Does anyone here have Google Fi service? (What do you think of it?)

[Arlen Holder]

Does anyone here have Google Fi service?
(What do you think of it?)

I'm in the outskirts of the Silicon Valley, where I've had Verizon, AT&T,
and T-Mobile, where, IMHO, all suck in the mountains and all are just fine
in the Silicon Valley itself (IMHO, and yes, I know, Steve, you love
Verizon and you can find spots where Verizon is far better, I know).

My question is what you think of Google Fi, because a phone I'm looking at
requires at least a momentary subscription to Google Fi (according to the
Black Friday news anyway).

I'm not sure how _long_ that Google Fi subscription needs to be, nor what
the _cheapest_ option is (since I already have T-Mobile which I'm happy
with on a family plan), but I wanted to ask others here for advice.

What do you think of Google Fi?
Did you ever drop it summarily (was it easy)?

What Google Fi plan do you suggest for someone who is just doing it to get
the discount?

TIA.

[Lloyd Parsons]

I had it long ago but have looked at it now and then since. They have
variation on one plan. Unlimited talk/text and then a per GB data charge
that now has a cap on maximum charge.

It you don’t use much data and the 3 services they support work for you, it
is a pretty good deal. In my case the 3 they use are the worst in my area
and it just didn’t work out.

--
Lloyd

[sms]

On 11/27/2019 9:49 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

<snip>

> It you don’t use much data and the 3 services they support work for you, it
> is a pretty good deal. In my case the 3 they use are the worst in my area
> and it just didn’t work out.

For those that use very little data, and that only go to places where
there is T-Mobile, Sprint, and/or U.S. Cellular service, it might be
okay. It would not be usable in my area, or in many of the places I
travel to.

However the OP is already on T-Mobile so his expectations in terms of
coverage are already very low.

I think he wants to get the $99 Moto G7. That's a good deal, and there
doesn't seem to be any requirement that the Google Fi account be kept
open for any particular length of time. However to be safe, he should
use a virtual credit card on a Google Pay account.

Personally, I would not buy a phone that lacked NFC and that lacked any
IP rating.

[nospam]

In article <qrmida$51n$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > It you donšt use much data and the 3 services they support work for you, it

> > is a pretty good deal. In my case the 3 they use are the worst in my area

> > and it just didnšt work out.

>
> For those that use very little data, and that only go to places where
> there is T-Mobile, Sprint, and/or U.S. Cellular service, it might be
> okay. It would not be usable in my area, or in many of the places I
> travel to.

sprint and t-mobile work perfectly file all over san francisco, the
south bay and santa cruz.

> However the OP is already on T-Mobile so his expectations in terms of
> coverage are already very low.

nonsense.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:22:15 -0800, sms wrote:

> For those that use very little data, and that only go to places where
> there is T-Mobile, Sprint, and/or U.S. Cellular service, it might be
> okay. It would not be usable in my area, or in many of the places I
> travel to.

Hi Steve Scharf,

Thanks for the input as I have zero experience with Google Fi, and, where,
as you can tell, I'm only getting Google Fi momentarily to get the Moto G7
for $100, which seems like a good deal for 8 cores, 4GB RAM, 64GB storage,
dual SIM cards, expansion slot, headphone jack, gorilla glass, water
resistance, etc. (the main thing I hate is the battery is NOT removable).

> However the OP is already on T-Mobile so his expectations in terms of
> coverage are already very low.

You are correct that I use mere hundreds kilybytes of my T-Mobile data
plan, which has something like 4.5 GB or so of "free data" (whatever that
means). I use intelligent settings, where those in my family plan on the
iPhone are _always_ running out of data, but the Android users are more
sensible with their settings. Besides, most of the time I'm on WiFi, and I
have my cellular turned off, where I use intelligent settings that don't
sync anything except to the sd card itself (nothing is backed up to the
cloud, for example).

I know you have a hankering for Verizon, where I've had 'em all, and where,
in the Silicon Valley itself, coverage is fine for all the major ones.

In the mountains, coverage sucks for all of them, where all provide free
femtocells and cellular repeaters, where, as you know, I have both inside
my rather large house.

> I think he wants to get the $99 Moto G7. That's a good deal, and there
> doesn't seem to be any requirement that the Google Fi account be kept
> open for any particular length of time. However to be safe, he should
> use a virtual credit card on a Google Pay account.

As you know, Steve, while nospam always cherry picks the absolute worst
Android phones to compare to iPhones, I pick the best value, where, for
$100, the Moto G7 seems to be pretty damn good (with the exception of so-so
camera and loudspeaker results, and the lack of NFC).

The only "catch" that I can see, as you noted, is that you need at least a
momentary subscription to Google Fi, where "TheVerge" claimed that there is
no time period, as shown in this quote below:
<https://www.theverge.com/good-deals/2019/11/13/20963545/black-friday-phone-deals-cyber-monday-best-iphone-galaxy-note-pixel-oneplus-android>
"The Moto G7, currently our favorite affordable phone, is only $99
from Google Fi. There are strings attached, minimal as they might be.
To get the discount, you'll need to activate the phone with Google Fi
service within 30 days of purchasing it, but there's no minimum amount
of time you need to keep the phone on Fi service, so you can easily
take it to a different carrier."
<https://fi.google.com/about/phones/#moto-g7>

At $100, the only 'risk' seems to be the catch of Google Fi, which is $20
per month, and which I don't plan on using the data, which seems to be $10
per GB prorated down to the kilobyte (AFAICT).

> Personally, I would not buy a phone that lacked NFC and that lacked any
> IP rating.

I understand what you mean about the lack of being waterproof, Steve, as
it's just "water resistant"; but remember, I can buy six or seven or maybe
even eight less-worthy hardware waterproof iPhones for the price of this
one $100 phone, which you have to admit is a big deal.

My $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus also lacked waterproofness, where I could buy five
of them for just one waterproof iPhone 7 Plus, Steve, and even then, I'd
get no expansion slot, no stylus, no removable battery, no headphone jack,
no FM radio, no 8-core CPU, etc.

I've had NFC since the Samsung Galaxy S3 days, where my current $130 LG
Stylo 3 Plus has NFC, and I've never even once cared to use NFC in _all_
the years I've had it; so, for me, it's not a meaningful metric.

I do remember you didn't like the $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus for its lack of
sufficient bands though; what do you think of the $100 Moto G7 in terms of
frequency bands?

--
Usenet is a public potluck where adults share useful items of interest.

[John McGaw]

I have had Google-Fi for a few months now. Transition from my old carrier
was seamless and simple and took literally a few minutes. Service has been
good for me so far but, since I haven't been traveling since the change, I
can't vouch for the coverage. I guess the true test for me would be driving
S to N through West Virginia and if I have a signal for even 80% of the
time then it could be called good. Price can't be beat for me since I'm not
a heavy data user. I use their cheapest plan with billing IIRC per gigabyte
with anything over 6gB flat-rated.

[sms]

On 11/27/2019 9:49 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

<snip>

> I had it long ago but have looked at it now and then since. They have
> variation on one plan. Unlimited talk/text and then a per GB data charge
> that now has a cap on maximum charge.
>
> It you don’t use much data and the 3 services they support work for you, it
> is a pretty good deal. In my case the 3 they use are the worst in my area
> and it just didn’t work out.

In the San Francisco Bay Area we don't have U.S. Cellular (though I have
roamed on U.S. Cellular in Oregon).

We do have Sprint and T-Mobile in many locations, but the coverage is
much poorer than on AT&T and Verizon, especially once you go outside the
urban core. We spend a lot of time in the surrounding greenbelt and
Santa Cruz mountains and if you look at the coverage maps the difference
in coverage is starkly obvious.

If you have postpaid Sprint then you'll roam onto Verizon in areas where
Sprint has none of their own cells, but that is not the case on Google
Fi, or other Sprint MVNOs. T-Mobile used to have a lot more roaming onto
AT&T in my area, where there is no T-Mobile native coverage, but as
roaming agreements expired they were, for the most part, not renewed, so
coverage decreased since the roaming areas were no longer covered and
native coverage did not replace the roaming coverage. But with Google-Fi
you won't get the remaining roaming that T-Mobile provides in other
parts of the country on smaller carriers.

We had T-Mobile in the U.S. for a brief time. We had switched to
T-Mobile right before a trip to Europe, in order to get the included
international low-speed data roaming, included international SMS, and
20¢/minute calling while roaming. When we returned I kept them for about
a month, but it quickly became clear that we would have to switch to
AT&T or Verizon. At my house it was okay because they had put in a cell
about a half mile away. But when we traveled through the Santa Cruz
mountains, or to local National Parks like Yosemite, Sequoia/Kings
Canyon, and Pinnacles, places where we had always had good coverage on
Verizon and adequate coverage on AT&T, on T-Mobile we no longer had
coverage. When we drove down to southern California, which we do often,
we lost T-Mobile coverage just east of Gilroy, then had sporadic
coverage on I-5 until we reached Los Angeles County, where T-Mobile
coverage was fine.

If you live on the east coast of the U.S., which is more densely
populated, you can get by with only Sprint and T-Mobile coverage.
Whistleout summed it up well: "In Sprint's defense, though, their
network does wield very reliable service in certain areas of the
country, particularly along the eastern seaboard." J.D. Power writes:
"Verizon Wireless ranks highest in all six regions covered in the study
and achieves the lowest network quality problems per 100 connections
(PP100) in call quality, messaging quality and data quality in each
region." See
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2019-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-study-vol-1>.

The bottom line is that Sprint and T-Mobile are fine if you live in an
urban area and never leave, or only travel on major highways, though
even on major highways Verizon is better (one reason is that Verizon
provided service to the highway call boxes in California so they had to
provide coverage along the full length of the highways).

[sms]

On 11/27/2019 3:01 PM, John McGaw wrote:

<snip>

> I have had Google-Fi for a few months now. Transition from my old
> carrier was seamless and simple and took literally a few minutes.
> Service has been good for me so far but, since I haven't been traveling
> since the change, I can't vouch for the coverage. I guess the true test
> for me would be driving S to N through West Virginia and if I have a
> signal for even 80% of the time then it could be called good. Price
> can't be beat for me since I'm not a heavy data user. I use their
> cheapest plan with billing IIRC per gigabyte with anything over 6gB
> flat-rated.

In my area (Silicon Valley), Verizon has the best coverage by far,
including in the urban areas. But it's when you leave the urban core is
when you really appreciate Verizon. We spend a lot of time in the Santa
Cruz Mountains. Verizon works well in most of the Santa Cruz mountains,
AT&T is fair, Sprint roams onto Verizon where Sprint lacks native
coverage, and T-Mobile will often have no coverage at all because they
eliminated a lot of the AT&T roaming that they used to have. The
coverage maps from the carriers confirm this fact.

Remember, when you have postpaid service directly from the carrier you
have some, or a lot of, roaming included (though sometimes with some
restrictions on quantity). But with most MVNOs, like Google-Fi, you
don't get the roaming coverage. A couple of AT&T and Verizon MVNOs do
offer some roaming coverage; sometimes it's at extra cost, sometimes
it's voice and SMS only with data not included.

The main attraction of Google-Fi is international roaming. The data is
still much more expensive than buying a local SIM card but it's less hassle.

In terms of cost, you have to use a really small amount of data to make
Google-Fi financially attractive.

Here's a little spreadsheet on the cost and quality for 2GB of data and
5GB of data on one AT&T MVNO, one Verizon MVNO, and Google-Fi
<https://tinyurl.com/GoogleFiConsumerTotal>.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 01:45:07 -0800, sms wrote:

> The bottom line is that Sprint and T-Mobile are fine if you live in an
> urban area and never leave, or only travel on major highways, though
> even on major highways Verizon is better (one reason is that Verizon
> provided service to the highway call boxes in California so they had to
> provide coverage along the full length of the highways).

If the $100 Google Fi Moto G7 phones I bought as stocking stuffers arrive
with two SIM card slots each, which I hope they do, then I can put my
T-Mobile SIM card in one slot, and the Google Fi SIM card in the other
slot, and test out the differences.

The two places I can easily test are the Silicon Valley (where I expect the
coverage to be "about the same" and the mountains surrounding the valley.

[John McGaw]

On 11/28/2019 5:24 AM, sms wrote:
> On 11/27/2019 3:01 PM, John McGaw wrote:
>
> <snip>

> In my area (Silicon Valley), Verizon has the best coverage by far,
> including in the urban areas. But it's when you leave the urban core is
> when you really appreciate Verizon. We spend a lot of time in the Santa
> Cruz Mountains. Verizon works well in most of the Santa Cruz mountains,
> AT&T is fair, Sprint roams onto Verizon where Sprint lacks native coverage,
> and T-Mobile will often have no coverage at all because they eliminated a
> lot of the AT&T roaming that they used to have. The coverage maps from the
> carriers confirm this fact.
>
> Remember, when you have postpaid service directly from the carrier you have
> some, or a lot of, roaming included (though sometimes with some
> restrictions on quantity). But with most MVNOs, like Google-Fi, you don't
> get the roaming coverage. A couple of AT&T and Verizon MVNOs do offer some
> roaming coverage; sometimes it's at extra cost, sometimes it's voice and
> SMS only with data not included.
>
> The main attraction of Google-Fi is international roaming. The data is
> still much more expensive than buying a local SIM card but it's less hassle.
>
> In terms of cost, you have to use a really small amount of data to make
> Google-Fi financially attractive.
>
> Here's a little spreadsheet on the cost and quality for 2GB of data and 5GB
> of data on one AT&T MVNO, one Verizon MVNO, and Google-Fi
> <https://tinyurl.com/GoogleFiConsumerTotal>.

All I can say is that my monthly charges for Google-Fi are not much more
than half what T-Mobile was charging me. Coverage, so far, has been
equivalent. The last time I was wandering in California (driving the
original route of the Lincoln Highway across the country) there were no
major coverage lapses on T-Mobile even in the most desolate locations but
I'm not phone-addicted and don't need to look at it every few minutes to
keep my heart running so there _could_ have been lapses that I wouldn't
notice. I can verify that when I stopped every night there was always
coverage...

Years and years ago I had Verizon and dropped them when I realized that
their prices went up at least every year and the service never got
noticeably better. Same thing with DirecTV. Either might be vastly better
now and I'd never notice.

The last time I lived in Silicon Valley, Sunnyvale to be precise, cell
phones were more of a science-fiction concept. I drove 17 over the
mountains every couple of months (horrible traffic even then) and if I had
needed to make a phone call I would have been totally screwed.

[nospam]

In article <g8SDF.25563$II7....@fx17.iad>, John McGaw

yep.

contrary to the resident verizon shill, t-mobile coverage is very good,
as is sprint (and will be even better after they merge).

his claim that sprint often roams on verizon and t-mobile will have no
signal is flat out false.

> Years and years ago I had Verizon and dropped them when I realized that
> their prices went up at least every year and the service never got
> noticeably better. Same thing with DirecTV. Either might be vastly better
> now and I'd never notice.

yep. verizon is a ripoff.

> The last time I lived in Silicon Valley, Sunnyvale to be precise, cell
> phones were more of a science-fiction concept. I drove 17 over the
> mountains every couple of months (horrible traffic even then) and if I had
> needed to make a phone call I would have been totally screwed.

that hasn't been a problem in several decades, regardless of carrier.

a *lot* of people make that commute, so it's in the carriers best
interest to cover it with plenty of capacity, and they do.

[123456789]

John McGaw wrote:

> Years and years ago I had Verizon and dropped them when I
> realized that their prices went up at least every year

Verizon charges me $20/phone/mo for unlimited talk, text,
and free roaming in the USA, plus $35 for 2GB of shared
data. I have 2 phones so that's $75/mo total or $37.50/mo
per phone. I don't find $35/mo unreasonable and fortunately
don't have to scratch to find anything cheaper. I've never
gone over my 2GB so for me it's as good as unlimited.

BTW Verizon now has a safety mode. If you go over your data
limit you're not automatically charged but are throttled at
128K. Course you can buy another GB for $15 if you want.
I've thought about purposely going over on the last day of
the month to see what 128K's like on a phone. It's been many
years since my dial-up days... ;)

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:26:22 -0500, nospam wrote:

> yep. verizon is a ripoff.

I think there's a very slight chance Steve gets paid by Verizon to shill
for them (jk), since he seems patently unreasonably against T-Mobile,
which, as I've noted, works just fine anywhere I've been in the Silicon
Valley.

I've had all three (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile), where I find T-Mobile just
fine compared to friends who have Verizon & AT&T, but one good bit of news
is when the $100 Moto G's arrive, if they have dual SIM cards, for a week
or two, I can check out the signal strength with the T-Mobile SIM card in
one slot, and the Google Fi card (I presume) in the other SIM slot.

They still haven't shipped it yet, where I contacted Google yesterday who
said the demand was so strong that the shipments are being delayed.

BTW, the best prices I've found, yet, for Black Friday sales are the $100
LG Stylo 5 (at Walmart) and the $100 Moto G7 (at Google).

I could still get a few more stocking stuffers, so if others know of better
deals this week, let us know, as I am so happy someone here tuned me in to
the Christmas Eve sale at Costco where I bought the $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus,
which I have been very happy with for the past two years.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 02:24:08 -0800, sms wrote:

> The main attraction of Google-Fi is international roaming. The data is
> still much more expensive than buying a local SIM card but it's less hassle.

I'm on a grandfathered family plan with T-Mobile, where each line comes
with free unlimited International roaming & unlimited International data,
with calls being 20 cents per minute whether to/from the country the phone
is in, or to/from the USA (as I recall). WiFi calling is free
internationally.

The T-mobile plan comes to about $25 a month (all prices before taxes),
where in the USA, it's limited to 4.5 GB (as I recall) of high speed data,
which never overcharges you as after that, it's just throttled (or so they
say, as I've never exceeded it since I have intelligent settings on my
phone and I don't use the cloud for backup).

Before I had added the International part of the plan, it was only $15 per
month per phone for unlimited USA phone calls and unlimited texting.

As prices go, when I was first on Verizon, the company paid, where when I
switched to AT&T after Verizon upped my 2-year contract simply because I
had to have a broken Kyocera replaced under their insurance plan, I found
the price at AT&T was cheaper, and, at that time, admittedly years ago, the
coverage was just fine by way of comparison.

Then, a few years later, when I retired, I dropped the data, which AT&T let
me do on the Blackberry, but when the clit broke, I needed a new phone,
where AT&T insisted you must have data. I complained to the FCC, so an AT&T
VP called me back, where she sounded EXACTLY like nospam.

I had to ask her if she ever graduated from high school, since what she
said was so ridiculous, that no adult would say what she said.

She told me that a smartphone was useless without data!

I was shocked. Here is a VP at AT&T who either was lying to my face (over
the phone), or who was so stupid as to not realize that WiFi existed, and
that a smartphone does a _lot_ of things without the Internet.

Just like with the apologists, I had to wonder:
a. Was she really as stupid as everything she said seemed to indicate?
b. Or was she simply brazenly lying to me, for her own marketing needs?

I still don't know, but when I got a letter back from the FCC saying that
she resolved the issue to the customer's satisfaction, I had to smile,
since by then I had summarily dropped AT&T in favor of T-Mobile.

Yet again, when I joined T-Mobile (as when I dropped Verizon for AT&T),
there was a cost savings, not the least because I didn't need the data.

Over time, since I travel to Europe a couple of times a year (on average),
I had to switch the T-Mobile plan to the European plan, and, even more to
the point, the additional "family" members (I have a lot of people on my
plan!) wanted data!

Now, with the grandfathered family plan, the data is about 4.5 GB per line,
and it doesn't "roll over" nor does it cost anything if you go over,
although you can buy chunks of data if you really need to.

All for about $25 per phone.

BTW, one "catch" which hit one of the kids on the family plan, is that if
you go to Europe, and you already used up your data for that billing
period, you get ZERO data in Europe! But if you have a single byte left of
your high-speed data, you then get unlimited data in Europe! Who knew?

Anyway, it was easy to fix as T-Mobile will simply add data in chunks,
where the chunks are monthly, but you can ask them to remove it on a
schedule (e.g., at the end of the billing period).

Ask me how I know all this...

[Rod Speed]

123456789 <12...@12345.com> wrote

> John McGaw wrote

>> Years and years ago I had Verizon and dropped them when I realized that
>> their prices went up at least every year

> Verizon charges me $20/phone/mo for unlimited talk, text, and free roaming
> in the USA,

Fark, we get that for just $5/phone/mo in Australia.

> plus $35 for 2GB of shared data.

We get 1GB of data and unlimited calls and texts and MMS to
any landline or cellphone in the country for just $10/phone/mo

$12.50 for 5GB

For your $45/phone/mo, you get 85GB of data and $500 of international calls.

[nospam]

In article <qrotaf$8g9$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> I think there's a very slight chance Steve gets paid by Verizon to shill
> for them (jk), since he seems patently unreasonably against T-Mobile,
> which, as I've noted, works just fine anywhere I've been in the Silicon
> Valley.

much more than slight. it's *very* clear that he somehow benefits from
shilling.

many years ago, t-mobile wasn't that good, but those days are long gone.

> I've had all three (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile), where I find T-Mobile just
> fine compared to friends who have Verizon & AT&T, but one good bit of news
> is when the $100 Moto G's arrive, if they have dual SIM cards, for a week
> or two, I can check out the signal strength with the T-Mobile SIM card in
> one slot, and the Google Fi card (I presume) in the other SIM slot.

i've used all four carriers. there are minor coverage differences, with
each having dead spots in different places.

in some cases, the dead spots affect more than one carrier. there's a
spot near me where due to restrictions on cell towers, coverage is at
best, awful.

[123456789]

Rod Speed wrote:
> 123456789 wrote

>> Verizon charges me $20/phone/mo for unlimited talk, text,
>> and free roaming in the USA,

> Fark, we get that for just $5/phone/mo in Australia.

Damn. I'll sell my house and be right down.

> For your $45/phone/mo, you get 85GB of data and $500 of
> international calls.

Wouldn't do me any good. Never use over 2GB and no
international calls made in the last 77 years...

[sms]

On 11/28/2019 7:58 AM, John McGaw wrote:
> On 11/28/2019 5:24 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 11/27/2019 3:01 PM, John McGaw wrote:

<snip>

>> Here's a little spreadsheet on the cost and quality for 2GB of data
>> and 5GB of data on one AT&T MVNO, one Verizon MVNO, and Google-Fi
>> <https://tinyurl.com/GoogleFiConsumerTotal>.
>
> All I can say is that my monthly charges for Google-Fi are not much more
> than half what T-Mobile was charging me.

You can't really compare T-Mobile to a T-Mobile MVNO. For a fair
comparison, you should compare MVNO to MVNO. The endless TV ads for
Consumer Cellular do the same thing, comparing Consumer Cellular service
to postpaid service direct from the carrier.

For low-data usage MVNO customers, the best prices are from RedPocket.
For $16.25/30 days you get 5GB of data (if you pay for 360 days at a
time) <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058350672?/>, and you can get this on
AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint.

> Coverage, so far, has been equivalent.

l
Yes, that would be expected, given that Google-Fi uses T-Mobile.
Actually coverage should be slightly better overall since there are
locations where U.S. Cellular and perhaps Sprint have coverage but
T-Mobile does not. In Oregon there is a lot of U.S. Cellular coverage in
areas where AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile don't have coverage.

> The last time I was wandering in California (driving the
> original route of the Lincoln Highway across the country) there were no
> major coverage lapses on T-Mobile even in the most desolate locations
> but I'm not phone-addicted and don't need to look at it every few
> minutes to keep my heart running so there _could_ have been lapses that
> I wouldn't notice. I can verify that when I stopped every night there
> was always coverage...

T-Mobile generally has coverage along major highways, though there are
some gaps on interstate highways, a lot of gaps on state highways, and
no coverage at all on many of the routes in California's gold country on
routes that cross the Sierra. I recall years ago one Usenet poster
insisting that this was not a problem because he simply planned his
vacations based on where T-Mobile had coverage! He used to respond to
factual, reference and cited information with the exact same kind of
content-free posts that our favorite troll now uses─I suspect that it's
the same person.

For us, coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains is important and Verizon
has the best coverage by far.

> Years and years ago I had Verizon and dropped them when I realized that
> their prices went up at least every year and the service never got
> noticeably better. Same thing with DirecTV. Either might be vastly
> better now and I'd never notice.

I had service direct from Verizon but I now have Verizon service through
an MVNO. Since Verizon has acquired so many of the smaller CDMA carriers
native coverage has only gotten better so the need for off-network
roaming has greatly diminished. I dropped DirecTV as well. The cost was
not worth it. An antenna plus Netflix, plus Amazon Prime Video, plus
free DVD borrowing from the library, is more than enough.

> The last time I lived in Silicon Valley, Sunnyvale to be precise, cell
> phones were more of a science-fiction concept. I drove 17 over the
> mountains every couple of months (horrible traffic even then) and if I
> had needed to make a phone call I would have been totally screwed.

I recall when the first iPhone was introduced and was sold only by AT&T.
People in my city rushed out to buy it only to find that they couldn't
use it at home. 12 years later, we are on the verge of getting AT&T
coverage at our city center, which is only a few hundred feet from my
house. The shared fake tree cell tower can be seen from my back yard.
Verizon went live about nine months ago, but I already had Verizon
coverage anyway. On Monday, I asked one of the workers when it would go
live and he said "next week."

In any case, the original poster already has T-Mobile service and he
uses a micro-cell to get coverage where he lives. I always thought it
odd that someone would want to do that rather than choose a carrier that
actually has coverage at their house. For now he's only interested in
Google-Fi so he can save $100 on a Moto G7. For some reason he thinks it
is dual SIM, but the Google Fi version is single SIM (XT 1962-1). It's
the international, GSM/LTE only version (XT1962-4) that is dual SIM, and
that's not what Google is selling for $100.

[sms]

Yes, if you need roaming, and don't use much data, going direct with
Verizon is good. If you don't need roaming, and need more data, then you
can get service on Verizon's native network for less than half of that
amount. It's not "scratching around to use an MVNO," it's just not
spending money needlessly. If anything, using an MVNO means not
"scratching around" to find free Wi-Fi hotspots and dealing with using a
VPN.

[nospam]

In article <qrpaa2$981$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> I recall when the first iPhone was introduced and was sold only by AT&T.
> People in my city rushed out to buy it only to find that they couldn't
> use it at home.

you recall incorrectly.

the problem was at&t was very overloaded due to people using *far* more
data than at&t had anticipated, so although there was coverage, it
didn't work particularly well.

[Savageduck]

On Nov 28, 2019, nospam wrote
(in article<281120191538310354%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

Not quite.

Where I live West of Paso Robles, CA, AT&T coverage was non-existant. Their
coverage maps hinted at coverage, but I guess that was just false
advertising. Data had nothing to do with it when the AT&T non-coverage was
voice, and the iPhone was still a Steve Jobs dream. I was always able to get
Verizon coverage even in the analog days when it was still GTE and I was
using a Nokia brick. When the AT&T iPhone was first released there wasn’t
even a promise that I would be able to get coverage, so I used a mix of
Motorola, and Samsung Verizon phones which worked for my location. Only when
Apple made their deal with Verizon did I get my first iPhone, an iPhone 4,
and I have updated, and upgraded ever since. That said, AT&T coverage out
where I am, 15 miles West of the 101 corridor, is still questionable, but
GTE/Verizon has been solid for me for over 30 years.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.2390873107...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > > I recall when the first iPhone was introduced and was sold only by AT&T.
> > > People in my city rushed out to buy it only to find that they couldn't
> > > use it at home.
> >
> > you recall incorrectly.
> >
> > the problem was at&t was very overloaded due to people using *far* more
> > data than at&t had anticipated, so although there was coverage, it
> > didn't work particularly well.
>
> Not quite.
>
> Where I live West of Paso Robles, CA, AT&T coverage was non-existant.

he was talking about 'my city', not your city.

he declined to say which city that is because he's trolling.

his current city is cupertino, which has had good at&t coverage since
at least the original iphone given that was where the iphone was being
designed and tested.

at&t coverage was also good elsewhere in the bay area, because that's
where apple employees lived and tested it off campus.

[Rod Speed]

"123456789" <12...@12345.com> wrote in message
news:qrp0e1$74b$1...@dont-email.me...

> Rod Speed wrote:
>> 123456789 wrote
>
>>> Verizon charges me $20/phone/mo for unlimited talk, text, and free
>>> roaming in the USA,
>
>> Fark, we get that for just $5/phone/mo in Australia.
>
> Damn. I'll sell my house and be right down.
>
>> For your $45/phone/mo, you get 85GB of data and $500 of international
>> calls.
>
> Wouldn't do me any good. Never use over 2GB

Yeah, I do fine on 1.2GB a month and don’t use even
half of that even tho I do use facebook for my own
garage/yard sale grou0 every weekend and use
google maps for that too. Costs me $10/month.

The other backup iphone cost me nothing per
month and I only pay for the calls and texts I make
on it. Never need to do that in reality so its free.

> and no international calls made in the last 77 years...

I did a few when it was free on another plan,
including with the in country calls with the most
important countrys but don’t anymore now.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Is there a discount for buying the phone, or a service credit on Fi? Or
a combination of both? You need to check.

We've had Fi since soon after it became publicly available (i.e., not
invitation only), and it's worked fine except on the Amtrak train for
much of North Dakota -- but the service there may have changed since.

At home we are sometimes on T-Mobile, sometimes on Sprint, but with a
good signal on both.

Perce

[123456789]

sms wrote:

> 123456789 wrote:

>> Verizon charges me $20/phone/mo for unlimited talk,
>> text, and free roaming in the USA,

> if you need roaming,

I dunno if I roam much or not in my travels since I don't
keep track. Because roaming is "free" with my plan I don't
have to worry about it.

> and don't use much data, going direct with Verizon is
> good.

As I said under 2GB/mo.

> It's not "scratching around to use an MVNO,"

Perhaps scratching was a poor choice of words. Some people
do need to budget and it's good there are phone plans
available to fit their needs.

> If anything, using an MVNO means not "scratching around"
> to find free Wi-Fi hotspots and dealing with using a
> VPN.

I never use free WiFi hotspots or a VPN. How did that get in
the discussion?

[123456789]

Rod Speed wrote:

> 123456789 wrote:

>> and no international calls made in the last 77
>> years...

> I did a few when it was free on another plan, including
> with the in country calls with the most important
> countrys but don’t anymore now.

One time I was driving on Interstate 6 within sight of the
US/Mexican border when I got a text that said 'Welcome to
Mexico' and gave phone use prices. Scared the shit out of
me. Apparently I had connected with a Mexican tower. But I
ignored it and never heard anything more...

[sms]

On 11/28/2019 2:52 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2019, nospam wrote
> (in article<281120191538310354%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> In article<qrpaa2$981$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I recall when the first iPhone was introduced and was sold only by AT&T.
>>> People in my city rushed out to buy it only to find that they couldn't
>>> use it at home.
>>
>> you recall incorrectly.
>>
>> the problem was at&t was very overloaded due to people using *far* more
>> data than at&t had anticipated, so although there was coverage, it
>> didn't work particularly well.
>
> Not quite.
>

> Where I live West ointed at f Paso Robles, CA, AT&T coverage was non-existant. Their

> coverage maps hcoverage, but I guess that was just false
> advertising.

Well in my town, for some areas it was that there were no commercial
areas to put in cell towers and there is usually opposition to putting
in cells in residential neighborhoods. Verizon was fortunate that GTE
Mobilnet was able to install enough cells early-on. Verizon also
benefited by choosing CDMA over GSM since CDMA needs fewer cells to
cover a given area and also has longer range. T-Mobile and Sprint were
at a significant disadvantage because they were at the 1900 MHz PCS
frequency instead of at the 850 MHz cellular frequency.

Back when AT&T was TDMA/AMPS we had coverage in our city center area.
For GSM/LTE we have not had coverage in that area yet, but that will
change in a matter of weeks─it's just incredible that with 5G coming
soon, we're just now getting 3G and 4G coverage in that area.

With 5G small cells coming, there will be even more concerns about all
those cells on existing poles, close to houses.

> Data had nothing to do with it when the AT&T non-coverage was
> voice, and the iPhone was still a Steve Jobs dream. I was always able to get
> Verizon coverage even in the analog days when it was still GTE and I was
> using a Nokia brick. When the AT&T iPhone was first released there wasn’t
> even a promise that I would be able to get coverage, so I used a mix of
> Motorola, and Samsung Verizon phones which worked for my location. Only when
> Apple made their deal with Verizon did I get my first iPhone, an iPhone 4,
> and I have updated, and upgraded ever since. That said, AT&T coverage out
> where I am, 15 miles West of the 101 corridor, is still questionable, but
> GTE/Verizon has been solid for me for over 30 years.

There are a lot of areas where you can get T-Mobile or AT&T coverage
along the US101 corridor, or the I-5 corridor, or the I-80 corridor, but
when you go a little bit away from the corridor you lose coverage.
Verizon doesn't have that issue to nearly the same extent.

When I was on T-Mobile I kept a Verizon/Page Plus line active for
$2.50/month. I kept it active when I was on AT&T's network. But once I
was back on Verizon I could drop it.

[sms]

On 11/28/2019 7:18 PM, 123456789 wrote:

<snip>

> Perhaps scratching was a poor choice of words. Some people
> do need to budget and it's good there are phone plans
> available to fit their needs.

Verizon does tend to behave more like an oil company when it comes to
pricing. Comedian Robert Klein once had a piece where he was an oil
company executive explaining the law of supply and demand, "we have all
the supply so we can demand whatever the f*^k we want," and that's an
apt description of Verizon in many market areas. Verizon has seen no
real need to get into a price war with the second tier carriers. Few
corporate or government accounts will move from Verizon to T-Mobile or
Sprint.

But when it comes to MVNOs, Verizon has been willing to allow them to
compete aggressively on price. Page Plus, RedPocket, and Total Wireless
all offer very good pricing for service on the Verizon network. Verizon
knows that their corporate and government customers have no interest in
going to an MVNO to save money, but the MVNOs are a good way to offer
service to the price-conscious market segment that wants good coverage.
Verizon's "Visible" service is another attempt to serve the more
price-sensitive consumers, with enough negatives that corporate and
government customers won't use it.

[sms]

On 11/28/2019 7:18 PM, 123456789 wrote:

In the U.S., if you try to make a call with an unactivated phone that
has CDMA capability, you'll be offered service from American Roaming
Network at very high cost per minute
<https://www.americanroaming.com/HowtoUse.html>. You used to be able to
buy blocks of minutes for a not so outrageous price, but I don't see
that option anymore.

[Zaidy036]

A new MVNO is AlticeMobile using Sprint/ATT. $20 for Cablevision customer's
and $30 for others with unlimited everything including use in 35 Foreign
countries. Bring your own phone or buy from them and transfer number. SIM
cost is $10 shipped to you. Great price especially, if you travel to one of
the 35.

--
Zaidy036

[nospam]

In article <qrra2v$au4$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> In the U.S., if you try to make a call with an unactivated phone that
> has CDMA capability, you'll be offered service from American Roaming
> Network at very high cost per minute

none of my old cdma phones do this.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 12:22:22 -0800, sms wrote:

> In any case, the original poster already has T-Mobile service and he
> uses a micro-cell to get coverage where he lives. I always thought it
> odd that someone would want to do that rather than choose a carrier that
> actually has coverage at their house.

To readers who don't know me, look at this array of antennas lying around:
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg>

While it irks me how dead wrong Steve is, I'm OK with his shilling for
Verizon, since he clearly _loves_ Verizon, above all others (which is ok).

Just for the record, Verizon, T-Mobile, & AT&T coverage is "about the same"
where I live (high in the mountains surrounding the Silicon Valley).

Steve is, quite predictably, always shilling for Verizon (which is OK, as
it's patently clear he _loves_ Verizon, and that's OK), but I happen to
have neighbors, like anyone else, even as we can barely see them due to the
40-acre zoning where I live (i.e., if you have 79 acres, you can only build
one house on it).

If you want to use the laptop, say, at the pool, you need to add a powerful
antenna, which, luckily, we're pretty good at, so that the Ethernet of the
laptop is bridged to the home WiFi transmitting at the US legal limits:
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT0Krpfc/laptop-nanobeam-horn.jpg>

Our houses are all relatively huge, so even just getting WiFi from one end
to the other takes powerful equipment (which we're very familiar with):
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>

I'm fine with Steve loving Verizon, but he's just plain wrong when he
claims Verizon is better than T-Mobile, where, as we noted many times in
the past, coverage is "spotty" for all the major carriers in the mountains,
simply due to the fact that the cellular antennas are miles away in all
cases for all carriers.

Bear in mind, we also have no cable up here in the mountains, so we have to
make do with obtaining our Internet from the sky. We have no public water
supply. No public sewers. No public gas pipelines, etc. We do it all.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMNv5FBC/typical-range-ptp.jpg>

We're self sufficient on WiFi and on cellular signal (we bristle with
antennas, for example, where we repeat & amplify signal as required):
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZccY2YD/decibels.jpg>

It's rural, where all the major carriers suck; so we're on our own.

Given it's rural, we get pretty good at obtaining our cellular from far
away, using repeaters and femtotowers inside our homes:
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg>

And, we obtain WiFi from access points a half dozen miles away.
o Just curious how far your Wi-Fi access point is from your desktop computer
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/MITrM5qiDQAJ>

As an aside, we have information that Steve doesn't seem to comprehend,
such as this debugging information for the strengths of our cellular:
<https://i.postimg.cc/25v3FT6S/debug-on-android.jpg>

My main point is that Steve seems to shill for Verizon (which is OK), but
Steve has no data so he's just making all this up, at least based on where
I live, where, I must state that I'm no babe in the woods when it comes to
testing signal strength:
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg>

Hence, Steve will shill for Verizon (which is OK, as it's patently clear he
loves Verizon above all others); but in _my_ experience, they all suck in
the rural areas where I live; so it's meaningless to claim Verizon is
better when there is no proof anyone is worse.

--
On Usenet, credibility of the writer matters greatly as that's all we have.

[sms]

On 11/29/2019 6:32 AM, Zaidy036 wrote:

<snip>

> A new MVNO is AlticeMobile using Sprint/ATT. $20 for Cablevision customer's
> and $30 for others with unlimited everything including use in 35 Foreign
> countries. Bring your own phone or buy from them and transfer number. SIM
> cost is $10 shipped to you. Great price especially, if you travel to one of
> the 35.

It's only 1GB every 30 days internationally, then $10-15/GB. But 1GB is
enough until you can get a prepaid SIM card for the country or countries
you're visiting.

A lot of people I know are just using Google Voice as their primary
number and then it doesn't matter what SIM card they use as long as
there's data available. You can get all your calls and SMS no matter
what the underlying phone number is. I ported my main mobile number to
Google Voice and have used SIM cards in Austria, China, Germany, and
Italy this year. In Austria and Germany I used a prepaid German Ortel
SIM card, in Italy I used a UK Vodafone SIM card, and in China I uses a
China Unicom Hong Kong data-only SIM card.

[sms]

On 11/29/2019 8:17 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/29/2019 6:32 AM, Zaidy036 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A new MVNO is AlticeMobile using Sprint/ATT. $20 for Cablevision
>> customer's
>> and $30 for others with unlimited everything including use in 35 Foreign
>> countries. Bring your own phone or buy from them and transfer number. SIM
>> cost is $10 shipped to you. Great price especially, if you travel to
>> one of
>> the 35.
>
> It's only 1GB every 30 days internationally, then $10-15/GB. But 1GB is
> enough until you can get a prepaid SIM card for the country or countries
> you're visiting.

Sorry to follow up on my own post, but it's when traveling to other
areas, especially to other countries, where people end up using a lot of
data (except if they're on an organized tour and don't have to use
navigation much).

I was close to the 500MB/day limit on my UK Vodafone SIM
<https://tinyurl.com/VodafoneUKPrepaidSIM> last time I was in Europe in
October because of heavy use of Google Maps and Moovit (a public transit
app that's extremely useful and better than the Google Maps transit
information). Vodafone lets you buy another 500MB for £1 which I had to
do on one occasion.

In China, I usually go for only 5 or 6 days and can get by with 2GB on
the China Unicom card because the first few days are in trade
conferences where there is Wi-Fi and I'm only on my own for a couple of
extra days of being a tourist.

On my last trip to Europe I also took along a T-Mobile SIM card in my
iPhone since they had given several of them to our IT department for
testing. The international data worked fine for e-mail, but it's heavily
throttled data so for navigation and web browsing it wasn't that useful.

But Alticemobile sounds like a good deal for unlimited AT&T service and
the 1GB of foreign data per month is a nice extra. How can you be sure
to get AT&T and not Sprint?

[Zaidy036]

Been using Altice on iPhone XS in US in NE between CT and DC for about 8
weeks and aways connects LTE and shows "Altice" not actual network. Used on
Amtrak NYC-DC and maintained connection even using hotspot to my iPad.





--
Zaidy036

[sms]

On 11/30/2019 5:28 AM, Zaidy036 wrote:

<snip>

> Been using Altice on iPhone XS in US in NE between CT and DC for about 8
> weeks and aways connects LTE and shows "Altice" not actual network. Used on
> Amtrak NYC-DC and maintained connection even using hotspot to my iPad.

Sprint and T-Mobile have good coverage on the densely populate eastern
Seaboard. In the western U.S. you have to be on AT&T or Verizon to have
good coverage. That's why it's interesting that unlike Google-Fi, Altice
is using AT&T as well as Sprint. I know that on Consumer Cellular you
have to choose either an AT&T or a T-Mobile SIM card, I wonder how
Altice Mobile switches between AT&T and Sprint.

Also great that they offer international roaming, though it's very
expensive after that first 1GB. Google-Fi's $50 per month plan offers
unlimited data when roaming internationally─a lot more than buying a
local SIM card, but a lot less than roaming internationally than the
four U.S. national carriers (for high speed data).

[nospam]

In article <qrtt1q$6pq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> Sprint and T-Mobile have good coverage on the densely populate eastern
> Seaboard. In the western U.S. you have to be on AT&T or Verizon to have
> good coverage.

absolutely false.

sprint & t-mobile work quite well on the west coast and many other
places.

> That's why it's interesting that unlike Google-Fi, Altice
> is using AT&T as well as Sprint. I know that on Consumer Cellular you
> have to choose either an AT&T or a T-Mobile SIM card, I wonder how
> Altice Mobile switches between AT&T and Sprint.

the same way google fi can switch between t-mobile and sprint.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 09:45:31 -0500, nospam wrote:

> sprint & t-mobile work quite well on the west coast and many other
> places.

I knew from long ago that Steve has an insatiable hardon for Verizon,
but I just wish he's show "proof" of his claim.

Steve's claims are fine, as hearsay, just as it's fine for me to say that
I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile in the Silicon Valley, where my
assessment is that the cover is "about the same".

Is there an independent source where we can see a reliable coverage map for
the Silicon Valley for AT&T versus T-Mobile versus Verizon?

Googling, this says AT&T is best in San Jose:
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Cell-Phone-Plans-and-Carriers-in-San-Jose>
But then it summarizes as:
"All four carriers offer great coverage in San Jose"

Is there a reliable independent tester of cellphone coverage?

[nospam]

In article <qru4ru$e97$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> > sprint & t-mobile work quite well on the west coast and many other
> > places.
>
> I knew from long ago that Steve has an insatiable hardon for Verizon,
> but I just wish he's show "proof" of his claim.

his 'proof' is specifically choosing places that has verizon but not
other carriers, ignoring all of the places where verizon is weak to
non-existent and other carriers work well.

every carrier has dead spots *somewhere*.

the claim that sprint and t-mobile don't work on the west coast is
absurd, as anyone who has used either or both on the west coast can
attest.

> Steve's claims are fine, as hearsay, just as it's fine for me to say that
> I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile in the Silicon Valley, where my
> assessment is that the cover is "about the same".

i've used all four in the bay area and many other places without any
issue.

in the (distant) past, t-mobile coverage was somewhat limited compared
to the others, but those days are *long* gone.

today, they're all roughly the same except in remote areas where few
people go.

> Is there an independent source where we can see a reliable coverage map for
> the Silicon Valley for AT&T versus T-Mobile versus Verizon?

maps are generally optimistic, and the fcc is investigating the
carriers for overstating coverage.

<https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/18130925/fcc-investigation-coverage-
maps>
The FCC said today that it will investigate whether ³major carriers²
provided inaccurate information on their coverage areas as the agency
determined where to send funds for rural broadband.

<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/at-least-one-major-carrier-
lied-about-its-4g-coverage-fcc-review-finds/>
Verizon was accused of filing false 4G coverage map, triggering
investigation.
...
Carr noted that he "heard from providers serving the Oklahoma
panhandle and communities across rural America." The RWA says that
Verizon falsely claims to cover almost all of the Oklahoma Panhandle,
an area of 14,778.47 square kilometers. But 89 percent of speed tests
from the Oklahoma Panhandle were "below 5Mbps download speed or did
not register 4G LTE service at all on Verizon-designated handsets,"
the RWA said.

> Googling, this says AT&T is best in San Jose:
>
> <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Cell-Phone-Plans-and-Carrie
> rs-in-San-Jose>
> But then it summarizes as:
> "All four carriers offer great coverage in San Jose"

yep, as well as elsewhere in the bay area, the west coast, midwest,
south, mid-atlantic and northeast.

no carrier is perfect, and they all will have dead spots *somewhere*.

[sms]

On 11/28/2019 8:40 AM, 123456789 wrote:
> John McGaw wrote:
>
>> Years and years ago I had Verizon and dropped them when I
>>  realized that their prices went up at least every year
>

> Verizon charges me $20/phone/mo for unlimited talk, text,

> and free roaming in the USA, plus $35 for 2GB of shared
> data. I have 2 phones so that's $75/mo total or $37.50/mo
> per phone. I don't find $35/mo unreasonable and fortunately
> don't have to scratch to find anything cheaper. I've never
> gone over my 2GB so for me it's as good as unlimited.

I could live with 2GB most months, but with the Verizon MVNO I'm on now
it's 4 lines for $95 with 100GB shared. I don't bother to look for Wi-Fi
anymore. And it's very fast, I'm getting 60-80Mb/s most of the time.

> BTW Verizon now has a safety mode. If you go over your data
> limit you're not automatically charged but are throttled at
> 128K. Course you can buy another GB for $15 if you want.
> I've thought about purposely going over on the last day of
> the month to see what 128K's like on a phone. It's been many
> years since my dial-up days... ;)

Don't try it. I've used slow data internationally with a T-Mobile SIM
card. It's okay for e-mail, not okay for a lot of other things.

I have to be on Verizon because I need to have coverage all over the Bay
Area. I must have been asked 500 times by people using AT&T in our city
center area, "why doesn't my phone work here?" and the answer is always
the same: "there is no AT&T coverage here." Within a week that is
supposed to change, an AT&T fake tree tower is supposed to be switched
on very soon. It's a shared tower with Verizon. Verizon has been
operating for about six months, but for Verizon it was a tower to
increase capacity while for AT&T it was to provide coverage in an area
that had none.

[nospam]

In article <qrudeg$6li$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> I have to be on Verizon because I need to have coverage all over the Bay
> Area. I must have been asked 500 times by people using AT&T in our city
> center area, "why doesn't my phone work here?" and the answer is always
> the same: "there is no AT&T coverage here." Within a week that is
> supposed to change, an AT&T fake tree tower is supposed to be switched
> on very soon. It's a shared tower with Verizon. Verizon has been
> operating for about six months, but for Verizon it was a tower to
> increase capacity while for AT&T it was to provide coverage in an area
> that had none.

bullshit.

apple headquarters is in your city, so at&t coverage is quite good, for
obvious reasons, as well as the rest of the bay area, as it is for
sprint and t-mobile.

[sms]

On 11/28/2019 2:52 PM, Savageduck wrote:

<snip>

> Not quite.
>
> Where I live West of Paso Robles, CA, AT&T coverage was non-existant. Their
> coverage maps hinted at coverage, but I guess that was just false
> advertising. Data had nothing to do with it when the AT&T non-coverage was
> voice, and the iPhone was still a Steve Jobs dream. I was always able to get
> Verizon coverage even in the analog days when it was still GTE and I was
> using a Nokia brick. When the AT&T iPhone was first released there wasn’t
> even a promise that I would be able to get coverage, so I used a mix of
> Motorola, and Samsung Verizon phones which worked for my location. Only when
> Apple made their deal with Verizon did I get my first iPhone, an iPhone 4,
> and I have updated, and upgraded ever since. That said, AT&T coverage out
> where I am, 15 miles West of the 101 corridor, is still questionable, but
> GTE/Verizon has been solid for me for over 30 years.

In my area, the old AT&T did have good TDMA and AMPS coverage at 800
MHz, as did GTE Mobilnet. I used AT&T Wireless with corporate phones for
many years. AT&T badly botched their TDMA/AMPS to GSM conversion and
began hemorrhaging corporate and government customers to Verizon.

What's ironic is that AT&T was all set to follow Verizon and move to
CDMA but the desperately needed $9.8 billion cash infusion from NTT
Docomo came with strings attached, and one of those strings was to
choose GSM/W-CDMA over CDMA. NTT Docomo lost about $3.3 billion on the
whole fiasco.

SBC swooped in and acquired a weakened AT&T Wireless and SBC sold their
1900 MHz GSM network (that they got when they bought Pacific Telesis) to
T-Mobile. Now Cingular was now at 800 MHz with all the old AT&T Wireless
customers. Then SBC dropped the Cingular name and went back to the AT&T
name. Watch a much younger Stephen Colbert explain the whole thing
<http://www.phonenews.com/images/2007/1/colbert-report-roasts-att-cingular.mp4>,
very funny.

But that's ancient history now, what's important is how things are
currently.

According to J.D. Power, Verizon is now first in every region of the
country
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2019-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-study%E2%80%94vol-2>.
33,401 customers, a ginormous statistical sample.

You'd think that being first would mean higher ARPU, but in reality
Verizon's ARPU has fallen to about the same as T-Mobile and Sprint,
while AT&T has significantly higher ARPU (for postpaid).

Despite Verizon being first in every region, that still really doesn't
tell the whole story. Since most customers live in urban areas, you're
not getting a complete picture from that survey. Where Verizon really
trumps its competitors in the western region is in rural and suburban
coverage, as you have stated.

I must have been asked 500 times by people using AT&T in our city center
area, "why doesn't my phone work here?" and the answer is always the

same─sorry, there is no AT&T coverage here, but we have free Wi-Fi.

Within a week that is supposed to change, if the bad weather doesn't
delay things. An AT&T fake tree tower is supposed to be switched on very
soon. I walked to the end of my street and took a photo of it
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLk8qS8M4uJ8-BDbRZkKp-JL5nGdMCv3HKyqYj--2Vw/>.
Verizon has the lower part of the fake tree and AT&T has the upper part.
The Verizon section has been on for six to nine months. There's a
back-up generator too.

What is especially significant about these coverage issues is that this
is the City with Apple's headquarters and the iPhone was ONLY available
on AT&T for several years. There were a LOT of very upset people that
rushed out to buy the early iPhones without first checking to see if
they had coverage. Now it's 12 years(!) after the iPhone was launched
and we're just about to get AT&T 3G & 4G coverage at our City Hall and
library, yay!

[b...@ripco.com]

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> soon. I walked to the end of my street and took a photo of it

You should buy an iPhone, that picture is terribly out of focus.

Or if it is an iPhone, which model is it so I can avoid it.

-bruce
b...@ripco.com

[sms]

LOL, that photo was taken from a long way away, in low light, in the
rain. I'll try to do better next time.

I'm just thankful that we're about to get AT&T coverage after all these
years.

[nospam]

In article <qs0sin$ksa$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> I'm just thankful that we're about to get AT&T coverage after all these
> years.

it's one spot out of an entire dense urban area that has had at&t
coverage since the cingular days.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:01:41 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Steve Scharf was correct these $100 Moto G7's have only 1 SIM slot.
> o Not two SIM slots

Woo hoo! The $100 unlocked 64GB/4GB/8-core Moto G7 phone arrived!
<https://i.postimg.cc/136096sR/motog700.jpg>

It's not really 64GB since it's only 50GB and of that, only 45GB was
available, but with the old $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus $16 64GB Fryes sdcard in
the expansion slot, the $100 Moto G7 has over 100GB (where I could buy a
512GB expansion card if I really wanted one).
<https://i.postimg.cc/DzTrmZwr/motog701.jpg>

As Steve had forewarned, it has only one SIM slot, although if you look at
the tray, there's room for a second SIM slot but that slot is filled in.
<https://i.postimg.cc/CxjDygsz/motog704.jpg>

I easily "activated" the Google Fi for a bogus Google account, in order to
initiate the $200 discount on the $300 Google price; and then I promptly
inserted the T-Mobile SIM card in place of the Google Fi card, which worked
fine.

It wasn't at first obvious how to enable MTP because it's in a different
place in Android 9 than I was used to on my previous Android 7 phone.
o Where is the MTP and PTP option in Android 9?
<https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/213059/where-is-the-mtp-and-ptp-option-in-android-9>

I easily swapped the $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus $16 64GB sdcard into the $100
Moto G7 which is really convenient because I have something like almost 755
APKs since Android automatically backs up all versions of all apps at all
times to the local SD card for safe storage (in case an app goes rogue over
time).
<https://i.postimg.cc/QtNcky5V/motog702.jpg>

What I love is managing Android APKs over Windows (either USB or WiFi)
"just works" so well using the Windows native file manager that I could
install any apps I wanted, even as almost none were actually downloaded off
of Google Play directly (most were downloaded on the PC but it's so
seamless to manage the Android filesystem from the PC, it doesn't matter
HOW the APKs were obtained!
<https://i.postimg.cc/MZF1VtGK/motog703.jpg>

This is nice because these APKs, unlike IPAs, work on almost all phones.

An interesting tidbit is that most reviews recommend ditching the default
camera app in favor of the Google Gcam port for the Moto G7, which they
claim results in remarkably better photo quality of results.

o Download Google Camera (Gcam) for Moto G7 with working HDR+ and ZSL
<https://droidfeats.com/download-gcam-for-moto-g7/>
<https://www.cyanogenmods.org/gcam-google-camera-for-motorola-devices/>
<https://www.theandroidsoul.com/how-to-install-google-camera-gcam-on-moto-g7/>

I called Google Fi at 844-825-5234 and asked if there was any "penalty" for
canceling the Google Fi given it was why the phone was $200 off their list
price, and they confirmed there are none, and even the $20 service is
pro-rated.

I didn't cancel the Google Fi service yet because I want to test out the
Google Fi service difference with T-Mobile (where the prices aren't bad on
either service), but it's a bit unwieldy to have both at the moment since
there is only one SIM slot available at any given time.

I wonder if there is any chance that cutting out the remaining SIM slot
will actually work (assuming all the hardware is in place otherwise)?

--
Usenet works best when adults purposefully share useful items of value.

[sms]

On 12/1/2019 7:17 AM, b...@ripco.com wrote:

I felt so bad about your criticism of that photo that I took a new one
today when I was in that area:

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLk8qS8M4uJ8-BDbRZkKp-JL5nGdMCv3HKyqYj--2Vw/>

The cell is still not active. I think all the storms we've been having
here has delayed things.

Twelve years after the iPhone was launched we are soon going to have
AT&T coverage at our city hall and library!

[nospam]

In article <qsepjp$ket$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Twelve years after the iPhone was launched we are soon going to have
> AT&T coverage at our city hall and library!

big deal. it's one spot in the entire city and you don't even use at&t
anyway.

every carrier has dead spots, including verizon.

[b...@ripco.com]

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> I felt so bad about your criticism of that photo that I took a new one
> today when I was in that area:

Ha, that wasn't necessary but the effort is appreciated.

I've seen those out in the suburbs but here in the city (Chicago) they use
anything and everything. Guess if you own a building with a high enough
roof, they'll lease it.

What gets me is there is still alot of those old school chimneys built in
the time where they needed to be 8~10 stories high. Although many are probably
near 100 years old, they'll have array after array going from the top down.

Just saying, nobody tries to hide those around here.

-bruce
b...@ripco.com

[sms]

On 12/7/2019 9:32 AM, b...@ripco.com wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I felt so bad about your criticism of that photo that I took a new one
>> today when I was in that area:
>
>
> Ha, that wasn't necessary but the effort is appreciated.
>
> I've seen those out in the suburbs but here in the city (Chicago) they use
> anything and everything. Guess if you own a building with a high enough
> roof, they'll lease it.

Our City's Wireless Master Plan states a preference for facilities to be
located on existing structures and buildings.

That fake tree was the result of the carrier that initially proposed it
of being "unable to reach an agreement" with the owner of a nearby nine
story hotel.

I would have never voted to allow that fake tree tower on city property
and would have told the carrier to go back and try to reach an
agreement. But at the time I had no say in the matter.

[sms]

On 12/6/2019 3:52 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> Twelve years after the iPhone was launched we are soon going to have
> AT&T coverage at our city hall and library!

BTW, this affected me a couple of months ago when I was activating some
UK Vodafone prepaid Global SIM cards
<https://tinyurl.com/VodafoneUKPrepaidSIM>.

Vodafone UK roams onto AT&T in the U.S.. Activating the SIM cards
involves them sending verification SMS to the phones.

But I couldn't be at the computer on their web site doing online chat
with the Vodafone agent and be able to receive the SMS at the same time.
I could have taken a laptop to a coffee house that had Wi-Fi and AT&T
service. Then I found that in one room in the house, if I opened the
window and placed the phone in a certain orientation that I could get
one bar of AT&T which was enough to receive an SMS but not send one. If
I went outside and walked down the street outside for a little ways then
the LTE icon would appear and everything worked.

My two other global SIM cards, Truphone and Knowroaming also roam onto
AT&T when used in the U.S.. All these cards require that you use them
for at least one text every 180 days in order to keep them active. I'll
appreciate getting AT&T coverage at home so I can do this easily.

In the San Francisco Bay Area you really want to have Verizon as your
primary carrier if you want to have the most reliable and widespread
coverage.

As PC Magazine stated in one of their tests for data speeds: "AT&T had
faster average download speeds, but Verizon had the most reliable
network in the Bay Area, and reliability matters a lot in our scoring."
Also, while AT&T had slightly faster average speeds, PC Magazine also
had a category of "Downloads above 5Mb/s." Verizon was at 99%, AT&T was
at 91%, T-Mobile was at 90%, and Sprint was at 68%. This was a useful
metric because a lightly used network can have very high peak speeds
that skew the average speed number but when the network becomes heavily
loaded then speeds drop to a level where you really notice the slowdown.

Verizon is followed by AT&T with T-Mobile and Sprint distant third and
fourth, not necessarily in that order. This is one reason that I would
advise people to avoid Google-Fi. Do you really want to rely on the two
networks with the least coverage, especially if you travel outside of
urban areas? Just looking at the maps of each carrier confirms the
drastic differences in coverage. At least when you have postpaid Sprint
service you can often roam onto Verizon, at least for voice and SMS, and
for some data (the Sprint map <https://coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp?>
is a good one because it clearly shows the roaming for voice and SMS
versus roaming for data).

T-Mobile has better native coverage in the SF Bay Area than Sprint, but
less total coverage because they have much less, if any, roaming. This
T-Mobile comparison map
<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map> is useful, though
it only includes native coverage of each carrier. In the San Francisco
Bay Area for Sprint, that map shows a lot of large coverage gaps but if
you have Sprint postpaid service you get Verizon roaming in those areas,
at least for voice and SMS, as Sprint's own map shows. That map also
shows T-Mobile coverage in areas where I have personally experienced a
lack of coverage, including on parts of CA152 and on I-5, but their own
coverage map does show light pink in many of those area, and a "fair
signal" often means "no coverage." There are also many areas with 2G
voice and text but no data.

In California, the only place I found extensive roaming when I had
T-Mobile was in Inyo county where they roam onto Choice Wireless, a
rural GSM/W-CDMA/LTE carrier. T-Mobile postpaid coverage has an
advantage because they roam onto Choice Wireless for 2G, 3G, and LTE.
Verizon postpaid roams onto choice only for LTE. T-Mobile prepaid also
roams onto Choice. When I go to Death Valley I take along my prepaid
T-Mobile phone ($10/year) and that's the about only reason that I keep
it active.

[nospam]

In article <qsjhvd$ud3$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> In the San Francisco Bay Area you really want to have Verizon as your
> primary carrier if you want to have the most reliable and widespread
> coverage.

no.

all of the four carriers are reliable and have excellent coverage in
the sf bay area.

no carrier has 100% coverage everywhere, even verizon.

[Arlen Holder]

Update:
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=20_phone06.jpg>

The $20/month turns into, presumably due to tax, $22.93/month in CA.

I apologize that I haven't really tested the Google Fi coverage on the new
$100 Moto G7 all that much compared to T-Mobile simply because it's a PITA
to pull the working T-Mobile card out (with my "real" phone number) to put
in the Fi card to test (which contains a "fake" phone number).

One thing I noticed today though, when I swapped cards, is that Google Fi
_insists_ you log in using the Google Fi account when you swap cards.

What happened was I had created a separate Google Account for the Moto G7
on the Google Fi SIM card, versus the same Motorola G7 on the T-Mobile SIM
card.

When I swapped from the T-Mobile SIM to the Google Fi SIM, it said the
account wasn't set up, because it was using the Google Account set up for
T-Mobile, and not the account set up for Google Fi.

In short, if you're gonna "swap" SIM cards between Google Fi and T-Mobile
(or any other carrier), you likely are best off wiping out the account that
isn't used for Google Fi.

Interestingly, even AFTER you delete the T-Mobile SIM related Google
Account, and you clearly have no accounts, when you reboot on a Google Fi
SIM card, the phone asks you to log into a pre-filled-in Google Fi Google
Account, which it _knows_ (so the Google Fi Google Account is most likely
saved on the Google Fi SIM card itself, most likely).

BTW, this is news, as of today, published just a few minutes ago:
o Google Fi brings Wi-Fi calling, VPN, spam warnings to non-Pixel phones
<https://9to5google.com/2019/12/09/google-fi-non-pixel-features/>
" Today, the MVNO is bringing spam warnings, Wi-Fi calling, and other
existing Fi features to non-Google Pixel phones."

Notice, while Apple lovers "claim" imaginary privacy, look at this:
"All mobile and Wi-Fi traffic gets encrypted to make sure nobody is able
to snoop on traffic. Google itself cannot find out what you're browsing as
the VPN is "designed so that your traffic isn't tied to your Google account
or phone number."

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 12/9/19 11:47 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> Interestingly, even AFTER you delete the T-Mobile SIM related Google
> Account, and you clearly have no accounts, when you reboot on a Google Fi
> SIM card, the phone asks you to log into a pre-filled-in Google Fi Google
> Account, which it _knows_ (so the Google Fi Google Account is most likely
> saved on the Google Fi SIM card itself, most likely).

When you order a Google Fi SIM card, its ID is probably linked to the
gmail account from which it was ordered and stored on Google's servers
somewhere.

Perce

[sms]

On 12/6/2019 3:52 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> The cell is still not active. I think all the storms we've been having
> here has delayed things.
>
> Twelve years after the iPhone was launched we are soon going to have
> AT&T coverage at our city hall and library!

And it's live as of Friday. The construction equipment is gone. I tried
a global SIM card I have that uses AT&T. I now get 3-4 bars at my house.
I used to get 0-1 bars. Yay. Others have reported similar experiences.

Speaking only for myself.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote :

> My question is what you think of Google Fi, because a phone I'm looking at
> requires at least a momentary subscription to Google Fi (according to the
> Black Friday news anyway).

UPDATE
$50 for a Verizon Moto G7 64GB (+sdcard slot) 8-core CPU with 4GB RAM
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZqZ0bRL/g701.jpg>

I've been using a $100 Moto G7 on T-Mobile since I bought a handful of them
on Black Friday, but I just now belatedly noticed this recent sale where
the Moto G7 was $50 on Verizon for those of you who prefer Verizon:
o Motorola Moto G7 review:
A budget phone wonder that's still one of our faves
Patrick Holland March 28, 2020 4:00 a.m. PT
<https://www.cnet.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g7-review/>

"As we await the arrival of Motorola's newest phones, the Chicago-based
company will give people who buy the Moto G7 a $250 MasterCard gift card.
That means you're in essence paying $50 for one of the best budget phones
you can buy. Of course there is some fine print: You have to activate the
phone on Verizon and keep your number. The offer expires March 31."
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZqZ0bRL/g701.jpgo>

Here's a comparison of the $50 Moto G7 to the new $400 2020 iPhone SE:
<https://www.gadgetsnow.com/compare-mobile-phones/Moto-G7-vs-Apple-iPhone-SE-2020>
--
Anyone can pay too much for a phone... it takes brains to pay too little.