View Full Version : Which Carrier To Go With?
I've been a Telus client for years and just recently moved to the USA so now I need to find a new carrier to go with. I'm looking for a CDMA provider with Blackberry services that are not crippled in any way. Any suggestions? Do these even exist? I only know of Verizon and they're crippled to hell and I think Sprint and Cingular are GSM. What do you think?
JSanders
10-10-2007, 02:10 PM
AT&T and TMo aren't CDMA.
You have limited yourself to Sprint, only.
If you were not against GSM, in the Atlanta area, I would highly recommend AT&T. The old Cingular had a great network there.
And, by the way, you not only moved to the USA, but to the South, so welcome (double extra good for you)!
jsconyers
10-10-2007, 02:11 PM
Sprint is CDMA and they do not cripple their devices like verizon. However, I see that you prefer CDMA, AT&T and TMobile are GSM. I would consider coverage more so than crippled devices. What good is having GPS available on a sprint device without coverage? I would take a look at all of the carriers coverage areas first, and then start looking at the features that suit you best.
I'm getting confused, people are saying a carrier is CDMA and then someone is saying it's GSM. For clarity, what are my CDMA options? And I won't be here for long, I'm a consultant so I'll be in a new state every 6-12 months on different projects.
Sprint and Verizon are CDMA.
wirelessforever
10-10-2007, 02:32 PM
I'm getting confused, people are saying a carrier is CDMA and then someone is saying it's GSM. For clarity, what are my CDMA options? And I won't be here for long, I'm a consultant so I'll be in a new state every 6-12 months on different projects.
Nationwide CDMA carriers in the United States are Verizon, Sprint and Alltel.
The earlier poster who claimed that AT&T and TMo are CDMA either mistyped or is mistaken. AT&T and TMo are GSM carriers.
JSanders
10-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Mistyped, and then I got on a long phone call.
TMo and AT&T are GSM.
Verizon and Sprint are CDMA.
I are sorry.
Cool, and from what I've been reading for the last 2 hours on here is that Verizon and Alltel have seriously crippled their firmeware to reduce the ability of both bluetooth and GSM technology. So I'm left only with Sprint? I'll take less network coverage to shove my thumb up the asses of the companies crippling their software.
wirelessforever
10-10-2007, 03:10 PM
Cool, and from what I've been reading for the last 2 hours on here is that Verizon and Alltel have seriously crippled their firmeware to reduce the ability of both bluetooth and GSM technology. So I'm left only with Sprint? I'll take less network coverage to shove my thumb up the asses of the companies crippling their software.
I've never gotten the attraction of CDMA but with that said, you ought to do some research about Sprint before you leap in. Sprint has a lot of coverage problems and a management that is in crisis.
Original article here ---> Sprint looking for new CEO | The Boy Genius Report (http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/10/05/sprint-looking-for-new-ceo/)
Sprint looking for new CEO
Posted by Joshua Karp on Oct 5, 2007 1:04 pm 28 comments Filed in CDMA, Sprint-Nextel
Anyone out there interested in taking over a beleaguered cell phone company? We didn’t think so, but it never hurts to ask. Sprint-Nextel is apparently looking to bring on a new CEO in an effort to turn the company’s sinking profit margins around. The new executive would replace Gary D. Forsee as CEO. Forsee has held that position since 2005, and was instrumental in negotiating the company’s merger with Nextel. Despite the success of the merger, Sprint has seen plummeting profits, announcing yet another loss for the second quarter of this year. The company’s board of directors is looking to replace Forsee by December of this year, which seems like a rather expedited search process for the chief of a massive company. Then again, we’re of the opinion that this change couldn’t come too soon.
jsconyers
10-10-2007, 03:13 PM
It is also said that CDMA devices have less battery life than GSM. CDMA devices constantly search for signal, even when idle. GSM, when idle do not search for signal from what I understand.
1badss
10-10-2007, 03:20 PM
the biggest advantage of CDMA is speed.
It is also said that CDMA devices have less battery life than GSM. CDMA devices constantly search for signal, even when idle. GSM, when idle do not search for signal from what I understand.
GSM is based off of the TDMA network which means the multiple access per channel is based on time division instead of code division making it less secure. For this reason I would not trust giving out my credit card number over a GSM based cell phone but I would have no problems doing it on CDMA. A CDMA tower can also hold many more clients, not only per tower but also per channel than a GSM tower of the same comparison. This translates to less dropped calls and less audible reports of the network being busy in congested areas like a freeway in rush hour. CDMA is the superior cellular technology, it's common sense. However with the new release of the new network types, both CDMA and GSM will fade away.
the biggest advantage of CDMA is speed.
Actually it's security and capacity.
wirelessforever
10-10-2007, 04:15 PM
CDMA is the superior cellular technology, it's common sense.
Which of course explains why people have had severe problems for years getting their CDMA phones to reliabily ring and post voicemail messages which Verizon and Sprint both know is a serious problem with their networks which they have not been able to fix in over 20 years.
It also explains why GSM has been adopted GLOBALLY, is used across the planet and is the most popularly adopted network standard while CDMA is a standard used in the United States, and ....... hmmmmm, I'm thinking ..... errrr, hmmmm, oh yeah, NORTH KOREA and ....... errrrr, hmmmm, ahhhh .... or yeah, South Africa and ..... errrrrr, hmmmmm, ahhhh, I'm thinking, I'm thinking, I'm thinking. Hmmm, USA, North Korea and South Africa. Did I miss any other location?
whdigital
10-10-2007, 05:06 PM
Which of course explains why people have had severe problems for years getting their CDMA phones to reliabily ring and post voicemail messages which Verizon and Sprint both know is a serious problem with their networks which they have not been able to fix in over 20 years.
It also explains why GSM has been adopted GLOBALLY, is used across the planet and is the most popularly adopted network standard while CDMA is a standard used in the United States, and ....... hmmmmm, I'm thinking ..... errrr, hmmmm, oh yeah, NORTH KOREA and ....... errrrr, hmmmm, ahhhh .... or yeah, South Africa and ..... errrrrr, hmmmmm, ahhhh, I'm thinking, I'm thinking, I'm thinking. Hmmm, USA, North Korea and South Africa. Did I miss any other location?
Haha! I'm not quite clear on how you feel about this... ;)
Dubdub
10-10-2007, 07:02 PM
If you travel all over the US, I would recommend Verizon over Sprint as Verizon has better coverage int he US. They are both EVDO Rev A on the data side.
If you decide to go GSM, I would pick ATT over T-Mo, again because ATT has a much better coverage area than T-Mo.
You really need to look at where you will travel and make a decision based on that, as a previous poster suggested.
TroyDBrown
10-10-2007, 07:09 PM
My suggestion is try them out! You have 14 days to give a network a try (30 in California YAY! Everyone has there own ideas, and what is important to them. I see this question as kind of asking us to choose you a favorite color.
As someone who has tried out 3 different carriers over the course of many years, I can tell you the advantages/disadvantages of them all.
First, I had Verizon (CDMA). They were a nightmare in all respects except mobile broadband. There were many dead spots with them and don't dare go into a rural area (in Ohio, at least). When I would call Verizon on a landline to report that the location I was in was a dead spot (this was in the densely populated Cleveland suburbs, mind you), they would respond with "oh no, we're looking at the coverage map and you do have service! There are no problems." They simply refused to accept the fact that I was looking at my phone with NO SERVICE. And be prepared to get locked into an ongoing contract with every plan change you make. Their billing team is outright rude, as I had spent literally 15+ hours convincing them over the phone that I had put security deposits on my lines and they owed me $375. I will NEVER go back to anything CDMA.
On a side note about CDMA... anyone I know who has a CDMA carrier tends to have a static issue every 1 in 20 calls or so. What I mean is, I will call them or they call me and we will have to end the call and try again to eliminate static. This is ESPECIALLY noticable on Sprint, where some people I talk to have this problem maybe 1 in every 7 calls or so. Oh, and someone above me mentioned calls/voicemails not getting through. This problem is seemingly unsolvable, as Verizon never had answers for me on that one.
Next, I had T-Mobile (GSM). They have the friendliest support team. Every time I called them, they were always in a good mood and glad to help out. Their major downfall? Coverage problems. And it doesn't help that they are only a 1900MHz carrier anywhere you go in the nation, so their signal is least likely to penetrate typical structures. This was a problem inside many buildings in downtown Cleveland.
And finally, I now have AT&T (GSM). While their "fewest dropped calls" slogan is a bunch of bull, they definitely provide the best service quality in nearly all areas. They also have good roaming agreements with carriers in rural areas (and continue to buy out these carriers, hence adding more reliability to their own network).
If you are looking for reliability in all areas, I'd go with AT&T. Since you are using a BlackBerry, you really don't need a carrier with vast broadband capabilities, as BlackBerry devices are masters of data compression (although AT&T's 3G network is noticeably expanding).
I will never use a CDMA carrier again, for the reasons I listed above. That leaves GSM, and AT&T is definitely the most capable GSM carrier in the nation. (Unless you live in a rural area that just so happens to be unserved by them)
wirelessforever
10-10-2007, 07:52 PM
If you decide to go GSM, I would pick ATT over T-Mo, again because ATT has a much better coverage area than T-Mo.
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this forum. It is also quite in error.
While it may be true that AT&T has a larger footprint of coverage (in other words coverage in areas that are not highly populated), T-Mobile's service in large cities is as good as or in many, many, many cases better than AT&T's. Here in Los Angeles (the nation's 2nd largest city) T-Mobile is rated as a carrier with significantly better coverage than AT&T. Indeed, Wilshire Boulevard is the largest street in the nation's 2nd largest city and TMo will give you a clear strong signal from the ocean to downtown as compared to AT&T where you'll get dropped calls every few minutes.
In point of fact, AT&T recently had to drop their national add where they claimed to have the "least dropped calls" because it is simply a lie. AT&T is currently being sued in a class action for their fraud.
It is also worth noting that T-Mobile has been given top carrier status by most if not all of the consumer rating groups where AT&T by comparison is never awarded any similar honors.
It may be true that occasionally AT&T has coverage in West No-Where Wyoming, but to claim that AT&T's coverage is better than TMo's is simply a total whopper (untruth).
wirelessforever
10-10-2007, 07:56 PM
As someone who has tried out 3 different carriers over the course of many years, I can tell you the advantages/disadvantages of them all.
Living in Cleveland and making broad-based carrier evaluations is silly.
You may have excellent research criteria for Cleveland (one city in the midwest) but that hardly qualifies to make broad-based statements about the worth and capabilities of carriers in general.
I'm glad you have given us a good reference review for Cleveland but that hardly is worth much to people who never live, travel or visit Cleveland.
cctraderx
10-10-2007, 08:41 PM
Being that you are in Atlanta, the home of the original Cingular, now ATT, I would think you would have excellent coverage in the entire state. However, it then comes down to where else do you need coverage and who provides it. If you need rural coverage, I would think ATT and Verizon. If you travel to larger cities, most of the Big 4 or 5 have you covered - then it boils down to cost and options. I have Sprint and am happy. My family has T-mo and is happy.
Dubdub
10-10-2007, 09:12 PM
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this forum. It is also quite in error.
While it may be true that AT&T has a larger footprint of coverage (in other words coverage in areas that are not highly populated), T-Mobile's service in large cities is as good as or in many, many, many cases better than AT&T's. Here in Los Angeles (the nation's 2nd largest city) T-Mobile is rated as a carrier with significantly better coverage than AT&T. Indeed, Wilshire Boulevard is the largest street in the nation's 2nd largest city and TMo will give you a clear strong signal from the ocean to downtown as compared to AT&T where you'll get dropped calls every few minutes.
In point of fact, AT&T recently had to drop their national add where they claimed to have the "least dropped calls" because it is simply a lie. AT&T is currently being sued in a class action for their fraud.
It is also worth noting that T-Mobile has been given top carrier status by most if not all of the consumer rating groups where AT&T by comparison is never awarded any similar honors.
It may be true that occasionally AT&T has coverage in West No-Where Wyoming, but to claim that AT&T's coverage is better than TMo's is simply a total whopper (untruth).
I think you summed up my point in your second para. ATT has a much larger footprint while T-Mo is as good in larger cities.
I stand by my comments and suggestions. T-Mo just doesn't have the coverage area of the rest of the major carriers (not occasionally better coverage either), Verizon, ATT, and Sprint. I agree that T-Mo's customer service is better and their rates are less, bu that is because they are Number 4 and trying to move up. They don't even have a 3G network YET, either. And when it will be deployed is still very much in debate.
Why I can't even get a T-Mo signal in the town I live in or where I work. Therefore, it is useless to me.
slines
10-11-2007, 08:55 AM
I think there is no perfect company. Every cellphone provider has an issue or two. I think Verizon provides the best customer service and that ATT sucks for customer service. But that is my preference. I have tried several companys UsCellular,Sprint, Nextel, Ameritech, Cingular, ATT. Out of all the ones I have tried Verizon was the best to help you the customer when it really was needed. The rest were a joke had to argue with them to get stuff corrected. I do agree with the post above that mentioned about missing calls and voicemail with Verizon. I have that problem and it just started in the last week. At least Verizon is going to give me a Brand new phone to see if that corrects the problem. Now that is service!.
I will live with a few inconviences to have good customer service
test54
10-11-2007, 08:57 AM
I rarley use CS so its all about coverage in my area. ATT / US Cellular / Verizon rule around here.
BBman
10-11-2007, 09:23 AM
The "BEST" may vary with your definition of the word "BEST"
For me, the "BEST" must pass the following questions:
Works in my most traveled areas.
Best value for the money.
Customer service that is quick to reach and understands my concerns.
Usable and affordable service outside the USA.
My household has three services. Verizon, ATT and T-mobile. All household members have their own way of picking the "BEST" service.
I am the only one using a Blackberry. I use T-mobile because it wins hands down using my "BEST" method of choosing a carrier. For me, Verizon is pricey, ATT doesn't have customer service available when I called them for my wife's ATT cell phone. I sometimes tether my BB with my PC. (Use my BB as a modem) T-mobile allows this under my unlimited data plan. Other carriers charge extra for this service. T-mobiles customer service (I believe) is outstanding. The help I've received for the installation of my WiFi setup to questions such as "How do I...." have been answered quickly and in some cases with a return phone call to see how I made out. T-mobile is my carrier of choice.
CS
John Clark
10-11-2007, 10:30 AM
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this forum. It is also quite in error.
While it may be true that AT&T has a larger footprint of coverage (in other words coverage in areas that are not highly populated), T-Mobile's service in large cities is as good as or in many, many, many cases better than AT&T's. Here in Los Angeles (the nation's 2nd largest city) T-Mobile is rated as a carrier with significantly better coverage than AT&T. Indeed, Wilshire Boulevard is the largest street in the nation's 2nd largest city and TMo will give you a clear strong signal from the ocean to downtown as compared to AT&T where you'll get dropped calls every few minutes.
In point of fact, AT&T recently had to drop their national add where they claimed to have the "least dropped calls" because it is simply a lie. AT&T is currently being sued in a class action for their fraud.
It is also worth noting that T-Mobile has been given top carrier status by most if not all of the consumer rating groups where AT&T by comparison is never awarded any similar honors.
It may be true that occasionally AT&T has coverage in West No-Where Wyoming, but to claim that AT&T's coverage is better than TMo's is simply a total whopper (untruth).
This is actually one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen. Do you ever get out of LA? I travel all over the country and have to admit that usually AT&T has the better coverage, overall. It's just what I've noticed in my travels.
JSanders
10-11-2007, 10:32 AM
Wirelessforever, please present your "facts" with less contempt for other users in this forum.
If you have some info regarding the Atlanta area, your posts here might be topical, otherwise, all L.A. means to me is "Lower Alabama" and TMo is horrible there.
Thanks.
Stinsonddog
10-11-2007, 10:34 AM
:razz: Best, smest, west, lest, I don't want no stinkin best. If I had the best why would I need a thread like this.:razz:
And who doesn't love whining kids.
jsconyers
10-11-2007, 10:34 AM
I think it is best if we all agree to disagree. Dub gets better coverage in his area on AT&T and wireless gets better coverage in his area on TMO. It is what it is. Who has the absolute better coverage seems to be a matter of opinion at this point. I would have to agree with John and say AT&T. As a former TMO customer (years ago, things may have changed with them) I have had coverage issues. That is here in the capital of Pennsylvania. Not the "largest city or state in america".
Jsmakr
10-11-2007, 10:36 AM
I would go with Verizon, especially since it sounds like you will be traveling all over the US. Basically, the two biggest carriers with the best U.S. coverage are At&t and Verizon and I don't recommend At&t to anyone. I used to work for them and kept my Verizon phone while working there.
JSanders
10-11-2007, 10:37 AM
agree to disagree.
Pacifist. Pffftttt!
jsconyers
10-11-2007, 10:38 AM
I would go with Verizon, especially since it sounds like you will be traveling all over the US. Basically, the two biggest carriers with the best U.S. coverage are At&t and Verizon and I don't recommend At&t to anyone. I used to work for them and kept my Verizon phone while working there.
I would tend to agree with going with verizon, however the OP clearly doesn't care about coverage as much as the carrier crippling devices. Therefore I don't see him chosing Verizon.
Stinsonddog
10-11-2007, 10:39 AM
850 is what of 1900?
Search first 8-) :x :? ;-) :razz: :cry: :? :idea:
jsconyers
10-11-2007, 10:39 AM
Pacifist. Pffftttt!
Haha! Trying to keep some sanity here, for myself mostly:razz:
John Clark
10-11-2007, 10:51 AM
Probably secretly apologizing for our rude behavior, as we speak.
jsconyers
10-11-2007, 10:54 AM
Surely some choices in life will come back to haunt you.
JSanders
10-11-2007, 10:56 AM
haha, you're cool.
Some haunts will fade over, I am thinking.
jsconyers
10-11-2007, 10:57 AM
Thanks for the encouragment. Here is to hoping they fade over (y)
John Clark
10-11-2007, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the encouragment. Here is to hoping they fade over (y)
;-) I can live with that. Fading away. Thanks.
John Clark
10-11-2007, 12:37 PM
Ok, who's throwing sand??
ezrunner
10-11-2007, 12:39 PM
I live at the BEACH?:razz:
crisambo
10-11-2007, 12:48 PM
.... as this website indicates, this is a Forum . . . for issues with our BlackBerry. . . each one is entitled to express their opinions, but certainly in a civil manner :? , and no less should be expected! . . . Also, we all should be expected to reply responsibly to any question posted, as much as possible, reply only with hard facts and relevant information. What may be true in LA, may not hold in Cleveland and vice-versa . . . so if possible, speak for ones self and with information that you can take to court or to the bank . . .
As for the OP, if you would rather go with CDMA service and decide on Sprint, PM me for possible biz discount program pricing (y) . . . and everyone have a great day!!!:razz:
jsconyers
10-11-2007, 12:52 PM
Crisambo, I see that your location states you are all over the place and you list 4 different carriers, CDMA, GSM and iDEN. Could you post some coverage experiences that you may have to help clarify things up for some people?
Which of course explains why people have had severe problems for years getting their CDMA phones to reliabily ring and post voicemail messages which Verizon and Sprint both know is a serious problem with their networks which they have not been able to fix in over 20 years.
It also explains why GSM has been adopted GLOBALLY, is used across the planet and is the most popularly adopted network standard while CDMA is a standard used in the United States, and ....... hmmmmm, I'm thinking ..... errrr, hmmmm, oh yeah, NORTH KOREA and ....... errrrr, hmmmm, ahhhh .... or yeah, South Africa and ..... errrrrr, hmmmmm, ahhhh, I'm thinking, I'm thinking, I'm thinking. Hmmm, USA, North Korea and South Africa. Did I miss any other location?
Wow, you really got upset there, calm down, chief. If I were to argue with you, I'd point out that China, one of the most heavily populated areas of the globe, also use CDMA as Telus clients (me) can roam on their network while we're there. They do use GSM too, but so does our country. And most of Europe that implemented their network (I'm guessing pre-North America but not sure) have actually regretted the decision and are working on a CDMA overlay for their network. If you're going to enter a discussion with nothing more to offer except the fact that something is more widely used then your rebuttal is pointless. If I ask any of my friends why they go with GSM, their reply is always the same - so they can get cool phones from overseas and use them with their SIM card. But then I ask what about dropped calls, security and network capacity and I always get the same response again - a blank stare. So yes, GSM is more popular but for all the wrong reasons. CDMA as a technology is actually superior to GSM backed by facts I have posted earlier. Your only fact is widespread usage......and you forgot to even mention Canada.
I feel dirty for having argued with you. Sorry, back to my original question which has nothing to do with this.
EDIT - I was looking for the guy who posted the voicemail issue but I just realized that's you too. Last year the CDMA carriers did a switchover of their voicemail indicator which involved a complete platform overhaul and things like that are expected to have bugs. It went from a phone controlled MWI (Message Waiting Indicator) to a network controlled SMS based indicator. In order for this to work properly, they had to remove all MWI features from every single (20 million for Verizon) account. For some reason I know my carrier didn't run a batch script for this, they just had the call center do it manually whenever someone called in with an issue. And until this was done, it never worked properly so there was a huge public outcry as to why the indicators weren't working properly. But the system we have now (at least with Telus) works better than the old indicator and actually has all the bugs worked out. Not sure about carriers south of the border, but this should no longer be an issue.
As someone who has tried out 3 different carriers over the course of many years, I can tell you the advantages/disadvantages of them all.
First, I had Verizon (CDMA). They were a nightmare in all respects except mobile broadband. There were many dead spots with them and don't dare go into a rural area (in Ohio, at least). When I would call Verizon on a landline to report that the location I was in was a dead spot (this was in the densely populated Cleveland suburbs, mind you), they would respond with "oh no, we're looking at the coverage map and you do have service! There are no problems." They simply refused to accept the fact that I was looking at my phone with NO SERVICE. And be prepared to get locked into an ongoing contract with every plan change you make. Their billing team is outright rude, as I had spent literally 15+ hours convincing them over the phone that I had put security deposits on my lines and they owed me $375. I will NEVER go back to anything CDMA.
I might have an explanation for this, I worked in Telus' network department for a while and had to take calls about clients with dropped calls. We'd bring up the coverage map and it would say (indicated by a coloured blob) that there was coverage in that area. However the explanation was that there was possible a large truck, big building, or large mountain blocking reception for that specific square block but the coverage map was too vague to indicate this. I couldn't argue with the client, they were standing there, but there was nothing I could do either. We can't move mountains or buildings so the general response from us was that we'd document it and if it became a large problem (BIG percentage of people complaining) nothing was done. It's cost analysis right? We actually had one building put a glazing on their windows to decrease the bright sun for the employees and as soon as this was done, BAM......all cellular coverage disappeared through the entire building. And they wanted us to fix it! Granted Telus put a repeater in the building to fix it but the problem is that sometimes there are breaks in the network coverage in dense areas but nothing can be done.
So....finally......here's what we've ruled out:
Verizon - crippling
T-Mobile - GSM
AT&T - GSM
Sprint is winning so far even with bad coverage.
Living in Cleveland and making broad-based carrier evaluations is silly.
You may have excellent research criteria for Cleveland (one city in the midwest) but that hardly qualifies to make broad-based statements about the worth and capabilities of carriers in general.
I'm glad you have given us a good reference review for Cleveland but that hardly is worth much to people who never live, travel or visit Cleveland.
First of all, I was sharing my experiences with the carriers. I explained that with Verizon, their support was awful. This is not a Cleveland-only issue. Support is a nationwide thing.
Second, the CDMA issues I listed are CDMA issues that exist because of CDMA technology, which is used nationwide, not just in Cleveland.
Third, my note about T-Mobile having only a 1900MHz network has a real effect on indoor coverage possibilities. There is simply no market in the nation where T-Mobile is on 850, which physically penetrates buildings better. My issues with that are not Cleveland-only issues. 1900MHz is worse than 850MHz anywhere you go, Cleveland or Los Angeles. The fact of the matter is that no matter where you go, T-Mobile must place more towers there to have the same building penetration effect in buildings and man-made structures.
...While it may be true that AT&T has a larger footprint of coverage (in other words coverage in areas that are not highly populated), T-Mobile's service in large cities is as good as or in many, many, many cases better than AT&T's. Here in Los Angeles (the nation's 2nd largest city) T-Mobile is rated as a carrier with significantly better coverage than AT&T. Indeed, Wilshire Boulevard is the largest street in the nation's 2nd largest city and TMo will give you a clear strong signal from the ocean to downtown as compared to AT&T where you'll get dropped calls every few minutes...
And if you want to get rude about it, guess what: our initial poster doesn't live in Los Angeles. I'm glad you have given us a good reference review for Los Angeles but that hardly is worth much to people who never live, travel or visit Los Angeles.
Oh, and finally, our poster is from Georgia. South Carolina, a neighboring state, isn't even served by T-Mobile yet, except through roaming providers. If our original poster drives through South Carolina at all, he may have some coverage issues. Here, AT&T would be a fine choice :smile:
gixxer
10-11-2007, 05:37 PM
Sprint/Nextel will never get my $$ again!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im just going to leave it at that!!!!!!!!!!! I went with T-Mobile and so far so good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The custmer service is the best that I have ever delt with!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just my 0.02!
JSanders
10-11-2007, 05:41 PM
If you could only see the scolding Mr. Wirelessfornever gave me in a PM, you might have some insight into the mind of that element of society that many customer service reps have to deal with everyday.
He promised me he would not return.
John Clark
10-11-2007, 05:42 PM
I would agree. TMo Customer Service has always been excellent for me, IMHO. I can call 24/7/365 and talk to someone. AT&T's hours aren't so accomodating. TMo is cheaper, as far as plans go. However, AT&T has a better coverage footprint. That can be attributed, partly, due to the fact that AT&T has a lot of 850Mhz frequency and TMo has only 1900. 850Mhz does better getting into buildings, etc. than 1900.
LunkHead
10-11-2007, 05:59 PM
all L.A. means to me is "Lower Alabama" and TMo is horrible there.
Thanks.
Hey Mr! I was born and raised in LA area.... Get off my peeps!!!! :razz:
greeneggsandham
10-12-2007, 07:39 PM
I would agree. TMo Customer Service has always been excellent for me, IMHO. I can call 24/7/365 and talk to someone. AT&T's hours aren't so accomodating. TMo is cheaper, as far as plans go. However, AT&T has a better coverage footprint. That can be attributed, partly, due to the fact that AT&T has a lot of 850Mhz frequency and TMo has only 1900. 850Mhz does better getting into buildings, etc. than 1900.
I'm in similar boat to OP and recently trying out a curve w/t-mo, neither of which at this juncture are looking too good. I've never owned a bb before, but have had cell plans with voicestream, at&t, verizon.
1) Voicestream was way back in the day and had to go because of extremely poor coverage and dropped calls anytime you drove past a building, under an overpass on the freeway, and sometimes even large trees.
2) AT&T was up to bat next and pretty good for a while there but then starting increasing my rates every few months or so, overbilling me, etc., Dealing with customer service was a royal pita, treated me like I was some type of scammer when I tried to remedy. So I remedied by moving to Verizon. A few years and a class action lawsuit later I got an AT&T long distance card out of the settlement w/something like whopping 60 minutes on it, wh/to this day I've still never used.
3) Verizon, at least initially, was a very welcome change in the customer service department, at least for the first 6-8 months or so when my wife started having issues w/her phone. Despite the fact that mine worked fine, the cs folks kept walking her through firmware upgrades and various other "hose 'em an close 'em" tactics until her warranty expired, at wh/time they told to go buy a new phone. When we headed down the the local vzw store, waited for a good 40 minutes or so, only to be informed that we were in the wrong line. I don't have anywhere near the patience for this kind of treatment just so that some company will allow me the honor of giving them my money. I was "screw this, we're dropping Verizon" and was literally out the door. A manager happened ot be walking by, overheard me, and snagged my wife before she could make good on our escape. From there, things went very well and we walked out w/not one, but two pretty nice (for the day) Samsung phones for total of $50. But what they didn't tell me was that under the new contract I could no longer adjust my minutes w/o entering into a new TWO year agreement EACH time - something I had previously been able to do w/o any such stipulations. This despite the fact that MY phone was the main account and the others family share add ons. Hence, I was astounded when our needs increased and vzw absolutely refused to let me add another 1,000 shared minutes w/o agreeing to be tied to their apron strings for another 2 years for EVERY phone that was on our share plan. I thought the rep must be mistaken so escalated this to cs manager and was told the same. As mentioned, such was definitely not the case under my original contract. Told them at the time that this was going to be deal breaker as soon as the two new phone contracts were up but they didn't seem too concerned about loosing my business. Screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me. Which brings me up to ....
4) T-Mobile -
a) Customer support is very friendly and sports good people skills. Unfortunately overall they don't seem to be very knowledgeable. I have never ever experienced anything near this level of complications just getting my phones to make phone calls. Getting transferred here and there, back in the hold queue each time has just eaten up FAR too much of my valuable time. I could damn near write a dissertation on this but just take my word for it when I say the problems have exclusively been their bad, not mine. IF this 8320 wasn't soooo close to being sooo *****in' I would have bailed on them already, and my intention is to do so as soon as I figure out my best option.
b) Call quality is definitely a step down from what I've become accustomed to from Verizon, at least in urban Idaho. Less clarity and people on other end complain that I'm fading in and out. No dropped calls yet, but this is a business plan so we're not going to put up with that, especially when major towers within a mile of my house. These boards seem to run pretty hot and cold about the 8320 in this dept. so maybe it's the phone, but similar on the samsung so probably not. Nevertheless, I think I might at least try an 8800 before canceling.
Sprint is a pretty scary thought but looks like about my only other option remaining.:???:
my $0.02, fwiw...
apasic
10-13-2007, 02:11 AM
i cant talk for every coverage area but here is what i have noticed:
CDMA with Rev A is of course much faster than the standard EDGE used by GSM, but in North America you can only expect to have Rev A in major urban centres and if you dare leave you will be in trouble and slow speeds.
Here in Toronto GSM is 3G (UMTS speeds) ; very comparable to Rev A and i can see that GSM in North America will eventually cover the entire map with 3G (not too distant future i'd say).
Also as noted, every single country i have ever visited has GSM coverage, however i have taken CDMA phones to Europe and well .. might as well have brought a brick. If traveling in Europe you can expect UMTS (3G) speeds standard, no need to try to compare EDGE to Rev A, those times are long gone. North America is just playing catch up and GSM is the world standard, no need to go to CDMA just because some carriers happen to have higher speeds in some areas, i would much prefer the proven standard that is bound to cover the map.
greeneggsandham
10-24-2007, 10:34 AM
One thing I can say that may be of interest w.r.t. the t-mo vs. att debate. I live close to two major tower that both carriers lease antennae space on. In my home I never got any more than 3 bars from the t-mo's 8320 while I get 5 bars pretty consistently on the att 8310. Could be wrong since I'm not a wireless engineer but since pretty much all else is equal, assuming consistent internal build quality, the difference in signal strength likely stems from the better penetration of 850MHz band.
dirtypirate
10-24-2007, 02:43 PM
I've been a Telus client for years and just recently moved to the USA so now I need to find a new carrier to go with. I'm looking for a CDMA provider with Blackberry services that are not crippled in any way. Any suggestions? Do these even exist? I only know of Verizon and they're crippled to hell and I think Sprint and Cingular are GSM. What do you think?
If you don't want crippled, then avoid Verizon. Best coverage, but you pay the highest price monthly.
TMo is cheaper for the monthly service and customer service is good, but the coverage lacks.
AT&T is inbetween the two on price and has a larger area for coverage with ok customer service.
Oh and I'll NEVER touch Sprint again! They bar far are the worst at coverage and customer service hands down.
imo fwiw.
akosnitzky
10-24-2007, 03:03 PM
Wirelessly posted (Verizon 8830: BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
VZW. Its the network. :-)
greeneggsandham
10-25-2007, 03:05 PM
GSM. It's the phones.... :razz:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.