f13.net

Ok... so I'm 40-something and am finally breaking down and buying a cell phone service provider.  I've done a lot of reading, but the differences seem so small that it's tough to get a clear idea of who really offers the best service. 

Any of you technical gurus have any advice?  My use would be primarily in the midwest, but I travel A LOT.  Coverage is key and I don't really need many bells/whistles. 

Thanks.

Sprint.

Do you want a mobile PC style phone or a tiny phone with no keyboard and no OS to speak of?

Great little phone with easy to see screen and amazing battery life:

http://tinyurl.com/69uyt5

If you are traveling in the MidWest, get an ATT GSM plan:

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/index.jsp

So a vote for Sprint and a vote for ATT. 

As for my phone needs, pretty minimal.  I just want it to replace my standard home line.  I'm sick of shelling out $60 a month and having no mobility.

How mucn international travel might you be doing? If you are going to use it from home try all of them (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon). Seriously. Some may have a far better signal where you live. I'm using AT&T because 1) it's the only one with a good signal where I live and 2) it's GSM so I can use my phone in Asia.

Yeah GSM is good if you will be going to Asia, Europe or Australia. Make sure you get a multi-band GSM phone for that, because different GSM frequencies are used in North America compared with other countries. In Australia we went CDMA for a while, but last week they shut down the final CDMA network and now we are 100% GSM (for any Aussies reading, NextG is a breed of GSM). I took a CDMA phone to the UK once for a laugh, and there was no network anywhere.

It kind of sucks that GSM has dominated, because it is an inefficient technology. I researched these things for a mag article a few years ago, and essentially GSM divides up the bandwidth between the callers (meaning you tend to get no access during an emergency when everyone else is making a call), while CDMA uses the entire bandwidth for each caller, using unique codes to identify which data belongs to which call (meaning it can carry many more calls - I was able to make a call from the main Sydney Olympics stadium while the person next to me with GSM could not).

That also means CDMA phones output lower electromagnetic radiation, while GSM phones need to be able to really pump out radiation when the signal is weak. So GSM is where the (unproven) cancer fears are.

I use sprint, but att has better phones (specifically the iphone). You could consolidate just about all other services (cable, internet) there too if you were so inclined (verizon's the same in that respect).

Verizon usually has the best coverage in the US. I don't use Verizon.

The majority of my travel is domestic, but I do travel globally.  When I do, it's usally to a populated center. 

The only other feature I may want would be sattelite internet access for my laptop.  Other than that, I just want a phone that rings and gets good signal.  I may ask my colleagues, but many are "technicologically challenged".

Of course, if you don't walk around like a 20 something housewife with your hand holding your phone against your head at all times, the risk is minimized. And if you do, you're going to die in a fucking car crash before the cancer gets you.

Has to be a quad-band GSM device then (there was a chance Qualcomm were going to force Iraq to go CDMA, but apparently you can't get rid of that shit even you hold a gun to peoples' heads). Your best bet is AT&T.

The current (unproven) fears are not about head cancers. Many people's phones spend more time against another part of the body - clipped to their waist or in a pocket - while being used with a bluetooth earpiece.

I used to have several friends that worked in wireless. Sprint was a fucking joke back then (several years ago), at least in this market. No coverage anywhere. Have used both Verizon and TMobile, and both are very good. Switched to TMobile because Verizon didn't have a phone I liked when it was time to upgrade; I had no complaints about Verizon's s service or coverage area.

UMTS (aka 3g GSM) uses WCDMA for the air interface.  So, thank you for playing. 

From a spectral efficiency standpoint, WCDMA (UMTS) beats the pants off of CDMA  (EVDO RevA). 

If you are worried about cancer, try to avoid flying, eat more organic food, stay out of brick buildings and lay off the flammables. 

NOOOO NEBU NOOOO!!!  I'll probably be the last person in the universe who doesn't have a mobile phone!   :ye_gods:

And for an old man you're not very old, old man.

If you want this to replace your home phone the most important thing is the coverage you get at home. Also, why are you paying $60 a month for a landline?

Crap, no dobut. $60 is way too much. I was annoyed with the local company for just $30 a month for 0 features.  Switched over to the cable company as my phone provider, now i pay $27 a month and get caller id, 3-way, free long distance, voice mail, call block and a shit load of other features Cinci Bell wanted to nickel and dime me for.

As far as cell phones, my wife has been pretty happy with Verizon.  Two of my co-workers have Sprint and they say it's ok, but one has trouble getting signal at her house, since it's in a gulley.  Whoever you're looking at, though, go to their website and look around to find their coverage map.  Knowing where you're most likely to travel, that'll steer you better than us throwing out random providers.  Most suck in one way or another anyway.

Signe; it'll be you, me and Haemish as the last non-mobile phone users in the US.  :awesome_for_real:

After me ... you are not alone ...  :grin:

Oh good.  I was having heart palpitations.  Srsly. 

Oh, you know you LOVE driving about the Delaware valley. Especially with the vapid soccor moms in large SUVs.

Because I live in Wyoming.  I think landline is about the most expensive in the country.  I pay $63 a month for standard service.  It's awful.

Thanks for the information.  I'll ask around.  Coverage is key, so the phone choices mean almost nothing to me.

Thanks for correcting me. It's years since I did my research and 3G has actually arrived in the meantime. Sounds like sanity has prevailed in spectral efficiency.

Cingular and AT&T (same company now, but different network licenses for a while yet) are not licensed in Wyoming, T-Mobile is, but it has limited coverage. Your best bets for State coverage are Verizon and Alltel, both CDMA networks - and thus worthless abroad. AT&T partner with Commnet and Chinook (now Cellular One, not to be confused with the old company of the same name, which is now a part of Alltel... confusing bastards) . If you live in one of the major cities and stick to the major routes, T-Mobile will probably work for you. AT&T can probably sell you something equivalent to T-Mobile but may pump your charges because you spend more than 50% of the time on a partner network rather than their own.

Wyoming?  If you are in Eastern Wyoming you would be covered by Nokia GSM sites that I engineered. 

Union Telecom is your best bet for GSM coverage in Wyoming:
http://www.gsmworld.com/cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=ut (http://www.gsmworld.com/cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=ut)

http://www.unionwireless.com/ (http://www.unionwireless.com/)

Alltel is fine, but their towers have always had issues with dropping voice calls in Wyoming and Western Nebraska.

I've pretty much been a T-Mobile user for about 6 years and have never had any problems with their service or anything.  I live in Indiana, and they pretty much provide the best service in my area.

Ok, let me see if I've got this right:

a) Find the provider with the best local service for my specific area

b) Make sure I look at their coverage nationwide

c) If I want to use the service internationally, I'll need to make sure that I have the proper equipment.

Seems beyond this that all providers are quite similar.  Did I miss something?

Find the provider that will subsidize you costwise on a phone you enjoy holding. Go to the stores, look at all of them. Decide if having email would be useful. Decide if you want a keyboard. I'm sorry but having a phone for just "talking" is just silly. Even my Mom sprung for a blackberry and she gives cancer to computers. Also, I can think of one really good use for texting, but I'll grab you on IM.

Then there's finding the right ring tone....  Is it really worth all that, Nebu?  IS IT?

I think that you miss the point.  I worked in hospitals for years during the "beeper era".  I like it that people can't reach me.  I like it a lot.  Most people will email or text in times when they could have called... but talking is a barrier so they don't.  If people REALLY need me, they can just call, right?  I don't want to be texted.  I don't have to check my email every 3 minutes.  I don't need sports scores by the minute.  I don't need to know the weather in Bratislava while walking in the mall.   I have a PDA that contains all of the medical information I need, so I don't have cause to look anything up remotely...
 
I want a phone.  It's really that simple.  Maybe you could give me some scenarios that may change my mind?

I really like texting for sharing info that doesn't require a conversation, but needs to be timely. I use it most often to notify friends I've just arrived at the Bart station/hopped in a cab. Email is awesome to have access to when you need it. Yesterday I spaced and forgot the address of the party I was going to. All I had to do was hop into gmail and I was set. Personally I think a web browser is also a requirement anymore. It's darn convenient for things like movie times on the fly.

I've cut down to a 200 min plan just because I can relay just about anything through text. Saves me money. Besides, I don't care to "catch up" with anyone when they call me on the phone. I'll do it in person.

"We'll be at Hooligans at 9"

"That bitch isn't with u is she?"

"No"

"OK"

Fuck texting. I hate anybody who does it in favor of talking. If you hate talking to those people so much, stop being friends with them.

Look... it's someone that speaks my language!

Young people often hang out in places where it's too noisy to speak over the phone or where it may be inappropriate to be talking out loud (not that that stops many of them) or they are sitting in classrooms pretending to pay attention. In those situations texting makes perfect sense.

Geez, why so dramatic? Hate has nothing to do with it.

Whatever, walk out to the fucking patio like the rest of the world. That 20 feet won't break your legs. And class? You shouldn't have the fucking phone on period.

I believe in the freedom to do whatever the fuck you want to do with a phone. Down with tyrants!

I believe in actually having a society, not degrading our social skills even further with technology because we can't be arsed to have a 2 minute conversation.

But what if it's raining! 

I can understand people who decide on a cell phone instead of a land line, especially if you travel a lot.  Verizon charges us $50-something and that's not including long distance and other providers.  We make international calls, too.  It gets pricey.  I just can't use a mobile phone.  They're too small.  I feel like I'm talking to my fingers.   :uhrr:  Also, when they vibrate, I get excited.   :ye_gods:

Ring ring.

Hello, this is Nagios. I was monitoring your second network access server in Erie and I saw that it had got warmer than the maximum temperature that you had defined. If you would like to acknowledge this warning, please say "acknowledge" now. No? Okay, thank you, I'll call back again in another five minutes if the temperature is still above the threshold. Take care.

Sometimes text messages are appropriate, Seinfeld.

Can texting be used for good purposes? Sure.

Is it the overwhelming majority of the time? Hell no.

We'd be better off without phone texting technology. I don't see practical uses outweighing the annoying ones. Cell phones were annoying enough already.

Sturgeon's Law.

I have a modest proposal, then. We eat the text messengers to solve world hunger.

We should eat 90% of everything for a balanced diet.

I would say that they should be used the majority time, yes.

Of course, this only pertains to me. I don't care what anyone else does. I just happen to see the people I talk to all the time... So at a distance, there's not much else to exchange except a few sentences, mainly pertaining to... here it comes... finding a place to meet up and talk face to face. Most of my voice calls are used for very long distance communication. 200 minutes is quite fine for that (for me).

Although I don't have a cell phone, if I did I would definitely make anonymous crank text messages.

I received my first "wrong number" text this week. It was much more entertaining than when some calls you with the wrong number. You can keep them on the hook a lot longer.  :awesome_for_real:

Why waste 2+ minutes when you can convey the information in 10 seconds?  You aren't trying to have a conversation, you are just letting someone know something that doesn't require, "Helllo, hey what's up, how you doing..."

My brother doesn't get this and it bugs the shit out of me when I send him a very basic text, and he has to call me back, instead of texting a reply.

With my last girlfriend I came to about 50 text messages a month and now in the honeymoon phase with the new one I'm at about 20 a day. Not for lack of wanting to talk with them, but for being able to communicate with each other while still being able to do something else like working. We also use IM and email, hell I would use smoke signals if I can spend more time with my GF than only the hours we both are free from work.

Not using every tool you are given just technophobic. Just as the Internet, text messaged don't only have the power to replace direct contact, they can expand upon it.

....

I'm sure the text messages are a vital part of your relationship, but fuck me if I would ever be a such a relationship.

Not being dependant on constant trivial communication with other people might be technophobic, but I'm happy to consider myself living in the dark age if that's the case.

To each his own, I'll just remind you people that you have 1k+ posts on a message board about trivial communication.

I only have a cell, and I text very rarely. Common example, three of us at work go out for lunch together most of the time. If one guy is stuck on a call, one of us will text him which restaurant we are going to. Simple stuff like that. If someone sends me a text that I can't use a shortcut to reply to though? Then it annoys me.

Update: I've narrowed it down to Sprint and AT&T for where I'll be moving to in the midwest.  Anyone have advice on choosing between the two (my third choice is Alltel, but I think I'm going to rule them out unless someone has a compelling reason not to).

Thanks!

Try them both out at the same time. They both should have return policies that allow you to try them out for a certain amount of days and return/cancel the phones for a refund (minus usage charges).

Sprint should allow roaming on Alltel's network, just no data access.

ATT has strong roaming agreements with rural carriers throughout the country for both voice and data access.

It really depends on the specific region you are living. If for example you are living in Kansas City, Sprint is basically the only smart choice as the only dead spots in the greater KC area are in the salt caves since Sprint is based outside KC and they launched the network there.

I have been a Sprint customer since 2000, basically have had no problems with coverage while traveling in the US or anywhere I have lived except the house I am in now which is in a small town just far enough from a travel corridor to not get solid coverage.

You can also pay like $5 a month extra with sprint to have roaming minutes be treated like regular minutes.

I have friends who have AT&T and they like it, but I know other people that hate it.

The only people I ever met who used Alltell were in Branson where basically everyone had them because they were the only company with enough towers on hilltops to cover most of the valleys.