Opinions on Sprint PCS?
poldy
peak minutes with free options for 250 off-peak minutes, free long
distance (vs. 15 cents/minute), or free Wireless Web. For signing a
one-year contract, you get additional free options and for buying a
phone, a $50 rebate. Any experiences with coverage and so on?
How about the usefulness of their Wireless Web option?
Other plans with better pricing and/or performance?
This is contemplated as a gift for people who have no experience with
wireless.
Kenneth Crudup
Jason McClelland <jasonm76@.pacbell.net> says:
>I had very poor service in Boston and Chicago.
I lived in Boston for 1.5 years with SPCS, and I left Cellular One Boston
for them 'cause the coverage was better. I'm from Chicago, and have not had
problems there in 9 months.
Which phone do you have?
I'd personally recommend SPCS (with the right phone) to anyone.
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Washington, D.C.
Home1: PO Box 914 Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914
Home2: 38010 Village Cmn. #217 Fremont, CA 94536-7525 (510) 745-8181
Work: See: "Home2". The hell with slow Bay Area drivers! (510) 745-0101
poldy
ke...@panix.com wrote:
>In article <39E9E674.A424FC18@.pacbell.net>,
>Jason McClelland <jasonm76@.pacbell.net> says:
>
>>I had very poor service in Boston and Chicago.
>
>I lived in Boston for 1.5 years with SPCS, and I left Cellular One Boston
>for them 'cause the coverage was better. I'm from Chicago, and have not had
>problems there in 9 months.
>
>Which phone do you have?
>
>I'd personally recommend SPCS (with the right phone) to anyone.
>
> -Kenny
The phones they're offering are the Motorolas. Only other brand name I
recognized was Samsung. No Nokia or Ericcson.
The Motorola ST7867W is $149, the Talkabout 8167 is $199, the TimePort
8167 is $249. They all seem to have similar features: Web browser, 4.2
oz. weight, 4.2 hours battery life. If you sign a 1-year contract at
$30 a month, they give you a $50 rebate for purchasing a phone with them.
The people I would give this to would mostly use it here. Once in
awhile, go to Reno or Salt Lake or maybe the Far East. SPCS is suppose
to be a CDMA service but I don't know if that means it could be used in
other CDMA regions in the Far East.
One of the options on the plan is for 180 minutes airtime for calls to
other SPCS customers. Is there a special rate normally on wireless to
wireless calls?
For that matter, I couldn't find a GSM carrier in the Bay Area.
Mike Ward
>For that matter, I couldn't find a GSM carrier in the Bay Area.
You missed Pacific Bell Wireless? ;)
Mike
Kenneth Crudup
poldy <h...@nospam.kfu.com> says:
>The phones they're offering are the Motorolas. Only other brand name I
>recognized was Samsung. No Nokia or Ericcson.
Ah. You suffer from "Brand-iness". The Denso Touchpoint is the best-rated
phone they've got in terms of reception, and some of the Samsungs come
next. A couple of the Motorolas are actually despised by
alt.cellular.sprintpcs .
>The people I would give this to would mostly use it here.
Well, go with PacBell, then.
>SPCS is suppose
>to be a CDMA service but I don't know if that means it could be used in
>other CDMA regions in the Far East.
It won't. No agreements (and I think the frequency is different).
>Is there a special rate normally on wireless to wireless calls?
I have an old plan that doesn't.
>For that matter, I couldn't find a GSM carrier in the Bay Area.
You *sure*? I swear PBW is GSM.
Barry Twycross
<h...@nospam.kfu.com> wrote:
In article <hyn-83A362.1...@news.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, poldy
<h...@nospam.kfu.com> wrote:
>For that matter, I couldn't find a GSM carrier in the Bay Area.
I use PacBell's GSM service. Just to be awkward the US uses 1900MHz for GSM
so you need a dual or tri-band phone to use the service oversees (where
they use 1800 or 900 it seems). In theory you should be able to swap your
chip into a foreign phone.
I've been quite happy with the PacBell service, except it get flaky when
the signal drops. It needs at least 2 blips on the signal indicator,
otherwise you suffer a lot of drop outs.
They don't seem to have a plan as good as the Sprint one though. (I just
signed up for $30/month for 125 mins, +$10 for long distance and mobile to
mobile calling and $10 each for 2 extra phones.)
I've never seen the point of the "wireless web".
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(Obsolete sig deleted).
poldy
Ba...@netbox.com (Barry Twycross) wrote:
>I've never seen the point of the "wireless web".
Well they're certainly spending a lot of money on m-commerce.
I wouldn't surf but I notice that some cellular plans charge exhorbitant
rates for directory assistance. What if you could look up phone numbers
online? Or what about getting maps or driving directions? The luxury
car makers are offering expensive navigation systems. Maybe a phone
with a small screen isn't the best for that.
But I can see the appeal of having internet access devices, either
installed on a car or portable.
When cellular phones first became available 15-20 years ago, who'd have
thought they'd become so pervasive? Same thing might happen to wireless
web.
poldy
<mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
I checked some web site and searched for GSM carriers in the area.
Guess Pac Bell didn't give them money for referrals.
John R Pierce
>When cellular phones first became available 15-20 years ago, who'd have
>thought they'd become so pervasive? Same thing might happen to wireless
>web.
did you see the article in today's SJ Murky biz section?
eSpam companies are drooling over the opportunities provided by the
FCC mandated position locating system which will be required on all
new cell phones in another 2 years or whatever. Just think, open your
miniwebpile browser on your cellphone and be told that pizzas are
2-for-1 right across the street. Just wait til they figure out how
to utilize your call history in conjunction with your current
location.... toss in your bank and credit card records... YIKES.
be scared. run. scream. (louder!)
John Navas
Check alt.cellular.sprintpcs [follow-up set]
In <hyn-7CAF0D.2...@news.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, poldy
<h...@nospam.kfu.com> wrote:
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
poldy
<spam...@hogranch.com> wrote:
I'd heard that location services could be turned off. DOn't know what
the pricing model for these services would be but wouldn't there be a
revolt if you were charged airtime for unwanted ads?
John R Pierce
>I'd heard that location services could be turned off. DOn't know what
>the pricing model for these services would be but wouldn't there be a
>revolt if you were charged airtime for unwanted ads?
really? not if the FBI gets there way.
Jeff Liebermann
<spam...@hogranch.com> wrote:
>eSpam companies are drooling over the opportunities provided by the
>FCC mandated position locating system which will be required on all
>new cell phones in another 2 years or whatever. Just think, open your
>miniwebpile browser on your cellphone and be told that pizzas are
>2-for-1 right across the street. Just wait til they figure out how
>to utilize your call history in conjunction with your current
>location.... toss in your bank and credit card records... YIKES.
>
> be scared. run. scream. (louder!)
Reminder: My prediction of the internet of the future is a virtual
reality headset that displays some form of altered reality that vaguely
resembles a shopping mall or business district. It will be largely
funded by having advertising thrown in your face everywhere you turn,
getting virtually mugged by some sales droid, or bludgeoned by a spammer.
I didn't think this would begin with cell phones, but it seems we're
drifting close to my dream (or nightmare).
Incidentally, the FCC mandated positioning system is suppose to only
provide data to law enforcement agencies looking for clueless drivers,
stuck under a snow bank, with no idea where on the planet they're
located, and happen to have a functioning cell phone. Any application to
tracking drug dealers, dissidents, or political undesireables is strictly
coincidental. Like caller ID data, the spammers will probably not have
easy access to the data.
While imbedding GPS receivers inside cell phones is possible, the current
fashion is to use TDoA (Time Difference of Arrival) and other direction
finding technology located at the cell sites. This means that it doesn't
require a specially modified telephone. Most of the systems I've seen
offer impressive accuracy in open country, but are close to useless in
metropolitan areas where reflections are epidemic.
The ham radio operators have a system called APRS that reports positions
from a GPS receiver to a central repeater. This would be a good
prototype of the location system. See:
http://web.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/radio.html (JavaAPRS Anapolis)
http://www.aprs.net (JavaAPRS) for entire USA
http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/gpsf.html (APRS links)
Ok. Now, try to make use of the data in some useful fashion for selling
pizzas. Good luck.
Much more entertaining is the trend toward installing illegal cell phone
jammers in various restraunts and conference centers to keep from hearing
cell phones ringing all the time. See:
http://www.netline.co.il/English/latests/index.html
http://www.cguard.com/English/latests/FuncDesc/index.php3
Unfortunately, RF tends to leak out of the building. I know of one such
installation that I helped with the antenna positioning specifically to
prevent drivers from getting disconnected on a nearby roadway. If you
mysteriously get a "No Service" indicator in some place where you would
normally expect decent coverage, it may be a cellphone jammer. I guess
this may mean no more WAP surfing your portfolio while at the opera.
Then there's (real-soon-now) Bluetooth connectivity in phones. One of
the first things I'm gonna design (when the chip sets finally arrive and
the development systems cost less than $5000) is a Bluetooth plus cell
phone detector. I'll sell it to restraunts and conference centers to
check for cell phones at the door and politely demand that the owner
disarm the ringer or turn it off. Perhaps I can make the phone ring to
get their attention.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)426-1240 fax (831)336-2558 home
http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl WB6SSY
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Jeff Liebermann
>I'd heard that location services could be turned off.
Wrong. The GPS in the handset flavour can be easily disarmed. The
direction finders at the cell sites may be another story.
>DOn't know what
>the pricing model for these services would be but wouldn't there be a
>revolt if you were charged airtime for unwanted ads?
Probably. However, the trend toward using any form of connectivity to
deliver advertising content is epidemic. Wells Fargone's banking machine
hit me with ads for some kind of loan while I was trying to make a
deposit. I immediately complained and didn't see the stupid ads again.
TCI/AT&T's new and improved cable TV guide is nothing but an advertising
delivery mechanism. I'm guessing that the idea is to get the public used
to the idea that advertising helps subsidize the low prices for
connectivity and that were advertising eliminated, the price of
connectivity will increase dramatically. It's not true, and makes little
sense, but that's the way methinks it will be played. 2million+ users of
various free internet services (Bluelight, Costco, Ourhouse, etc)
indicate that Joe Sixpack can tolerate quite a bit of advertising in the
name of economy.
poldy
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us wrote:
>
>Reminder: My prediction of the internet of the future is a virtual
>reality headset that displays some form of altered reality that vaguely
>resembles a shopping mall or business district. It will be largely
>funded by having advertising thrown in your face everywhere you turn,
>getting virtually mugged by some sales droid, or bludgeoned by a spammer.
>I didn't think this would begin with cell phones, but it seems we're
>drifting close to my dream (or nightmare).
>
VR headsets seem really out of favor. Read a recent article on Jaron
Lanier and even he seems to have given up on it. I think either Lanier
or someone is working on an update of something like the avatar concept,
using 3-D proxies so you can meet in cyberspace. Sorta like Wild Palms
with the designer sunglasses which when worn transported you to some
holodeck like experience.
>Then there's (real-soon-now) Bluetooth connectivity in phones. One of
>the first things I'm gonna design (when the chip sets finally arrive and
>the development systems cost less than $5000) is a Bluetooth plus cell
>phone detector. I'll sell it to restraunts and conference centers to
>check for cell phones at the door and politely demand that the owner
>disarm the ringer or turn it off. Perhaps I can make the phone ring to
>get their attention.
What about people with PDAs? If those things don't ring or beep too
much, how do they harm people? Phones are annoying because they do
disturb people at neighboring tables.
poldy
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us wrote:
>>DOn't know what
>>the pricing model for these services would be but wouldn't there be a
>>revolt if you were charged airtime for unwanted ads?
>
>Probably. However, the trend toward using any form of connectivity to
>deliver advertising content is epidemic. Wells Fargone's banking machine
>hit me with ads for some kind of loan while I was trying to make a
>deposit. I immediately complained and didn't see the stupid ads again.
>TCI/AT&T's new and improved cable TV guide is nothing but an advertising
>delivery mechanism. I'm guessing that the idea is to get the public used
>to the idea that advertising helps subsidize the low prices for
>connectivity and that were advertising eliminated, the price of
>connectivity will increase dramatically. It's not true, and makes little
>sense, but that's the way methinks it will be played. 2million+ users of
>various free internet services (Bluelight, Costco, Ourhouse, etc)
>indicate that Joe Sixpack can tolerate quite a bit of advertising in the
>name of economy.
>
If they could provide the bandwidth promised for 3G and advertising made
services free, people will go for it. When 3G is first rolled out, you
probably won't see too many of those $30/month plans. But if in
exchange for seeing ads the service is subsidized, people will bite.
John R Pierce
>Lanier and even he seems to have given up on it. I think either Lanier
>or someone is working on an update of something like the avatar concept,
>using 3-D proxies so you can meet in cyberspace. Sorta like Wild Palms
>with the designer sunglasses which when worn transported you to some
>holodeck like experience.
you mean like www.activeworlds.com ?
(ok, this don't use no silly 3D glasses, it just uses 3D rendering on
PCs equipped with the now-near-standard gaming 3D hardware cards...)
-jrp
Kevin C
and gave it back.
South of 280 there are a number of huge coverage holes in their network.
I live very near the intersection of Alamden and Capitol Expressways
(not exactly the boonies) and could not get a usable signal within a
radius of about 1-2 miles in any direction.
The only time I could get a really strong signal was when I was right on
top of a cell. average signal stregnth according to the phone was about
40%.
My mom uses Sprint in the East Bay. She reports much the same
performance.
I guess it's easy to be so cheap when you don't erect all of the cells
you need for proper coverage.
Oh yeah, and two months later they're still trying to charge me for the
phone I returned and the service I couldn't use.
Two of my roommates have PacBell PCS and rarely have any trouble, even
indoors. I expect to pick one up from them soon.
John Navas
In <39EFC9E4...@way.com>, Kevin C <n...@way.com> wrote:
>My mom uses Sprint in the East Bay. She reports much the same
>performance.
I use Sprint PCS in the East Bay, and find coverage very good, as good
or better than CellOne or Verizon, both of which I've used in the past.
p.s. To de-spam an email address, use ".invalid" as the TLD (top level
domain) rather than ".com"/".net"/".org" (or any other potentially valid
TLD) in order to avoid unauthorized use of a valid domain and to
minimize unnecessary load on Internet infrastructure. Examples:
"use...@myisp.invalid" or "n...@spam.invalid" (Reference: RFC 2606)
Alex Zepeda
>The people I would give this to would mostly use it here. Once in
>awhile, go to Reno or Salt Lake or maybe the Far East. SPCS is suppose
>to be a CDMA service but I don't know if that means it could be used in
>other CDMA regions in the Far East.
>
>One of the options on the plan is for 180 minutes airtime for calls to
>other SPCS customers. Is there a special rate normally on wireless to
>wireless calls?
>
>For that matter, I couldn't find a GSM carrier in the Bay Area.
Yes, SPCS is a CDMA service.
In the Bay Area:
PacBell Wireless: 1.9ghz GSM
GTE/Verizon Wireless: 800mhz CDMA/AMPS (Side-B)
C1/AT&T: 800mhz TDMA/AMPS (Side-A)
Sprint PCS: 1.9ghz CDMA
And then there's Nextel with their iDEN technology. Well, okay, it's
Motorola.
- alex
Alex Zepeda
wrote:
>>SPCS is suppose
>>to be a CDMA service but I don't know if that means it could be used in
>>other CDMA regions in the Far East.
>
>It won't. No agreements (and I think the frequency is different).
Far East? In the states? Analog roaming, but it'll cost you.
As in Asia? You'll need a different phone. Nearly the rest of the
world is GSM, a completely different protocol (save bits of Australia
which are CDMA). Outside of the US and Canada, you'll get 900mhz and
1800mhz GSM service. Here you'll get 1900mhz GSM service. There are
tri-band phones out there (Ericson and Motorola), but they won't work
with a CDMA service like SprintPCS (but would work with PacBell).
It's probably more worthwhile to get a pre-paid sim-card while you're
over there.
- alex
Alex Zepeda
wrote:
>I use PacBell's GSM service. Just to be awkward the US uses 1900MHz for GSM
>so you need a dual or tri-band phone to use the service oversees (where
>they use 1800 or 900 it seems). In theory you should be able to swap your
>chip into a foreign phone.
Well, mainly because the US military uses the 900mhz band, which in
Europe is the most popular. They've recently been rolling out 1800mhz
service as well. You *can* purchase a tri-band (or even dual-band*)
phone that should work with the common variants of GSM. Getting PB to
activate it could pose a problem.
>They don't seem to have a plan as good as the Sprint one though. (I just
>signed up for $30/month for 125 mins, +$10 for long distance and mobile to
>mobile calling and $10 each for 2 extra phones.)
Yes, PB is very expensive compared to the competition.
* By dual band I mean 900mhz and 1900mhz GSM. Not 800mhz AMPS/1900mhz
GSM like most dual banded GSM phones are over here. The prospect of
using such a phone in the states is perhaps not a good one, as the GSM
coverage here is far worse than the AMPS (or even CDMA/TDMA) coverage.
Two phones are probably the best iea.
- alex
Alex Zepeda
>They seem to be running some enticing promotions. For $30/month, 250
>peak minutes with free options for 250 off-peak minutes, free long
>distance (vs. 15 cents/minute), or free Wireless Web. For signing a
>one-year contract, you get additional free options and for buying a
>phone, a $50 rebate. Any experiences with coverage and so on?
>
>How about the usefulness of their Wireless Web option?
Dubious at best.
>Other plans with better pricing and/or performance?
Well, right now I'm pretty happy with Verizon. I just picked up a
Nokia 5185i, and I love lots of little things that it improves on over
my old phone... except the reception, it must have the antenna fully
extened to get decent clarity. Oh yeah, I bought the phone without a
contract. Whee. $350.
I pay $38/mo (includ. taxes and such) for 250 peak, 1000 off-peak, 5
state local calling area, basic VM (including numeric paging), call
waiting, call forwarding, caller id, 1000 mobile to mobible minutes,
which can be swapped out for free LD or for $10 be augmented by it.
While the phone would technically work with SprintPCS, Sprint will not
activate phones that were not originally sold by them. But the phone
is not service provider locked.
To the person looking for a Nokia phone from Sprint, good luck. The
6185 was their first attempt at a tri-mode CMDA phone. Not too
impressive from what I've heard, and thus Sprint pulled it. The 5185i
is a Verizon only deal.
>This is contemplated as a gift for people who have no experience with
>wireless.
- alex
Barry Twycross
Zepeda) wrote:
>You *can* purchase a tri-band (or even dual-band*)
>phone that should work with the common variants of GSM. Getting PB to
>activate it could pose a problem.
PacBell will sell you one. A colleague has a Motorola tri-band (L7089??),
there's also an Ericson one and I'm sorely tempted by a Nokia 8890 (dual
band). I already have a PacBell phone, so activation isn't a problem, I
swap in my chip. (As long as the other phone isn't sim locked.)
>* By dual band I mean 900mhz and 1900mhz GSM. Not 800mhz AMPS/1900mhz
>GSM like most dual banded GSM phones are over here.
Never heard of such a thing, the one I'm looking at is 1900/900 GSM. (Some
people call it tri-band as it also does something called EGSM 900.)
Alex Zepeda
wrote:
>Never heard of such a thing, the one I'm looking at is 1900/900 GSM. (Some
>people call it tri-band as it also does something called EGSM 900.)
There's a thread raging away in alt.cellular about this. :^)
- alex