Slashdot Mirror
How's Your Cell Service?
Coldeagle writes "Well for those of us who are fed up with your current leash...Cellular phone providers... Here is an interesting article on various US cell phone providers and how their service adds up."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Verizon is significantly more expensive than most other US-based providers.
It has always been (in my opinion) worth the extra money, so I'm not surprised they were ranked #1.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The standards for "intersting article" seem to have gotten lower. This is a very brief writeup of a customer satisfaction survey. There is very little information on how the survey was taken, and the scoring on the survey ranks in the range of 0-104, with all services being ranked right next to each other at the top of the spectrum (with only a few % difference between each).
In other words, a short article vaguely describing a survey with largely insignificant differentiation in results. Whoo hoo!
I'm sure the towers are registered somewhere - however, it's then got to be mapped against geographic features that nork up coverage etc.
In the UK we used to have these kind of maps, but there were too many cases of people thnking they'd get coverage then not doing so because of geographic features such as hills etc that were creating blackspots. So I think they've actually stopped doing them now - I'd assume they've done the same in the US, although this assumption is speculative rather than based in fact.
I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
The problem with this article is that mobile service should be rated regionally as opposed to nationally. I understand that some carriers have national plans, but in general each carrier has strengths in different geographic areas.
There are still alot of rural areas out west that do not have any service. I doubt some of the areas in the commercials really had service.
Science is the Real TRUTH!
Good to hear that Verizon's coverage is good, but as a fellow motorist, I'd prefer that you had watched the road rather than stared at your signal strength bar the whole drive.
Just as with anything else, there is (or should be) etiquette for use. Sometimes it takes quite a while for the social norms to develop. Smokers still seem to think it is and should be acceptable for them to blow smoke right in a non-smokers breathing area. I don't think too many people would argue it is ok to have sex in public (can't wait for responses to that).
The point is that social norms will develop. It will probably take too long (as in smoking) so establishments will probably have no cell phone policies except in special areas. This makes sense anyway as phone conversations tend to be louder than normal conversation. Whenever I get a cell phone call in a public place I always move to a point where I am out of the way and talk just like I was having a conversation with someone right next to me.
Just as a car shouldn't be driven just anywhere (a neighbors lawn), a cell phone shouldn't be used anywhere and anytime. For example, answering a call while your girlfriend is yelling at you is likely to get it broken upside your head. Strangely if they go down while you are actually ON the phone it is ok. Go figure.
It is, but only because they're not giving incentives to the retained customers. The extra profit comes from the existing customers paying full rate (and probably on an older, more expensive plan) whereas the new customers get XX months or YY minutes discounted. Give the existing customers a discount and they're no longer a profit center.
Which is why phone providers are so vehemently opposed to number portability. The current pricing structures try to get as many new customers as possible, and try to wring as much money as possible from the existing customers. The only incentive there is for people to continue with one provider is that they'd have to get a new number if they switched. Enter number portability and you get to take your number with you to any provider. Now there's absolutely no reason not to jump to a new provider for the incentives every year or two.
Of course, any provider with a sensible pricing policy has nothing to fear. Call me when you find one...
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
First off, the point spread is like, what.. 10? So, can we infer from this that the "worst" cell provider (Alltel) is only a little worse than the "best"?
Some other problems: they make no differentiation between, for example, AT&T subscribers on the old DAMPS/TDMA network versus the new GSM network. There is also no mention of regional networks like Cricket and metroPCS (and with their all-you-can-eat pricing, it would be interesting to see how they stack up against "real" cellular providers).
Similarly, since cellular service can often vary widely from region to region, a breakdown by metropolitan area is almost a requirement. In Phoenix, SprintPCS was wonderful, while in Los Angeles it's oversold and almost unusable. NexTel also has a wide variance in quality, and I'm sure the pimping out of the service via Boost Mobile in California (a prepaid provider) is pushing their already heavily loaded Los Angeles network over the edge. Also, some of the technologies fare differently in different environments... a dense city like San Francisco is going to be less friendly to some technologies and more friendly to others.
Oh, and a generic note to those who have commented on Virgin Mobile: in the US, it uses the SprintPCS network.