4 ms·

So does this mean AT&T will provide better cell coverage? As someone who builds data transfer tools for handheld products, there are people who cannot use GSM/

by bmj 17y ago

So does this mean AT&T will provide better cell coverage? As someone who builds data transfer tools for handheld products, there are people who cannot use GSM/GPRS solutions because they don't have coverage at their homes. Accommodating POTS modems is painful at times, but it means a larger majority of our users can actually transfer data when necessary.

kscaldef 17y ago
That's very much my thought. Even though I live in an urban area, I get sketchy cell coverage in most of my house. If I want to have a reliable conversation on my cell phone, I can't leave my living room. Moreover, I appreciate having the competition in internet access methods. Since I don't have a TV, it's cheaper for me to have DSL than a cable modem. If DSL service goes away, I would have no choice. Maybe landlines will truly be obsolete at some point, but we're not there yet.
- gvb 17y ago
  Not only is cell coverage incomplete, but DSL reach is very limited compared to POTS http://www.dslreports.com/faq/4676 http://www.dslreports.com/faq/4676 (I cannot get DSL and I'm only three miles from my CO - apparently they don't support longer distance versions of DSL). There are vast swaths of the US that are not served by cable. The remaining option would be satellite, which is expensive.
- grogers 17y ago
  Realistically wireless coverage inside your house will be spotty for a long time to come. And you will may never get service in your basement. I'm looking for femtocells to provide service in these situations.
jonknee 17y ago
UMA is what could solve this--you can switch calls between the GSM tower and over the internet through WiFi. Call passing is tricky, but the tech is here and it works. If you have WiFi at home and the office, it's game changing. T-Mobile is the only US carrier pushing it, mostly because they are the scrappy smaller player.

by bmj 17y ago

kscaldef 17y ago

That's very much my thought. Even though I live in an urban area, I get sketchy cell coverage in most of my house. If I want to have a reliable conversation on my cell phone, I can't leave my living room. Moreover, I appreciate having the competition in internet access methods. Since I don't have a TV, it's cheaper for me to have DSL than a cable modem. If DSL service goes away, I would have no choice. Maybe landlines will truly be obsolete at some point, but we're not there yet.

gvb 17y ago
Not only is cell coverage incomplete, but DSL reach is very limited compared to POTS http://www.dslreports.com/faq/4676 http://www.dslreports.com/faq/4676 (I cannot get DSL and I'm only three miles from my CO - apparently they don't support longer distance versions of DSL). There are vast swaths of the US that are not served by cable. The remaining option would be satellite, which is expensive.
grogers 17y ago
Realistically wireless coverage inside your house will be spotty for a long time to come. And you will may never get service in your basement. I'm looking for femtocells to provide service in these situations.

jonknee 17y ago

UMA is what could solve this--you can switch calls between the GSM tower and over the internet through WiFi. Call passing is tricky, but the tech is here and it works. If you have WiFi at home and the office, it's game changing. T-Mobile is the only US carrier pushing it, mostly because they are the scrappy smaller player.