Coverage Experiences (Was: Re: [missing-sync-palmos-talk] <missing-sync-palmos-talk@lists.markspace.com>)

[Eric Ullman]

I can only speak from personal experience, having had Cingular, Sprint and
Verizon.

Cingular has excellent coverage in my local area (SF Bay Area), since they
were once PacTel Cellular (local phone company before SBC). However, their
coverage on the East Coast and in parts of the Midwest left a lot to be
desired. I used to travel a great deal, all over the country, and I got
tired of roaming. This is probably somewhat better now that they have merged
with AT&T. I understand that T-Mobile piggybacks on Cingular's network in
the Western US.

Sprint had outstanding coverage on the East Coast, but It wasn't as good in
my home area. The fact that Sprint was CDMA also forced me to rent a phone
when I traveled to Europe and the UK. Expensive! I do not get Sprint
coverage at home, or rather, I get just enough of a signal to prevent phones
from going into low power mode, but not to complete a call reliably.

With Verizon, I have experienced excellent coverage where my travels have
taken me. I still don't have the international flexibility of a GSM phone,
but I can't fault the US coverage that Verizon offers.

Your mileage may vary.

Eric

-- 
Eric Ullman
Director of Sales and Marketing
Mark/Space, Inc.
eullman at markspace.com



On 5/2/05 1:41 AM, "Paul Berkowitz" <berkowit at silcom.com> wrote:

> None of you has yet said why you think Verizon's coverage is better than
> Cingular's. Where does this information come from, and how localized is it
> to your own particular area?