at the times I
switched.

One Verizon customer in the boonies of the northeast borrowed the T-Mobile
phone and found its coverage lacking, so they remained on Verizon for their
mobile phone carrier, for example.

More importantly to counter Steve's claim, here, in the Silicon Valley,
I've been in many vehicles and buildings with others, and NONE of us have
any claim over the other of better (or worse) service, AFAICT.

Long ago we provided the detailed factual data in long threads with Steve
Sharf (sms); but he's immune to facts (e.g., he _still_ believes the
Qualcomm royalties went down for Christs sake!).

So please ignore what Steve says about coverage in the Silicon Valley, as
Steve is a Type II apologist (not malicious, per se, but immune to facts).

> This is also true in areas away from
> my home whenever I have traveled. I used to complain to VZW several
> years ago that I got terrible signal in my house so they gave me a
> minitower which hooked up to the router.

Yes. That's a femtocell. I have one also. For T-Mobile. Everyone out here
has either the Femtocell or the Cellular Repeater (they usually give you
only one but they gave me two because I have a big house).

For your Android phones, you can put diagnostic freeware that will tell you
EXACTLY the tower ID you're connecting to, where you can tell exactly when
it switches from the T-Mobile cellular tower miles away, or the repeater
(which repeats the tower but if it's in a different window, it's a
different tower), or the femtocell.

In my case, in most of the house, it's the femtocell tower ID I see.
(Unfortunately, for iOS phones, I don't think you have this functionality.)

> When I switched to T-Mobile
> they gave me a free minitower right out the door when I told them I
> have trouble getting cellular service with VZW.

This is good to know, which proves my point that the carriers hand out that
femtocell freely. If you think about it, other than the cost of the
equipment, you're doing them a favor since you're getting your phone over
your own Internet, instead of their towers.

I wonder if they charged you a "deposit"? They said they normally charge
$400 for each (femtocell and repeater), which would be $800 out of my
pocket, but they waived the fee.

Did you have to give them a deposit?

> Sitting in my den right now I see the VZW phone has three bars and the
> TMO phone has one bar, sometimes zero bars. When I was going to the
> office I had the same problems and that's why I chose the VZW service
> for my work phone.

I don't know how to put this gently, but if you had Android, you could see
a graph, in real time, of decibels, of your cellular signal and the exact
unique tower ID.

To be clear, since you're not an apologist so you're not playing silly
games with the facts, iOS used to have a very primitive feature where you
could check the unique tower id of your femtocell and the decibels, but
that feature came and went with various iOS releases, (which is where Jolly
Roger and nospam play silly games with ancient screenshots on the net).

Suffice to say you're doomed with respect to diagnostics unless you can
borrow an Android phone. Even then, the phone has to have a SIM card of the
carrier whose signal you want to test.

In summary, "bars" aren't all that useful; decibels are, and the unique
tower number is (e.g., femtocells won't be found on the net with
opensignal).

> Having said all that it's not worth it for me to switch my personal
> service to VZW. The overall cost of ownership for the service and free
> Netlix make TMO a better choice for my family.

I called T-mobile this morning when you said you had Netflix, and they
confirmed my plan does NOT have Netflix. No big deal as I'm still angry at
Netflix for doubling the prices, but I was just curious as T-mobile keeps
changing the plan (they give me more and more data over the years).

> I've had VZW before and
> do not like their customer service.

What I didn't like was that the Kyocera broke and they replaced it free,
but they added two years to my contract. Even though the company paid for
the phone and the service and for the replacement plan, I dropped them the
instant those two years were up and went to AT&T.

I was pleasantly surprised that AT&T was slightly cheaper, and the service
was about the same. Then, when AT&T refused to allow me to have a
smartphone without a data plan, I dropped them at the end of the contract
and moved to T-Mobile.

As with the move from Verizon to AT&T, I was pleasantly surprised the cost
was lower (slightly) and I could use any phone (which was a big deal), and
the service was about the same.

In my humblest of opinions, despite the incessant shilling Steve does for
Verizon out here in Silicon Valley, the service between the three is "about
the same". (Besides, T-Mobile has free roaming, but I never have the need
to turn it on.)

> I also used to be a Verizon FiOS
> network technician and know what happens in the background when
> something breaks. Granted VZW is not the same as FiOS, but it's the
> same company and I don't want to give them my money.

It's the principle. I agree with your stand on principle.
--
Kudos to you for standing on principle.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:54:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Steve has this thing for Verizon that we can predict years in advance.
>
> it's very clear that he's a paid shill.

I don't actually believe Steve is a "paid" shill, but he does shill for
Verizon so brazenly that there must be a good reason why Steve is utterly
and fantastically immune to even the most basic of facts.

For example, Steve _still_ believes that Qualcomm royalties per iPhone went
down after the Qualcomm surrender, which means Steve is simply immune to
fact.

Same here with his incessant shilling for Verizon, where we can predict,
_years_ in advance, what Steve will say, since he's immune to facts.

There's a reason I put Steve Scharf in the TYPE II APOLOGIST category.
o He's not malicious, per se; he's simply fantastically immune to facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 23:15:28 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I'm tempted, but sometimes he brings up interesting issues, but with a
> ton of verbiage and insults if you dare to not agree with him, which I
> forget and fall again in the trap.

1. Who has posted more tutorials to this newsgroup than anyone, Carlos?

2. Who has documented more tests of freeware to this ng, than anyone?

3. Who _always_ provides facts (well cited, often verbatim) to this ng?

What you don't like, Carlos, IMHO, is when you play your silly games in
threads I author, that I call you out by pointing to EXACTLY what you
write.

If you didn't play your silly games, I wouldn't call you out for them.
--
There are only two kinds of people on Usenet, and Carlos is one of them.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:08:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Says the child. You can not keep a normal chat, as soon as I disagree
> with what you say you resort to insults. So, if you say others are
> children, it is more probable that you are the child.

Hi Carlos,

I'm going to respond to you as if you are an adult, ok?
o Look at my conversation with the adults, oh, say, with badgolferman?

In this thread, notice how civil that conversation with badgolferman is?

Then look at _any_ conversation with the infantile apologists, Carlos.
o There is zero chance of a civil conversation with them, e.g., Alan Baker.

Zero.

There is zero chance of an adult conversation with Jolly Roger.
o Or with Lewis. Or BK at onramp. Or "joe" or "Chris", et al.

But you're _not_ an apologist, Carlos.
o So there _is_ a chance of a civil conversation with you Carlos.

With all non apologists, Carlos, there _is_ a chance of a civil
conversation. It all depends on YOU, Carlos.

You don't get that - but badgolferman, for example, fully gets it.

Now, if badgolferman plays your infantile games, rest assured, he knows
that I'll call him out for EXACTLY what he says.

I'm a _mirror_ of your own actions, Carlos.
o A mirror.

In this thread, badgolferman remained civil with me.
o As did I with him.

Just like I would with you, Carlos, if you remained civil with me.

What you're complaining about, Carlos, is that you played your infantile
games, and then you now complain that I simply called you out for that.

The record shows I remain civil with those who remain civil with me.
o And I call out the infantile games with those who play them.

It's what I do.
o I'm a _mirror_ of your own actions, Carlos.

You don't get that I will be civil with you when/if you're civil with me.
o It's really that simple, Carlos.

If you didn't play your infantile games I wouldn't need to point it out to
you just as if Steve Scharf didn't always shill for Verizon, I wouldn't
need to point it out either (that his VZW shills ignore the basic facts).

Make your _next_ post to me, Carlos, civil - and see that I respond so.
--
What you hate, Carlos, is that I point out EXACTLY what you write.

[nospam]

In article <rga0f0$hq2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:

>
> >> Steve has this thing for Verizon that we can predict years in advance.
> >
> > it's very clear that he's a paid shill.
>
> I don't actually believe Steve is a "paid" shill, but he does shill for
> Verizon so brazenly that there must be a good reason why Steve is utterly
> and fantastically immune to even the most basic of facts.

maybe not 'paid' in that they send him a monthly check, but he very
clearly has a vested interest in their success and benefits somehow, or
he wouldn't push it so hard.

[sms]

On 8/3/2020 2:21 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of Sprint/T-Mobile,
> coverage ius much better.

Wow, who mentioned that?

Sprint and T-Mobile pretty much both had the same very limited non-urban
coverage, so combining coverage wouldn't have helped much.

What Sprint had (and still has for now according to their map) is
extensive Verizon roaming, at least for voice, SMS, and 3G data, as well
as some LTE data.

If you look at Sprint's maps, you still see a lot of cross-hatched
yellow areas with coverage, where T-Mobile's maps show none, but that's
for postpaid Sprint, "Extended 4G LTE These roaming areas are included
in your plan. Some services may not be available." If you switch the map
to "voice" the Verizon roaming expands dramatically, for now, but once
CDMA is gone, probably that roaming will be gone.

In the less populated parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, Sprint still
offers (according to their map) a great deal of Verizon roaming for
voice and SMS. These are not areas "in the middle of nowhere," they're
often just a few miles outside of urban areas, where neither Sprint nor
T-Mobile have their own coverage.

I can't imagine that T-Mobile will retain all of Sprint's Verizon
roaming going forward When Verizon's CDMA network is shut down they'll
automatically lose vast areas of voice coverage where T-Mobile has no
native coverage.

If you're a Sprint subscriber that was okay with Sprint's limited native
coverage, because Verizon roaming compensated for it, then you're
probably going to be very unhappy when that roaming is no longer available.

[nospam]

In article <rgc3mm$f83$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of Sprint/T-Mobile,
> > coverage ius much better.
>
> Wow, who mentioned that?

common sense, since they each cover areas the other does not. combined,
it will be better than each alone.

> Sprint and T-Mobile pretty much both had the same very limited non-urban
> coverage, so combining coverage wouldn't have helped much.

nonsense.

sprint's coverage is better than verizon, according to actual surveys.

<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Plans-In-San-Francisc
o>
While no carrier's perfect, all four of the major networks perform
well throughout San Francisco. AT&T and Sprint's networks blanket
San Francisco, while Verizon and T-Mobile are only a few percentage
points away. 

sprint in particular is in second place with a 99.98% coverage, whereas
verizon is *last* at 94.93%, behind t-mobile at 95.02%.

> If you're a Sprint subscriber that was okay with Sprint's limited native
> coverage, because Verizon roaming compensated for it, then you're
> probably going to be very unhappy when that roaming is no longer available.

sprint does not have limited native coverage. far from it.

[badgolferman]

nospam wrote:

>In article <rgc3mm$f83$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of
>>Sprint/T-Mobile, > coverage ius much better.
>>
>> Wow, who mentioned that?
>
>common sense, since they each cover areas the other does not.
>combined, it will be better than each alone.
>
>> Sprint and T-Mobile pretty much both had the same very limited
>>non-urban coverage, so combining coverage wouldn't have helped
>>much.
>
>nonsense.
>
>sprint's coverage is better than verizon, according to actual surveys.
>
><https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Plans-In-San-Francisc
>o>
> While no carrier's perfect, all four of the major networks perform
> well throughout San Francisco. AT&T and Sprint's networks blanket
> San Francisco, while Verizon and T-Mobile are only a few percentage
> points away. 
>
>sprint in particular is in second place with a 99.98% coverage,

>whereas verizon is last at 94.93%, behind t-mobile at 95.02%.

>
>
>> If you're a Sprint subscriber that was okay with Sprint's limited
>>native coverage, because Verizon roaming compensated for it, then
>>you're probably going to be very unhappy when that roaming is no
>>longer available.
>
>sprint does not have limited native coverage. far from it.

I'm suspicious of coverage maps. As I mentioned in an earlier message,
TMO and VZW show the same coverage at my house but VZW signal strength
must be stronger. whatever the case I know the VZW cellular connection
works better than my TMO connection.

[nospam]

In article <xn0mh9c7j...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm suspicious of coverage maps. As I mentioned in an earlier message,
> TMO and VZW show the same coverage at my house but VZW signal strength
> must be stronger. whatever the case I know the VZW cellular connection
> works better than my TMO connection.

what i cited is *not* a coverage map from the carrier.

it's an independent survey of actual coverage.

also, what you may be seeing is the propagation of different frequency
bands.

[sms]

On 8/4/2020 10:56 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> I'm suspicious of coverage maps. As I mentioned in an earlier message,
> TMO and VZW show the same coverage at my house but VZW signal strength
> must be stronger. whatever the case I know the VZW cellular connection
> works better than my TMO connection.

In rural areas there's less of using the "bucket fill" on coverage maps.
For the San Francisco Bay Area the maps are pretty accurate when you get
into the less populated areas. Sprint does pretty well, for now, because
they have a great deal of roaming on Verizon, as their map shows. Can't
imagine that they'll keep all that roaming as the integration of Sprint
and T-Mobile proceeds, nor is T-Mobile likely to install towers in those
areas to replicate the lost Verizon roaming coverage. Roaming costs the
carriers a lot, and it's not like Verizon needs any reciprocal roaming
with T-Mobile.

T-Mobile has a good coverage comparison tool at
<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map>. I put in some
less-populated areas we go to fairly often, 94074 95389, and 95364. The
differences between T-Mobile and Verizon are stark. Not having this kind
or rural coverage may not matter to some people, but it does matter to a
lot of users. My experiences are more California-centric in general, and
Bay Area-centric in particular, and it happens that these areas are much
better covered by AT&T and Verizon for historic reasons.

I guess since Sprint is now part of T-Mobile, T-Mobile left Sprint out
of the comparison tool. But if you go to
<https://coverage.sprint.com/coveragemap?> and look at those same areas
you'll still see vast amounts of Verizon roaming. Sprint had the
smallest amount of native coverage but they compensated for that with
vast amounts of Verizon roaming. Back in the days of PRLs (Preferred
Roaming Lists) some Sprint users loaded PRLs that forced their phone to
always use Verizon.

I don't know when J.D. Power started using the metric of "Problems per
100 Mobile Device Interactions" but you can see the stark differences
between carriers. Verizon does better in every region of the country,
see
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2019-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-study-volume-1>.

[nospam]

In article <rgc9qb$p9s$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> For the San Francisco Bay Area the maps are pretty accurate when you get
> into the less populated areas. Sprint does pretty well, for now, because
> they have a great deal of roaming on Verizon, as their map shows.

sprint doesn't need to roam in san francisco bay area, even when it
first was launched more than 20 years ago.

> Verizon does better in every region of the country,

no it doesn't.

<https://www.tomsguide.com/best-picks/best-phone-carrier>
Based on our criteria for evaluating wireless providers, T-Mobile and
Verizon remain neck-and-neck as the best phone carriers. We give the
edge to T-Mobile, thanks to the Uncarrier's attractively priced
unlimited data plan and its strong network performance in major
cities. T-Mobile is also the first carrier to provide coast-to-coast
5G coverage.

[sms]

On 8/4/2020 10:56 AM, badgolferman wrote:

nospam (John) is wrong of course™.

Especially amusing is his use of Whistleout's web page. First of all
that article only is about the City of San Francisco, not the Bay Area.
Second, the coverage claim they make has a footnote of "Coverage data
generated August 2019 from carrier maps." So of course a carrier with
the most accurate maps, that doesn't exaggerate coverage, is going to
show less coverage than a carrier that just does a bucket fill of color.

The reality, as shown by people that live and work in San Francsico, is
quite different. I.e. my sister-in-law works a the CPMC Davies Campus
hospital. Inside the building you MUST have Verizon, nothing else works.
Sprint cannot roam on Verizon there because Sprint is supposed to have
native coverage.

To be fair, the T-Mobile map does show weaker coverage at that address.
What many people may not realize is that when a map shows weaker
coverage the reality of that weaker coverage translates to having
coverage outside but not inside. San Francisco is very difficult to
cover because of the terrain and because of the construction type of
many of the buildings.

[nospam]

In article <rgce0u$ktj$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The reality, as shown by people that live and work in San Francsico, is
> quite different. I.e. my sister-in-law works a the CPMC Davies Campus
> hospital. Inside the building you MUST have Verizon, nothing else works.
> Sprint cannot roam on Verizon there because Sprint is supposed to have
> native coverage.

one person's experience does not mean overall coverage is better or
worse.

the fact is that sprint and t-mobile work quite well all over the sf
bay area, and that you're a verizon shill.

> To be fair, the T-Mobile map does show weaker coverage at that address.
> What many people may not realize is that when a map shows weaker
> coverage the reality of that weaker coverage translates to having
> coverage outside but not inside. San Francisco is very difficult to
> cover because of the terrain and because of the construction type of
> many of the buildings.

also wrong. reception works quite well indoors and outdoors.

there used to be an issue with reception in moscone, which is
underground, but they now have femtocells for all carriers throughout
it, so that's no longer an issue.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-08-04 14:09, nospam wrote:

> it's an independent survey of actual coverage.

On the year I used T-Mo for my trip to Delaware, one spot in Port henry
NY was marked as covered by T-Mo. And indeed, there was signal, except
it was AT&T signal. When I tried to make a phone call, it was rejected.

So a lot of the advertised coverage is "shared" with on of the big guys
but only usable with postpaid plans.

The merger promotional materials to get approval to buy Sprint mentioned
increased coverage by combing both networks. In many cases, this ould
mean the map doesn't change, but by being able to use the Sprint tower,
the T-Mbile customer gets stronger signal. Remember that maps are
overly optimistic marketing docuemnts. Internally they have real maps.

I had not considered Sprint roaming on Verizon. Curous how T-Mo will
handle that one. Obviouslt T-Mo customers won't roam on it. And new
Sprint Customers won't roam on it (likely won't have CDMA enabled on new
phones starting today).

But existing customers may be grandfathered and may continue to roam
till CDMA is shut down in 2021, after which, all customers being on
LTE/VoLTE would liekly roam on AT&T instead of Verizon.

Remains to be see if Verizon might *want* the roaming revenue or be
gland to get rid of it since T0-Mo would have an "inferio" network to
its own.

[nospam]

In article <j%pWG.104038$GQ4....@fx02.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> I had not considered Sprint roaming on Verizon.

that's good, because they don't anymore, nor can they.

it was true for cdma, where they both could roam on each other's
networks if there was no native coverage, which only affected rural
areas where their coverage did not overlap. for urban areas, there was
never a need to roam.

for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands
are different.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-08-05 00:47, nospam wrote:

> that's good, because they don't anymore, nor can they.

Did it stop on the day the merger was signed? If not, when?

> for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands
> are different.

Differeent bands make no difference to roaming. I can go roam in
Australia or Europe that use different bands than in Canada.

This was an issue in early phones that supported only 1 band, then
supported 2 or 3, then 4. But they have now supported a whole bunch of
bands for a long time.

If Sprint has some "odd" spectrum for which there is no handset support
on LTE or 5G, it may not deploy it until/unless it gains support from
everyone. It learned its lesson having to put 3G on 1700 which nobody
else in USA had.


Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at
learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then. The
faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it
needs to buy from Verizon.

But once T-Nio is a single network with LTE for both voice and data, it
can shop around for which of AT&T or Verizon it gets its LTE from. I
beleive it has FCC mandate to get some from AT&T, but what if Verizon
offers better price?

This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to
lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody
else has.

[nospam]

In article <9ZrWG.249186$eN2.1...@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > that's good, because they don't anymore, nor can they.
>
> Did it stop on the day the merger was signed? If not, when?

when lte came along, long ago.

> > for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands
> > are different.
>
> Differeent bands make no difference to roaming. I can go roam in
> Australia or Europe that use different bands than in Canada.

different bands absolutely *do* make a difference.

if the phone lacks the necessary bands for a particular carrier, it
*can't* connect at all, roaming or native.

> This was an issue in early phones that supported only 1 band, then
> supported 2 or 3, then 4. But they have now supported a whole bunch of
> bands for a long time.

recent iphones have lte bands for all four carriers, but that was not
always the case.

android phones vary quite a bit in what bands they support. in general,
the higher tier phones support more bands than the cheapos.

put simply, no roaming.

> If Sprint has some "odd" spectrum for which there is no handset support
> on LTE or 5G, it may not deploy it until/unless it gains support from
> everyone.

nonsense.

> It learned its lesson having to put 3G on 1700 which nobody
> else in USA had.

that was t-mobile 3g aws and completely irrelevant to lte, cdma or
anything being discussed.

> Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at
> learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then.

cdma is no longer used except by old cdma-only phones (mostly flip
phones), which are rare.

> The
> faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it
> needs to buy from Verizon.

nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support
and have for years, although different bands.

> But once T-Nio is a single network with LTE for both voice and data, it
> can shop around for which of AT&T or Verizon it gets its LTE from. I
> beleive it has FCC mandate to get some from AT&T, but what if Verizon
> offers better price?

nonsense. nobody needs to shop around for lte. why do you make up such
shit??

> This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to
> lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody
> else has.

there is no roaming revenue.

[sms]

On 8/4/2020 11:03 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at
> learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then. The
> faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it
> needs to buy from Verizon.

Well obviously the CDMA roaming from Sprint onto Verizon CDMA can't
continue once Verizon shuts down CDMA. But there is also Sprint roaming
onto Verizon LTE. That's something that T-Mobile obviously doesn't want
to keep paying for, at least in areas where both T-Mobile and Verizon
have coverage.

> But once T-Nio is a single network with LTE for both voice and data, it
> can shop around for which of AT&T or Verizon it gets its LTE from. I
> beleive it has FCC mandate to get some from AT&T, but what if Verizon
> offers better price?

The FCC thing was regarding T-Mobile's complaint that they were being
charged too much for roaming by the other carriers. The contention by
AT&T and Verizon was that it cost them a lot of money to put in all that
coverage in sparsely populated areas and that they should not be
required to provide that coverage to competitors at low cost.

> This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to
> lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody
> else has.

Perhaps, but for now the roaming agreements Sprint had with Verizon are
still in existence. While the LTE roaming is less than the CDMA roaming,
you can still see a large amount of LTE roaming onto Verizon as well.
It's not unlimited roaming and Sprint has all sorts of language warning
users about excessive roaming
<https://www.sprint.com/en/support/solutions/connectivity/learn-more-about-data-roaming.html>:

"• Roaming service is offered as a convenience so you can gain access to
data networks in situations when you are temporarily out of reach of the
Sprint network.

• Please note that it is not Sprint's intention to have roaming be the
primary source of your coverage."

If T-Mobile's goal is to retain a large percentage of the Sprint
customers that it acquired then they'll need to tread carefully. While
Sprint's native footprint was much smaller than T-Mobile's, their total
coverage (for postpaid) was actually much larger than T-Mobile's, thanks
to extensive roaming onto Verizon, and that coverage was in a lot of
areas where T-Mobile has no native coverage to replace Verizon coverage.

An example I'm familiar with in my area is 95140. Go to
<https://coverage.sprint.com/coveragemap?>, put in that Zip Code and
toggle between Voice and Data. You can see all the LTE roaming and the
greater amount of voice roaming. If you look at that same area on the
T-Mobile map <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map> you can
see that the LTE and voice roaming that a Sprint user has access to is
clearly NOT on T-Mobile. If you then go to
<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map> and switch
between T-Mobile and Verizon, you can see the vast advantage in coverage
that Verizon has. This Zip code is a low populated area partly in
eastern San Jose and partly in unincorporated western Stanislaus County,
along CA State Road 130. It's not a route many people would use by car
because of how windy (wine-dee) and steep it is (unless you're driving
up to the observatory at the top) it is but it's very popular among
cyclists.

95140 is just one example. try 94074 in
<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map> and
<https://coverage.sprint.com/coveragemap?> as well. All those areas with
no T-Mobile coverage currently get Verizon roaming on Sprint. The Bay
Area is really a place where you want to have Verizon best case and AT&T
worst case, if you ever go to the less populated parts of the counties.
It would be highly unlikely to find an area with T-Mobile or Sprint
native coverage that did not have Verizon coverage, though if you looked
hard enough you might find somewhere that this is the case.

The reference to the WhistleOut web site, regarding coverage, was
especially amusing and revealing. If you look at it, you quickly see
that it was not a survey at all, it was just based on the carrier
provided maps. They listed the "Percentage of Geographic Area Covered"
with the disclaimer "Coverage data generated August 2019 from carrier
maps." It's not like they went out and surveyed tens of thousands of
users like Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and Yankee Group have done.

[nospam]

In article <rge6de$kkl$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Considering T-Mobile won't shutdown CDMA till early next year at
> > learliest, I suspect the current arrangement continues till then. The
> > faster T-Mo converts Sprint customers to GSM-only, the less CDMA it
> > needs to buy from Verizon.
>
> Well obviously the CDMA roaming from Sprint onto Verizon CDMA can't
> continue once Verizon shuts down CDMA. But there is also Sprint roaming
> onto Verizon LTE. That's something that T-Mobile obviously doesn't want
> to keep paying for, at least in areas where both T-Mobile and Verizon
> have coverage.

there is no lte roaming between sprint and verizon, nor can there be
due to using different bands.

>
> > This is where monopolistic behaviour comes in. Verizon may prefer to
> > lose the roaming revenue so it can market its better coverage nobody
> > else has.
>
> Perhaps, but for now the roaming agreements Sprint had with Verizon are
> still in existence. While the LTE roaming is less than the CDMA roaming,

as in zero.

> you can still see a large amount of LTE roaming onto Verizon as well.

nope.

> It's not unlimited roaming and Sprint has all sorts of language warning
> users about excessive roaming
>
> <https://www.sprint.com/en/support/solutions/connectivity/learn-more-about-dat
> a-roaming.html>:

not relevant for lte, and they don't enforce it anyway.

>
> If T-Mobile's goal is to retain a large percentage of the Sprint
> customers that it acquired then they'll need to tread carefully. While
> Sprint's native footprint was much smaller than T-Mobile's, their total
> coverage (for postpaid) was actually much larger than T-Mobile's, thanks
> to extensive roaming onto Verizon, and that coverage was in a lot of
> areas where T-Mobile has no native coverage to replace Verizon coverage.

absolutely false.

[sms]

On 8/4/2020 8:49 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-08-04 14:09, nospam wrote:
>
>> it's an independent survey of actual coverage.
>
> On the year I used T-Mo for my trip to Delaware, one spot in Port henry
> NY was marked as covered by T-Mo. And indeed, there was signal, except
> it was AT&T signal. When I tried to make a phone call, it was rejected.

You could call 911.

> So a lot of the advertised coverage is "shared" with on of the big guys
> but only usable with postpaid plans.

True about shared coverage but only partially true about postpaid. For
Sprint, there have been optional roaming add-ons, as well as included
very limited roaming for some of their prepaid offerings (at least for
voice and SMS). For T-Mobile there is usually the same roaming on
prepaid as there is on postpaid, but usually that roaming is on smaller
carriers, not on AT&T. AT&T's prepaid offerings also have some limited
roaming, but not as much as their postpaid service.

> The merger promotional materials to get approval to buy Sprint mentioned
> increased coverage by combing both networks. In many cases, this ould
> mean the map doesn't change, but by being able to use the Sprint tower,
> the T-Mbile customer gets stronger signal. Remember that maps are
> overly optimistic marketing docuemnts. Internally they have real maps.

There are not many areas where T-Mobile would benefit by adding Sprint
native coverage, but a lot of areas where Sprint would benefit by adding
T-Mobile native coverage because in many cases it replaces Verizon
roaming coverage. The issue is that there are also a lot of areas where
Sprint now roams on Verizon but where there is no T-Mobile coverage. LTE
is the great equalizer since most recent vintage phones have all the
bands for all the U.S. carriers. If and when Sprint loses that Verizon
roaming there will be some very unhappy Sprint users.

> I had not considered Sprint roaming on Verizon. Curous how T-Mo will
> handle that one. Obviouslt T-Mo customers won't roam on it. And new
> Sprint Customers won't roam on it (likely won't have CDMA enabled on new
> phones starting today).

For now, Sprint customers still get some LTE roaming on Verizon. And
while you can no longer activate a CDMA-only phone on Sprint or Verizon,
an LTE phone with CDMA coverage will still work in the rare cases that
you can get a CDMA signal but no LTE signal. In the past, when it was
"CDMA versus GSM" there was an advantage to CDMA because of the greater
range (which is why so many rural carriers moved from TDMA to CDMA
rather than from TDMA to GSM).

> But existing customers may be grandfathered and may continue to roam
> till CDMA is shut down in 2021, after which, all customers being on
> LTE/VoLTE would liekly roam on AT&T instead of Verizon.

Not clear. Currently Sprint postpaid customers still get LTE roaming on
Verizon, according to the Sprint/T-Mobile coverage map. For the time
being, T-Mobile is maintaining separate coverage maps for its Sprint
service <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map> and T-Mobile
service, and they are very different. Look at the western U.S. on each
map and you can see how superior Sprint's coverage is, except when you
zoom in you see that much of it is not actually on Sprint's network.

> Remains to be see if Verizon might *want* the roaming revenue or be
> gland to get rid of it since T0-Mo would have an "inferio" network to
> its own.

The position of AT&T and Verizon has been that since they are required
to sell roaming to the other carriers they should be able to charge a
premium for it because otherwise it enables their competitors to provide
similar coverage without the same capital expenditures.

One thing that T-Mobile was upset about was that the big guys were
selling data to MVNOs at lower cost than they were selling it to
T-Mobile. The top-tier carriers see MVNOs more as sources for up-side
revenue from users that would not sign up for postpaid service, but they
see T-Mobile as a direct competitor. Redpocket, Tracfone brands, etc.
are probably not going to take away many AT&T or Verizon postpaid
customers, but if T-Mobile could equal AT&T or Verizon coverage then
there'd be no good reason to pay extra for AT&T or Verizon.

[nospam]

In article <rge8ph$2jn$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> There are not many areas where T-Mobile would benefit by adding Sprint
> native coverage, but a lot of areas where Sprint would benefit by adding
> T-Mobile native coverage because in many cases it replaces Verizon
> roaming coverage.

false.

> The issue is that there are also a lot of areas where
> Sprint now roams on Verizon but where there is no T-Mobile coverage. LTE
> is the great equalizer since most recent vintage phones have all the
> bands for all the U.S. carriers.

actually, relatively few. recent iphones have all bands, however, older
iphones and most android phones do not.

> If and when Sprint loses that Verizon
> roaming there will be some very unhappy Sprint users.

nope, since there's nothing to lose. sprint *can't* roam on verizon lte.

spring can roam on verizon cdma, but that offers little benefit.

> > I had not considered Sprint roaming on Verizon. Curous how T-Mo will
> > handle that one. Obviouslt T-Mo customers won't roam on it. And new
> > Sprint Customers won't roam on it (likely won't have CDMA enabled on new
> > phones starting today).
>
> For now, Sprint customers still get some LTE roaming on Verizon.

no they don't, nor have they ever, since that's not physically possible
for most phones.

> And
> while you can no longer activate a CDMA-only phone on Sprint or Verizon,
> an LTE phone with CDMA coverage will still work in the rare cases that
> you can get a CDMA signal but no LTE signal.

all sprint/verizon towers now have lte.

cdma support only exists for those with very old phones that do not
support lte and/or volte.

> > But existing customers may be grandfathered and may continue to roam
> > till CDMA is shut down in 2021, after which, all customers being on
> > LTE/VoLTE would liekly roam on AT&T instead of Verizon.
>
> Not clear. Currently Sprint postpaid customers still get LTE roaming on
> Verizon, according to the Sprint/T-Mobile coverage map.

they do not.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 04:50:03 -0700, sms wrote:

> The FCC thing was regarding T-Mobile's complaint that they were being
> charged too much for roaming by the other carriers. The contention by
> AT&T and Verizon was that it cost them a lot of money to put in all that
> coverage in sparsely populated areas and that they should not be
> required to provide that coverage to competitors at low cost.

Given T-Mobile roaming is free, I've asked this question before:
o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/t65fMFrPCVw>

If T-Mobile has roaming agreements, and if, as SMS claims, T-Mobile
coverage is spotty, then, with the free roaming switch turned on my phone,
why wouldn't I get the best of all worlds?
--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful adults to exchange useful information.

[sms]

On 8/4/2020 8:49 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> I had not considered Sprint roaming on Verizon. Curous how T-Mo will
> handle that one.

I sent an e-mail to Mike Sievert asking what T-Mobile's plans are
regarding the continuation of Sprint's LTE roaming onto Verizon. If I
get a response from someone at T-Mobile, and if I'm allowed to share the
response, I'll report back.

It's an issue that is not on the radar of many Sprint subscribers. The
roaming FAQ doesn't address it
<https://www.sprint.com/en/support/solutions/connectivity/faqs-about-extended-coverage-and-extended-lte.html>.

Sprint subscribers currently enjoy a huge amount of Verizon roaming,
both LTE and CDMA (see <http://coverage.sprint.com/IMPACTmain.jsp>). The
CDMA roaming will end of course, when Verizon shuts down their CDMA
network, but T-Mobile hasn't said what will happen regarding the large
amount of LTE roaming. If you look at the Sprint LTE map, the quantity
of LTE roaming is enormous, and many of those areas do not have T-Mobile
coverage.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-08-05 02:25, nospam wrote:

> nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support
> and have for years, although different bands.

Supporting LTE is one thing. Supporting VoLTE is anther. Many LTE phones
don't have VolTE or support for VoLTE on T-Mo/Sprint.
(think older phones, alnd also embeded devices).

Remember that Sprint has a lot of MVNOs that target the low end.

A handset that doesn't have LTE bands for T-Mo, Sprint and Verizon is
not likely t also have supported VoLTE.

Of those that have VoLTE supported on the new T-Mo network, they likely
have all the bands needed to opperated on T-Mo/Sprint as well as AT&T or
Verizon.

> nonsense. nobody needs to shop around for lte. why do you make up such
> shit??

The combined T-Mo and Sprint networks will still have a smaller footprnt
compared to either At&T and Verizon. So will T-Mo still have a need to
be able to roam onto the larger network?

> there is no roaming revenue.

Ar you kidding me? AT&T or Verizon allowing T-Mo to roam on their
network brings in lots of cash. But it is a marketing issue because
their advantage of having better coverage is less marked.

[nospam]

In article <rgflob$dl8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Sprint subscribers currently enjoy a huge amount of Verizon roaming,
> both LTE and CDMA

only cdma. lte bands are different for sprint and verizon.

[nospam]

In article <GwJWG.154869$575.1...@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support
> > and have for years, although different bands.
>
> Supporting LTE is one thing. Supporting VoLTE is anther.

they support both and have for years.

stop making up shit.

> Many LTE phones
> don't have VolTE or support for VoLTE on T-Mo/Sprint.

nonsense. nearly everything in the past 5 years supports volte.

stop making up shit.

> (think older phones, alnd also embeded devices).

embedded devices aren't used for calls.

> Remember that Sprint has a lot of MVNOs that target the low end.

not really, but so what? they'll buy a refurb iphone or android phone.

> A handset that doesn't have LTE bands for T-Mo, Sprint and Verizon is
> not likely t also have supported VoLTE.

complete nonsense.

stop making up shit.

> Of those that have VoLTE supported on the new T-Mo network, they likely
> have all the bands needed to opperated on T-Mo/Sprint as well as AT&T or
> Verizon.

recent iphones have all lte bands. some android phones do, but most
have a subset, sometimes only one carrier.

> > nonsense. nobody needs to shop around for lte. why do you make up such
> > shit??
>
> The combined T-Mo and Sprint networks will still have a smaller footprnt
> compared to either At&T and Verizon. So will T-Mo still have a need to
> be able to roam onto the larger network?

not only do you not answer the question but you make up even more shit.

> > there is no roaming revenue.
>
> Ar you kidding me? AT&T or Verizon allowing T-Mo to roam on their
> network brings in lots of cash. But it is a marketing issue because
> their advantage of having better coverage is less marked.

you snipped to alter context again.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-08-05 07:50, sms wrote:

> • Please note that it is not Sprint's intention to have roaming be the
> primary source of your coverage."

Intention is likely an understatement. In Canada, there was a lot of
regulatory debate on this issue. Incumbents got a lot of wording in
regulations to prevent new entrants from selling service where they had
no coverage to ensure coverage was incidental and that they didn't
compete against incumbents using incumbent's networks in "permanent
roaming".

I suspect AT&T and Verzion had similar language in their contracts with
T-Mo and Sprint respectiveley.

With T-Mo now having larger market share having absorbed the corpse of
Sprint, AT&T and Verizon may become more predatory againat T-Mo and be
far more reluctant to offer roaming, even if it means reduced revenues.

Current contracts between Sprint and Verizon and T-Mo/AT&T will
continue, but when they come up for renewwall, it will become very
interesting to see what happens.

Remember that T-Mo was bragging to FCC that if allowed to buy Sprint, it
would have greater 5G coverage than AT?T or Verizon.

If T-Mo has a lot of customers in an area where they depend on roaming,
then expect it to use some of its now redundnat equipment to deploy
service there. However, setting up an antenna or renting space on
another guy doesn't get done quickly (on purpose by the big guys), so
thyey may have to pay expensive roaming for these customers for a while
until their setup their own service, or decided it isn't worth keeping
them and let them move to AT&T or Verizon.

[sms]

On 8/5/2020 7:02 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-08-05 02:25, nospam wrote:
>
>> nope. everything is lte now, which t-mobile and sprint fully support
>> and have for years, although different bands.
>
> Supporting LTE is one thing. Supporting VoLTE is anther. Many LTE phones
> don't have VolTE or support for VoLTE on T-Mo/Sprint.
> (think older phones, alnd also embeded devices).
>
> Remember that Sprint has a lot of MVNOs that target the low end.
>
> A handset that doesn't have LTE bands for T-Mo, Sprint and Verizon is
> not likely t also have supported VoLTE.

While there are old phones like that on some MVNOs, the reality is that
even mid-range Android phones, and all iPhones, have supported
sufficeint LTE bands of all four carriers for several years. Sometimes a
carrier may add new LTE bands in order to increase capacity, and an
older phone won't have the new bands, but carriers are very good about
not abandoning legacy bands when they put in new cell sites. One of the
main reasons for keeping service even on legacy LTE bands is for people
roaming from other countries. A phone from the EU may not have
T-Mobile's band 66 and 71, but they'll almost certainly have 2, 4, and/or 5.

A super cheap, locked phone, that is sold by an MVNO, may not have the
LTE bands needed to roam, but those providers rarely provide roaming anyway.

> Ar you kidding me? AT&T or Verizon allowing T-Mo to roam on their
> network brings in lots of cash. But it is a marketing issue because
> their advantage of having better coverage is less marked.

True. It's a trade-off that has to be weighed carefully. How many
customers do you lose by not having coverage versus how much it costs to
provide that roaming.

A good article about this whole thing here:
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-sprint-get-into-war-words-over-data-roaming-rules>.
The bottom line: Sprint relies on roaming and wants to pay Verizon less
for it while Verizon wants to charge Sprint more to offset the cost of
providing widespread coverage.

[nospam]

In article <rgfvn0$ck1$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> While there are old phones like that on some MVNOs, the reality is that
> even mid-range Android phones, and all iPhones, have supported
> sufficeint LTE bands of all four carriers for several years.

iphones yes, android no. very few android phones have lte bands for all
four carriers.

> Sometimes a
> carrier may add new LTE bands in order to increase capacity, and an
> older phone won't have the new bands, but carriers are very good about
> not abandoning legacy bands when they put in new cell sites.

additional bands do not replace existing ones.

> One of the
> main reasons for keeping service even on legacy LTE bands is for people
> roaming from other countries. A phone from the EU may not have
> T-Mobile's band 66 and 71, but they'll almost certainly have 2, 4, and/or 5.

international roaming has nothing to do with it.

> A super cheap, locked phone, that is sold by an MVNO, may not have the
> LTE bands needed to roam, but those providers rarely provide roaming anyway.

yes they do.

[sms]

On 8/4/2020 11:03 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

> On 2020-08-05 00:47, nospam wrote:

<snip>

>> for lte, they *can't* roam on each other's networks since the lte bands
>> are different.
>
> Differeent bands make no difference to roaming. I can go roam in
> Australia or Europe that use different bands than in Canada.

Some people (well one person anyway!) may not understand that roaming
often occurs on different bands than their own carrier's native bands,
and that this is normal.

If you look at popular phones, sold in the last five years (and longer),
you can see that they support a LOT of LTE bands and the manufacturers
do this so they don't have to qualify a gazillion different models,
based on what carrier is selling or using the phone

iPhone 6s (2015) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,30,
38,39,40,41

iPhone 7 (2016) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,30,
38,39,40,41

iPhone 8 (2017) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,30,
34,38,39,40,41, 66

iPhone Xs (2018) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,25,26,
29,30,32,34,38,39,40,41,46,66,71

MotoX4 (2018) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17, 20,25,26, 28,
38, 41, 66

Galaxy S8 (2017) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13, 17,18, ,20,25,26, ,29
38,39,40,41,46,66

Galaxy S9,(2018) :1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,25,26, 28,
32, 38,39,40,41,46,66,71

Galaxy S10,(2019):1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,25,26, 28,29,30,
38,39,40,41,46,66,71

You can see that even five years ago popular phones had the necessary
LTE bands to work on all the U.S. carriers and many foreign carriers. As
carriers added more bands the phone manufacturers added support for
those new bands.

There are some very low-end phones, often sold by MVNOs, that lack a lot
of LTE bands, but those MVNOs don't allow roaming anyway, and the phones
are not unlocked for use on other carriers.

For postpaid, all the carriers have roaming. All four (counting Sprint
separately) have reciprocal roaming agreements with small rural
carriers, but Sprint and T-Mobile also have roaming on Verizon and AT&T.

The previous CEO of Sprint, Marcelo Claure, once said, as he was trying
to reduce roaming on AT&T and Verizon and increase it on rural carriers
"I don't like writing checks for hundreds of millions of dollars to my
two biggest competitors." The problem Claure (and Legere) ran into is
that AT&T and Verizon acquired a lot of the rural carriers (Edge, Golden
State Cellular, Alltel West Virginia Wireless, Ramcell, Rural Cellular
Corporation, SureWest Communications, etc.). Of course nothing stopped
Sprint and T-Mobile from making offers on these rural carriers. Sprint
did buy Nextel, which was a disaster.

[sms]

On 8/6/2020 7:08 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> Of course nothing stopped
> Sprint and T-Mobile from making offers on these rural carriers. Sprint
> did buy Nextel, which was a disaster.

Didn't mean to imply that Nextel was a rural carrier, they were anything
but!

[nospam]

In article <rgjs55$7lf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Of course nothing stopped
> > Sprint and T-Mobile from making offers on these rural carriers. Sprint
> > did buy Nextel, which was a disaster.
>
> Didn't mean to imply that Nextel was a rural carrier, they were anything
> but!

it was a disaster for nextel. sprint killed it.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-08-07 11:40, nospam wrote:

> it was a disaster for nextel. sprint killed it.

Actually the problem is that Sprint bought it and didn't shut it down
fast. (in part because CDMA didn't offer the "push to talk"
functionality of iDEN. )

T-Mobile killed CDMA on MetroPCS quickly after purchase and will do the
same for Sprint which is the right thing to do. Yopu gain efficiencies
only when you shut down the purchased network ASAP and move the
customers to your own network, and increase your network's capacity with
the spectrum of the purchased company.

Abnd in the FCC filings to justify buying Sprint, T-Mobile promised
swift action to move Sprint customers over to T-Mogile network to shut
down Sprint ASAP.

[nospam]

In article <K5hXG.76361$BL.1...@fx16.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > it was a disaster for nextel. sprint killed it.
>
> Actually the problem is that Sprint bought it and didn't shut it down
> fast.

nope. sprint tried to replace it with a cdma version, which turned out
to be a disaster.

> (in part because CDMA didn't offer the "push to talk"
> functionality of iDEN. )

yes it did.

what cdma didn't offer was the substantial rfi of iden.

one of the more amusing demonstrations of that rfi was keying up a
nextel phone in a public restroom and having all toilets flush in
unison.

[sms]

On 8/7/2020 11:31 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-08-07 11:40, nospam wrote:
>
>> it was a disaster for nextel. sprint killed it.
>
> Actually the problem is that Sprint bought it and didn't shut it down
> fast. (in part because CDMA didn't offer the "push to talk"
> functionality of iDEN. )

The only virtue of Nextel was the PTT feature. Shutting it down
immediately, without an adequate replacement, would have been bad.

The CDMA carriers tried to do PTT. The problem was that the latency was
too long. See
<https://www.rcrwireless.com/20030908/carriers/when-seconds-count>.
Sprint had dreams of retaining all the Nextel customers even after they
shut down iDEN service. That didn't happen. There was at least one
combination CDMA/iDEN phone, the Motorola Buzz ic502, but it was just
too late. Then Sprint screwed up again with WiMax.

With LTE you can now have PTT functionality separate from the carriers'
offerings. Zello <https://zello.com/> has a good product for this. It's
not inexpensive but it serves the needs of some businesses.

Where my wife works, they were using Nextel for a while. Someone thought
that the PTT would be a great feature but the reality was that due to
HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) it was more
of an annoyance, leading to it being mocked as "PTA" (Push To Annoy)
<https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2004/01/05/walkie-talkie-phones-efficient-but-annoying/>.
You need a secure communication platform for health care applications.

The other problem with Nextel was that it was very much an urban product
and if you needed coverage in rural areas you couldn't use it because
there was no iDEN coverage. For a company where you're sending employees
to the far reaches of the county it was not a good service, and
employees had to have their own personal phones on AT&T or Verizon to
supplement the Nextel service. This was an annoyance to employees
because back then the carriers were not providing unlimited voice
minutes, except for off-peak use, so they had to pay for those
work-related calls themselves.

[nospam]

In article <rgkbm5$a48$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The only virtue of Nextel was the PTT feature. Shutting it down
> immediately, without an adequate replacement, would have been bad.

which is why they waited to shut it down.

> The CDMA carriers tried to do PTT. The problem was that the latency was
> too long.

that was one of many problems.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-08-07 15:59, nospam wrote:

>> The only virtue of Nextel was the PTT feature. Shutting it down
>> immediately, without an adequate replacement, would have been bad.
>
> which is why they waited to shut it down.

You don't bvuy a money losing service and delay integrating it for years
during which the money losing service now drains your own money and
doesn't generate any return on investment for you to pay back the debts
of buying it.

[nospam]

In article <5XiXG.160990$575....@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> You don't bvuy a money losing service and delay integrating it for years
> during which the money losing service now drains your own money and
> doesn't generate any return on investment for you to pay back the debts
> of buying it.

they didn't delay integrating it, which took time, given the difference
in technologies, however, it did turn out to be a stupid move.

[Lewis]

Sprint, according to the people I knew on Nextel, utterly and completely
fucked up everything about Nextel. At least one friend is still angry
about that and is very annoyed that T-mobile and Spring are merging
because he definitely doesn't want to ever give Sprint a dime.

I had a work-provided Nextel at one point, I think. That was the service
with the wealkie-talkie like mode on the phones, right?


--
what is magic actually for?
For fixing things, dummy.

[nospam]

In article <slrnrirq9v....@ProMini.lan>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> > Of course nothing stopped
> >> > Sprint and T-Mobile from making offers on these rural carriers. Sprint
> >> > did buy Nextel, which was a disaster.
> >>
> >> Didn't mean to imply that Nextel was a rural carrier, they were anything
> >> but!
>
> > it was a disaster for nextel. sprint killed it.
>
> Sprint, according to the people I knew on Nextel, utterly and completely
> fucked up everything about Nextel. At least one friend is still angry
> about that and is very annoyed that T-mobile and Spring are merging
> because he definitely doesn't want to ever give Sprint a dime.
>
> I had a work-provided Nextel at one point, I think. That was the service
> with the wealkie-talkie like mode on the phones, right?

sure was.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Most obnoxious thing ever though people talking in public places in speaker
mode comes close. Didn’t those Nextel abominations beep or chirp? I recall
hearing them make their way through a building.

BTW Winston Cup racing became verboten and became Nextel then Sprint.
Sprint customers got the perk of real time track telemetry during a NASCAR
event.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nextel deserved to be fucked up for providing socially obnoxious products.
Good riddance!

[nospam]

In article <_sGdnTd7mIj9c7DC...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >> I had a work-provided Nextel at one point, I think. That was the service
> >> with the wealkie-talkie like mode on the phones, right?
> >
> > sure was.
> >
> Most obnoxious thing ever though people talking in public places in speaker

> mode comes close. Didnšt those Nextel abominations beep or chirp? I recall

> hearing them make their way through a building.

yep.

they also spewed lots of rfi. as i said, a fun party trick was to make
an entire public restroom flush in unison.

[*Hemidactylus*]

How seemless will that transition be for current Sprint customers with
iPhone 7+s?

[sms]

Don't know why you believe that Nextel was "money-losing." It wasn't.
You can look at their 10K reports at the time.Go to
<https://sec.report/Document/0000950133-05-003305/> and search for
"Comprehensive income, net of income tax".

At the time Sprint purchased Nextel, Nextel had the highest ARPU of any
nationwide carrier, and Sprint was 2nd: "Back in 2004, when the merger
was proposed, Nextel’s ARPU was $69 while Sprint’s was $63, Verizon’s
$51.58 and Cingular’s $49.78."

The acquisition came shortly after Cingular acquired of AT&T Wireless,
and Sprint felt that Nextel would give them economies of scale, not
foreseeing the hemorrhaging of subscribers that would occur.

[nospam]

In article <yo6dnT_YItNhbLDC...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> > T-Mobile killed CDMA on MetroPCS quickly after purchase and will do the
> > same for Sprint which is the right thing to do. Yopu gain efficiencies
> > only when you shut down the purchased network ASAP and move the
> > customers to your own network, and increase your network's capacity with
> > the spectrum of the purchased company.

cdma can't be killed quite yet, but it's on its way out.

> > Abnd in the FCC filings to justify buying Sprint, T-Mobile promised
> > swift action to move Sprint customers over to T-Mogile network to shut
> > down Sprint ASAP.
> >
> How seemless will that transition be for current Sprint customers with
> iPhone 7+s?

completely.

the only issue is with phones that lack both t-mobile and sprint bands,
which might have minor coverage issues in fringe areas.

[Lewis]

It was extremely useful on that job.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but Pepper Ann makes me sneeze."

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:
The question was asked today if blocking calls also blocks SMS/MMS
o Blocking a phone #, by MajorLanGod
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/Ta1nHqUMbbw>

My response to that question is apropos for this thread also...

To find the answer for the OP, I called 611 (T-Mobile) who was sure that
_their_ brand of free scam blocking tools does _not_ also cover SMS/MMS.
o T-Mobile Scam Shield, by T-Mobile USA (free, ad free, GSF dependent)
iOS <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1367276365>
Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tmobile.services.nameid>

T-Mobile sent me this URL to my SMS text app for further information:
o <https://www.t-mobile.com/customers/scam-shield>

In that web page is an FAQ, which asks:
Q: What about scam/spam texts? Does T-Mobile block those?
A: We've had an anti-spam solution for mobile messaging including SMS,
MMS, and RCS since 2014, and we include it at no additional charge
for T-Mobile customers.

How it works:
Our anti-spam message solution is updated regularly with spam message
fingerprints and signatures. Whenever a mobile message is received on
the network, it's checked against the anti-spam solution.

If a message is determined to be spam or unwanted, we'll block it.
Otherwise, the message will be delivered.

Customers can report spam or unwanted messages by simply forwarding the
messages to 7726. We'll reply with a confirmation text and forward the
message to the Security Center for analysis. The message and your
details are encrypted; your identity won't be shared.

Replying "STOP" is usually a convenient way to quickly opt out of a
message program. However, for unwanted spam texts, we recommend
forwarding messages to 7726 and not replying. Similar to picking up an
unknown robocall, spammers will use any texted reply (including "STOP")
as confirmation that they've reached a real person."

Interestingly, the best SMS app out there (IMHO), also has a "blacklist"
where a number can be blocked by manually adding it to that blacklist.
o Pulse SMS (Phone/Tablet/Web)
HomePage: <https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
iOS: <https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/platform-ios.html>
Android: <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger>

Note: On iOS, you can send/receive text via Safari using this app.

See also:
o Best free SMS app for Android
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/up2NoEHr9M8>
o Does anyone know how the PHONE ties to CONTACTS tiies to SMS
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/EvXtsP9radE>
o T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/G6ZWN1SiJSs/>
etc.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart, to always add value where I can.