Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?

[Arlen Holder]

Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA on T-Mobile when it's free
(e.g., using AT&T, Sprint, whatever towers in addition to T-Mobile towers)?

I am about to go to Europe where T-Mobile tells me to turn on roaming,
which is easily done, and then they tell me when I return to turn it off.

I asked for technical support on that question, where I called twice to ask
the _same_ question, and received two different (opposite) answers.

Given roaming is free even in the USA, I asked T-Mobile technical support:
o Is there any reason _not_ to keep roaming turned on when I return?

One technical support guy told me that the "data will be slower" in the USA
with roaming turned on; the other said that the cellular connection will be
better because I can use any compatible tower, not just T-Mobile towers.

Which one is right?
o Why not just leave roaming on both in the USA and in Europe?
--
Two types of people are on Usenet: those who add value & those who can't.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-03-02 15:06, Arlen Holder wrote:
> Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA on T-Mobile when it's free
> (e.g., using AT&T, Sprint, whatever towers in addition to T-Mobile towers)?
>
> I am about to go to Europe where T-Mobile tells me to turn on roaming,
> which is easily done, and then they tell me when I return to turn it off.

Your speed will be reduced (on purpose) when roaming in Europe. Read the
fine print to find out to what speed it is throttled down to (eg:
whether dialup speed or 1mbps or whatever).

I suspect the same happens in the USA where they throttle your speed
when roaming on AT&T. (Does T-Mo have roaming on Sprint yet ?)
This has to do with T-Mo having to pay much less for roaming when it
doesn't use much capacity on towers are offers a decidely un-attractive
service)

When service with T-Mo is borderline, your handset may prefer to roam on
AT&T which has stronger signal and you'll have slower speeds. But then
again, if your handset preferes to roam, it means your primary service
is too weak to stay on it.

After the T-Mo/Sprint merger is consumed, expect T-Mo roaming on AT&T to
cease.

[nospam]

In article <QOf7G.262459$MX1.2...@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> After the T-Mo/Sprint merger is consumed, expect T-Mo roaming on AT&T to
> cease.

no reason why it would.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 17:31:12 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> I suspect the same happens in the USA where they throttle your speed
> when roaming on AT&T. (Does T-Mo have roaming on Sprint yet ?)
> This has to do with T-Mo having to pay much less for roaming when it
> doesn't use much capacity on towers are offers a decidely un-attractive
> service)

Hi JF Mezei,

Since you're not an apologist, you post with purposefully helpful intent,
which I appreciate since absolutely nothing from the apologists is _ever_
purposefully helpful (even to those users who are Apple fanatics).

The apologists are simply sadistic with them, unfortunately, where I've
learned that nothing nospam ever says can be trusted, where of all
apologists, he's the only one who knows anything (and that's a compliment
to his knowledge), but given nospam's sadistic nature, I'm sure nospam
doesn't believe even a single word he says (which is a truthful assessment
of his personality).

Hence I thank you for being helpful on a basic question of how roaming
works. It makes sense if what you conjectured is what happens, as the T-mo
technical support guy was sure it slows down speeds (as I was openly
incredulous with him, as I tell support people whether I believe them or
not).

The T-Mo support guy didn't say why though, where cost could be the
constraint, as you surmised.

> When service with T-Mo is borderline, your handset may prefer to
> roam on AT&T which has stronger signal and you'll have slower speeds.
> But then again, if your handset preferes to roam, it means your
> primary service is too weak to stay on it.

This also makes sense, so I thank you for that logic.

If the T-mo tower is so weak that roaming kicks in, I would assume also
that roaming is better than nothing, even if the "data" is slowed down.

Bear in mind T-Mo gives me something like 4GB of data per line, where the
kids eat that up but we adults barely touch, particularly since I don't
have _anything_ connecting to the net that I don't want to:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DzwR5fYf/permission00.jpg>

In addition, I extensively use offline mapping with free no-login real-time
traffic, and I don't sync anything whatsoever to the cloud (where I turned
off EVERY ACCESS POSSIBLE to all apps, including Google services, where
that also likely has an effect).
o My experiment turning all Android app permissions off, specifically
to Google Play Services permission & Carrier Services permission
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/FKjvRYbqgIw>

So even if data is slow, I don't use more than a few kilobytes if that.

> After the T-Mo/Sprint merger is consumed, expect T-Mo roaming
> on AT&T to cease.

I never delved into CDMA since I haven't had Verizon in years, where I
realize AT&T & Sprint towers can be used while roaming, but what about
Verizon towers?

[sms]

On 3/2/2020 2:31 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-03-02 15:06, Arlen Holder wrote:
>> Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA on T-Mobile when it's free
>> (e.g., using AT&T, Sprint, whatever towers in addition to T-Mobile towers)?
>>
>> I am about to go to Europe where T-Mobile tells me to turn on roaming,
>> which is easily done, and then they tell me when I return to turn it off.
>
> Your speed will be reduced (on purpose) when roaming in Europe. Read the
> fine print to find out to what speed it is throttled down to (eg:
> whether dialup speed or 1mbps or whatever).

The free global roaming in T-Mobile is nice for SMS, but the data speed
I experienced in England and Ireland was so slow as to be unusable. On
the next trip to Europe I got a Vodafone SIM card which was much better.
I also had a phone with a T-Mobile SIM with me, that T-Mobile had
provided to our IT department. It was slow, but not as slow as I had
experienced three years earlier.

If I still had T-Mobile I'd either pay the extra money for high speed
foreign data or buy a foreign SIM card. Unless I was on some sort of
organized tour where I didn't really need high speed data for things
like navigation.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:18:35 -0800, sms wrote:

> The free global roaming in T-Mobile is nice for SMS, but the data speed
> I experienced in England and Ireland was so slow as to be unusable. On
> the next trip to Europe I got a Vodafone SIM card which was much better.
> I also had a phone with a T-Mobile SIM with me, that T-Mobile had
> provided to our IT department. It was slow, but not as slow as I had
> experienced three years earlier.
>
> If I still had T-Mobile I'd either pay the extra money for high speed
> foreign data or buy a foreign SIM card. Unless I was on some sort of
> organized tour where I didn't really need high speed data for things
> like navigation.

You always hated T-Mobile, Steve, where _everything_ you post is down on
T-Mobile, Steve ... which is your prerogative.

But the question is whether there is an disadvantage to leaving the free
roaming on when we're back in the USA. :)

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA on T-Mobile when it's free
> (e.g., using AT&T, Sprint, whatever towers in addition to T-Mobile towers)?

SOLVED:

So far, it seems there's no disadvantage to roaming in the USA when it's
free, as it is on T-Mobile (on my plan, anyway).

The only "possible" disadvantage is that, as someone said, T-Mobile might
not pay for the faster speeds to the other carrier we'd be connected to.

But it seems that having "any" data speeds while roaming is far better
(when in remote areas) than having no cellular and no data at all.

With that in mind, and unless someone has factual data otherwise, I
recommend USA T-Mobile customers turn roaming on full time in the USA:
<https://i.postimg.cc/sD3dMcX0/roam01.jpg>
--
Intelligent people make their decisions based on facts & not on Marketing.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 02:15:56 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> But the question is whether there is an disadvantage to leaving the free
> roaming on when we're back in the USA. :)

The only unanswered question is whether a typical unlocked phone, such as
my $100 Moto G7 is, can roam on Verizon towers, in addition to Sprint &
AT&T, in the USA?

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

Based on this detailed thread today:
o FreedomPop significantly worsens offerings., by sms
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/mcANHHDIYYg>

Specifically this classic rant by sms against T-Mobile in favor of Verizon:
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/mcANHHDIYYg/m/cJiWQzhwCAAJ>

And then Steve followed up that rant against T-Mobile in favor of Verizon:
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/mcANHHDIYYg/m/uCT-BVJwCAAJ>

To which I responded:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:07:58 -0800, sms wrote:

> I know two families with T-Mobile service and they both complain
> constantly about coverage.

We proved to Steve, long ago, that the coverage for T-Mobile, at least in
the Silicon Valley where both Steve and I live, is about the same as the
coverage for AT&T and for Verizon.

In addition, I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (sequentially) and I've
found nothing significantly different here in the Silicon Valley.

In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be no
different (IMHO), than the _combination_ of T-Mobile + AT&T + Verizon.

Since my credibility matters and since Steve is long known to just make
shit up without any proof whatsoever (it's why I claim he's a TYPE II
apologist, because he believes _everything_ in MARKETING brochures without
ever bothering to check his facts), I would welcome someone answering a
question I asked long ago about that free T-Mobile Roaming.

o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/50DdHgmAp6Y/>

As far as I can tell, with free roaming turned on, you get _all_ major
carriers that T-Mobile contracts with, whether that's AT&T or Verizon or
anyone else (you get the superset of carriers' cell towers AFAICT).

How can that possibly be _less_ than what Verizon alone offers Steve?
o NOTE: Steve will never answer this as he doesn't believe in facts.
--
As always, my point of view is reasonable & factual, based on adult logic.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:10:35 -0800, sms wrote:

> Even though I had more than $150
> in credit, in the San Francisco Bay Area T-Mobile coverage is spotty at
> best once you leave the urban core, and it further deteriorated during
> the many years that I had that $10 plan as roaming agreements with AT&T
> expired and were not renewed.

Q: With free roaming, how can T-Mobile cover possibly be less than Verizon?

Steve is what I've termed a Type II apologist, which is basically that he's
not malicious per se, but he's not the type of person who could earn a
degree in the math, engineering, or science fields, because he's utterly
immune to facts.

He holds on to an opinion whether or not there is any basis in fact
whatsoever of that opinion (e.g., he still believes Qualcomm royalties went
down).

Basically, if a MARKETING brochure says something, Steve doesn't have the
technical ability to discern fact from fiction.

I suspect Steve is college educated so it's not necessarily that Steve is
just stupid like the Type III apologists always prove to be (e.g., Alan
Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Lewis, Jolly Roger, et al.).

It's just that Steve's Myers-Brigg's personality type is almost certainly a
strong "intuitive" and perhaps even a strong "judgmental" personality.

Basically Steve uses only MARKETING brochures to form his opinion
o And he holds on to those opinions in the face of facts to the contrary

An example is that Steve was told by Apple MARKETING that the total cost of
ownership of iPhones is lower than that of Android, on average, where Steve
and I went over the facts but he went silent the moment I brought up the
salient facts that Apple MARKETING didn't tell him.

Basically, Steve shills for Verizon, which is fine.
o But Steve always claims incorrectly that Verizon coverage is superior.

I've had all three in the same area that Steve lives and they're all just
about the same, even here in the mountains surrounding Silicon Valley.

My point to the adults on this newsgroup is simply to take note that Steve
_always_ shills for Verizon, but _all_ his shills appear to be fact free
(mostly based on Verizon glossy MARKETING brochures), where Steve always
goes silent the instant he's asked for a single fact backing up his belief
system.

Steve's entire belief system is based on anecdotal evidence, plus whatever
he can glean from glossy Verizon MARKETING brochures.

When asked for facts, Steve goes silent (fancy that).

For example, how could Verizon's cover possibly be "better" than T-Mobile
when T-Mobile allows free roaming, which I've asked in the past over here:

o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/50DdHgmAp6Y/>

Given I can handle any engineering or science curriculum, unlike Steve, I
would truly like to know the answer to this question I've posed before:
Q: With free roaming, how can T-Mobile cover possibly be less than Verizon?
--
Posted, as always, so that we can learn from what you can impart to us.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:07:58 -0800, sms wrote:

> I know two families with T-Mobile service and they both complain
> constantly about coverage.

We proved to Steve, long ago, that the coverage for T-Mobile, at least in
the Silicon Valley where both Steve and I live, is about the same as the
coverage for AT&T and for Verizon.

In addition, I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (sequentially) and I've
found nothing significantly different here in the Silicon Valley.

In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be no
different (IMHO), than the _combination_ of T-Mobile + AT&T + Verizon.

Since my credibility matters and since Steve is long known to just make
shit up without any proof whatsoever (it's why I claim he's a TYPE II
apologist, because he believes _everything_ in MARKETING brochures without
ever bothering to check his facts), I would welcome someone answering a
question I asked long ago about that free T-Mobile Roaming.

o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/50DdHgmAp6Y/>

[badgolferman]

Arlen Holder wrote:

>In addition, I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (sequentially) and
>I've found nothing significantly different here in the Silicon Valley.

I live in SE VA. I also carry two phones, personal iPhone 8 with TMO
and work iPhone SE with VZW. I typically get one more bar with VZW
than TMO. The only difference I've noticed is indoors, especially in
brick or concrete buildings. My TMO phone doesn't always receive calls
indoors unless I'm on WiFi calling. Not sure if this is related to
signal strength or coverage.

Regardless of the minor difference I have chosen to stay with TMO since
2017. With my plan (T-Mobile One Military), four lines, free Netflix,
unlimited voice/data, my monthly bill is $102.00. Add in the superior
customer experience when calling in to customer service I haven't found
a reason to switch to any other carrier.

>In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be

>no different (IMHO), than the combination of T-Mobile + AT&T +
>Verizon.

TMO allows free data roaming. Does that include voice?

[nospam]

In article <xn0mshn2y...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman

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

> I live in SE VA. I also carry two phones, personal iPhone 8 with TMO
> and work iPhone SE with VZW. I typically get one more bar with VZW
> than TMO. The only difference I've noticed is indoors, especially in
> brick or concrete buildings. My TMO phone doesn't always receive calls
> indoors unless I'm on WiFi calling. Not sure if this is related to
> signal strength or coverage.

the main reason for poorer indoor coverage is the frequency band of the
signal. higher frequencies do not penetrate buildings as easily. there
are also other factors, such as building material (brick/concrete) and
number of people using the network.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:24:52 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I live in SE VA. I also carry two phones, personal iPhone 8 with TMO
> and work iPhone SE with VZW. I typically get one more bar with VZW
> than TMO.

Hi badgolferman,

You asked _great_ questions, which I very much appreciate, as I'm all about
FACTS (which is why I come down so hard on the many Apple bullshitters).

I realize you're on iOS, but most answers below should apply to both iOS
and to Android, where I also have iOS devices (iPads) on T-Mobile (i.e.,
the free-for-the-life-of-the-iPad-or-of-TMobile 200MB/month data SIMs).

You're not an apologist so it's good to see what your questions are
o As every one of your questions is, IMHO, a valid reasonable logical query

When I converse with apologists, I have to dumb the message down to the
kindergarten level, whereas with adults, we can get into the nuance of
detail without having the apologists claim every misspelled word is a "lie
by liars" (which is why I say the apologists ruin the Apple newsgroups).

As far as I can tell, turning on the free domestic T-Mobile roaming will
not help you if you have a decent T-Mobile tower in your area.

It only helps if you don't have a tower, which is what Steve is always
claiming, I believe.

I was tempted to ask for the 3rd level of T-Mobile customer support to ask
at what signal strength they "determine" there is no T-Mobile tower in your
area, but I didn't ask that so for now, we'll have to assume that value.

> The only difference I've noticed is indoors, especially in
> brick or concrete buildings. My TMO phone doesn't always receive calls
> indoors unless I'm on WiFi calling. Not sure if this is related to
> signal strength or coverage.

I realize you're on iOS, but if you can borrow an Android phone, you can
run a quick signal strength survey with graphical output and which will
tell you exactly which _unique_ cell tower you're using (which is useful to
me as I use unregistered femtocells and a cellular repeater inside the
house).

A decent app for that purpose, on Android only though, is:
o Cellular-Z, by Jersey Ho
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

Here's some output of Cellular-Z from my $100 Moto G7 where this is only
Wi-Fi (because the cellular information is so detailed I didn't feel like
doing all the redaction to get rid of my femtocell unique cellular ID & the
like):
o <https://i.postimg.cc/Hn05bQwG/wifi02.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/4xgmTTgm/wifi01.jpg>

Even as nospam claims apps that do that exist on iOS, he's just a Type I
apologist, which means he'll fabricate imaginary functionality as if it
exists whenever he sees that iOS can't do something that Android can do
(which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so very many things indeed!).

Again, that's why apologists ruin this newsgroup, because the Type I
apologists like nospam can't stand the truth about Apple products, so they
incessantly fabricate imaginary functionality that simply doesn't exist.

Anyway, to your point about sucky signal indoors, if that indoors is your
own home, T-Mobile will (IMHO) gladly give you, gratis, either
a. A free Wi-Fi router (which I already had on my own)
b. A free Cellular Repeater (which they first gave me)
c. A free Femtocell (which they also gave me)

BTW, T-Mobile "says" they only give you one of the three, but clearly they
gave me two (I've posted pictures of both if you question my credibility).

In addition, T-Mobile "says" they'll ask for a $400 deposit for each, but
in practice, they have let me have both without any deposit (they know
where I live, although I had to sign something saying I wouldn't use it in
any other location - which is odd as why would I want to do that?).

The point is that inside your house, and around your house, oh, say at the
pool or in the corral or at the barn, or at the end of the driveway, you
have pretty good coverage, but it can drop off fast after that if you live
in mountains like I do.

Before Steve claims that's poor coverage, it is, but we don't even have
cable out here, nor do we have "city water" nor "city gas" nor "city
sewage", the point being _all_ the major carriers suck in the mountains.

> Regardless of the minor difference I have chosen to stay with TMO since
> 2017. With my plan (T-Mobile One Military), four lines, free Netflix,
> unlimited voice/data, my monthly bill is $102.00. Add in the superior
> customer experience when calling in to customer service I haven't found
> a reason to switch to any other carrier.

When I had Verizon, I thought the customer service was OK but I dropped
Verizon the instant my 2-year contract ran out when they upped my contract
to replace a broken phone under their replacement plan.

Then I had AT&T whose customer support seemed fine until I retired, where
when I had to pay my own bills, AT&T wouldn't let me swap the broken
blackberry for a smartphone with a data block, so I dropped AT&T the
instant that contract ran out.

I've been on T-Mobile ever since and their customer support is, as you
noted, fantastic (and I'm no easy customer!) in that I _always_ get a human
right away, where they have assigned specific humans to me, which is a nice
perk, so they get to know me (e.g., when they say "We got you covered" I
tell them that's MARKETING bullshit - and to never say that crap to me
again).

I tell them not to make anything up, and I tell them that I will call back
and ask the same question and if it's a different answer, a supervisor is
gonna have to sort it out, which keeps them a bit honest, as they never
know the answers and always have to ask for support which is fine 'cuz I
don't ask easy questions normally.

I don't know how Verizon or AT&T service is nowadays, but to your point, we
_always_ get a human right away on T-Mobile.

Steve Scharf (sms) is always afraid of facts so he likely won't respond to
any of this as if he did, he'd have to re-consider his wholly imaginary
belief system which is based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.
o It's why Steve (sms) is a Type II apologist after all

Type II apologists aren't malicious like Type III (e.g., Lewis)
o They're just people who never seem to doublecheck their facts

Steve trusts his intuition far more than he trusts facts to the contrary
o Me? I don't trust my intuition one bit.

Specifically, I don't trust anything that MARKETING 'implies'
o I only trust in facts.

>>In addition, T-Mobile allows free roaming, so, the coverage should be
>>no different (IMHO), than the combination of T-Mobile + AT&T +
>>Verizon.
>
> TMO allows free data roaming. Does that include voice?

Good question badgolferman, where you know I care about facts.
o Hence, I called 611 and asked 3 questions:
1. Do we have free roaming in the USA?
2. What carriers?
3. Does it include voice or data & how much?

Here are the three answers T-Mobile gave me over the phone:
1. Do we have free roaming in the USA?
o Yes.
o But only when there is no T-Mobile tower in the area.

2. What carriers?
o US Cellular
o Verizon
o AT&T

3. Does it include voice or data & how much?
o Unlimited free roaming voice calls
o Unlimited free roaming SMS text
o 200MB/per billing period (and then it just shuts off)
o MMS text counts toward data
o No charges ever but it will just shut off at 200MB
o The data turns back on at the next billing period

Note: The documents below indicate that this 200MB/month limit
is dependent, apparently, on what plan & when you started it
as some have far higher data roaming limits, but I'm on the lowest
data that T-Mobile allows (AFAIK) as I don't generally use data.

When I asked them to prove the answer, just as I ask the Apple Apologistrs
to prove their answers (where the apologists never can prove what they
say), T-Mobile referred me to the following two documents:
o Domestic roaming data
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data>
o How to turn on/off data roaming
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/devices/android/moto-g7-power/network-apn-and-volte-moto-g7-power>

Hmmmmmmmmm..... I see what you mean when you asked about the difference
between "data" and phone calls, as these MARKETING shills are _both_ about
data.

They don't say _anything_ about voice roaming.

Nonetheless, the representative was very clear that phone calls have
unlimited free roaming, but I do agree with you that it would be nice to
see some documentation backing up what the representative told me to my
ear.

Googling, I see they put the data limits on in April 5, 2012:
o <https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/policies/data-roaming>
Where they say:
"This [new data limit] does not impact: (1) voice usage"

I can call them back, but unless we have reason to disbelieve them, I'm
going with the answer they gave me which is that data roaming (as of 2012)
is limited based on your data plan, while voice roaming is unlimited.

Note: In my plan, both data and voice roaming is free and unlimited when
I'm in the European countries I typically visit yearly, where T-Mobile
gives me unlimited data (even though my USA plan has limited data).
--
Someone needs to bring actual facts to the child-like Apple newsgroups.

[sms]

"Arlen" is wrong of course™.

T-Mobile has very limited roaming onto AT&T which is what is most needed
in this area (Bay Area and most of California). This lack of roaming was
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.

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).

T-Mobile does have a lot of roaming onto GSM and LTE carriers other than
AT&T, where those exist. There are a couple of rural parts of
California, in the northeast, where T-Mobile can roam onto some of U.S.
Cellular's network
<https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/abad20/any_updates_on_us_cellular_roaming_in_california/>,
and a tiny piece of southeastern California (Death Valley) where the
only coverage for any of the major carriers is roaming onto Commnet
Wireless's subsidiary, Choice Wireless
<https://www.cellularmaps.com/parks/death-valley.shtml>. There is also
apparently some weirdness with T-Mobile roaming onto U.S. Cellular if
you're using an unlocked phone not purchased from T-Mobile, see
<https://community.t-mobile.com/network-coverage-5/domestic-roaming-us-cellular-communism-31836>.

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.

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. This
was a big issue in the Santa Cruz Mountain area with a LOT of complaints
in the cellular newsgroups. Further north, AT&T purchased Edge Wireless,
a small carrier onto which both AT&T and T-Mobile customers had been
able to roam <
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080418005668/en/ATT-Completes-Acquisition-of-Edge-Wireless-to-Enhance-Wireless-Coverage>
but again, once the roaming agreements expired that coverage was lost.

If you also recall, T-Mobile was extremely upset about how much they had
to pay the top tier carriers for roaming, and went to the FCC to
complain about it
<https://www.androidheadlines.com/2014/08/sprint-sides-t-mobile-data-roaming-dispute-verizon-att.html>.
The failed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T was supposed to result in
T-Mobile getting 7 years of AT&T 3G roaming, but it it actually
happened, it didn't happen in my area, and the 7 years was over in 2018
<https://venturebeat.com/2011/12/20/att-breakup-t-mobile-3g-roaming-128-markets-aws-spectrum/>.

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.

Until 2019, T-Mobile had no coverage at all in Yosemite, and no roaming
onto AT&T. Now they do have coverage in Yosemite Valley, but in other
parts of the park, if there’s any coverage at all, it’s on Verizon.
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.

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.

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.”

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. This can be very inexpensive using Red Pocket
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828> or Page Plus
<https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/10-standard-pin/>. If you have a
newer iPhone, or one of the few Android phones with eSIM support, you
can have one phone with a T-Mobile eSIM and a Verizon MVNO physical SIM.

Let’s hope that in the future “Arlen” uses referenced facts when he posts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:48:20 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the main reason for poorer indoor coverage is the frequency band of the
> signal. higher frequencies do not penetrate buildings as easily. there
> are also other factors, such as building material (brick/concrete) and
> number of people using the network.

I don't disagree with nospam that higher frequencies generally have lower
penetrating capabilities depending on a host of factors, as nospam noted.

My response to badgolferman is simply that T-Mobile gave me a choice of one
of three signal enhancing devices, which I believe all the carriers give:
1. A free Wi-Fi calling capable router
2. A free cellular signal repeater
3. A free cellular tower femtocell

If people don't believe me I'll snap photos of my T-Mobile cellular
repeater and my T-Mobile femtocell, where, in practice, the femtocell
almost always wins out against the cellular repeater anyway.

The cellular repeater has two units, one of which is in an upstairs window,
while the second of which is strategically placed deep in the bowels of the
multi-story home. AFAIK, the "signal" comes in from far far away to the
upstairs receiver, which then forwards that signal to the second unit,
which itself seems to be the broadcast tower.

When I turn off the femtocell, I can see exactly which T-mobile tower
(generally miles away, often ten miles away or so) is being repeated,
which, interestingly, isn't often the closest tower (but in mountains,
strange things happen due to line of sight issues).

On the other hand, the femtocell is attached directly to the router, where
I posit T-Mobile gets a "great deal" as they use my Internet to send their
signals about, given the femtocell works though my Internet.

For whatever reason, the signal strength from the femtocell almost always
overpowers that of the cellular repeater in practice, which you can't
easily tell on iOS but on Android it's trivial to tell with the software I
already described, plus the following tools (all of which give cellular
signal strength over time):
o Cellular-Z (free, ad free, gsf free, and google free)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>
o Network Cell Info Lite - Mobile & WiFi Signal, by M2Catalyst, LLC
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite>
o WiGLE WiFi Wardriving
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.wigle.wigleandroid>

In summary, given that T-Mobile provides free domestic roaming, I can't for
the life of me see any disadvantage of turning it on, given you get the
signal from four different companies' towers:
1. T-Mobile, and, when T-Mobile doesn't exist, then you get
2. US Cellular, plus Verizon, plus AT&T towers.

Given Steve Scharf (sms) always claims (sans any actual factual data) that
T-Mobile coverage sucks in the Silicon Valley (where we both reside), I ask
Steve (or anyone) how can that be when if you turn on this free roaming,
you essentially get four companies' towers worth of signal (if needed)?

My question remains, although my query is specific to T-Mobile:
Q: Is there any disadvantage to (free T-Mobile) roaming in the USA?
--
As always this thread is posted to arrive at a technically correct answer.

[nospam]

In article <rsvht1$f8p$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> What's really sad is the loss of coverage for former Sprint subscribers

there is no loss of coverage for sprint subscribers.

their coverage is actually *better* since it's now a combination of
*both* sprint and t-mobile.



>
> Letąs hope that in the future łArlen˛ uses referenced facts when he posts.

let's hope one day you do, but everyone knows that will never happen.

[nospam]

In article <rsvi0e$1ciq$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Arlen Holder

<arlen_...@newmachines.com> wrote:

>
> > the main reason for poorer indoor coverage is the frequency band of the
> > signal. higher frequencies do not penetrate buildings as easily. there
> > are also other factors, such as building material (brick/concrete) and
> > number of people using the network.
>
> I don't disagree with nospam that higher frequencies generally have lower
> penetrating capabilities depending on a host of factors, as nospam noted.

that's good, because you'd be disagreeing with the laws of physics.

[The Real Bev]

On 01/04/2021 09:05 AM, sms wrote:

> T-Mobile has very limited roaming onto AT&T which is what is most needed
> in this area (Bay Area and most of California). This lack of roaming was
> 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.

Data points from a year ago:

No T-Mobile coverage on the slopes at Snow Summit (Verizon was good)
until you go perhaps half a mile west along Highway 18. They just
priced themselves out of my market, so I'll be going to a FREE place
closer to civilization this year.

No coverage at all for T-Mobile or AT&T at Sequoia/King's Canyon NPs
until you get down out of the mountains.


Cheers, Bev
All the toilets were stolen out of the police station.
The police have nothing to go on.

[Arlen Holder]

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:

> There are a couple of rural parts of
> California, in the northeast, where T-Mobile can roam onto some of U.S.
> Cellular's network
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/abad20/any_updates_on_us_cellular_roaming_in_california/>,

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.

> and a tiny piece of southeastern California (Death Valley) where the
> only coverage for any of the major carriers is roaming onto Commnet
> Wireless's subsidiary, Choice Wireless
> <https://www.cellularmaps.com/parks/death-valley.shtml>.

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?

> There is also
> apparently some weirdness with T-Mobile roaming onto U.S. Cellular if
> you're using an unlocked phone not purchased from T-Mobile, see
> <https://community.t-mobile.com/network-coverage-5/domestic-roaming-us-cellular-communism-31836>.

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?

> This
> was a big issue in the Santa Cruz Mountain area with a LOT of complaints
> in the cellular newsgroups. Further north, AT&T purchased Edge Wireless,
> a small carrier onto which both AT&T and T-Mobile customers had been
> able to roam <
> https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080418005668/en/ATT-Completes-Acquisition-of-Edge-Wireless-to-Enhance-Wireless-Coverage>
> but again, once the roaming agreements expired that coverage was lost.

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?

> If you also recall, T-Mobile was extremely upset about how much they had
> to pay the top tier carriers for roaming, and went to the FCC to
> complain about it
> <https://www.androidheadlines.com/2014/08/sprint-sides-t-mobile-data-roaming-dispute-verizon-att.html>.

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?

> The failed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T was supposed to result in
> T-Mobile getting 7 years of AT&T 3G roaming, but it it actually
> happened, it didn't happen in my area, and the 7 years was over in 2018
> <https://venturebeat.com/2011/12/20/att-breakup-t-mobile-3g-roaming-128-markets-aws-spectrum/>.

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?

> This can be very inexpensive using Red Pocket
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828> or Page Plus
> <https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/10-standard-pin/>. If you have a
> newer iPhone, or one of the few Android phones with eSIM support, you
> can have one phone with a T-Mobile eSIM and a Verizon MVNO physical SIM.
>
> Let's hope that in the future Arlen uses referenced facts when he posts.

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.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:20:48 -0500, nospam wrote:

> In article <rsvht1$f8p$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> What's really sad is the loss of coverage for former Sprint subscribers
>
> there is no loss of coverage for sprint subscribers.
>
> their coverage is actually *better* since it's now a combination of
> *both* sprint and t-mobile.

Hi nospam,

I care about the answer to the question, which is a technical question:

Q: Is there any disadvantage to (USA free T-Mobile) voice/data roaming?

All I care about are facts, where I responded to Steve's wholly fabricated
claims (not one of which was substantiated by the numerous cites he
provided).

In fact, not only were all of Steve's so-called 'cites' dated by many years
(more than one of which was a decade old for Christ's sake), and none of
Steve's coverage maps supported what Steve claimed they did, but even
worse, at least two of Steve's cites actually concluded with the _opposite_
claims that Steve said they supported.

Can you believe that?
o *Steve's own cites conclude the exact _opposite_ of what he claimed?*

Did Steve even _read_ his own cites?
o I suspect not.

Given Steve is a Type II apologist, I already knew he's immune to facts.
o All Steve believes in is whatever MARKETING bullshit has been fed to him.

But I really don't care about Steve, nor any particular person on this ng.
o What I care about are the facts.

My belief system is based on facts.
o If the facts change, I change my belief system.

The facts I'm trying to nail down are the answers to this basic 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 And if I set my phone to roam...
o Why wouldn't I be roaming (for voice & data) on all those networks?
--
All I care about are the facts but most people try to feed us bullshit.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:20:51 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I don't disagree with nospam that higher frequencies generally have lower
>> penetrating capabilities depending on a host of factors, as nospam noted.
>
> that's good, because you'd be disagreeing with the laws of physics.

Hi nospam,

I hope I don't need to repeat I went to Ivy League schools, and that I have
higher degrees in extremely technical subjects, and that I was successful
in the Silicon Valley for decades working alongside truly intelligent
people.

Facts are what I live and breathe, nospam.
o My belief system is based on facts.

Hence, if anyone makes a claim that is factual, then I agree with them.
o Facts are funny that way.

No well-educated adult disagrees with facts, nospam, IMHO.
o Since that would just be stupid (as you said above, & to which I agree).

Most people on the Apple newsgroup, however, can't tell a fact from an
assessment of that fact, which is a completely different thing, nospam.

Here is an example of a FACT:
o Apple removed the headphone jack in the current iPhones.

Here is an example of an ASSESSMENT Of that fact:
o Apple did that so they could sell more product to replace that loss.

IMHO, there are 2 statements to be made on FACT vs ASSESSMENT disagreement:
1. No actual educated adult disagrees on facts (facts are funny that way)
2. But adults often disagree on assessments (people are funny that way)

Bear in mind you don't graduate from the best schools in this country by
being wrong on facts, nospam, nor do you succeed in Silicon Valley startups
by being wrong, you should never expect me to disagree on facts.

I'm _different_ from you apologists, nospam:
a. I don't believe MARKETING bullshit unless it's substantiated by fact.
b. My credibility on facts is 100% because I don't claim a fact if it's not
c. I _read_ the cites people post (unlike apologists, who don't).
d. Better yet, I _comprehend_ what those cites claim.

So, for example, despite the legal contortions the apologists claim, I know
Apple admitted to the criminal offense of purposefully lowering the life of
iPhones, and yet, I'm well aware of the Apple MARKETING bullshit to the
contrary (and I'm also aware Apple settled a criminal case recently in the
USA on their subterfuge on why they throttled the iPhones secretly,
nospam).

Back on topic, I'd love to know the factual answer to the question:
o If I'm in the USA and yet if I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o Yet, if I'm near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o And if I have previously set my $100 Moto G7 Android phone to roam...

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:36:19 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> No T-Mobile coverage on the slopes at Snow Summit (Verizon was good)
> until you go perhaps half a mile west along Highway 18. They just
> priced themselves out of my market, so I'll be going to a FREE place
> closer to civilization this year.

Hi The Real Bev,

You know me for decades, it seems, where I don't doubt your anecdotal
evidence above as you have credibility and I appreciate you said it was a
year old (as such things can change in an instant)...

But I'm going to ask the basic question which is the topic of this thread.
o If you and or I are in "Snow Summit" nowhere near a T-Mobile tower...
o And if we're near either a US Cellular, Verizon, or AT&T tower...
o And if I we set our phones to roaming...
o Why wouldn't we be roaming (for voice & data) on all those networks?

> No coverage at all for T-Mobile or AT&T at Sequoia/King's Canyon NPs
> until you get down out of the mountains.

The point is roaming, where, if there is _any_ tower from three carriers:
a. Verizon
b. AT&T
c. US Cellular

Why wouldn't we be roaming on _them_ even if there is no T-mo tower nearby?
--
It's a technical question about roaming which is apropos for this ng.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-01-04 12:20, nospam wrote:

> there is no loss of coverage for sprint subscribers.
>
> their coverage is actually *better* since it's now a combination of
> *both* sprint and t-mobile.

When Rogers bought Fido/Microcell in Canada, I lost coverage at home.

Fido was 1900 only (early PCS). My handset (GSM) was 1900 only.

Rogers was mostly an 850 shop with some 1900. When it shut the Fido
antenna, my phone would connect to the Rogers one, but Roger's 1900
antennas weren't pointed to our neighbouhood, so the signal was very
weak and din't penetrate home.

Fido (now under Rogers) agreed to subsidize a new phone for me, no
contact as they were aware of this problem.

And until I got the dual frequency phone with 850 and 1900, there were
many areas of the Rogers network outside of cities where it had 850 only
and I would have no service.

So in the case of Sprint/T-Mobile, while the maps will show increased
coverage, there is no garantee that when one of 2 antennas is turned off
in a neighbourhood, the signal strength will be as good as before
everywhere in that neighbourhood depending on location of remainibng
tower and orientation/elevation of antennas on the tower. Sometimes,
the decision on which tower to keep is based more on real estate than
network coverage (the better one costs too much than the lesser one).

[sms]

On 1/4/2021 10:36 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 01/04/2021 09:05 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> T-Mobile has very limited roaming onto AT&T which is what is most needed
>> in this area (Bay Area and most of California). This lack of roaming was
>> 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.
>
> Data points from a year ago:
>
> No T-Mobile coverage on the slopes at Snow Summit (Verizon was good)
> until you go perhaps half a mile west along Highway 18.  They just
> priced themselves out of my market, so I'll be going to a FREE place
> closer to civilization this year.
>
> No coverage at all for T-Mobile or AT&T at Sequoia/King's Canyon NPs
> until you get down out of the mountains.
>
>
> Cheers, Bev

Sounds like you go to the kinds of places we go to. Yes, Sequoia-Kings
Canyon is an area, like Yosemite, where you really want to have Verizon
coverage.

The “Mother Lode” area used to be Golden State Cellular which Verizon
purchased. But that didn’t include Tulare and Fresno counties where
Sequoia-Kings Canyon is located, I guess that those areas were always
Verizon and Verizon just decided to spend the money on rural coverage.
However I did stay once at Montecito-Sequoia Lodge
<https://www.mslodge.com> and there was only Verizon coverage if you
went up the hill behind the lodge, but they had Wi-Fi so Google Voice
worked.

I was helping someone from Germany, at Best Buy, who wanted to buy a
local SIM card for the duration of his vacation. He was looking at the
assortment of prepaid SIM cards Best Buy sells, in bewilderment. I asked
him what kind of places they would be visiting. His family wanted to
visit several National Parks. He almost made the mistake of buying some
of the $30 “T-Mobile Tourist SIM Kit” (no longer sold, see
<https://www.bestbuy.com/site/t-mobile-30-tourist-sim-kit/6248603.p?skuId=6248603>).
In Europe, all of the MVNOs have very good coverage (and their is
roaming in all the EU countries, per EU agreement
<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/faq/question-and-answers-roaming>)
so it's not as critical when you choose a prepaid SIM, at least not
based on coverage).

I had him check the IMEI of his iPhone at
<https://www.totalwireless.com/activation/byop/collectesn?carrier=VZW>
and then told him that buying the Total Wireless SIM card <
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/total-wireless-keep-your-own-phone-sim/6407632.p>
and the $35/5GB plan <
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/total-wireless-35-unlimited-30-day-plan-digital/6386340.p>
would be a much better option given his travel plans.

He bought four of the Total Wireless SIM cards and the family plan
<https://www.bestbuy.com/site/total-wireless-100-unlimited-family-30-day-plan-card/6387447.p>
so his whole family would have service during their month-long vacation,
and added on the $10 Global Calling Card with rates to Germany of
2-3¢/minute. $114 plus tax total, for a month--I don't recall how much
data that plan had at the time, I think it was 60GB, now it's 100GB).

For short stays I recommend people buy the $10 Red Pocket Plan and
activate on Verizon < https://www.redpocket.com/plans/add/M010> (as long
as their phones pass the IMEI check for Verizon, if not I tell them to
get Red Pocket buy activate on AT&T). Not all phones can be activated on
Total Wireless or Red Pocket Verizon service because they lack CDMA
support. Hopefully that restriction will soon be gone since Verizon
supposedly has shut down CDMA.

[sms]

On 1/4/2021 2:46 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> So in the case of Sprint/T-Mobile, while the maps will show increased
> coverage, there is no garantee that when one of 2 antennas is turned off
> in a neighbourhood, the signal strength will be as good as before
> everywhere in that neighbourhood depending on location of remainibng
> tower and orientation/elevation of antennas on the tower. Sometimes,
> the decision on which tower to keep is based more on real estate than
> network coverage (the better one costs too much than the lesser one).

nospam is wrong of course™.

What increased for Sprint subscribers, following the acquisition by
T-Mobile, was _native_ coverage. This was a big deal because Sprint’s
native network footprint was very small, and T-Mobiles is much larger.

What Sprint subscribers lost was a huge amount of Verizon roaming
coverage, and a lot of that coverage was in areas where T-Mobile has no
native network. In the San Francisco Bay Area that meant a big loss of
coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It also meant a big loss of
coverage in Verizon areas in central California (“the Mother Lode”).

When you used to look at Sprint’s maps, you’d see huge roaming areas
included, at least for voice and text, with coverage equivalent to
Verizon coverage. Now that that roaming is gone, the _total_ area
covered by Sprint decreased significantly. However Sprint customers did
gain some roaming on small carriers like U.S. Cellular, in areas where
they used to roam onto Verizon, but that didn't help in the Bay Area or
Central California.

Let’s hope that in the future “nospam” uses referenced facts when he posts.

[nospam]

In article <rt08kf$t5f$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> What increased for Sprint subscribers, following the acquisition by
> T-Mobile, was _native_ coverage.

you're contradicting yourself.

> This was a big deal because Sprintąs

> native network footprint was very small, and T-Mobiles is much larger.

rubbish. sprint's native footprint was in no way small. you've clearly
never used sprint.

> What Sprint subscribers lost was a huge amount of Verizon roaming
> coverage, and a lot of that coverage was in areas where T-Mobile has no
> native network.

roaming on verizon was rarely needed, if ever. you've clearly never
used sprint.

> In the San Francisco Bay Area that meant a big loss of
> coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It also meant a big loss of

> coverage in Verizon areas in central California (łthe Mother Lode˛).

bullshit. i've used sprint all over the bay area, including the santa
cruz mountains, as well as many, many other areas, with *no* issues
whatsoever. you've clearly never used sprint.

> When you used to look at Sprintąs maps, youąd see huge roaming areas

> included, at least for voice and text, with coverage equivalent to
> Verizon coverage. Now that that roaming is gone, the _total_ area
> covered by Sprint decreased significantly. However Sprint customers did
> gain some roaming on small carriers like U.S. Cellular, in areas where
> they used to roam onto Verizon, but that didn't help in the Bay Area or
> Central California.

you don't know what you're looking at. you've clearly never used sprint.

> Letąs hope that in the future łnospam˛ uses referenced facts when he posts.

let's hope you knock off the bullshit.

[nospam]

In article <iVMIH.35589$ay6....@fx03.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> Fido was 1900 only (early PCS). My handset (GSM) was 1900 only.

were you able to connect it to your vax to be able to get online? as i
recall, vaxes did not have wifi.

>
> So in the case of Sprint/T-Mobile, while the maps will show increased
> coverage, there is no garantee that when one of 2 antennas is turned off
> in a neighbourhood, the signal strength will be as good as before
> everywhere in that neighbourhood depending on location of remainibng
> tower and orientation/elevation of antennas on the tower.

nothing is being turned off.

[sms]

On 1/4/2021 10:36 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> No T-Mobile coverage on the slopes at Snow Summit (Verizon was good)
> until you go perhaps half a mile west along Highway 18.  They just
> priced themselves out of my market, so I'll be going to a FREE place
> closer to civilization this year.

Where did you find free? All the ski areas seem to be significantly
raising prices.

[sms]

On 1/4/2021 2:46 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

> On 2021-01-04 12:20, nospam wrote:
>
>> there is no loss of coverage for sprint subscribers.
>>
>> their coverage is actually *better* since it's now a combination of
>> *both* sprint and t-mobile.
>
>
> When Rogers bought Fido/Microcell in Canada, I lost coverage at home.
>
> Fido was 1900 only (early PCS). My handset (GSM) was 1900 only.

When Pac Bell Wireless in California started up it was 1900 MHz only and
they were supplying 1900 Mhz only phones. They were charging
significantly lower prices than Cingular, AT&T, and Verizon, and they
got a lot of new customers which quickly caused capacity issues.

Pac Bell got bought by SBC/Cingular and sold their 1900 MHz network to
T-Mobile.

<snip>

> So in the case of Sprint/T-Mobile, while the maps will show increased
> coverage, there is no garantee that when one of 2 antennas is turned off
> in a neighbourhood, the signal strength will be as good as before
> everywhere in that neighbourhood depending on location of remainibng
> tower and orientation/elevation of antennas on the tower. Sometimes,
> the decision on which tower to keep is based more on real estate than
> network coverage (the better one costs too much than the lesser one).

That's not the whole issue.

The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of
Verizon roaming most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.

The T-Mobile customers never had that roaming, they had some roaming
onto smaller carriers like U.S. Cellular but that didn't solve their
coverage issues in areas where AT&T was the only GSM/LTE carrier.

The purchase of Sprint by T-Mobile was never about coverage. There are
few areas where Sprint had native coverage but T-Mobile did not. The
purchase was about getting more spectrum and acquiring all the Sprint
customers.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:17:35 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sequoia-Kings
> Canyon is an area, like Yosemite, where you really want to have Verizon
> coverage.

Why?
o If T-Mobile has free data/voice roaming using Verizon towers, why Steve?

NOTE: Steve will never respond to the facts since his entire belief
system isn't based on facts; it's based only on MARKETING bullshit.

> I was helping someone from Germany

> I asked him what kind of places they would be visiting.

There's an old joke that the official language of US National Parks...
o Is German

> He almost made the mistake of buying some of the $30 T-Mobile Tourist SIM Kit

Dunno if that SIM also had free data/voice roaming on Verizon towers.
o But if it did, he'd get _greater_ coverage with T-mo, would he not?

> For short stays I recommend people buy the $10 Red Pocket Plan and
> activate on Verizon < https://www.redpocket.com/plans/add/M010> (as long

> as their phones pass the IMEI check for Verizon...

We discussed this before where we concluded Verizon is a PITA
o I've never had a problem putting my T-mo SIM in _any_ unlocked phone

As long as it's GSM, it just works.
o No need to call T-Mobile as it just works

Why is Verizon such a PITA?

NOTE: Steve will never respond to the facts since his entire belief
system isn't based on facts; it's based only on MARKETING bullshit.

> Let¢s hope that in the future Arlen uses referenced facts when he posts.

Hehhehheh... Steve, you're a Type II apologist (e.g., you _still_ think
Qualcomm royalties went down); so you have no business "taunting" me on
facts.

I get it that I proved your "cites" were complete and total bullshit
o And perhaps that fact hurt your feelings, Steve.

But even two of your own cites concluded the _opposite_ of what you claimed
o Where nobody can say I don't have a penchant for facts, Steve.

So cut it with the childish infantile taunts, Steve.
o None of your cites backed up a word you claimed.

Worse, most were from 2011 and 2014 for Christs' sake
o Where coverage, of all things, changes quickly

And worse still, your own cites concluded T-Mobile is damn good
o Only a handful of percentage points behind Verizon in coverage

Which, to the point of roaming, with free data/voice roaming
o Doesn't T-mobile give me, for free, all of T-mo plus all of Verizon?

Plus all of US Cellular and all of AT&T?

The questions remain salient, Steve, despite you hating facts:
a. If I turn on T-Mobile free data/voice roaming
b. And if I'm nowhere near a T-Mobile tower
c. Don't I roam, for free, on Verizon, AT&T, and US Cellular?

What "fact" can you bring to the fore, Steve, that counters that?
o How is that not far better coverage than Verizon alone, Steve?

NOTE: Steve will never respond to the facts since his entire belief
system isn't based on facts; it's based only on MARKETING bullshit.
--
People who try to taunt me should think twice since I happen to be far
better than they are in adult comprehensive skills surrounding facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:33:31 -0800, sms wrote:

> What Sprint subscribers lost was a huge amount of Verizon roaming
> coverage, and a lot of that coverage was in areas where T-Mobile has no
> native network.

Steve.

I realize all you believe is in pretty Verizon MARKETING brochures
o And that you hold on to your imaginary belief system sans facts

For example, you _still_ believe Qualcomm royalties went down.
o And you still believe iPHone total cost of ownership is lower

But the salient fact remains T-Mobile data/voice roaming is free on
o Verizon towers
o AT&T towers
o US Cellular towers

So if T-Mobile has no coverage, as you claim, why would it matter?

> In the San Francisco Bay Area that meant a big loss of
> coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Steve is bullshitting as I live smack dab in the middle of the Santa Cruz
mountains and T-Mobile coverage is no different than anyone else (based on
conversations with my neighbors, most of whom are on the major 3 carriers).

Anyway, the question remains valid:
o If T-Mobile allows free voice/data roaming
o When there isn't a nearby T-Mobile tower
o Then what's to prevent T-Mo customers from roaming on all three?
Verizon, AT&T, and US Cellular
--
Posted as a reasonable logical sensible question seeking factual responses.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 17:58:34 -0800, sms wrote:

> The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of
> Verizon roaming most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.
> The T-Mobile customers never had that roaming, they had some roaming
> onto smaller carriers like U.S. Cellular but that didn't solve their
> coverage issues in areas where AT&T was the only GSM/LTE carrier.

Steve,

Old history is interesting, but T-Mobile told me just today I roam on:
o Verizon
o AT&T
o US Cellular
When there is no T-Mobile tower nearby (and if I set my phone to roam).

So if there wasn't free data/voice roaming in the past on T-Mobile
o There is now.

As far as I can tell, at least for unlimited voice, there is no advantage
to Verizon given T-Mobile coverage is all of Verizon, all of AT&T, all of
US Cellular, and all of T-Mobile, as far as I can tell.

But that could be wrong, which is why this thread exists.
o Hence, the question remains unanswered, which is:

Q: Is there any disadvantage to (US free T-mo) roaming in the USA?
--
Posted for the simple reason to obtain the factual answer to the query.

[nospam]

In article <rt0h4c$cdq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of
> Verizon roaming

it's not an issue whatsoever.

> most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.

sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 21:44:26 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The big issue for Sprint customers is the loss of a tremendous amount of
>> Verizon roaming
>
> it's not an issue whatsoever.
>
>> most of which has not been replaced by T-Mobile coverage.
>
> sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.

Hi nospam,

This post from Steve is more evidence sms is a Type II apologist.
o His entire belief system is based on no facts and all MARKETING bullshit.

Every single thing Steve has claimed in this thread turned out to be wrong.
o Dead wrong.

Who on earth is _that_ incredibly stupid?
o Not a single claim from Steve has turned out to be factually correct.

Not even one!

If there are any other adults on this newsgroup, notice that Steve Scharf
will spout his completely imaginary beliefs, where he's utterly immune to
facts.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I don't think Steve is malicious, per se, like Type III apologists are.
o Nor is Steve defending Apple MARKETING to the death, like Type I.

He's just stupid.

He gave us a plethora of cites, which I read, and comprehended.
o None were even remotely current, for heaven's sake.
o Most were from 2011 and 2014, where a _lot_ changes in a decade.

Worse, two of Steve's cites actually concluded the _opposite_ of what Steve
claimed the cites backed up.

WTF?
o Who on earth is _that_ stupid?

Steve didn't even _read_ his own cites, for heavens' sake.
--
What scares me is that I don't think Steve is malicious.
He's just a type II apologist, incredibily immune to basic facts.
(e.g., Steve _still_ thinks Qualcomm royalties went down!)

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-01-04 18:48, nospam wrote:

> nothing is being turned off.

T-Mobile will be quick to start to rationalize the network. And in its
initial filings, indicated that it would retain some Sprint sites and
turn off some of its own, and vice-versa where both have coverage.

Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
map does not change).

This is really done on a site by site basis, with network engineers
looking at coverage advantage of one tower over another, any growth
likmitations in adding new antennas to support new frequencies and
accountants looking at financial/contractual aspect of each tower.


But the end result is the shutting down of redundant network
infrastructure. The planning started months before.


Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
bigger aspect for Sprint customers. But that affects only Sprint ones.
The rationalization of the T-Mo and Sprint networks will affect
customers of both networks here and there.

As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
easy. The home carrier has tools to update the list of carriers on whom
its custoers can roam (this is stored in SIM card in the standard,
though Apple has part of this in the carrier.plist). Part of the
standard allows one to define a roaming partner as "home" or "roaming".
Roaming on a "home" carrier allows roaming to such a carrier even if the
phone settionsg are set to block roaming. This was used in many places,
including when AT&T switched to GSM and have a number of separate
nhetworks with different numbers, same with
Omnipoint/Voicestream/T-Mobile changes.

The roaming list incluides preferences/priorities. So it is possible for
instance to set a Sprint SIM card to have T-Mobile as highest priority
roaming partner and Verizon as lowest priority one. (Not sure if this
was done, just stating it is possible).

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 12:31:12 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
> bigger aspect for Sprint customers. But that affects only Sprint ones.

Hi JF Mezei,
You're not an apologist so you should have credibility in and of itself.

I haven't bothered to keep up with the changes to Sprint customer service
now that they're part of T-mobile, but, if T-Mobile gives free voice/data
roaming on US Cellular, AT&T, and Verizon, why wouldn't Tmo give that same
free roaming to Sprint customers (particularly if they already had it)?

Do they not?

> The rationalization of the T-Mo and Sprint networks will affect
> customers of both networks here and there.

Same with _any_ merger of any company, e.g., AT&T and Verizon both gobbled
up tons of smaller outfits, and nobody seems to have complained here (it's
always just Steve Scharf shilling for Verizon, where I'm beginning to
suspect sms gets paid by the shill by Verizon to slew its MARKETING
bullshit).

[nospam]

In article <An1JH.27089$rY1....@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> > nothing is being turned off.
>
>
> T-Mobile will be quick to start to rationalize the network. And in its
> initial filings, indicated that it would retain some Sprint sites and
> turn off some of its own, and vice-versa where both have coverage.

your claim was they're turning things off to reduce coverage. that's
false.

it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
coverage will be larger than either of those individually.

obviously, if a sprint and t-mobile tower cell site shares the same
physical location and cover the same geographical area, they might turn
one of them off, or they might keep both for additional capacity.

> Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
> map does not change).

again, it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
coverage will be larger than either of those individually.

> Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
> bigger aspect for Sprint customers.

only one person did, and it's bogus. it's a ridiculous claim. he
doesn't even use sprint to make this crazy claim.

> As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
> easy.

as were/are amps, cdma, hspa and lte.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:56:25 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
> coverage will be larger than either of those individually.

I agree with nospam,

Anyone who is an adult, with adult comprehensive thought process, based on
facts, logic, sense, and reason would agree with that statement above.

It's only Steve Scharf, whom I'm beginning to wonder if he doesn't get paid
by Verizon to shill for them, who posts completely unsubstantiated bullshit
(which wasn't even supported in his cites), who then _hides_ from his own
bullshit.

In fact, two of Steve's cites actually concluded the exact _opposite_ of
what Steve claimed they concluded, which just goes to show that Steve
didn't even _read_ the very cites he promoted.

Also, all of them were ages old, more than one dating back to a decade ago.

In summary, Steve's entire belief system is based on MARKETING shills from
a decade ago, where not a single one of Steve's claims was based on facts.

>> Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
>> bigger aspect for Sprint customers.
>
> only one person did, and it's bogus. it's a ridiculous claim. he
> doesn't even use sprint to make this crazy claim.

What I'd like to know, particularly since Steve's own cites showed that
Verizon coverage was only a few percentage points better than that of
T-Mobile, and that was _before_ the Sprint merger, and that didn't take
into account that T-Mobile has free data/voice roaming on US Cellular,
AT&T, and Verizon (when there's no T-Mobile tower in the area)...

Under those factual circumstances... and wouldn't T-Mobile's coverage
_always_ be better than Verizon (when the free roaming is taken into
account)?

How could it not be (far) better than Verizon?
--
This is a logical sensible question to ask, which is a fact-based query.

[sms]

On 1/5/2021 9:31 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> T-Mobile will be quick to start to rationalize the network. And in its
> initial filings, indicated that it would retain some Sprint sites and
> turn off some of its own, and vice-versa where both have coverage.

Yes, that is what is happening.

> Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
> map does not change).

The issue for former Sprint customers is not that they will lose any
native coverage, quite the opposite, since T-Mobile's network is much
larger than the old Sprint network, native coverage will increase.

The issue is that the Sprint postpaid customers used to enjoy extensive
Verizon roaming, and the maps show that that roaming is gone, with
nothing replacing it.

> Others have rightfully pointed that loss of Verizon roaming is a much
> bigger aspect for Sprint customers. But that affects only Sprint ones.
> The rationalization of the T-Mo and Sprint networks will affect
> customers of both networks here and there.

Exactly. But with the end of Verizon CDMA it's not clear how much
roaming would have remained for Sprint customers anyway. Someone said
that the Verizon roaming was only 2G & 3G (CDMA) and not LTE. But Sprint
also had a long list (31) of LTE roaming partners, and it's not clear
how many of those are also T-Mobile roaming partners, but some are.
Verizon is the big loss in terms of Sprint coverage in rural areas in
California.

Anyway, thanks for correcting "nospam" and/or "Arlen Holder."

Educating people about the relative coverage quality of the different
carriers, in different areas, is something that a lot of people
appreciate, especially people that are visiting the U.S. and don’t
realize that buying a SIM card for use in the U.S. requires
considerations that are likely not necessary in their own country.

In the U.S., people tend to find out the differences for themselves
pretty quickly, based on where they live and based on the places they
travel to. For those that never travel outside the urban core, they can
now pretty much get by with any of the three major carriers. It’s when
they go to (or through) less populated areas, that there are issues, and
a lot of tourists want to go to places like National Parks.

I mention Yosemite and the Santa Cruz Mountain areas often because those
are two places that I go to pretty often and where I’ve had people ask
me how I’m able to use my phone when they are not. Also, over the years,
the coverage situation in those areas has drastically changed, and not
always for the better! T-Mobile and Sprint have lost a tremendous amount
of as roaming agreements with AT&T and Verizon went away.

T-Mobile has replaced some of the lost roaming coverage with their own
cells, but in many areas where Sprint and T-Mobile subscribers formerly
had roaming coverage T-Mobile still has no native coverage. T-Mobile
promised that if the merger was approved that they would address rural
coverage issues, but that is a very time-consuming and expensive
undertaking and it gains the carrier very few new customers in the areas
where they add coverage.

I always advice T-Mobile customers to carry along a second phone that is
on a Verizon MVNO when they travel outside urban areas. This is very
inexpensive these days and it provides coverage in case of emergency.
I.e. <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828>. If they have a phone with
an eSIM plus physical SIM they can put T-Mobile on the eSIM and the
Verizon MVNO on the physical SIM and only need to carry one phone.

[nospam]

In article <rt2b7j$vib$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > T-Mobile will be quick to start to rationalize the network. And in its
> > initial filings, indicated that it would retain some Sprint sites and
> > turn off some of its own, and vice-versa where both have coverage.
>
> Yes, that is what is happening.

no, that isn't what's happening.

> > Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
> > map does not change).
>
> The issue for former Sprint customers is not that they will lose any
> native coverage, quite the opposite, since T-Mobile's network is much
> larger than the old Sprint network, native coverage will increase.

nope. coverage of each is similar, with dead spots in different places.
they *overlap*.

combined, the dead spots for one will be covered by the other in nearly
every case.

> The issue is that the Sprint postpaid customers used to enjoy extensive
> Verizon roaming, and the maps show that that roaming is gone, with
> nothing replacing it.

where 'used to' was roughly 20 years ago, when both sprint and verizon
were building out their networks, and even then, it was very rare.

you do not use sprint and you have *no* clue what you're talking about.

[Lewis]

In message <rt2b7j$vib$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/5/2021 9:31 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

> <snip>

>> T-Mobile will be quick to start to rationalize the network. And in its
>> initial filings, indicated that it would retain some Sprint sites and
>> turn off some of its own, and vice-versa where both have coverage.

> Yes, that is what is happening.

>> Some may get better some may get worse coverage. (even though coverage
>> map does not change).

> The issue for former Sprint customers is not that they will lose any
> native coverage, quite the opposite, since T-Mobile's network is much
> larger than the old Sprint network, native coverage will increase.

> The issue is that the Sprint postpaid customers used to enjoy extensive
> Verizon roaming, and the maps show that that roaming is gone, with
> nothing replacing it.

Hmm...

Sprint customers get access to t-mobile's larger network and their
coverage will increase, but nothing is replacing their access to Verizon
roaming.

Let's have a good long think on that and maybe, just maybe, you'll
notice your problem.



--
'The trouble with my friend here is that he doesn't know the
difference between a postulate and a metaphor of human existence.
Or a hole in the ground.' --Pyramids

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-01-04 21:44, nospam wrote:

> sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.

Are Sprint towers still broadcasting "Sprint" network or are they
already using the T-Mobile MMC/MNO ?

[nospam]

In article <gK2JH.106379$mg2....@fx04.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> Are Sprint towers still broadcasting "Sprint" network or are they
> already using the T-Mobile MMC/MNO ?

sprint.

[sms]

On 1/5/2021 10:53 AM, Lewis wrote:

<snip>

> Sprint customers get access to t-mobile's larger network and their
> coverage will increase, but nothing is replacing their access to Verizon
> roaming.
>
> Let's have a good long think on that and maybe, just maybe, you'll
> notice your problem.

Sprint users have gained a lot more _native_ coverage as a result of the
acquisition by T-Mobile, but Sprint total coverage has been reduced as a
result of the loss of extensive Verizon roaming. As I stated in another
post, that may have been lost anyway as a result of the Verizon CDMA
shutdown since the roaming onto Verizon was 2G/3G, not LTE. In any case,
the Sprint subscribers that used to enjoy coverage, albeit roaming 2G/3G
coverage on Verizon, have lost it and in many cases nothing has replaced it.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:30:09 -0800, sms wrote:

> Anyway, thanks for correcting "nospam" and/or "Arlen Holder."

Steve,

Cut the bullshit Steve.
o Just cut it.

Politicians who incessantly bullshit are expecting us to be morons.

Cut it with the bullshit.
o Nobody is fooled.

I _read_ your idiotic cites, Steve.
o You quoted forum posts from a decade ago, Steve.

And you _believe_ all their unsubstantiated bullshit Steve
o Worse, you then spout that unsubstantiated bullshit as facts, Steve.

Only a politician (or a bullshitter) pulls that trick with us Steve.
o What? You didn't expect us to _click_ on your idiotic cites, Steve?

Hell, most of your cites were a decade old, Steve.
o None of your cites supported even a single one of your claims, Steve.

Worse, two of your cites concluded the exact _opposite_ of your claims.
o Proving you didn't even _read_ the cites you posted for God's sake.

Stop it with the bullshit.
o We get it you'll fabricate anything to support Verizon.

Me?

I don't care at all about any of the carriers.
o I only care about the facts.

And all Steve did was bullshit the entire newsgroup with every post.
o Which justs wastes our valuable time.

I get it that Steve couldn't earn an engineering or science degree...
o All I'm asking is for Steve to cut it with the utter bullshit he spouts.

Even Steve can't believe what he claims
o Because he couldn't find a _single_ factual cite to back it up.

So cut it with the bullshit, Steve.
--
Politicians who incessantly bullshit are expecting us to be morons.

[sms]

Good question. If I can ever find a Sprint subscriber in this area I'll
ask them to check! Seriously, I know a few T-Mobile subscribers that
keep it due to the international included low-speed data and included
SMS, but finding a Sprint customer would be a real task around here.

But in any case, the whole roaming issue for Sprint has been the loss of
Verizon roaming, that's what changed their maps so significantly and
caused the loss of so much coverage.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:32:03 -0800, sms wrote:

> Seriously, I know a few T-Mobile subscribers

Now "he knows" a few T-Mobile subscribers.
o WTF?

Why is it that _everything_ out of Steve's mouth is bullshit?
o Everything is unsubstantiated bullshit coming from Steve.

Steve is a consumate politician - every word from him is utter bullhit.
o I can spout the same bullshit of "I know a few Verizon customers"...

Steve just makes this up...
o But worse than wasting our time with his utter bullshit...

He can't find a _single_ fact to back up his bullhit.
o Which is the final proof that EVERYTHING Steve is claiming is bullshit.

Politicians like Steve expect us to be morons & believe his bullshit.
o He doesn't have a _single_ fact backing up _any_ of his claims.

Not even one.
--
Note: I don't give a shit about Verizon versus T-Mobile; I only care about
facts, but I don't want consummate bullshitters like Steve wasting my time.

[nospam]

In article <rt2eje$o5p$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > Sprint customers get access to t-mobile's larger network and their
> > coverage will increase, but nothing is replacing their access to Verizon
> > roaming.
> >
> > Let's have a good long think on that and maybe, just maybe, you'll
> > notice your problem.
>
> Sprint users have gained a lot more _native_ coverage as a result of the
> acquisition by T-Mobile,

no they haven't. stop talking about things you know nothing about.

overall, their individual coverage was roughly the same.

sprint users gained a little bit, namely coverage of some dead spots
that sprint had and t-mobile did not, just as did t-mobile users
gaining coverage of dead spots they had that sprint did not.

> but Sprint total coverage has been reduced as a
> result of the loss of extensive Verizon roaming.

this is utterly false, no matter how many times you claim it.

> As I stated in another
> post, that may have been lost anyway as a result of the Verizon CDMA
> shutdown since the roaming onto Verizon was 2G/3G, not LTE. In any case,
> the Sprint subscribers that used to enjoy coverage, albeit roaming 2G/3G
> coverage on Verizon, have lost it and in many cases nothing has replaced it.

verizon roaming hasn't been needed for roughly 20 years.

you don't use sprint and have *no* clue what you're talking about.

[nospam]

In article <rt2erl$rs9$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >> sprint customers can use both sprint and t-mobile networks.
> >
> >
> > Are Sprint towers still broadcasting "Sprint" network or are they
> > already using the T-Mobile MMC/MNO ?
>
> Good question.

it says sprint.

> If I can ever find a Sprint subscriber in this area I'll
> ask them to check!

no need.

> Seriously, I know a few T-Mobile subscribers that
> keep it due to the international included low-speed data and included
> SMS,

some do, but not all.

> but finding a Sprint customer would be a real task around here.

it is not.

> But in any case, the whole roaming issue for Sprint has been the loss of
> Verizon roaming, that's what changed their maps so significantly and
> caused the loss of so much coverage.

it's not in any way an issue nor has it been for a very, very long time.

stop talking about a carrier you do not use and likely never have used.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-01-05 12:56, nospam wrote:

> your claim was they're turning things off to reduce coverage. that's
> false.

I do not claim that they are turning off to reduce coverage. This
implies a goal of reducing coverage.

My claim is that when rationalizing networks some areas can see reduced
signal strength because the remaining tower may be more distant, or
antennas not aimed straight at their neighbourhood and they get fringe
from 2 antennas.

> it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
> coverage will be larger than either of those individually.

For generic coverage maps yes. But this does not mean improved coverage
everywhere. Just that claims of coverage are increased.

> obviously, if a sprint and t-mobile tower cell site shares the same
> physical location and cover the same geographical area, they might turn
> one of them off, or they might keep both for additional capacity.

You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
the more capacity it has (better compression). Also, turning off
reduntant radios saves you mucho money on licence/maintenance.

Think of it in terms of ability to send 1 character per time slot. Small
spectrum, you can send either 0 or 1. With twice spectrum you can send a
character with 10 different possible values 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.

So with split spectrum, you can send 4 possible values (0 or 1 on each)
in each time slot, but combine it into one chunk, and you can send one
of 10 possible values.

The whole point of the merger is for T-Mo to get Sprint's spectrum
exactlty for this. Spectrum Aggregations tarted with 3G, but with 4G
and now 5G, the versatility increased with spectrum not having to be
contiguous to get the benefits of better compression.

>> As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
>> easy.
>
> as were/are amps, cdma, hspa and lte.

amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier. In
Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
or B.

CDMA is proprietary and had no international roaming. But obviously,
carriers had ability to update CDMA phones to choose roaming partner
within USA with all the various mergers and small CDMA providers.


hspa and lte are part of GSM.

[nospam]

In article <DE5JH.144149$OX1....@fx07.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> My claim is that when rationalizing networks some areas can see reduced
> signal strength because the remaining tower may be more distant, or
> antennas not aimed straight at their neighbourhood and they get fringe
> from 2 antennas.

that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
areas.

redundant would be if there's a sprint and t-mobile cell site at the
*same* location, at which point they might disable one of them. they
might also choose to keep both for additional capacity, depending on
usage patterns. they might also tune it cover certain sectors, such as
one north and the other south.

> > it should be obvious that a combination of sprint *and* t-mobile
> > coverage will be larger than either of those individually.
>
> For generic coverage maps yes. But this does not mean improved coverage
> everywhere. Just that claims of coverage are increased.

i'm not talking about maps.

> > obviously, if a sprint and t-mobile tower cell site shares the same
> > physical location and cover the same geographical area, they might turn
> > one of them off, or they might keep both for additional capacity.
>
> You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
> antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
> the more capacity it has (better compression).

that does not make any sense.

> Also, turning off
> reduntant radios saves you mucho money on licence/maintenance.

redundant radios can be repurposed as a spare or deployed elsewhere
where it's needed.

the point is that they are not necessarily redundant.

>
> >> As a side note: the GSM stack was designed to make this transaction
> >> easy.
> >
> > as were/are amps, cdma, hspa and lte.
>
> amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier.

amps roamed among various carriers in either a or b.

initially, roaming had to be activated when arriving in the new area so
that calls were forwarded to the new location (don't remember the
*code), then it became automatic upon first connecting to the tower.

there was also an inbound access number, usually ending in x7626, the
digits corresponding to 'roam', so that people could make a local call
to connect to a roaming customer who had a long distance number.

> In
> Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
> despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
> your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
> or B.

where 'reprogram' is a *code to tell the system to forward calls.

> CDMA is proprietary and had no international roaming. But obviously,
> carriers had ability to update CDMA phones to choose roaming partner
> within USA with all the various mergers and small CDMA providers.

cdma roamed without the user doing anything.

> hspa and lte are part of GSM.

some people lump everything into gsm, but that's technically wrong, as
they are separate protocols and air interfaces.

[sms]

On 1/5/2021 2:22 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> The whole point of the merger is for T-Mo to get Sprint's spectrum
> exactlty for this. Spectrum Aggregations tarted with 3G, but with 4G
> and now 5G, the versatility increased with spectrum not having to be
> contiguous to get the benefits of better compression.

Well that was one of the major reasons. Another reason was to gain
economies of scale by significantly increasing the number of subscribers
and reducing the total number of retail stores. Another reason was to
end the desperation pricing model that Sprint had adopted and that was
holding down prices. Remember when Sprint was giving away a free year of
service?
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/free-year-sprint-unlimited,news-29565.html>.
Sprint and T-Mobile were big competitors as the two second-tier carriers
competing on price rather than quality of service, and it's tough to
compete against free.

<snip>

> amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier. In
> Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
> despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
> your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
> or B.

I appreciated having AMPS capability when traveling to out-of-the-way
places. I used it extensively in parts of Alaska, Oregon, and even in
South Florida. It was rather ironic being in the Everglades, with a
Verizon CDMA/AMPS phone, roaming onto AT&T, especially because AT&T had
switched to GSM and their own customers couldn't access the AT&T AMPS
network, but Verizon customers could (well unless the AT&T customer had
a GAIT phone (Nokia 6340i
<https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=201> or Sony-Ericsson
T62u <https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=117>). Nokia also
sold an "AMBS back" for the 6190
<https://www.manualslib.com/manual/299954/Nokia-6190.html?page=86>. But
not many of those GSM/TDMA/AMPS phones were sold.

> CDMA is proprietary and had no international roaming.

Actually there was international roaming on CDMA at its peak. There was
CDMA roaming in China, Taiwan, Israel, and South Korea to name a few.
And of course Canada and Mexico, as well as some other Central and South
American countries. When I was going to Korea a lot for work there
wasn't any GSM at all, if you didn't have a CDMA phone and pay for
international roaming, you could rent a phone at the airport. See
<https://www.sprint.com/cdma/assets/pdfs/travel_tips/ace/Israel_ACETips.pdf>

> But obviously,
> carriers had ability to update CDMA phones to choose roaming partner
> within USA with all the various mergers and small CDMA providers.

There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List)
to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example).
Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the
1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The
problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida,
Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split
between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).

[nospam]

In article <rt34ov$e8p$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Another reason was to
> end the desperation pricing model that Sprint had adopted and that was
> holding down prices.

that's a crazy spin. it was not desperation whatsoever. it's called
competition.

> Remember when Sprint was giving away a free year of
> service?

all carriers have some sort of perk for new customers.

also, it wasn't entirely free and they know that most people will stay
after the first year.

it's not just cell phone carriers either that offer perks. for example,
banks and credit card companies offer bonuses for new accounts,
sometimes quite substantial.

> > amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier. In
> > Canada, you started to roam when you were outside of your home area
> > despite still connected to same carrier. You would have to reprogram
> > your phone to access the other carrier, there was no switching between A
> > or B.
>
> I appreciated having AMPS capability when traveling to out-of-the-way
> places. I used it extensively in parts of Alaska, Oregon, and even in
> South Florida.

not recently you haven't. amps has been gone for about 15 years.

>
>
> There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List)
> to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example).

no there wasn't, nor was the coverage better.

your verizon shilling and trolling is quite obvious.

> Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the
> 1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The
> problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida,
> Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split
> between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).

no such trick was needed, assuming it would even work.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-01-05 14:57, nospam wrote:

>> Good question.
>
> it says sprint.

Is this on an iPhone or normal phone?

On Fido in Canada, the carrier.plist for Fido was tweaked to show "Fido"
when on Roger's network. However, doubtful SprinT/T-Mobile would have
gotten to that point yet.

Though, if you NEVER see T-Mobile when moving about, it would be a sign
that they are forcing the word "Sprint" on your phone whether you are on
Sprint of T-Mobile.

Since Sprint is to become an MVNO on T-Mobile, it is likely they will
tweak the SIM/setup to show Sprint when on T-Mobile. iPhone test mode

IOS 14, you,d have to go to field test mode ( dial *3001#12345#* ) and
then press the menu button then RAT and then kCTCellMonitorMCC and
xCTCellMonitorMNC will tell you to what network you're connected to).

You can then look at https://www.mcc-mnc.com/ tio see if the MCC/MNC
codes are for one of the PSirnt networks or T-Mobile ones.
Interestingly the USA doesn't use a single country code, its has
multiple ones).

[nospam]

In article <1b9JH.36716$rX1....@fx06.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> >
> > it says sprint.
>
> Is this on an iPhone or normal phone?

iphone and android. flippers don't say anything, at least not the ones
i have handy.

> On Fido in Canada,

this is not about fido in canada.

> Since Sprint is to become an MVNO on T-Mobile,

nope. it doesn't work that way.

> it is likely they will
> tweak the SIM/setup to show Sprint when on T-Mobile. iPhone test mode

nope.

the sprint/t-mobile merger is called t-mobile, and at some point, the
network name on the phone will change from sprint to t-mobile to match.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-01-05 18:29, nospam wrote:

> that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
> areas.

There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs. Unlike
Sprint which bothed its network acquisitions, T-Mobile has been good and
you can expect a lot of rationalization where both networks were present.

>> You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
>> antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
>> the more capacity it has (better compression).
>
> that does not make any sense.

You need to read up on spectrum aggregation. It's how HSPA+ allowed some
networks to reach very high speeds for instance.

Consider this:

say you can send 8 beeps per second.
Option 1: no beep or beep. so 8 bits per second.

option 2: you can send a beep that has 256 different frequencies. In
this case, you can send 2048 bits per second because each beep represent
one of 256 possible values.

The more spectrum you have for a radio, the more possible values each
symbol (beep) can have and thus increase in capacity. The compression
charactesistics are suhc that 1 6mhz channel has much more capacity than
2 separate 3mhz channels.

So there is strong disincentive to keep 2 separate towers in same area
that split spectrum since ocmbining the spectrum in one radio gives you
more capacity than with 2 separate radios.

CDMA which was really 2.5G didn't kow about this, but HSPA+ did, and LTE
made a big thing about spectrum aggregation, same with 5G.

> redundant radios can be repurposed as a spare or deployed elsewhere
> where it's needed.

deployed elsewhere = removed from that neighbourhood, leavcing only one
radio. Which is the argument I am making.

> the point is that they are not necessarily redundant.

In almost all cases, yes. There are cases with very high desity where
thet may wish to split an area into 2 areas and orient antennas to have
little to no overlap. (each tower has less coverage).

>> amps had no such provision. You were either on an A or B carrier.
>
> amps roamed among various carriers in either a or b.

But as there could only be 1 A or 1 B carrier in any region, you phone
didn't have to choose roaming partner. If you were programmed in B, you
phobe only looked at B roaming partners, and it would picjup whatever B
it saw and ask if it was willing to handle roaming for this phone.

With GSM, you SIM card has a table of prefered roaming partners in a
certain priority order so it can choose the best one that is available
in a locaton. And there is the ability to define a partner as "home" so
that you phone will roam on it wthout cnsidering whether roaming is
enabled or not in your preferences.

> where 'reprogram' is a *code to tell the system to forward calls.

No. Roamiung on AMPS was automatic. Your phone on "B" identified itself
to whatever B network was available where you were, and that B network
would then contact your home network for authorzation to roam, and at
that point inconung phone calls to your gome number would be forwarded
to the B network hosting you.

The special numbers existed to avoid having to make 2 long distance
calls. One to your home city, and one from your home city back to where
you are.

>> hspa and lte are part of GSM.
>
> some people lump everything into gsm, but that's technically wrong, as
> they are separate protocols and air interfaces.

GSM is a family of protocols eith an evolution path between each
version, use of common protocols for provisioning of SIM cards etc.

GSM Association manages this, for 2G, 2,5G (GPRS/EDGE) , 3G
(UMTS/HSPA), LTE and 5G.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 17:46:05 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sprint and T-Mobile were big competitors as the two second-tier carriers
> competing on price rather than quality of service, and it's tough to
> compete against free.

T-Mo Customer Support QOS is fantastic, IMHO.

While I don't care which carrier is better, I think it was "The Real Bev"
(or maybe "badgolferman") who recently said, and I agree, the quality of
the T-Mobile customer service is _fantastic_.

I _always_ get a human, and they _assign_ a small set of the same humans to
me, and they follow up with the calls with documents texted to me.

While when I had Verizon (long ago), I was happy with their customer
service, nospam and others seemed to say that Verizon is a bitch when you
just want to use another phone, whereas, T-Mobile is completely
transparent.

Any phone you want (assuming it's unlocked & GSM, of course)
o You just pop in the SIM card.

It just works
o You don't even have to call T-Mobile (AFAICT).

AFAIK, they don't care _what_ phone you pop your SIM card into.
o I do it all the time.
--
As always, I only care about the facts (but I abhor bullshitters).

[nospam]

In article <HG9JH.30811$V_1....@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> > that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
> > areas.
>
> There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
> is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs.

in some cases they might, but overall no.

> Unlike
> Sprint which bothed its network acquisitions, T-Mobile has been good and
> you can expect a lot of rationalization where both networks were present.

sprint is perfectly fine.

> >> You get far more capacity when you combine the spectrum used by 2
> >> antennas into 1 antenna because the wider the spectrum used by a radio,
> >> the more capacity it has (better compression).
> >
> > that does not make any sense.
>
> You need to read up on spectrum aggregation. It's how HSPA+ allowed some
> networks to reach very high speeds for instance.

you're confused about modulation.

> Consider this:

no.

>
> > redundant radios can be repurposed as a spare or deployed elsewhere
> > where it's needed.
>
> deployed elsewhere = removed from that neighbourhood, leavcing only one
> radio. Which is the argument I am making.

that might happen in a rural areas, but in most places, especially
urban areas, both will be useful for the additional capacity.

keep in mind that after the merger, they will have significantly more
users, so they will need the additional capacity.

>
> > where 'reprogram' is a *code to tell the system to forward calls.
>
> No. Roamiung on AMPS was automatic.

not initially, it wasn't.

early on, you had to call 611 and ask for roaming to be activated, then
at some point, they added a *code to simplify that, and then further
simplified it to be automatic once the phone registered on the other
network.

> Your phone on "B" identified itself
> to whatever B network was available where you were, and that B network
> would then contact your home network for authorzation to roam, and at
> that point inconung phone calls to your gome number would be forwarded
> to the B network hosting you.

as i said above, that came later.

one of the marketing names was follow-me roaming.

> The special numbers existed to avoid having to make 2 long distance
> calls. One to your home city, and one from your home city back to where
> you are.

that number mainly existed so that people could call you while you were
visiting as a local call, without needing to make a long distance call
back to your home city.

it was also handy for accessing voicemail as a local call, and if
called from a landline, did not incur airtime fees to hear messages.

[sms]

On 1/5/2021 5:46 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List)
> to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example).
> Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the
> 1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The
> problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida,
> Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split
> between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).

The Android App that turned off the 1900 MHz radio was called “Roam
Control” and was available for some HTC and Samsung phones on Sprint. It
pulled off the Android App Store for understandable reasons, likely due
to complaints by Sprint.

You can read about it here:
<https://sites.google.com/site/roamcontrol/home> and the archived web
page is here:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20151212093544/http://www.roamctrl.com/>.

At the time Sprint was very upset about users that had figured out how
to force Verizon roaming by modifying the PRL or by turning off the 1900
MHz radio with Roam Control, or by other means. They went so far as
kicking off subscribers that were excessively roaming.

Even though, at the time, Sprint users could roam on Verizon in areas
where Sprint did not have its own towers, the problem was that if the
Sprint phone detected any Sprint signal, even one too weak to actually
place or receive a call, it would not roam onto Verizon. The PRL
modifications and Roam Control were a workaround. It was ironic that
Sprint users were easily able to get signal in areas where Sprint did
not have any presence at all, by roaming, but in areas where Sprint did
have a presence they were often both unable to get a usable Sprint
signal and unable to roam unless they did one of these hacks.

It wasn’t just to be able to get a usable signal that people were doing
these hacks, it was also to increase data speeds. There’s a Youtube
video that shows “before” and “after” with the PRL modification.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1bQdO3-FE0>. The comment stated that
his Sprint contract was cancelled due to excessive roaming, which was
the common Sprint response, it wasn’t an idle threat.

A Usenet post
<https://groups.google.com/g/ba.internet/c/JF4PQg5JaWY/m/EcuHKxzKk6sJ>
on 2014 from someone that worked in Santa Cruz stated “One of my friends
had Sprint service on 5 assorted handsets 2 of which are smartphones. He
lives in Bonny Doon which has zero Sprint service and only marginal
Verizon service. On his way to work and back, he passes exactly two
Sprint towers. Coverage elsewhere is roaming into Verizon. About 2 years
ago, he got a letter from Sprint informing him that since the family use
was almost totally roaming into the Verizon system, they're
discontinuing his account and recommended that he move to Verizon (at a
higher rate). Sprint pulled the plug a month later.”

Bonny Doon is on the coast in northern Santa Cruz County, the western
edge of the Santa Cruz mountains. Sprint always relied on Verizon
roaming for coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains, including the portions
of the mountains in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, just as T-Mobile
depended on AT&T roaming for coverage in those areas. The Sprint map for
voice and text was identical to the Verizon map, due to Sprint roaming
onto Verizon. This is another area where coverage for Sprint users has
been dramatically reduced due to the loss of Verizon roaming. You can
see the coverage maps of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon compared here:
<https://postimg.cc/K4jCQxm1>. The bottom line is that if you want
coverage in the far reaches of Bay Area Counties you have to be on the
AT&T or Verizon networks.

[sms]

On 1/6/2021 7:52 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> The Android App that turned off the 1900 MHz radio was called “Roam
> Control” and was available for some HTC and Samsung phones on Sprint. It
> pulled off the Android App Store for understandable reasons, likely due
> to complaints by Sprint.
>
> You can read about it here:
> <https://sites.google.com/site/roamcontrol/home> and the archived web
> page is here:
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20151212093544/http://www.roamctrl.com/>.
>
> At the time Sprint was very upset about users that had figured out how
> to force Verizon roaming by modifying the PRL or by turning off the 1900
> MHz radio with Roam Control, or by other means. They went so far as
> kicking off subscribers that were excessively roaming.

Forgot to mention, there were also custom ROMs for rooted Android phones
that allowed the phone to be forced into "Roam Only" mode. That's not a
setting that any phone manufacturer included. "I use a HTC Droid
Incredible 2 phone that I installed Cyanogenmod 7.2 custom ROM. That ROM
has the ability to switch to a 'Roam Only' mode. And in my area, it will
always roam to US Cellular."

Also see
<https://forums.androidcentral.com/htc-evo-4g-rooting-roms-hacks/24643-forced-roam-hack-cyanogenmod-nightly-build.html>

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:52:13 -0800, sms wrote:

> The bottom line is that if you want
> coverage in the far reaches of Bay Area Counties you have to be on the
> AT&T or Verizon networks.

People like Steve who incessantly bullshit are consummate politicians.
o It almost seems as if sms gets paid by Verizon by the post to shill them

Why can't Steve find even a _single_ independent reliable cite to support
his bogus claims?

HINT: I've had Verizon & AT&T & T-Mobile over the years (sequentially), and
my neighbors have all three, and I live smack dab in the middle of the
Santa Cruz Mountains, where the only physical utilities are electrical and
telephone wire (i.e., no water piped in, no gas piped in, no septic piped
out, and no cable - and no - DSL won't work either as we're too far away).

The three big players, in my experience, are just about the same in terms
of coverage where I need it (all three, AFAIK, will give residents a free
cellular repeater).

Note: I don't care about the three companies; but what I care about is that
I am allergic to the incessant infantile bullshit Steve constantly spews.

All his cites turned out to be bullshit, and yes, I read them all.
o Two of Steve's cites concluded with the exact _opposite_ of what Steve
claimed.

Does Steve even _read_ his own cites?
o Note: Most were a decade old; none were current.

Worse, most of Steve's cites are unsubstantiated two-line forum posts for
Christs' sake. The rest were marketing shills.

Why can't Steve find even a _single_ independent reliable cite to support
his bogus claims?
--
People like Steve who incessantly bullshit are consummate politicians.

[sms]

On 1/5/2021 6:57 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-01-05 18:29, nospam wrote:
>
>> that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
>> areas.
>
> There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
> is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs.

In many urban markets that's true. But remember, it's not just coverage,
it's also capacity. In cities, carriers have continued to increase the
number of cells even though coverage was complete, simply because of the
increased demand for data capacity.

It's an big issue in local governments where residents oppose cells
being put in near their homes, insisting that the coverage is already
fine, while the carriers desperately want to be able to sell more data.

Now you have the carriers, especially Verizon, wanting to put mmWave 5G
on enough streetlight poles to be able to sell broadband service to
homes. Since unlike Comcast and AT&T they haven't put in fiber to the
home (except in a few places) they see mmWave 5G as their entry into
broadband. T-Mobile will likely also try to make a play in that market
once they get their act together with mmWave 5G; low-band 5G is fine for
phones though not much faster than LTE, and isn't going to cut it for
home broadband.

[nospam]

In article <rt4mbg$np0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > There were tricks you could play with the PRL (Preferred Roaming List)
> > to get better coverage (forcing Sprint to roam on Verizon for example).
> > Another cute trick that some Sprint customers pulled was to turn off the
> > 1900 MHz radio in the phone which forced Verizon roaming--kind of. The
> > problem with that latter approach was that in some areas, like Florida,
> > Verizon was 1900 MHz only because the A & B 850 MHz spectrum was split
> > between AT&T and Bell South (which later came together as Cingular).
>
> The Android App that turned off the 1900 MHz radio

there is no need to turn off any radios to force roaming. that's
crazy-talk.

sprint has been around since the late 1990s, long before there was
android or ios, without any need to deliberately roam.

in the early days, as both carriers were building out their networks,
there was a need for roaming in *both* directions (sprint on verizon
*and* verizon on sprint), but that hasn't been the case for nearly 20
years.

> At the time Sprint was very upset about users that had figured out how
> to force Verizon roaming by modifying the PRL or by turning off the 1900
> MHz radio with Roam Control, or by other means. They went so far as
> kicking off subscribers that were excessively roaming.

that had absolutely nothing to do with verizon, and 'excessive' was
more than 50% of the time away from their *home* area, even with native
service, something which had to be abused to be booted off.

what carriers did not want, and not just sprint, was someone getting
cell service in one city and primarily using it in a totally different
city, usually to pay a lower plan price as well as avoiding local
taxes.


>
> It wasnšt just to be able to get a usable signal that people were doing

> these hacks, it was also to increase data speeds.

no it wasn't.

both sprint and verizon used the same cdma technology and speeds were
essentially the same.

it's possible that one company updated their towers before the other,
so in some cases, speeds might be faster on one (assuming a capable
phone), but that would soon match when the other updated their towers.

>
> Bonny Doon is on the coast in northern Santa Cruz County, the western
> edge of the Santa Cruz mountains. Sprint always relied on Verizon
> roaming for coverage in the Santa Cruz Mountains, including the portions
> of the mountains in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties,

bullshit. bull fucking shit.

i've been all over the santa cruz mountains, including bonny doon, as
well as the rest of the bay area, with various sprint devices without
roaming on verizon.

you are so full of shit.

> The bottom line is that if you want
> coverage in the far reaches of Bay Area Counties you have to be on the
> AT&T or Verizon networks.

nope.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:11:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

> bullshit. bull fucking shit.
>
> i've been all over the santa cruz mountains, including bonny doon, as
> well as the rest of the bay area, with various sprint devices without
> roaming on verizon.
>
> you are so full of shit.

I have to agree with nospam, which, if you know me, means a lot.
o My credibility is 100% (well, 99.999%!) on facts (typos happen).

The problem with consummate politicians like Steve is they expect us to
actually believe their shill' bullshit if they keep repeating it enough.

Clearly, we need _adults_ on this ng to hold Steve's bullshit to the fire.
1. Steve's cites are a decade old;
2. Most are forum rants (one was labeled "Communism" for God's sake);
3. Some are clearly click-bait shills;
4. His coverage maps weren't labeled as to date, time, or even carrier;
5. Worse, two of his cites concluded the _opposite_ of what Steve claimed.

Steve is a consummate bullshitting politician.
o That means he's so used to bullshit, he thinks we _believe_ his bullshit.

I've been all over the Santa Cruz Mountains, for decades, on Verizon, AT&T,
and T-Mobile (sequentially) where their coverage is just about the same.

And I don't shill for any of them.
o I don't get paid by any (Steve almost seem to be paid by Verizon).

Way up in the mountains, and I mean way up on the top, miles and miles away
from the highway and towns, where nobody has any city utilities other than
electrical and phone wires (i.e., no gas, no water, no septic, and no cable
or DSL), the closest cellular tower for _any_ company, is miles away.

With a few hilltops scattered in between.
o Such that we get our Internet from the air.

In our case of living in the Santa Cruz Mountains, all three companies will
lend you a cellular repeater or a femtocell for your home and its environs,
but on the main roads and in the towns, all three are the same in the "Bay
Area Counties" that Steve speaks of in terms of coverage.

Why does Steve bullshit us to much about his vaunted Verizon coverage?
o I don't know why.

I just know that he does.

In summary, it's rare that I will echo nospam's sentiment, but you folks
know I'm 100% credibile as I have no ax to grind whether it's Verizon,
AT&T, or T-Mobile.

I would like to ask any _adults_ on this newsgroup to hold Steve's bullshit
claims to the fire by asking for _credible_ cites backing up his bullshit
claims.
--
The problem with consummate politicians like Steve is they expect us to
actually believe their shill' bullshit if they keep repeating it enough.

[nospam]

In article <rt4sr4$1g84$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Arlen Holder

<arlen_...@newmachines.com> wrote:

>
> Why does Steve bullshit us to much about his vaunted Verizon coverage?
> o I don't know why.

it's quite obvious that he has a vested interest. he doesn't even try
to hide it.

[sms]

On 1/5/2021 6:57 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

> On 2021-01-05 18:29, nospam wrote:
>
>> that's not redundant. two different sites, with different coverage
>> areas.
>
> There are a lot of areas where both T-Mo and Sprint had coverage. There
> is a lot of duplication that can be eliminated to save costs. Unlike
> Sprint which bothed its network acquisitions, T-Mobile has been good and
> you can expect a lot of rationalization where both networks were present.

Educating people about the relative coverage quality of the different
carriers, in different areas, is something that a lot of people
appreciate, especially people that are visiting the U.S. and that don’t
realize that buying a SIM card for use in the U.S. requires
considerations that are likely not necessary in their own country.

I remember back in the early days of GSM I would advise foreign visitors
to just buy a cheap Tracfone CDMA phone, instead of a SIM card, since
GSM coverage was so poor. It was counter-intuitive to buy a whole phone
instead of a SIM card, but it was a much better option, and I told them
to just pass the phone on to a friend that was visiting the U.S.. Back
then you could buy a Tracfone-locked dumb phone for as little as $20,
and now they sell reconditioned smart phones for as little as $5.

In the U.S., people tend to find out the coverage differences between
carriers for themselves pretty quickly, based on where they live and
based on the places they travel to. For those that never travel outside
the urban core, they can now pretty much get by with any of the three
major carriers. It’s when they go to (or through) less populated areas,
that there are issues, and a lot of tourists want to go to places like
National Parks.

I mention Yosemite and the Santa Cruz Mountain areas often because those
are two places that I go to pretty often and where I’ve had people ask
me how I’m able to use my phone when they are not. Also, over the years,
the coverage situation in those areas has drastically changed, and not
always for the better! T-Mobile and Sprint have lost a tremendous amount
of roaming coverage as roaming agreements with AT&T and Verizon went
away. Sprint had only CDMA voice and text, and low-speed CDMA data,
roaming on Verizon and Verizon has shut down their CDMA network so that
would have went away no matter what.

It's important to use current, referenced data when evaluating coverage.
This is a comparison done on January 6th, 2021 that looks at coverage
on AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon, on the coast of northern Santa
Cruz County and southern San Mateo County. You can see the vast coverage
differences, see <https://postimg.cc/q6swmTdg>. The Sprint coverage has
vastly decreased due to the loss of Verizon roaming.

T-Mobile has replaced some of Sprint’s lost Verizon roaming coverage
with their own cells, but in many areas where Sprint and T-Mobile
subscribers formerly had roaming coverage T-Mobile still has no native
coverage.

T-Mobile promised that if the merger was approved that they would
address rural coverage issues, but that is a very time-consuming and
expensive undertaking. Back when the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile failed
to go through one of the things T-Mobile was supposed to get, for a
limited number of years, was more roaming onto AT&T.

The bottom line is that if you want the best coverage you need to listen
to all the experts when choosing a carrier, not to uninformed individual
that get upset when someone points out facts that they don’t like!
Remember that posters like “Arlen Holder” and “nospam” never provide any
references for their bizarre statements.

<https://www.comparecellular.com/coverage-maps/compare-coverage-maps/>

<https://www.reviews.org/mobile/best-cell-phone-coverage/>

<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>

<https://www.jdpower.com/sites/default/files/file/2020-09/2021-US_WirelessNetworkQuality-Redesign_MS_revFINAL_090220.pdf>

Let’s hope that in the future “Arlen”and “nospam” decide to use
referenced facts when they post. Their credibility right now is
extremely low based on all the misinformation that they promulgate.

[nospam]

In article <rt54hq$bf0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Educating people about the relative coverage quality of the different
> carriers, in different areas, is something that a lot of people
> appreciate,

only by those who have used and *are* *using* the relevant carriers.

anyone else is not in a position to comment about their coverage.

you are in the second group.

you are just babbling, hoping that people believe you.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:34:52 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you are just babbling, hoping that people believe you.

Hi nospam,
What Steve is doing is _worse_ than just "babbling".
o Steve is bullshitting us, expecting us to be morons if we believe him.

Steve doesn't have a _single_ reliable cite for all his claims.
o Not even one.

In fact, two of his so-called cites _contradicted_ his very claims
o But even so, none of his cites were even close to recent

Most were wholly unsubstantiated bullshit from anonymous forum posters
o Not one of Steve's claims has he backed up with a reliable cite.

Steve is bullshitting us, expecting us to be morons if we believe him.
o That's worse than him just babbling.
--
Steve expects us to be so stupid as to believe his incessant bullshit.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 17:43:01 +0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> I have to agree with nospam, which, if you know me, means a lot.
> o My credibility is 100% (well, 99.999%!) on facts (typos happen).

Speaking of "typos happen", notice how the apologists scream bloody murder
if we delete a space (at the request of badgolferman).

It's more proof that what ruins the Apple newsgroups, is apologists exist!

See details posted moments ago in this thread by badgolferman:
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2020
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EP2upy3c2_o>
--
What turns Apple newsgroups into the childish cesspool that they are, is
simply that apologists exist.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 11:54:33 -0800, sms wrote:

> Let┬ hope that in the future Arlenand nospam decide to use

> referenced facts when they post. Their credibility right now is
> extremely low based on all the misinformation that they promulgate.

Steve,

Cut the bullshit.
o Just cut it.

Be a man for once.
o Not a coward.

You're the one who handed us a dozen bullshit worthless cites, Steve.
o Two of which concluded the exact _opposite_ of what you claimed, Steve.

All of which were dated, two of which were from 2011 for Christs' sake.
o Most were bullshit shills and wholly unsubstantiated forum posts.

So cut the crap Steve.
o Be a man.

Stop being a coward.
o Stop bullshitting us.
--
I'm not afraid of facts; but I'm allergic to bullshitters like Steve.