Various Topics on Nextel

..ev.. .. ..ha..

http://sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

This site provides information about the rates, local
coverage, and roaming capabilities of the six major
cellular providers in the San Francisco Bay Area. This
site also has information and advice on phone selection,
high speed data, international roaming, and prepaid.

Much of the information applies nationally, some is only
relevant to the San Francisco Bay Area.

Additions and Modifications

-Added Nextel per several e-mail requests to do so

-Updated prepaid comparison, especially useful for tourists
from GSM countries

-Updated information on prepaid SIM cards from T-Mobile
and Cingular, and new AT&T pre-billed GSM service

-Updated rate information

-Updated dead spot tally

-Daily updates on Cellular News Stories

-New section on LNP (number portability), including a
table of which carriers are adding big monthly fees
ostensibly to cover the cost of implementing LNP

-New section outlining the evolution of the A side and B
side 800 Mhz carriers for the San Francisco Bay Area

-More information on outlying areas and roaming
capabilities (or lack thereof) from Bay Area carriers,
including new north bay GSM service available only
to AT&T GSM subscribers

-Moved a bunch of stuff to separate pages to speed load
time over dial-up

Steve
http://sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison

.... ..v..

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <Gq4Ra.103328$Io.8882576@newsread2.prod.itd.earthl ink.neton Wed, 16 Jul
2003 04:23:02 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.netwrote:
It also provides a great deal of bias, so take it with a grain of salt.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular

..dr..

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net, con una bandiera
della rinata Fiorentina in una mano e lo striscione "MEGLIO LIBERI
ALL'INFERNO CHE SCHIAVI IN PARADISO" nell'altra, cosi' parlo':
thanks :P
I run to read :-)

--
Andrea de Florence, www.prepaidgsm.net Staff
< PrepaidGSM: a new domain and a exclusive forum only for you

..am..

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.comwrote in message
news:Fq5Ra.2199$dk4.114459@typhoon.sonic.net... Jul As should anything John says as well. Fair is fair.
--
Jason G
2002: Yanks - $126M = 103 wins, A's - $40M = 103 wins too!

..ev.. .. ..ha..

"Giambi" <byegiambi@hotmail.comwrote in message news:bf3m3n$b0ja6$1@ID-
I disagree. Just because one individual delights in making
misstatements to promote his specific agenda, it would not
be fair to me to sink to that same level and it would be
transparent to people that read my site. There's no upside
for me to do this; I have no financial interest in any carrier,
and no agenda to promote, other than getting the facts out
there.

The only reason I did the site was to help people make an
informed decision on cellular service based on all the available
information that's out there. I expected that there would be
people who would be upset to see links to negative reports
about their choice of carrier. I was surprised as to how few
people have expressed disagreement with the content and I
credit that to the extensive citations and references I include.

I've made literally hundreds of additions, corrections, and
clarifications, based on e-mails from people that have read
the site, all to ensure that the site is objective and unbiased.
The most important way I ensure this is by providing references,
citations, and substantiations. When someone complains without
anything to back up their claims I can't take them seriously,
especially when they follow-up by lying and claiming that they
did provide evidence.

As one e-mailer wrote to me:

"I also greatly appreciate your citations & substantiations included in
your alt.cellular groups posts. Anytime that I see one of your posts
including a URL, I am always intrigued to investigate further."

I've only gotten three negative comments (and tons of positive
feedback):

One was complaining that the site was biased, did not provide
any details to back up the claim (you get three guesses as
to who that was from, and the first two don't count!). I invited
this individual to provide references to his claims of excellent
coverage by Cingular but he was unable to provide any.

One was from someone upset that his Sprint coverage was better
than the coverage cited in the studies from Bay Area Consumer
Checkbook and Consumer Reports (nothing I could do to fix that,
other than to note the comment).

One was from someone upset that I did not include Nextel,
complaining that I should include them because Nextel is the
most profitable carrier and they just signed a sponsorship deal
with Nascar (I added Nextel, despite my misgivings of comparing
Nextel against regular carriers).

Again, I welcome criticism, but please provide at least some
evidence, reference, citation, report, etc., to back up your
***ertions; I'll be happy to make corrections, additions,
whatever.

Steve
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
sfbacellexpert@NO.MORE.SPAM.hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------

..cha.. .. ..a..

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.netwrote in message
news:9ueRa.4597$Mc.417150@newsread1.prod.itd.earth link.net... Steve, I went to your site and was happy to see the old Motorola TLD-1100,
MJ mobile. I used to install those as a yound radio guy for Indiana Bell
Telephone when they were "Brand New".

73 - Mike - K9JRI

..ev.. .. ..ha..

"JoeM" <e4pgo4l02@NOsneakSPAMemail.comwrote in message
news:y5mRa.105029$Io.8994016@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... You and everyone else in the world - 1!
Actually, while I'm still ****ed about them removing some of the Sprint
roaming on AC, they did add AC coverage in other places, such as
Alaska, which was good for me because I visited there two weeks
after they added it.
Sprint link Thank's for the positive feedback. BACC is a great publication
(and not just because they agreed with most everything I said!).
They sent me a nice e-mail after I pointed out the error regarding
AMPS coverage in their article.

Steve
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
sfbacellexpert@NO.MORE.SPAM.hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------

..li..

Steven,

I'm sorry, but I will have to agree with John Navas stating that you
have an axe to grind against GSM. There are a few things that I'd like
to highlight:

- By making statements such as the following, you do very little to add
objective advice:

"AT&T chose GSM as a result of the investment by NTT Docomo, not because
it was the better standard. [...] and moving to GSM and W-CDMA was the
price they had to pay."

- You also make comments as how to using 800MHz is better than 1900MHz;
the difference is very minimal (especially in urban areas), and the
coverage results will depend on the positioning of cell sites, not the
density. I quote the following:

"All things being equal, you don't want to choose a carrier that
operates at the 1900 Mhz PCS frequency because in-building reception,
especially in box buildings such as large retailers, hospitals, malls,
etc., is worse at 1900 Mhz. This eliminates AT&T's GSM service,
Cingular, MetroPCS, Sprint, and T-Mobile, leaving only AT&T's TDMA
service, Nextel's iDEN service, and Verizon's CDMA service."

- The data services currently offered by all GSM operators in the US, is
considered 2.5G, not 2G.

- I'm a little shocked as to how you can rate GSM, CDMA and iDEN equal
in terms of voice quality. I think that most people will agree that
iDEN has the worst voice quality. I have tried all technologies, and
find it hard to beleive that you consider CDMA to have the same voice
quality as GSM, especially considering the current low quality codec
Verizon uses on its current network.

I could go on and on, but don't want to bore lots of people with an even
longer post.

Julian


Steven M. Scharf wrote:
[...]

.. ....

I disagree:
I really appreciated the great amount of info the site contained.
Obvisouly, tremendous work went into this project and there were answers
to questions someone as ignorant as myself, had never even considered.
also of us have difference of opinions, but there must have been at
least something about the site that you liked; could you not have at
least pointed out some of the good stuff, rather than only the points
you disliked. I, personally learned more from his posting than I
learned from your complaints--If I had of spent all of the time putting
this together, if nothing else, it would make me wonder why I had wasted
my time just be
put down.

I certainly learned more from the site, than I did from your complaints
(grin).

thanks

Julian <julian@school.eduwrote in article
<InoRa.105310$Io.9014425@newsread2.prod.itd.earthl ink.net: [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

..li..

I will definately agree that a lot of work went into the site, and I
respect that.

What I didn't like as much was the constant putting down of GSM vs.
CDMA, that is where I think the site is misinformed.

Julian


p lane wrote: