If you want a smartphone, T-Mobile's plan is better because it includes some data. If you don't want a smartphone or you are not interested in a data package, then AT&T is better it has call forwarding and conditional call forwarding, so you can forward to Google Voice, use YouMail and other thrid-party voice services.
I'd say the Att plan is better if you can get a NON Att android with Att 3g frequencies (850 and 1900mhz) like a Canadian unlocked version of certain models or a unlocked generic Nokia Symbian 3 smartphone (which has Att AND Tmobile 3g channels but is not branded) .
You can get data with those phones on the $50 plan "unoffiically" but at a much slower but still low 3g rate (200-500k vs 1.5mbps and up on the data package plans). It is unlimited , just much slower. No other smartphones will work on that plan at this time...
GSM is never as good at CDMA for building penetration. Have you considered Sprint/Verizon prepaid?
Wrong. 1900 MHz coverage (T-Mobile, Sprint) is not as good as 850 MHz coverage (Verizon, AT&T). Also, CDMA is inferior to GSM in calling features. With CDMA for example, you can't even join two incoming calls (or one outgoing and one incoming) to form a 3-way call.
Wrong. 1900 MHz coverage (T-Mobile, Sprint) is not as good as 850 MHz coverage (Verizon, AT&T). Also, CDMA is inferior to GSM in calling features. With CDMA for example, you can't even join two incoming calls (or one outgoing and one incoming) to form a 3-way call.
Not really. GSM signals simply don't travel as far from a tower. It's an ancient tech.
GSM is never as good at CDMA for building penetration. Have you considered Sprint/Verizon prepaid?
In Canada this is totally opposite (the CDMA carriers have far worse building penetration)
Verizon uses same frequency as Bell/TELUS do
Sprint is different so possible better with 4G?
It is sad I need to state the obvious but some people just don't get it. Any posts I make are my own OPINIONS and in no way represent the views of my employer
Not really. GSM signals simply don't travel as far from a tower. It's an ancient tech.
CDMA is even older (Much older, in fact.) It's got nothing to do with age of the protocol. Like a previous poster noted, the difference is the frequency. 850 will penetrate buildings much better than 1900, that's just a fact. Doesn't matter what is being transmitted.
AT&T, Pg Plus, formerly TMo but bldg penetration was lacking
Feedback Score
0
I'm in one of the few states where Verizon uses 1900 at least when I had them. My experience with bldg penetration has been Verizon 1, ATT 2, Sprint 3, TMo 4. Step outdoors & they've all been on the same par more or less for me.
Not really. GSM signals simply don't travel as far from a tower. It's an ancient tech.
Whatever, that may be true where you live. But in Oklahoma GSM is the only way to go. CDMA is horrific. I was a Sprint customer for years. I knew exactly where the dead spot was from south Texas up through Missour.
T-Mobile is by far more better than Sprint at least in rural areas.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by twincity
Bookmarks