Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 202

Thread: Good bye cricket

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    When we were in "the boonies" of Oregon, on T-Mobile, we had no service but we ran into people that had coverage on Verizon but they were roaming on U.S. Cellular. I don't think that Visible can do that. Nor can Total Wireless which I have. But apparently Page Plus still offers extra-cost roaming, at least for voice, at 29Ę/minute on Pay as You Go: https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/25-standard-pin/, and 20Ę/minute on their monthly plans: https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/the-12/ .

    I wish that Verizon would acquire U.S. Cellular so all that rural coverage would be available on Verizon's native network. But maybe Verizon has no interest in buying a carrier that has to provide so much rural coverage. However there's precedent for that because Verizon did buy a rural carrier in California many years ago.
    Verizon also bought up alltel, so there is precedent, I think the main issue with u.s. cellular though is u.s. cell has been pretty adamant they aren't for sale.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    We had T-Mobile service up until a couple of months ago. We had it mainly because of the international roaming feature. We knew we'd sacrifice domestic coverage to get that, but T-Mobile's domestic coverage finally became too much of an issue for us to be able to continue with it.

    And it's not just my personal experience, all you have to do is to look at the actual coverage maps which show the large differences in coverage in rural areas. And we're not talking in the middle of a Nebraska cornfield, we're talking about the areas not many miles away from cities, and we're talking about major highways that go through sparsely populated areas.

    If you never leave cities or suburbs, T-Mobile is fine (as are Metro and the many MVNOs that resell T-Mobile service). But if you're a family that travels off the beaten path a lot, T-Mobile is not fine. At the very least you need to carry along a second phone that's on an AT&T or Verizon MVNO, something like RedPocket or one of the Tracfone brands.
    I would dispute that. And I travel quite a bit off the beaten path. Look up Franklin, PA--and ask yourself how it could possibly be that T-Mo can provide 75 down/30 up service there, when AT&T service provides less. And yet, it's true. I compared them side by side.

    That's one example. So YMMV, that's for sure. And I dispute that T-Mo's domestic coverage "in general" is an issue. It seems so for you, but let me tell you, they all have issues.

    The old "if you never leave the cities you're fine with T-Mo" is old news, ancient history. It used to be true, but is no longer today.

    As well, my experience with Visible tells me that the Verizon emperor has no clothes. All I've ever heard about is how great VZW service is, heads and shoulders above everyone--and boy, does VZW believe it. But my Visible testing shows otherwise. I'm getting far better service from T-Mo than from Visible, in the same areas so far.

    Is Visible being deprioritized and/or throttled? Well, to hear transplanted Visible users say it, not at all. If that's the case, then VZW service around here is horrendous. AT&T service is better, but at its best it's no better than T-Mo.

    The world, she's a changin'. The old saw about VZW being the best and T-Mo being for major metro areas only, that no longer applies.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    152
    Feedback Score
    0
    Alot of talk about speeds (which are probably padded by the carrier anyway) How does the network change compare in how you use your phone?

    Honestly those super high speeds only matter if you're downloading large files constantly.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,251
    Feedback Score
    0
    Iím very skeptical of Visible. I had Verizon post paid for 3 years and then switched to Verizon prepaid for 3 years before switching to ATT prepaid a few months ago totally. I had a second line on Cricket that I also switched to ATT Prepaid a few months ago as well.

    Verizonís depriortization on VZW prepaidís was awful. I posted speed tests on VZW prepaid threads showing speeds of less than 0.03 mbps download in many congested areas. I travel a lot and carried Cricket + Verizon Prepaid and many times I had to use my Cricket line to get data when my Verizon line would bog down. Too often and too many places.

    I am so much happier on ATT prepaid now it would have to be a catastrophe for me to consider Visible. The last year on Verizon prepaid left a very bitter taste in my mouth for Verizon.

    Hope the Visible train works well for those who are happy with it, but Iím highly skeptical personally.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    839
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11
    Carrier(s)
    310-150
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think a lot of this thread can be summed up by a few key statements—it all depends on where you live and primarily use your devices and what your expectations are.

    Some of the posts make it seem that somehow Verizon is pulling off some sort of scam to get people to sign up and provide little or no service. After a week of trying Visible, it works well enough in my area, especially for the price. I'm probably not going to keep it more than a month or two because the devil I know (AT&T/Cricket) works even better in most places I go. From what I've seen, there are people that are having excellent experiences, due to living closer to the servers (lower pings) and are in strong Verizon markets with lots of capacity available (in those cases, deprioritization may not be noticeable). I've heard that AT&T has had some markets where deprioritization is felt, but I have yet to experience it with travels mostly in New England, Midwest, and Pacific Northwest—plenty off odd "No Service" spots for a few miles, but nothing show-stopping.

    On the other hand, there are plenty of places where anything but some of the higher-tiered postpaid plans on Verizon run absolutely terribly, and Verizon has spent years building up a reputation for coverage and service, but some of that falls back on the soon-to-be-decommissioned CDMA network, which Visible can't access. Take aware the LTEiRA areas and there are even bigger holes. Verizon isn't promising this, but it does make the Visible experience quite a bit different than Verizon proper. These things are spelled out up-front, so it could either serve as a warning or not be a problem at all.

    Next, T-Mobile has made great strides in recent years, I've long thrown away the "works only in cities" myth myself, but I think that there are some things that the general public doesn't quite realize and might feel burned. Using iPhones as an example (I'm sure those of you who favor Androids can compare with models from that side), when LTE Band 12 started popping up, it wasn't everywhere and only the most recent iPhone supported it (6S). Therefore, the people with the still-recent 5S or 6 were being told "coverage is better," but not seeing the results. The same thing has happened with LTE Band 71. Those of us on these forums understand the hows and whys, but there's many people who are judging T-Mobile based on only being able to access part of the network. It's a bit unfair and misinformed, but T-Mobile picking up new frequencies and using them as some of the main coverage ones tends to make things work a bit differently than, say, AT&T adding LTE Band 30 or 66 for capacity.

    Between waiting for FCC TV repacks (Chicago area took awhile) and the Sprint merger pending, T-Mobile has a lot of potential to fill the gaps. Unfortunately, they're also racing against another issue—congestion in a lot of areas. Due to consumer-friendly policies, promos, and generally being seen as a up-and-coming alternative to AT&T and Verizon, there are a lot of places that T-Mobile has grown without the capacity to support the subscriber base. It seems like they're racing to rectify it in many markets, but it has changed a lot of things for them.

    I think we all can find places where one carrier unexpectedly excels and one is awful and that could keep this thread going for months, if not, years. Nonetheless, if you're rocking with prepaid services, try a few out, see what works, and if it's not great, give someone else a try. I do think checking back in on a carrier as time goes on (maybe with a newer device) is also important, as so much is changing, rather than just saying "well, ____ is bad and will always be bad in this spot."

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinnedone View Post
    Alot of talk about speeds (which are probably padded by the carrier anyway) How does the network change compare in how you use your phone?

    Honestly those super high speeds only matter if you're downloading large files constantly.
    well, it doesn't have to be LARGE files. Simply tethering a laptop and trying to do normal business stuff generally requires more than 2 down/4 up.

    It certainly requires more than 0.77 down/0.01 up.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ecs0013 View Post
    Next, T-Mobile has made great strides in recent years, I've long thrown away the "works only in cities" myth myself, but I think that there are some things that the general public doesn't quite realize and might feel burned. Using iPhones as an example (I'm sure those of you who favor Androids can compare with models from that side), when LTE Band 12 started popping up, it wasn't everywhere and only the most recent iPhone supported it (6S). Therefore, the people with the still-recent 5S or 6 were being told "coverage is better," but not seeing the results. The same thing has happened with LTE Band 71. Those of us on these forums understand the hows and whys, but there's many people who are judging T-Mobile based on only being able to access part of the network. It's a bit unfair and misinformed, but T-Mobile picking up new frequencies and using them as some of the main coverage ones tends to make things work a bit differently than, say, AT&T adding LTE Band 30 or 66 for capacity.
    I am careful to counsel those who ask, T-Mobile seems to lead the pack in "you're way better off keeping up with the newer phones than trying to keep a 2 year old phone going". For better or worse, they keep moving the goalposts. That's not a bad thing necessarily; eventually things will settle down, but for now the technologies themselves keep advancing at a rapid rate and T-Mobile is in the thick of it all.

    I think that's better than the alternative, frankly, and am willing to chase after the newer stuff. EXCEPTION: I won't be playing in the Snapdragon 865 world, not at all. I'm sitting that one out. The requirement for the separate 5G chip, especially when 5G is still as immature as it is, means the batteries and phones are WAY too big. When your entry level phone is the size of today's S10+, which is already too big, and the others approach 7 inches (the same size as the original Nexus tablet!), you have to admit you have a problem.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinnedone View Post
    Alot of talk about speeds (which are probably padded by the carrier anyway) How does the network change compare in how you use your phone?

    Honestly those super high speeds only matter if you're downloading large files constantly.
    Exactly. Most people care much more about coverage than they do about 25Mb/s versus 100Mb/s download speeds. They'll never even notice the difference in speed unless they're downloading a movie or uploading large video files or lots of images.

    T-Mobile has many good features, including the included low-speed international data, free basic Netflix, taxes and fees bundled into the price, and for some people "T-Mobile Tuesdays" where you can get free tacos and hamburgers. But they definitely lag far behind AT&T and Verizon in geographic coverage. For my family, we just could not continue with T-Mobile unless we also carried along another phone on trips outside of metro areas.

    We're visiting family in California this week, and we went hiking up in the Oakland Hills. My niece with T-Mobile had no coverage. We had coverage pretty much the whole time. This isn't somewhere remote, it's literally ten minutes from the 8th largest city in California (Oakland). But it's high up in the hills. T-Mobile's map shows "Fair Signal." But if you've had any experience with T-Mobile's maps, you know that "Fair" essentially means "None." That's the issue we've had with T-Mobile even in metropolitan areas, as soon as you go just a few miles outside of the highly populated areas you often lose coverage. My nephew has Sprint, but I didn't ask him to check his coverage but the Sprint Map shows Fair to Good coverage where we were, and does not show roaming. Hopefully the T-Mobile/Sprint merger will generate sufficient savings that can be used to expand rural coverage.

    Name:  robertsrec.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  55.2 KB

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    I am careful to counsel those who ask, T-Mobile seems to lead the pack in "you're way better off keeping up with the newer phones than trying to keep a 2 year old phone going". For better or worse, they keep moving the goalposts. That's not a bad thing necessarily; eventually things will settle down, but for now the technologies themselves keep advancing at a rapid rate and T-Mobile is in the thick of it all.

    I think that's better than the alternative, frankly, and am willing to chase after the newer stuff. EXCEPTION: I won't be playing in the Snapdragon 865 world, not at all. I'm sitting that one out. The requirement for the separate 5G chip, especially when 5G is still as immature as it is, means the batteries and phones are WAY too big. When your entry level phone is the size of today's S10+, which is already too big, and the others approach 7 inches (the same size as the original Nexus tablet!), you have to admit you have a problem.
    It's interesting that their mid-range 765 chipset has the modem integrated in with the processor but their flagship 865 chipset requires a separate X55 5G modem. I suspect that this is partially related to their deal with Apple. Apple needs only the modem, they don't need the processor. Or it may just be that the thermals of the processor in the 865 combined with the thermals of the X55 5G modem were too high. Sometimes you want to separate high-power components, just like how Intel doesn't try to integrate high-end graphics processors in with their CPUs, you use a separate ATI or Nvidia graphics processor with its own thermal solution. But a separate 5G chip does not necessarily mean higher power consumption, it just means a larger printed circuit board. And for an iPhone, a 5G modem integrated into their processor is likely years out unless they can license Qualcomm's modem and combine it into their processor.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    Exactly. Most people care much more about coverage than they do about 25Mb/s versus 100Mb/s download speeds. They'll never even notice the difference in speed unless they're downloading a movie or uploading large video files or lots of images.
    Not true--not when you're just trying to do basic business things when tethered, AND you're getting slow response times combined with speeds of 1 or 2 down and 0.07 up.

    Speedtest is an indicator of the service you'll get when you're trying to work. Also, a speed test of 100 down is a good indicator that there's plenty of headroom for when things get busy.


    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    T-Mobile has many good features, including the included low-speed international data, free basic Netflix, taxes and fees bundled into the price, and for some people "T-Mobile Tuesdays" where you can get free tacos and hamburgers. But they definitely lag far behind AT&T and Verizon in geographic coverage.
    Not true as a blanket statement, not in the least.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,059
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    But a separate 5G chip does not necessarily mean higher power consumption
    In context of this conversation, though, it absolutely does.

    https://www.pcworld.com/article/3487...id-phones.html

    Battery life is the real differentiator. An integrated modem uses less power to run, and when it comes to power-hungry 5G, every little bit makes a difference. As it stands, the only 5G phones out there are very expensive and need to be very big to handle the heat and power consumption needs. That might not change much with the 865 and the X55 modem. But the 765 could be the chip that truly ushers in the era of 5G.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post

    Not true as a blanket statement, not in the least.
    It's not true as a blanket statement that TMobile covers less geographical area than Verizon or At&t? I worked for TMobile for 15 years, I can tell you, even TMobile disagrees with you here. It is no secret, even to TMobile, that At&t and Verizon covers more sq. miles in the U.S. than TMobile does, nor do they overly dispute this even. They will dispute LTE coverage, especially against At&t, but At&t also has a very large HSPA network that does indeed, cover more area than Tmobiles native network does. It's gotten closer over time, but, again, Verizon and At&t cover more sq. miles than TMobile. TMobile themselves won't dispute this, and if you read their filings with the FCC they go into more detail about this.

    About 7 years ago, TMobile made a conscious effort to advertise heavily towards the urban millennial crowd, this wasn't by mistake. They knew they couldn't compete head to head with Verizon and At&t on pure coverage, so they went after a crowd this wouldn't really matter to. They wanted to make their brand "cool" to this crowd and labeled At&t and Verizon basically "your parents wireless providers".
    This was strategic on both an image front, and a coverage front.

    You brought up business, there is also a reason TMobile has had issues chipping away at Verizon and At&t's stranglehold on business accounts. They just don't have the geographical coverage yet to actually do it. Getting better? Yes, and you see them now starting to push business accounts a little more, but there is a reason this wasn't a focal point for a while. John and company are no dummies. They know their strengths and weaknesses better than anyone, and they play to their strengths better than anyone else in the industry. Geographical coverage is not one of their strengths.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,292
    Device(s)
    Qualcomm iPhone X 256 GB Space Grey
    Carrier(s)
    Visible
    Feedback Score
    0

    Good bye cricket

    Quote Originally Posted by sprintleaver View Post
    Iím very skeptical of Visible. I had Verizon post paid for 3 years and then switched to Verizon prepaid for 3 years before switching to ATT prepaid a few months ago totally. I had a second line on Cricket that I also switched to ATT Prepaid a few months ago as well.

    Verizonís depriortization on VZW prepaidís was awful. I posted speed tests on VZW prepaid threads showing speeds of less than 0.03 mbps download in many congested areas. I travel a lot and carried Cricket + Verizon Prepaid and many times I had to use my Cricket line to get data when my Verizon line would bog down. Too often and too many places.

    I am so much happier on ATT prepaid now it would have to be a catastrophe for me to consider Visible. The last year on Verizon prepaid left a very bitter taste in my mouth for Verizon.

    Hope the Visible train works well for those who are happy with it, but Iím highly skeptical personally.
    Interesting. As it has always been, itís all about location but my experience is the complete opposite. I had Verizon prepaid for 3 years and never once did I experience speeds like that. 99% of the time I was never throttled down. AT&T on the other hand, sucks. Where I live AT&T becomes unusable during the day while Visible speeds are flying high. My service with them has improved a lot. I use AT&T on my iPad and I canít do much during the day. Itís rather frustrating but I only pay $20 for the service so I canít complain too much. I may switch it to Visible at some point. Some have said it works on iPads. Iíll have to search for that post and find out for sure.

    But as mentioned, itís all based on location.

    Edit: right now itís Monday morning at 08:42 and AT&T is already super slow. It usually doesnít become usable again until after 8 at night. A year ago they used to work well. A year ago before that they were faster than the other 3 carriers here.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    iPhone 7+ on the Verizon Network
    iPad Pro 9.7 on the AT&T Network

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ecs0013 View Post
    I think a lot of this thread can be summed up by a few key statementsóit all depends on where you live and primarily use your devices and what your expectations are.
    I would contend that "where you live" is of less concern than where you typically travel to. At home you always have Wi-Fi calling, whether native to the carrier or via Google Voice or some other VOIP. I could use any of the four carriers at home or work, and that's where I primarily use my devices--but not always.

    It's when we travel outside the metro area, sometimes only by a few miles, that we have seen the large differences in coverage. T-Mobile has made little effort to cover rural areas or roads between populated areas. Understandably so because doing so is enormously expensive. Verizon and AT&T have made the effort to put up cells even when the number of subscribers in the area covered by the cell is few or none because they consider coverage to be a big selling point of their service, and why they charge more for their service than Sprint or T-Mobile.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    In context of this conversation, though, it absolutely does.

    https://www.pcworld.com/article/3487...id-phones.html
    It does not.

    A staff writer at PC World does not understand the trade-offs made in system design.

    A separate processor chip and modem chip do not necessarily mean higher power consumption than putting the two components together in one chip. The 765 could well be a multi-chip module with two separate dies in one package. There is no power savings when doing that. And remember that the iPhone, which tends to have better battery life than Android phones, has always used separate modems and processors, and will continue to do so.

    It makes the design easier in terms of thermals because you don't have a one chip generating all the heat.

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Good bye T-Mobile
    By steveh552 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-17-2003, 10:28 PM
  2. Good Bye!
    By nextel66 in forum General Nextel Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-18-2003, 01:35 PM
  3. Good Bye My Friends!!!!... for now...
    By KrayzieVanh in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-11-2002, 05:38 PM
  4. Sigh...good bye, VoiceStream...
    By JohnnyK in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-17-2001, 02:41 PM
  5. Hello T-mobile... good-bye VoiceStream
    By Telekom in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-06-2001, 11:49 AM

Bookmarks