Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Service Degenerates Further
An anonymous reader writes "Almost everyone I know has been complaining about their cell phone service lately. These companies continue to add more subscribers, overloading their networks to the breaking point. They hold you hostage by not allowing you to switch providers and won't invest in new infrastructure. Customer service ratings are dismal for all the major providers. Doesn't look like it's going to improve any time soon."
Well mine is fine. Never had a problem except in the metro /subway
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
I get a signal about 50% of the time...and it has this nasty habit of going from full signal to zero (dropped connection) and immediately back up to full signal....what happened in the middle?
Sons of bitches...do NOT get Sprint...they seem to have a "random service droppage" policy...or a major bug in the system.
I live in a pretty packed section of LA (Hollywood Hills) and I have noticed over the two years I have been here that my cell phone has always been between 1 and 2 bars in my apt. out of 4 (signal strength) yet I used to be able to make phone calls and now I spend half the time not even on the network. The cell towers have gotten so crowded that when you call AT&T they tell you that only about 68% of all calls made from that area are able to get through due to overcrowding. Yet they have no plans to expand in our area for the next year.
It kinda sucks. And I'm locked in by a contract.
Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
Don't sign any contracts that extended beyond that period.
At least here in the states, cell phone carriers will be required to institute true number portability on cellphones. They've been pushing it back for about 4 years now but the FCC told them it was do or die time.
This is from: clarkhoward.com:
"Cell phone portability stays alive - July 18, 2002
If you are one of our listeners who took the time to write to the FCC about the cell phone industry, Clark wants to congratulate you. A law passed in 1996 allowed you to take your cell phone number from company to company if you changed providers. It was called "true number portability" and the cell phone industry was terrified of it. So, they have tried everything they could to postpone the law going into effect. The FCC asked for you comments in this matter and your voice was heard. The FCC has issued a decision, saying the rule will stay in effect and you'll be able to keep your number. But reinstatement will not go into effect until Thanksgiving 2003. So, we will be able to take our number with us, but not for a while. And, when this goes into effect, many cell phone companies will go away because of mergers. As long as we have four major players, we will have a decent amount of competition."
Here's the original link.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Yeah, something is up with them. When I got my latest cell phone, I had a somewhat in depth discussion with the sales rep about the various carriers. He said that although Sprint has some excellent protocols and ideas for new network services, they are relatively new to cell phone service. As a result, they don't have as much experience with networks as Verizon or VoiceStream do. So that could be the source of your problems.
The sales rep also said that Sprint has problems with reception inside buildings (more so than other providers). I ended up going with Verizon as a result.
neurostarI have Sprint PCS and use it all over the country (it's 85% for when I travel). I've been pretty happy with the service I have gotten.
Sure its not your phone?
Part of the problem is that there are several different standards for digital cellphones here in the states. Some networks use CDMA technology, some use TDMA technology, and some use GSM technology. If you are switching between carriers that use the same technology then you can probalby keep your phone. This is also how out of area roaming works. I have Dobson/Cellular One phone. AT&T Wireless uses the same technology as Dobson, so when I get out of my local area I start using AT&T phones. If you look at the model numbers of cellphones you'll often model numbers that only differ by one digit. A Nokia 8260 and 8290 for example. These phones are basically the same except that one can talk TDMA and the other talks CDMA.
"You can't fight in here! This is the war room" --Dr. Stra
I work for a wireless reseller, and I've seen the complaints flood in. We are often flooded with callers who cannot connect their calls, or once every 10 calls they might actually get through. This is more seen in big cities such as New York, Miami, etc. The systems are overloaded, and from my experiences, the wireless carriers don't really care. They need to take a step back, and look at the current infrastructure they have in place, and realize that this is not going to last much longer. The systems weren't designed to handel the amount of traffic they are currently holding, and it's only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down around them.
I know that they currently do not have the money to pump into upgrading the entire system, but right now, the cellular phone industry is at a place where a lot of people are relying on the technology, so it may be a time to have a small markup in the rates. I know where I live, it is cheaper to own and use a cellular phone then a landline phone these days. There's only so much that the consumer will be able to handel before they go back to their old ways of communicating.
tourettes
While many GSM phones are locked to a provider, some times they will unlock them after a certain time (likely after your contract period expires). And if you buy your own phone of course it won't we locked at all. Then you can choose between Cingular, ATT and T-Mobile.
This will be great for competition once people realize they can do this... Right now many are probably unaware of this.
Uh... yeah, a large portion is still dedicated to UHF television because it's in use.
Until HD takes off, that spectrum will continue to be in use. Once 80% of US households are capable of receiving HD then the old UHF (as well as VHF) analog frequencies will be reclaimed and reallocated.
Cell phones are but one service that is starved in spectrum allocation. If the government was to let the free market allocate the spectrum, an entire new universe of wireless network services could become available.
Yes. And we'd have no conflicts at all from different companies rampaging across the "free market allocated" spectrum, right? Because that never happens. Nope. No interference between wireless networks and wireless phones. No interference from jacked up CB transmitters either. And we know that unallocated spectrum won't ever have two wildly conflicting technologies utilizing it, right?
Not to mention that the free market does tend to ignore certain costs and needs. Part of the VHF/UHF reallocation will be used to greatly expand the number of emergency channels for police, fire, ambulance, and other services. Think the free market will care about that? Doubt it.
It's funny, because generally I'm against government interference in things, but I think the kinds of interference that would occur otherwise are far worse.
TDMA = Time Division Multiple Access
CDMA = Code Division Multiple Access
GSM = Global System for Mobile communications
Kind of like different network protocols (ie. TCP/IP vs. IPX/SPX). CDMA is generally regarded as the most 'advanced' and 'secure' system in the US. It is arguably the most efficient, as well.
Hell if we take awat those DAMN amateur radio bands we could do even more....
it's not like the Ham radio operators actually INVENTED any of the radio based technology we use today....
(Note this is sarcasim.. without Ham's we wouldn't have 1/5th of what we have today..)
spectrum isn't the issue yet... It's the fact that they don't install enough cell sites, or enough infrastructure for the full 600 calls per cell tower it's SUPPOSED to support.
Point the finger at the cell companies... the FCC isn't to blame on this one.... not yet anyways..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Within the last 2 years, I have owed or heavily used all of the major Cellphone providers. Below is my thoughts on each. All companies SUCK if you go over your minutes! Oh and I travel about 40% of the time so I am basing it on Nationwide coverage.
Sprint PCS: This is my current provider and I plan to keep it that way. Yes there are occasional places where the service skips, but a quick call using their VOICE COMMAND customer service gives me a credit minute, and away I go. Not to mention most of those places get fixed if you report the location to a SPRINT STORE. Not the phone customer service, but the actual SPRINT PCS store. Overall coverage is good in major metro areas. Have some of the BEST PHONES, and I have found often times the PHONE is the problem over the coverage area. However the new network they have does get hit heavily in rush hour.
Cingular: Overall a decent company. I like the no extra charge for analog roam. I dislike their customer service. THeir Digital Network is a bit weak in the coverage area though based on how much I travel and see. Literally cross a street in Manhatten and lose coverage.
Verizon: I would never use them now because of the "Can you hear me now" commercials. However when I used them, I found some cities had EXCEPTIONAL COVERAGE, yet others had HORRIBLE. Atlanta for one was HORRIBLE coverage for them. Their Customer service is an absolute JOKE IMHO. All in all would be near the bottom of my list of preferred companies.
T Mobile: If you job requires connectivity, DO NOT USE THIS. Its great for some of the trinkits and features, however if you are traveling its a PAIN! When you lose a call its INSTA DROP, not the usual "you are breaking up" if you would hear static on another phone with TMOBILE you LOSE THE CALL. The customer is ALWAYS WRONG with them too.
Nextel: Hard one to comment on. If you are in a city and use alot of intra company minutes this is the way to go. However if you are traveling about, their ROAM network can KILL YOU, and you need a credit card with you to use it.
Bottom line is NONE of them are perfect. I think overall SPRINT is the best. However time will tell if that will remain. I personally take my phone in every 2 months for a software and network update. That has made alot of difference to my service and coverage area over the past year. Its a hassle but I DEPEND on my phone.
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
There are a whole host of issues affecting network quality right now. I'll start with some history. Back in the late 90's wireless was hot. RF engineers were in incredible demand. Those that were good (and plenty who were not) became consultants making lots of money. Wireless carrier s couldn't get enough consultants to handle all the design and optimization work, and they still needed to hire their own in-house engineers. Obviously the relatively low salary positions with carriers didn't attract the best engineers who were making very handsome six figure salarys, but they did attract a lot of less qualified individuals.
Enter the recent downturn. Wireless carriers (many of whom have never turned a profit due to the massive costs of the ongoing expansion of their networks, Verizon, Cingular and other cellular providers excepted) suddenly became unpopular. In an effort to become profitable / look good to Wall Street, they suddenly slammed on the brakes and stopped or dramatically slowed their builds. They also got rid of all the high-priced, very talented consultants, leaving only their staff engineers to handle the optimization and new design.
In addition to getting rid of consultants, a lot of staff engineers have been cut as well. Those that are left don't have time to track down the obscure problems that arise in the complicated interactions between cell sites and phones that cause dropped calls (some are due to lack of coverage, but the vast majority of drops are due to the internal parameters that govern the behavior of the cells and phone not being tuned to provide the best service in a specific area. The phone needs to be told when to hand off, what to hand off too, and so on. Often the particular combination that will work for a user traveling on a certain road is unique to that road, and even the direction of travel. Each combination needs to be figured out, and then manually entered by an engineer.) Even when a problem is tracked down, money to fix problems is non-existant. The budgets reflect very specific priorities, and quality isn't nessesarily high up on the list (since it takes a long time for consumers to react negatively to poor network performance. They can't go anywhere else for years sometimes).
Oh, one poster mentioned that his phone seems to have several 'bars' of coverage and then suddenly drops to none. There are a few reasons for this. The first, and most common is what is known as Rayleigh fading. Wireless connections experience very rapid, highly localized signal fades. You may have experienced this phenomena when listening to a radio station at a stoplight. It may be almost unlistenable until you creep forward a few feet, at which point it returns. Mobile phones are afflicted by the same problem. Providers use multiple antennas per sector on each cell site (known as diversity), to reduce this effect, but tough zoning laws often force us to use only one antenna per sector , which increases the freqency of this effect. (cross-slant polarization antennas can help in some situations, but not all, and certainly don't perform as well as dual antenna configurations)
The rapid fading can also be a product of the way the phone displays the signal strenght. Some phones on CDMA networks (Samsungs in particular) do not display signal strength with their 'bars'. Instead, they show the signal to noise ratio. In a weak signal area with low interference, the phone will show a great signal to noise ratio when the signal is just above the receiver sensitivity threshold, but just a small change in signal strength can drop the signal below the threshold, at which point the signal becomes unusable.
Cell companies built like mad during the 90s. It wasn't about profits or revenue, it was all about capital expenditures and building out infrastructure (sound familiar ?). Now that it's time to pay investors back, cell companies are having to layoff engineering personnel left and right and have had to stop building capacity sites. It's not about quality and performance engineering anymore, it's about quantity.
It also doesn't help that most cell companies have reached customer saturation in every market. Every last business person, drug dealer, soccer mom, and teenager has a phone. There's no more revenue out there in new sales, it's all goofy new services like being able to download pictures on your phone and other technocrap that no one really needs. And with the cutthroat pricing and marketing tactics going on it's going to get much worse before it gets better.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
I ended up dropping my cell service (sprint pcs) after I was unable to place a 911 call at an accident. All circuits busy or some such error.
As a direct result, it took an extra 18 minutes to reach emergency services. As a result, a mother of 2 died.
Sprint still socked me with a $150 cancellation fee.
All of your assumptions are valid... except that price elasticity is different for different products. If this wasn't the case, then *everything* would sell for $0.11 per minute (assuming that to be the optimal cost), and there would be no such thing as an excise tax (or all purchases would be excise taxed equally).
Read up on your microeconomics before you post. Microeconomics is a cool geeky subject with lots of math and theories that rival physical theories.
Sprint still offers a 'no commitment' option. AFAIK they do not offer free phones. If you go with the no contract option, I believe your monthly rate will either be higher or you will have less minutes or missing features that would otherwise be present with a 1-year contract.
Forget europe, my (GSM) cellphone worked just fine when I travelled in Australia last year. And they've got what, 2 million people and HOW much land? Sure I didn't try it in the outback, but all around the coast, anywhere even vaguely inhabited it was fine. Compare that to my friends in NYC not getting a signal on the GWB. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic...
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
The first: Different cel phone networks have different underlying technologies that make them work. In Canada we have TDMA (Rogers/AT&T), CDMA (Mobility/Telus/Sprint), GSM (Microcell/Fido) and iDEN TDMA (MIKE/Nextel). Each of these phones uses a different modulation scheme - it's kind of like when 56 K modems emerged and we had X2 and Flex.
Each technology has its pro's and cons, I'm not going to get into them here. Suffice it to say that the technologies are different enough that a CDMA phone for example cannot be made to work on a TDMA network.
The second reason is revenue protection. Even here in Canada, where, for example, CDMA technology is used by both Mobility and by Telus, phones are sold with "activation lock codes" - essentially built-in passwords unique to each handset, so that you can't get into your phone's programming and change the network that it connects to. This is because the phones are sold deeply discounted, and the only way the provider can recover that money is to lock you in to a contract, and ensure that the phones they cel will only generate airtime revenue on their own networks. You'd be a fool to think your cel phone, with its big bright display, li-ion battery, speaker phone, vibrate, digital and analog technology in both the 800 MHz and 1.9 GHz spectrum, all in a package so ultra-miniaturized that it's almost a choking hazard, only costs $38... but it has to be marked down that way because competition is so fierce between different providers' handsets.
My suggestion: when you first activate your phone, your provider may quickly step you through some fancy key combinations to program in your new phone number. If not, then before you have your phone disconnected, try to get your phone number changed the day before so that your provider will have to step you through reprogramming the phone. When they do, write down every code you are given. The lock code is on file with your provider and is specific to your handset's serial number (ESN). You can possibly use this later to reprogram your own phone.
Thing is, here in Cali, it's routing infrastructure that's broken, not tower coverage.
Back when Cingular and tmobile were the only GSM providers, it was pretty common to get "Emergency Only" coverage. But Cingular and tmobile *shared* *towers*. So if you were getting coverage from the competitor, and not your own provider, it was because they weren't routing your packets properly.
Of course, it happened equally often with both companies, so it's not like you would even switch if you could.
Now with AT&T GSM coverage in the area, we tmobile users see "Emergency Coverage Only" all the time, but that's 'cause AT&T has many more towers, and they really are better. Now if only they'd buy Voicestream... nah.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
CDMA is also generally reguarded as more advanced outside of the US as well. Which is why the air access portion of CDMA is the basis for most 3G standards. Going forward GSM providors are moving towards UMTS (or is it another acronym starting with U, I don't remember). And that's basically another name for W-CDMA.
Its a bit of a mess of why there are divergent paths. But the big one, is that Qualcomm owns most of the patents on CDMA, and are really the only player for CDMA base band chips. I only know of one other company that has had their chips certified by Nortel and Lucient to work off their base stations, and they're just getting into production now.
GSM was out in the market first. Europe had alot of problems with 1G (analog) cell phones. There were so many different standards that you had the same problem moving form one system to another, that you have in the US. When 2G came along GSM was choosen for the most part to hold back these woes. I don't remember fully but I think GSM came out in the mid 80s. Qualcomm introduced CDMA in the early to mid 90s, about 10 years behind GSM. So GSM had a long time to get entrenched.
But GSM is alot like TDMA, at least at the physical layer. CDMA is completely different. Basically TDMA has the same limit as AMPS does. You can really only have one transmitter on one frequency at a given time. CDMA changes this, allowing multiple transmitters to be on all the time on the same frequency. Theroitically this means that CDMA is interferance limited to the number of cellphones talking to a base station, while TDMA/GSM is still frequency limited. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it works out to around 8 GSM phones can effectively share the same frequency, while 43-47 CDMA phones can share the same amount of frequency. Its a complicated formula, because CDMA uses more spectrum per signal, but you can have base stations sitting almost ontop of each other physically transmitting on the same frequency. These numbers are for 2G CDMA. 3G CDMA is suppose to increase capacity by 1.7 times.
Of course Europeans have a burr up their saddles when it comes to technology from the States (and the US has the same burr it seems). And Qualcomm isn't helping manners. Qualcomm is greeder then Microsoft, and are probably impedding the adoption of CDMA more then anything else because of their monopolistic attitude (Think threats to customers who consider using other chip sets, exhorbadant license fees, etc). True 3G CDMA does meet all the requirements of high speed and higher capactity. Sprint and Verison are not deploying true 3G CDMA. True 3G CDMA has a bandwidth an effective bandwidth of 5 MHz, just like W-CDMA has. Instead S&V are deploying 1xRTT which is backwards compatable with 2G cellphones. Don't ask me why CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA are not compatible with each other, its all infighting between the GSM manufacturers and Qualcomm. The basis of it is that if CDMA-2000 was the 3G standard, and backwards compatible with 2G CDMA, then why would new carriers want to buy GSM equipment if they're going to have to get rid of them later, why not just buy 2G CDMA and upgrade to 3G later.
But this is the cellular market place. If they can get more money out of their customers for less service they will. And this sort of attitude isn't at the provider/network level but basically goes all the way up to the base station manufacturers who run the international standards committees.
Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
This is not necessarily true. Even if you accept as fact that the US has substantively worse coverage in true metropolitan areas than the level of service throughout western europe (an assertion that I question), you still cannot ignore the importance of the overall dispersion. For instance, a significant city like, say, Seattle, may be relatively dense within city limits, but without having a cluster of other large cities nearby certain (meta-level) infrastructure considerations may not be economically viable. Unless you are intimately familiar with cell phone technology (more than just the summaries of CDMA, GSM, or what have you) to say otherwise, I don't think you can just ignore that. Furthermore, the fact that people in the US do often venture into less dense areas, whether they be suburbs, exurbs, vacation retreats, or even commuting to another population center, means that they will take the level of service outside their nearest metro area into great account. In other words, while GSM may make sense in Europe, that same technology may not make a great deal of sense, even in cities, BECAUSE it is not economically viable in outlying areas. This may well present the telecos with the choice of either: supporting multiple standards on a single service/phone (much more expensive), losing all customers that wish to have service outside of their city, or supporting a single standard that some may regard to be technically inferior (even though it's the only economically viable solution). Furthermore, besides just the density of the population, you must take into consideration the percentage of those customers that are willing to buy service. If the US has a lower overall adoption rate, then this must factor into the economic calculus of the telecos. I do not have the statistics on hand, but I would venture a guess, from my own experience in europe and in the US, that the US has a significantly lower percentage of the population using cell phone technology than the parts of western europe that you are comparing. Now you may assert that this is a result of poor service, but it cannot be held a priori, especially considering the fact that Europe's land lines have long been less reliable and most costly than the US (thereby encouraging the adoption of such new tech)
Actually the number of calls in one cell is limitited to the availability of slots in the time-division of one frequency and the number of available frequencies near your location (not necessaririly your cell). And for other types of communication than voice, like SMS (runs over the signalling channel via the MAP protocol), is limited to the bandwidth of the signalling channel (C7, or A7 in the US).
;-) (Don't do this at home, kids, GSM only)
:-)
And regarding emergencies: In GSM-networks it is allways possible to put the network into emergency-mode. In emrgency mode only subscriber with a special flag in their subscriber entry in the database (Home Location Register) are allowed to place phonecalls. And 911 or other emergency calls allways kick one call out of the line when there isn't no more bandwidth. Fun for new years eve. Tell your friends to call 911 and hang up immediately. 30 friends bring 30 free lines for 30 friendly phonecalls
The point that the basestations and "towers" aren't powerful enough is just... Well, NYT
Ahh, how common is GSM in the US anyway? Is it as common than in the rest of the world or is it still just available in major cities and sourrounding areas? Just for comparison: GSM coverage in Germany is ~97% for all providers in the mean. What is it in the US or Canada? (Except deserts, mountains and other very remote areas)
Alex.
You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled.
United States : The free market was given reign over the fledgling digital mobile comms market. Manufacturers and Operators launched a handful of (Incompatable) systems. This had several effects:
1) Incompatable systems confused the market. Consumers did not wish to deal with CDMA V.'s TDMA V.'s GSM
2) Incompatable systems meant that Operators could not share their networks, which would have allowed Operators to spread costs and access a larger coverage area (E.g. Operator A builds to cover areas 1,2 and 4, while Operator B builds to cover areas 3, 5 and 6, giving both Operator A and B access to areas 1-6.) Operators instead spent their efforts covering the same areas which were already covered (But by a different Operators standard)
3) The above has the knock on effect that value added services such as SMS cannot and do not operate, or operate only within the subscribers network. Consumers remain uninterested in these services as they have limited application.
In theory, the free market would dictate that a single standard would have emerged, and everyone would now be using it. This has proved not to be the case. Consumer confidence is weak.
Everywhere else : The Governments of other countries auction of the radio spectrum only for use with a single standard (GSM on two frequencies). Operators begin building networks, but quickly form sharing agreements which accelerates the coverage. Consumers do not have to understand anything beyond the concept of "Buy a mobile phone. Make phone calls." Sales of mobile phones accelerates at a huge rate, and Operators rush to provide cheaper calls and value added packages in order to obtain and retain customers. Competition becomes fierce, and because coverage is not a consideration for customers, Operators are forced to compete on price and features. Operators rush to be the first to introduce new services. Mobile telephones and SMS messaging have become so ingrained into the social conciousness, television programs advertise a number viewers can send an SMS message to alongside their email address and telephone number.
Just so you know, I work in the mobile telecoms sector, dealing with 2G, 2.5G and 3G services with customers all over the world.
All these people complaining about bad service should maybe examine their provider...
I have Verizon service and I have NEVER had signal or capacity issues except when indoors or inside my (shielded and unusually RF-noisy) car. I can use my Verizon phone at my *aunt's house*, which happens to be in the Middle of Nowhere, NY. It even operates in digital mode. Haven't tried AT&T, but no one with a Sprint, Cingular, or T-Mobile phone can get a signal on their network at my aunt's. (Cingular and Sprint phones MIGHT be able to get an analog fallback signal.)
In short, I'm a Verizon customer and have no complaints whatsoever about service quality.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
USA's urban coverage is one of the worst amomg developed nations. Emphasize the urban part, since good rural coverage is unrealistic anyway. One of the major reaons was that USA can't agree on one standard. You can have 3 cell towers in Broadway, but one on TDMA, one on CDMA, and one on GSM, so effectively u only get 1/3rd the signal of the entire cell infrastructure, which somewhat explains why there are over 100 million cell phone subscribers in USA, and the coverage is still so bad.
Also, since USA doesn't use GSM, u can't just switch by changing your SIM card...u have to change your phone. Therefore the companies each essentially has a guaranteed subscriber base, and has no incentive to improve coverage or enter price wars.
In Hong Kong there are 6 carriers, and you can actually transfer your cell number when you switch carriers. Now that's true competition which benefits the customer. By the way, did I mention that there are nearly same number of registered phone numbers as the population. That's what defines a commodity. Cell phones, like land-line phones, should be a commodity not a prestige. In Hong Kong the pricing of cell airtime is comparable to land lines, and you actually pay less if you chat infrequently than a land-line, so many single people abandoned home-line phone altogether in favor of a cell. Apparently, USA is nothing close to that.
Notice how countries with successful cell phone service are ones that can agree on a single standard (UK - GSM, Korea - CDMA, Japan - PHS...), and notice how no CDMA phone companies (such as Verizon and Sprint) even bother to adversise international roaming....cause they can't! (your fingers and toes can count all the countries that use CDMA, while there are more than 160 countries on GSM...you do the math). [By the way, T-Mobile USA offers $1/min roaming in Western Europe (long dist free)]
It was definately the latter (Revenue protection)
He was talking about taking a Sprint phone to Verizon, which uses the same technology (and has quite heavy phone overlap - The Kyocera 6035 for example).
Sprint subsidy-locks phones, Verizon does not. Why?
It has everything to do with how Sprint and Verizon sell phones. Sprint allows you to buy a phone from a large number of places (CompUSA, OfficeMax, etc.) without getting a contract. But that phone is pretty worthless without the service. Now if someone buys a Sprint phone and activates it on Verizon, Sprint is losing a lot of money.
Verizon, on the other hand, doesn't s-lock phones. That's because you can only buy a Verizon phone at a Verizon store or from Verizon's website (or by landline phone). As a result, you can ONLY get the discounted price on a new phone at contract signing. You can get a phone without a contract from Verizon, but they'll charge you a lot more. (For example, the Kyocera 6035 was $380 without a contract subsidy, $250 with subsidy.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
So far I haven't seen a post that seems to truly understand the CDMA quality of service situation.
Here are some things as I understand them:
There is a huge difference between signal strength and capacity. Signal strength, measured in terms of the Pseudo-noise offset level of the spread spectrum signal is one part, and the Ec/Io (that's "Eee-See over Eye-Naught"), the difference between the signal strength and the noise floor, which is the available capacity. When your phone reports signal strength in bars, it's actually making an estimate using some kind of formula to simplify this pretty complicated technology. You can have a strong signal but not be able to make a call. You could be sitting under the tower but but there are already a few thousand other people using it.
Also, for those of you who have older phones who experience better service with "more powerful antennas," please know that it has little to do with the antenna. It has everything to do with SID vs. PRL. When cellphones really exploded here in the states (three years ago or so) they were still being built using something called SID. The definiton of the acronym escapes me, but essentially the phone would look around, pick the tower with strongest signal and the most available bandwidth and use it. So with my Startac 7760 on Verizon, if I was closer to a non-Verizon tower my phone would use it, and then Verizon would pay the other carrier a tiny fee for my use.
A couple of years ago (in Verizon's world, with the advent of the Startac 7868, I think) they got rid of SID and came up with PRL, a Preferred Roaming List. Phones were programmed with lists of preferred towers where Verizon didn't have to pay a fee. So if I was using my Verizon Startac7868W and I was sitting on top of a non-Verizon tower, but there was a tiny, weak signal from a Verizon tower 15 miles away, my phone would use the weaker signal to save Verizon a few tenths of a cent.
Since I don't call much, I use a prepaid phone :
www.ecallplus.com
Costs me about $7/mo. and I can cancel whenever I want.
AT&T. I even bought a refurbished phone for $20. So for about $90 ($20 phone + $30 prepaid card + $30 hookup fee + tax), I was out the door. I got pretty lucky with my salesman, because I have asked others about refurbished phones and prepaid, and they usually plead ignorance or generally treat you like you have the plague. They probably don't get any commissions on it, so they have little incentive to offer it.
Granted, there's no glitzy features and the phone is an old Nokia, but it works well enough for me.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.