|
|
 Originally Posted by aero
The current plans don't represent the same level of discount, and the tradeoff for poorer sprint coverage in my area (DC metro) would not be compelling for me. You say you are in DC metro? Inside of downtown office buildings, hotel conference centers (which are mostly in below ground levels) etc Verizon has much better penetration.
As another DC resident, I want to echo aero's comments. I carry phones from all 4 of the bigs, every day, as a sidelight to my main job. My reward for this additional duty is I get several new phones each year from each of the big providers for free. The downside is I have more devices, their chargers, sync cables, charging stands, and adapters than most TSA folks feel comfortable passing through their xray machines!
In my travels around DC, I have mapped dozens of locations which can force phones drop their connection. The preponderance of these dropped connection regions are shared between T-Mobile and Sprint. Slightly better than those two companies is AT&T, but only for its GSM network as their 3G network is still quite spotty and fragile around here. Verizon's coverage in the region is head and shoulders above the rest. I still have a couple of "dead spots" I've charted for their network, but their network's combination of coverage, consistency, and robustness keep them in a league by themselves.
I came to this conclusion, not because I'm a Verizon shill - I'd much rather go with a company that carries newer, more capable phones, after all, I'm a tech-*****. I came to this conclusion because of what I've seen and measured and by the comments I get from other people I speak with over these phones. There's no comparison in network performance in the DC region as a whole - period.
Dave Pogue's comments about Sprint's network are right on target in my view.
|
|
|
