PDA

View Full Version : San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update


Steven M. Scharf
July 16th 03, 06:23 AM
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

John Smith
July 16th 03, 08:22 PM
I really like your website. Especially because we share similar view
points. Such as 800MHz being better, etc. But I cannot agree with you when
ranking CMDA-800's battery life as "Excellent". Fact is, I have used 3
CDMA phones from Verizon, none of them last more than 2 days with no calls
while their web site claimed standby time of 3-5 days. This compares to
GSM and TDMA phones from Cingular and AT&T which really live up to their
promises, average at about 10 days.

I have verified with CDMA phones owned by my friends as well. And moving
from one place to another doesn't seems to help either.

Technology wise, CDMA uses more power when it is farther from a tower
even when not making calls. IMO, short standby time is very annoying,
which means shorter battery life due to frequent recharge and higher
cost because car chargers are not bundled equipment.

"Steven M. Scharf" > wrote in message nk.net>...
> 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.

John Smith
July 16th 03, 08:22 PM
I really like your website. Especially because we share similar view
points. Such as 800MHz being better, etc. But I cannot agree with you when
ranking CMDA-800's battery life as "Excellent". Fact is, I have used 3
CDMA phones from Verizon, none of them last more than 2 days with no calls
while their web site claimed standby time of 3-5 days. This compares to
GSM and TDMA phones from Cingular and AT&T which really live up to their
promises, average at about 10 days.

I have verified with CDMA phones owned by my friends as well. And moving
from one place to another doesn't seems to help either.

Technology wise, CDMA uses more power when it is farther from a tower
even when not making calls. IMO, short standby time is very annoying,
which means shorter battery life due to frequent recharge and higher
cost because car chargers are not bundled equipment.

"Steven M. Scharf" > wrote in message nk.net>...
> 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.

Curtis CCR
July 17th 03, 07:30 AM
"Steven M. Scharf" > wrote in message nk.net>...
> http://sfbacell.com
> San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

[snip]

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

You need to make corrections to this part of your site.

GTE was always the "B" carrier in the bay area. Pac Tel Mobile
Services (PTMS was a partner in Bay Area Cellular Telephone, the
franchisee for Cellular One in the bay area) was reselling service on
on GTE's network until 1987. I was working for a PTMS dealer at that
time. A friend of mine and I (we both worked there at the time) were
talking tonight about the day in 1987 that Pac Tel turned on their own
system, on the "A" side, and our roam lights went out.

Pac Tel (Cellular One "A" side) and spun off their mobile phone and
pager business. They IPO'd it as Airtouch.

GTE tried to buy Airtouch, but Airtouch was eventually purchased by
Vodafone.

Bell Atlantic merged with GTE (OK... BA swallowed GTE) to start a new
company called Verizon. Just a month or so prior, GTE,
Airtouch/Vodafone, Bell Atlantic, and Primeco rolled out Verizon
Wireless. This meant Verizon had "A" and "B" systems in the bay area
(Airtouch "A", and GTE "B"). That was not allowed. Airtouch Vodafone
divested from the "A" side which is now AT&T Wireless.

Verizon Wireless (former GTE) remains the "B" carrier. "Verizon
Wireless" is a joint venture company - 55% Verizon Communications
(VZ), 45% Vodafone.
They were planning an IPO for Verizon Wireless (VZW), but that was
right about the time that the stock market was contracting so it
wouldn't have raised any money. Verizon Wireless is still just a
joint venture between the two big phone companies and doesn't have
it's own stock.

Curtis CCR
July 17th 03, 07:30 AM
"Steven M. Scharf" > wrote in message nk.net>...
> http://sfbacell.com
> San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

[snip]

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

You need to make corrections to this part of your site.

GTE was always the "B" carrier in the bay area. Pac Tel Mobile
Services (PTMS was a partner in Bay Area Cellular Telephone, the
franchisee for Cellular One in the bay area) was reselling service on
on GTE's network until 1987. I was working for a PTMS dealer at that
time. A friend of mine and I (we both worked there at the time) were
talking tonight about the day in 1987 that Pac Tel turned on their own
system, on the "A" side, and our roam lights went out.

Pac Tel (Cellular One "A" side) and spun off their mobile phone and
pager business. They IPO'd it as Airtouch.

GTE tried to buy Airtouch, but Airtouch was eventually purchased by
Vodafone.

Bell Atlantic merged with GTE (OK... BA swallowed GTE) to start a new
company called Verizon. Just a month or so prior, GTE,
Airtouch/Vodafone, Bell Atlantic, and Primeco rolled out Verizon
Wireless. This meant Verizon had "A" and "B" systems in the bay area
(Airtouch "A", and GTE "B"). That was not allowed. Airtouch Vodafone
divested from the "A" side which is now AT&T Wireless.

Verizon Wireless (former GTE) remains the "B" carrier. "Verizon
Wireless" is a joint venture company - 55% Verizon Communications
(VZ), 45% Vodafone.
They were planning an IPO for Verizon Wireless (VZW), but that was
right about the time that the stock market was contracting so it
wouldn't have raised any money. Verizon Wireless is still just a
joint venture between the two big phone companies and doesn't have
it's own stock.

Google