10/7 An excellent web site showing you GSM coverage in the US.
I'm very surprised that T-Mobile has a much better coverage
in the US than Cingular, even as people claim that Cingular
has a better coverage in metro areas.
http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml
\_ Add Cingular and AT+T together. -tom
\_ Hmm, even after doing so, I still see plenty of blank spots
all over the Midwest. I have a 1900Mhz-only (ancient) cellphone
that seems to perform very well in the inner East Bay, while my
850/1900 Mhz phone seems to have inferior reception. Could it
be because my 850/1900 constantly force itself to communicate
with the 850Mhz tower (which is a rarity) while my 1900Mhz-only
is happily interacting with the abundance of 1900Mhz towers?
(just guessing) Both phones are through AT&T Wireless - jthoms
[formatd]
\_ it has nothing to do with 850 Mhz capability.
\_ The Cingular=better reception argument doesn't really mean wider
coverage. The addition of 850MHz band from the AT&T merger gave it
better building penetration. 850MHz signals penetrate buildings
better. I had virtually no trouble with T-mobile when I was
outside. It was the fact that I had no reception in my office that
forced me to switch to Cingular. I now have full bars in my office.
\_ someone who are better at physics need to help me out there.
I thought higher the frequency, better the penetration, but
at the cost of having a much shorter range per tower.
that seems to perform very well in the inner East Bay, while my 850/1900
Mhz phone seems to have inferior reception. Could it be because my
850/1900 constantly force itself to communicate with the 850Mhz
tower (which is a rarity) while my 1900Mhz-only is happily interacting
with the abundance of 1900Mhz towers? (just guessing) Both phones are
through AT&T Wireless - jthoms |