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

On 8/4/2020 10:56 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> 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.
> 

nospam (John) is wrong of course™.

Especially amusing is his use of Whistleout's web page. First of all 
that article only is about the City of San Francisco, not the Bay Area. 
Second, the coverage claim they make has a footnote of "Coverage data 
generated August 2019 from carrier maps." So of course a carrier with 
the most accurate maps, that doesn't exaggerate coverage, is going to 
show less coverage than a carrier that just does a bucket fill of color.

The reality, as shown by people that live and work in San Francsico, is 
quite different. I.e. my sister-in-law works a the CPMC Davies Campus 
hospital. Inside the building you MUST have Verizon, nothing else works. 
Sprint cannot roam on Verizon there because Sprint is supposed to have 
native coverage.

To be fair, the T-Mobile map does show weaker coverage at that address. 
What many people may not realize is that when a map shows weaker 
coverage the reality of that weaker coverage translates to having 
coverage outside but not inside. San Francisco is very difficult to 
cover because of the terrain and because of the construction type of 
many of the buildings.