On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:05:33 -0800, sms wrote:
> "Arlen" is wrong of course.
Hi Steve,
I'm not afraid of facts, Steve.
o My belief systems are _based_ on facts, Steve.
If the facts change, Steve, I change my belief system.
o It's what well educated people do, Steve.
I'm likely the one of the best educated people on this newsgroup, Steve.
o My belief systems are based on FACTS, Steve... not MARKETING bullshit.
I don't expect you to reply with actual facts since you're well known to be
a Type II apologist who believes only in MARKETING bullshit, and not in
facts.
You're like a sniper Steve, where you shoot your bullshit
o And then you run away from the facts.
You do this every time, Steve.
o Hence I can predict you're gonna do it again.
It's what Type II apologists like you and Alan Browne & Savageduck do.
When you Type II apologists are confronted with facts, you just shut up.
o In fact, you _still_ believe Qualcomm royalties went down, Steve.
o And, you still believe iPhone cost of ownership is lower than Android.
When you're proven wrong, Type II apologists act differently than others:
o Type I (nospam) simply deflect any facts they can't brazenly deny
o Type II (sms) clam up, since their belief systems aren't based on fact
o Type III (Alan Baker) claim facts they don't like are "lies by liars"
Given you're a Type II apologist, and yet given you're professionally
employed, I suspect you (and perhaps even nospam) have a college education;
but I have never seen anything from you that indicates you have the
capability to earn a math or science or engineering degree (let alone a
higher degree) as you work almost 100% based off of your wholly and
completely incorrect intuitive assessment of MARKETING bullshit, Steve.
However, I'm a rather well educated scientist & engineer who has studied in
Ivy League schools and who has worked alongside some of the smartest people
on this planet at Silicon Valley startups, so I'm perfectly happy to be
correct on facts from someone who knows those facts far better than I do.
If you, or nospam, or badgolferman, or _anyone_ knows the FACTS better than
I do, then please do provide those facts as I'm the one asking wither:
Q: Is there any disadvantage to (USA free T-Mobile) voice/data roaming?
Q: Isn't that 4 carriers' towers (T-Mo + Verizon, AT&T, & US Cellular)?
For both voice and for data?
> T-Mobile has very limited roaming onto AT&T which is what is most needed
> in this area (Bay Area and most of California).
Steve... don't give us meaningless MARKETING bullshit.
o What does that sentence mean in terms of actual backed up FACTUAL data?
Are you claiming that, if there is no T-Mobile tower, and if I'm near an
AT&T, US Cellular, or Verizon tower, that I won't get the free unlimited
data and limited data (based on my plan) roaming T-Mobile promised me and
for which I provided documentation from T-Mobile?
I'm not afraid of facts, Steve.
o My belief system is _based_ on facts, Steve.
Give us facts, Steve.
o Not MARKETING bullshit.
If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower, Steve,
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower, Steve,
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> not always the case! T-Mobile coverage used to be a superset of T-Mobile
> and AT&T coverage. Now T-Mobile has removed nearly all of the AT&T
> roaming and vast areas of coverage have been lost.
Steve,
I provided documentation from T-Mobile which "claims" that there is free
roaming on US Cellular, AT&T, and Verizon towers for both data and for
cellular, where you're claiming that this is not true, apparently.
I repeat my question:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower, Steve,
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower, Steve,
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> I took snips of the coverage maps from the four providers, for the Santa
> Cruz Mountains area. See
> <
drive.google.com/file/d/1BUYu2okfVsb26Hgqq_tfQkYe_3_VACy9>. You can
> clearly see the vast coverage differences. As you move east into the
> heavily populated part of the Bay Area the coverage for all the carriers
> is much better, but clearly if you want coverage in the more rural parts
> of the Bay Area then you need to stick with one of the top tier carriers
> (AT&T or Verizon).
First off, you always post the same outdated images, Steve:
o <
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BUYu2okfVsb26Hgqq_tfQkYe_3_VACy9/edit>
(And yes, I know you uploaded that image on January 4th.)
I can't even tell, offhand, which is which carrier
o All I see are colors: red, black, white, yellow, green, blue, purple
But it doesn't matter, AFAICT, when the topic is "free voice/data roaming"
o The _superset_ is what matters, Steve, does it not?
Steve, you don't seem to comprehend the technical problem set at all.
o We are looking at a _superset_ when we talk in terms of free roaming.
Steve, I'm gonna repeat the question, given the SUBJECT is free roaming:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower, Steve,
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower, Steve,
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> T-Mobile does have a lot of roaming onto GSM and LTE carriers other than
> AT&T, where those exist.
Steve,
I get it that you believe only in MARKETING bullshit
o For example, you still believe Qualcomm royalties went down
o Simply because Apple claimed to have gotten a good deal from them.
o Even though it's clear those royalties went _up_ 113% on average.
But I don't believe in MARKETING bullshit, Steve.
o I believe only in FACTS.
I'm also well aware you're a Type II apologist "sniper", Steve.
o You shoot your bullshit - and then you run away - never to defend it.
I completely understand your words, Steve, which is you're claiming that
T-Mobile doesn't have "a lot of" roaming but I don't think you understand
the topic here, which I will repeat, since it covers voice & data, Steve:
Let's look at that link, shall we, Steve?
o Note: Unlike Type III apologists like Alan Baker, I click on links.
<
https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/abad20/any_updates_on_us_cellular_roaming_in_california/>
a. It's from 2 years ago, and it's a "reddit" thread (of all things)
b. The guy has technical problems with roaming
c. He hasn't even contacted T-Mobile about his technical problems
d. Some guy says (unsubstantiated) that "T-Mobile decides" who can roam
e. Some other guy says (unsubstantiated) only "some phones" can roam
f. Some other guy says (unsubstantiated) "T-Mobile doesn't allow roaming"
g. There was unrelated (unsubstantiated) stuff about Verizon vs US Cellular
Jesus Christ, Steve.
o Are you serious?
Are you Type II apologists really _always_ such obvious morons?
o Your _entire_ belief system is based on utter unsubstantiated bullshit.
Some of what people claimed is _clearly_ bullshit (like T-Mobile only
allowing roaming on certain phones... wtf?) but the _entire_ site contained
exactly _zero_ facts.
This provides evidence, yet again, that Type II apologists like Steve
Scharf base their entire belief system on complete & total bullshit.
I hesitate to click on that link given every link above is utter bullshit.
o <
https://www.cellularmaps.com/parks/death-valley.shtml>
First off, we're talking about Death Valley, which just about has to be one
of the most remote and forlone places for people to live in, Steve.
Even so, since Steve thinks that choosing one of the most hostile places on
the planet to live is "indicative" of "something", we have to look at
_what_ the map is trying to tell us, don't we?
a. The Park Service advises tourists of 3 "cell sites" _in_ Death Valley
b. Those 3 "cell sites" (towers?) are "operated by Commnet"
c. Here's a graph of Commnet, who seems to specialize in remote sites
<
https://www.cellularmaps.com/regional-carriers/commnet-wireless.shtml>
Ummm... WTF is Steve trying to tell us?
o Nobody but Commnet, who seems to specialize in remote locales, is in Death Valley?
Ummmm... er... OK.
o WTF does that have to do with the topic at hand, Steve?
Specifically, for the Silicon Valley where Steve & I live?
o Specifically since nobody (almost nobody?) _resides_ in Death Valley?
Is Steve just grasping for straws here?
o Death Valley is _not_ in any way representative of the USA, Steve.]
In fact, it's likely the _least_ representative area on the planet
o What's next? The Sahara Desert Steve?
Given the utter bullshit Steve has posted so far by way of links...
o Again I hesitate to click on this one, for fear of what it may contain
It's a thread titled:
o Domestic Roaming (US Cellular) Communism
<
https://community.t-mobile.com/network-coverage-5/domestic-roaming-us-cellular-communism-31836>
a. Given the title with "communism" in it, I fear for the worst already
b. The OP "claims" (unsubstantiated) T-Mobile won't let his girlfriend use
US Cellular towers (he doesn't mention whether she set up roaming)
c. Then "gramps28" gave the OP what seemed like a good solution
d. The OP replies that he'll check out that solution
e. The OP says he "talked to US Cellular" (but nothing about talking to T-Mo)
f. Some other guy posits a "theory" (unsubstantiated) which sms believes
g. A couple others pipe in with (always unsubstantiated) claims about VoLTE
WTF?
AFAICT, the OP never even once contacted T-Mobile about its "communism".
o It was all just a rant after all.
This crap why I posit sms can't possibly earn a science or engineering degree.
Type II apologists like Steve or Alan Browne, base their entire belief
system on purely unsubstantiated bullshit like what we saw in that link.
o At least the guy could have contacted T-Mobile, couldn't he?
Steve, the question remains apropos:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower, Steve,
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower, Steve,
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> What's really sad is the loss of coverage for former Sprint subscribers
> who used to be able to roam onto Verizon, at least for voice and text.
> That roaming has been removed from the Sprint map, and presumably it
> actually no longer exists. Much of that lost coverage was in areas that
> are difficult and expensive to cover and coverage will be unlikely to
> ever return. It's only in the past few months that T-Mobile has modified
> the Sprint maps to remove Verizon roaming coverage. Of course T-Mobile
> doesn't want to be paying big bucks to a competitor for roaming, it's
> better just to write off the customers that care about coverage in those
> areas.
That's interesting information regarding Sprint customers roaming on
Verizon, but the T-Mobile roaming question remains as stated prior:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower, Steve,
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower, Steve,
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> Another thing that happened, about ten years ago, is that roaming
> agreements that T-Mobile had with AT&T began to expire and were not
> renewed.
> So T-Mobile customers began losing roaming coverage and that
> coverage was rarely replaced with native coverage in rural areas.
I'm not afraid of facts, Steve.
o My belief systems are _based_ on facts, Steve.
Where's the data for that wholly unsubstantiated claim, Steve?
o Or, did you just fabricate your claim out of absolutely nothing?
I'm in the Santa Cruz mountains, Steve.
o So I'll look at your link, but, again, I hesitate as I had above.
o AT&T Completes Acquisition of Edge Wireless to Enhance Wireless Coverage
<
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080418005668/en/ATT-Completes-Acquisition-of-Edge-Wireless-to-Enhance-Wireless-Coverage>
a. AT&T acquired Edge Wireless (via an AT&T subsidiary)
b. Both companies benefit due to the combined coverage
That's it?
o That's the entire article, Steve?
A marketing shill is your entire basis of fact, Steve?
o It says _nothing_ about T-Mobile, Steve.
Nor does it answer the question we have been asking of you, Steve:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower, Steve,
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower, Steve,
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
I don't doubt roaming costs money, Steve.
o It's likely why roaming is turned off, by default, on my phone.
But since you posted a link, I won't be like the apologists and not even
read it, where here's what that links appears to claim (AFAICT):
o Sprint Sides With T-Mobile Against Data Roaming Dispute With Verizon and AT&T
<
https://www.androidheadlines.com/2014/08/sprint-sides-t-mobile-data-roaming-dispute-verizon-att.html>
a. First off, the link is dated 2014, which is pretty old stuff, Steve.
b. And, it's from "Android Healines" whatever the heck that news outfit is.
c. The opening sentence shows the author hates the concept of roaming.
d. It claims US T-Mobile & Sprint want to roam on US Verizon & AT&T (ok).
e. It discusses the differences with Canada, which I'll skip for now.
f. In 2014, T-Mobile said AT&T was charging 50% more than anyone else (ok).
g. In 2014, AT&T countered, essentially, they could charge what they want.
h. Verizon agreed with AT&T (ok, they have reasonable points of view).
i. Meanwhile, shocker of all shockers, little Sprint agrees with T-mo.
j. It ends with "one can see both sides of the argument" and
k. "Whether the FCC will side with T-Mobile and Sprint remain to be seen"
That's it?
o That's the fundamental basis of Steve's entire argument?
WTF?
Is this Steve's argument?
A. Roaming costs money
B. Small companies need to pay big companies for roaming privileges.
WTF?
o How does that corporate reality affect the answer to the question, Steve?
If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower, Steve,
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower, Steve,
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
Unlike apologists, I actually _read_ the cites, where this is from 2011.
o It says nothing of what happened _after_ the agreement fulfilled, BTW.
o In AT&T breakup, T-Mobile gets 3G roaming deal and wireless spectrum
<
https://venturebeat.com/2011/12/20/att-breakup-t-mobile-3g-roaming-128-markets-aws-spectrum/>
a. AT&T gave up on acquiring T-Mobile
b. AT&T has to pay T-Mobile's parent company $3B
c. AT&T has to give T-Mobile roaming for 7 years
d. By that roaming, T-Mobile gained 50 million customers' coverage
e. T-Mobile doesn't offer an iPhone officially
f. So without an official iPhone, AT&T, Verizon, & Sprint have an advantage
That's it?
o WTF?
Steve, if you're gonna claim a link, and then claim that link has some
"value", then it should have some value Steve. This is crazy shit.
This utter crap is what we have to deal with on Apple newsgroups, guys.
o The apologists make completely unsubtantiated (always bullshit) claims
o If you ask them to back them up, they hand you links of bullshit
o It works, for them, because apologists don't ever _click_ on the links!
o But I click on links, and I read them.
All Steve has posted, so far, is unsubstantiated bullshit
o Which, after all, is more evidence of why he's a Type II apologist
He _believes_ the bullshit more so than he could ever believe in facts.
o It's what makes him an apologist after all
Still, the question remains:
If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> The other large area where you see a tremendous difference in coverage
> is in the area around Yosemite and Gold Country. The reason for this is
> that there used to be only one carrier in this area at all, Golden State
> Cellular, a CDMA/AMPS carrier. Verizon and Sprint could roam onto Golden
> State Cellular, but obviously the GSM carriers could not. Verizon bought
> out Golden State Cellular in 2014
>
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/vzw/2014/06/verizon-wireless-purchases-golden-state-cellular
> and Verizon customers (and Verizon MVNO customers) now had native
> coverage. AT&T did install some cells along major highways in the area,
> but their coverage is much poorer. The reason for the big difference is
> that Golden State Cellular was putting up cells to provide coverage for
> residents of the area and if they didn't provide good coverage they
> would not have been able to gain subscribers. The other carriers are
> just trying to cater to people traveling through the area.
Steve, I realize you are a consummate politician, where you cherry pick
your arguments (basically out of nothing) and then you expect us to believe
the bullshit (even as almost all your bullshit is from ages ago):
o But I'm not eating the bullshit you are constantly feeding us, Steve.
Steve's cite, above, is from 2014...
o Verizon Wireless Completes Purchase of Golden State Cellular in East Central California
<
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/vzw/2014/06/verizon-wireless-purchases-golden-state-cellular>
a. Verizon bought Golden State Cellular from Sierra Cellular and others
b. This gives Verizon access to East Central California
c. It includes Yosemite National Park & portions of four remote counties
That's it?
o WTF?
Besides being ancient news, it doesn't change the answer to the question:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> Until 2019, T-Mobile had no coverage at all in Yosemite, and no roaming
> onto AT&T.
I'm not even going to doublecheck that claim since you said it was years
ago which "implies" it's no longer, so what good is your useless datapoint?
o Is it you simply always want to incessantly rant against T-Mobile Steve?
> Now they do have coverage in Yosemite Valley, but in other
> parts of the park, if thereĄŚs any coverage at all, it's on Verizon.
Um, er., Steve. Have you seen this question yet?
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> Until very recently, the Sprint map still showed Verizon roaming
> everywhere Verizon had coverage, but the current map has removed that
> coverage and it now shows 'no coverage' on both Sprint and T-Mobile.
Um, er., Steve. Have you seen this question yet?
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> Another little bit of weirdness is that before Metro PCS became part of
> T-Mobile, and switched from CDMA to GSM, they were offering extra-cost
> off-network roaming on Verizon
> <
https://androidforums.com/threads/metro-pcs-uses-verizons-network.336015/>.
> Of course that roaming is all gone now. It seems like every time
> T-Mobile acquires another wireless company, the customers of the
> acquired company lose out in terms of coverage.
Given the bullshit Steve has been slinging, I fear for this link from 2011:
o Metro PCS uses Verizon's network?
<
https://androidforums.com/threads/metro-pcs-uses-verizons-network.336015/>
a. The OP asks: "Where does Metro end and Verizon begin and vise versa?"
b. The OP summarized: "What part of Metro's service is Verizon?"
c. An answer came back: "MetroPCS' main raoming partner is Sprint"
d. Some replies "Can't be Sprint" (based on unsubstantiated anecdotes)
e. Someone else says "There's more than Sprint" (all unsubstantiated)
f. Someone else says "Metro PCS does connect on VZW towers"
g. Someone else says "You need money in your Metro PCS account"
h. Someone else says "You need to be on Automatic instead of MetroPCS"
i. Someone else says "Metro has a free roaming agreement with Sprint"
But "Metro has a not-free roaming agreement with Verizon"
But since Metro is pre-paid "you need to put money in the account"
j. Someone else says (unsubstantiated) claims of T-Mo kicking off Metro
customers when roaming (but the guy can't even spell basic words)
k. Some other guy responds that the thread is old and it's different now
(even that was years ago) but it ends with this statement:
"As such Metro does now use T-Mobile towers exclusively.
As for the de-prioritization, I've seen this discussed but I can't say
I've ever experienced it and I've been with Metro since before the
switch."
Fancy that.
o As always with these utterly infantile apologists, they don't even read
their own cites (this happens with nospam a lot, and with Alan Baker).
Their own claim isn't even substantiated by their own cites backing up
their claims (and even then, their cites are utterly ancient).
Jesus Christ Steve,
o I realize you're a Type II apologist so you gullibly believe the bullshit
But at least choose a cite in the past decade that _supports_ your POV.
o All you apologists do is waste our valuable time claiming your bullshit.
The question remains:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> Of course none of this is any secret.
>
https://www.comparecellular.com/coverage-maps/ states:
> 'T-Mobile takes 3rd place in the battle of network coverage, and a look
> at their coverage map compared to Verizon's can help you see why. There
> are considerable gaps in rural areas on the T-Mobile map where Verizon
> otherwise has a strong presence.'
OMG, Now I have to go through Steve's MARKETING shills from a site that is
simply trying to garner clickbait hits.
o Does this apologist bullshit never end?
o Category: Coverage Maps
<
https://www.comparecellular.com/coverage-maps/>
a. See how U.S. Cellular's coverage map compares to the four major carriersĄXSprint, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.
b. Compare 5G coverage maps and availability from the major carriers, and learn when 5G might be coming to a network near you.
c. AT&T's network is strong across the U.S. but is it the best? We'll show you how AT&T's coverage map compares to Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile.
d. See how T-Mobile's coverage map compares to other major networks Verizon, AT&T and Sprint.
Clicking on that last link, just for fun, gets me old data:
<
https://www.comparecellular.com/coverage-maps/t-mobile-coverage-map/>
a. "T-Mobile offers 62% nationwide coverage, while Verizon offers 70%, AT&T offers 68%, and Sprint offers 30%"
b. "T-Mobile is the only carrier with nationwide 5G coverage right now"
c. "Regardless, T-Mobile has excellent coverage, and this extends to the
MVNOs that run on their networkĄXa group that includes Metro by
T-Mobile, Mint Mobile, Red Pocket, and more."
Jesus Christ, Steve,
o Do you even _read_ your own links for heavens' sake, Steve?
None of your links support your claims, Steve.
o None of them.
And worse, none of them answer the question, which, if you forgot, is:
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
> What I always advise T-Mobile customers to do is to keep a second phone
> active on a Verizon MVNO if they expect to travel to, or through, more
> rural areas.
Steve, cut it with this bullshit.
o I realize you're a politician, and that you expect people to be stupid.
But only a moron would believe what you claim, Steve.
o While your infantile claims work fine on Apple newsgroups, Steve
o Your infantile wholly unsupported claims are bullshit to adults, Steve.
STOP BULLSHITTING US STEVE.
o Just stop it.
It's irritating that you consider us as incredibly stupid as you are.
o Stop the bullshit Steve.
Just answer the fundamental question, Steve, and cut the bullshit
o If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
o For both voice and for data?
Steve,
I agree your bullshit works just fine on Apple newsgroups, Steve.
o But you can't as easily bullshit non apologists, Steve.
I'm not afraid of facts, Steve.
o My belief systems are _based_ on facts, Steve.
If the facts change, Steve, I change my belief system.
o It's what well educated people do, Steve.
I repeat I went to Ivy League schools, and I have higher degrees, and I
worked alongside truly intelligent people in the Silicon Valley for
decades, so your not so veiled insult is shockingly inappropriate given
what you claim are "facts" were nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit
(ancient bullshit at that).
I love facts, Steve.
o I live and breathe facts, Steve.
But stop claiming your bullshit anecdotal cites from 2011 are salient
facts, because they're not. They say nothing about the apropos question.
The on-topic apropos question remains valid, IMHO, Steve:
If I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o What FACTS do you use to claim that I won't roam on those towers, Steve?
(For both voice and for data?)
--
The problem with apologists is they don't expect anyone to actually click
(and read) their links, such that when you read the links, you find that
most of them say the _opposite_ of what the apologists claimed they said.