XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android
From: scharf.steven@geemail.com
On 1/27/2018 12:40 PM, Elden wrote:
> On 2018-01-22, nospam wrote:
>>> Too bad about their coverage.
>>
>> t-mobile's coverage is excellent and *very* fast.
>>
>> a decade ago it wasn't as good, but those days are long, long gone.
>
> Not around here. We tried t-mobile and ended up going back to Verizon.
> Tired of dropped calls on the main interstate highway. There is no
> excuse for that. Coverage could suck in some places, but the interstate
> highway should have good coverage, or else you're not even trying.
Ditto. On the eastern seaboard, where T-Mobile took over the old
Voicestream system, and the population density is high, T-Mobile
coverage is acceptable.
In the western U.S., in sparsely populated areas, T-Mobile coverage is
very poor or non-existent. When we had T-Mobile, it was fine in the
heart of the SF Bay Area, but bad on the outskirts, the "greenbelt" and
it remains so. Part of the problem is the spectrum that they own and
have deployed. And as someone else pointed out, just because they now
own some 600 MHz & 700 MHz spectrum, towers don't magically grow out of
the ground to allow them to deploy that spectrum in areas that need it!
We often travel from the SF Bay Area to Southern California. In L.A.,
Orange, and San Diego, Counties, T-Mobile was okay. But along the main
route (CA-152, I-5), T-Mobile had a great many gaps (trying to use
Spotify was hopeless!). Up in the Sierra Nevada, you must have Verizon
or AT&T.
T-Mobile is fine for people that never leave dense urban areas, and that
is T-Mobile's target market. They compete on price for those that don't
need to better coverage offered by the top-tier carriers.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
