Re: T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls

nospam wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, sms
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Someone mentioned that with the combined coverage of
>>Sprint/T-Mobile,  > coverage ius much better.
>> 
>> Wow, who mentioned that?
>
>common sense, since they each cover areas the other does not.
>combined, it will be better than each alone.
>
>> Sprint and T-Mobile pretty much both had the same very limited
>>non-urban  coverage, so combining coverage wouldn't have helped
>>much.
>
>nonsense.
>
>sprint's coverage is better than verizon, according to actual surveys.
>
><https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Plans-In-San-Francisc
>o>
>  While no carrier's perfect, all four of the major networks perform
>  well throughout San Francisco. AT&T and Sprint's networks blanket 
>  San Francisco, while Verizon and T-Mobile are only a few percentage
>  points away. 
>
>sprint in particular is in second place with a 99.98% coverage,
>whereas verizon is last at 94.93%, behind t-mobile at 95.02%.
>
>
>> If you're a Sprint subscriber that was okay with Sprint's limited
>>native  coverage, because Verizon roaming compensated for it, then
>>you're  probably going to be very unhappy when that roaming is no
>>longer available.
>
>sprint does not have limited native coverage. far from it.


I'm suspicious of coverage maps.  As I mentioned in an earlier message,
TMO and VZW show the same coverage at my house but VZW signal strength
must be stronger.  whatever the case I know the VZW cellular connection
works better than my TMO connection.