Seattle & PNW: Verizon, Sprint or other?

[Quickener]

Hello all, I've been lurking a bit, and decided to register. I've seen a number of different threads touch on this subject, but rarely find more than 1 or 2 posts in a thread really talk about coverage in the Seattle/Puget Sound & surrounding areas.

I'm interested primarily in reception, especially in Seattle but also along the I90, Hwy 2 corridors, followed by the availability of share plans, the quality of phones/extra services, and finally reliable customer support. WWW support would be interesting, but isn't really a priority at the moment. Camera phones mean nothing to me at all.

I'm sure Verizon probably has the best coverage, but I'm not really impressed with their phones or their service at the 2 local retail outlets I've visited. They basically were just pressure selling me on phones I didn't want.

I am a little interested in how Sprint and Cingular/ATT measure up with Verizon though. I'm currently a Qwest user, and since going all digital, my reception is horrible, so I'm definitely done with them. Also, a trial with T Mobile proved that they are much worse even than Qwest, so they aren't an option either. Any first or second hand information would be most appreciated.

Thanks!

[larry]

Tprophet would be the one to give you some advice in that region. But I will add that Qwest uses Sprint's network now so if Qwest doesn't work for you than Sprint might not either.

[Quickener]

Interesting, I didn't realize that.

I also just read that Cingular/ATT are digital only, correct?

Sounds like it'll be Verizon all the way. Perhaps I'll just have to go through the website.

[Scrumhalf]

Rural GSM coverage (ATT/Cingular) is improving but not equivalent to either their own TDMA/AMPS or to Verizon's CDMA/AMPS. Key question - is how often will you be away from the major metro areas and freeways? If you travel significantly through the rural PNW, I wouldn't recommend GSM at this time.

[Andy]

If you now have Qwest and it doesn't work, then neither will Sprint, since Qwest users are now using the Sprint network. So Sprint's out.
I've only visited your area twice within the last year so I can't really give you much advice, other than my VZW phone worked great where I've used it. Also, check their website for phones if you're interested and you might wanna consider a tri-mode phone whatever carrier you go with.
~Andy

[Quickener]

Thanks, TriMode is definitely the route I'm going to take.

I'm actually looking at the Motorolla v265 and the LG VX6100 on Verizons website right now. I'm leaning towards the 265 because if you ignore the camera and some other fluff, it sounds like the v265 is just a better phone. (Better reception, no "volume bug", better speaker phone).

Too bad about not having Sprint as a contender any longer - I like some of their phones a lot.

[Andy]

You are right; some Sprint phones are nicer than Verizon phones.

The v265 is said to have a better RF(reception) than the 6100. One thing people don't like about the v265 is something about the display being too small(but that depends, you might like it). Try it out, you have 15 days; if you don't like it, exchange it for another phone or cancel alltogether.
Hope this helped,
Andy
P.S. If you do sign up with Verizon try out their service for 15 days to make sure it fits you

[larry]

That's surprising since Sprint took over many towers formerly owned by Qwest in Washington state and Oregon. They should have good coverage in most areas.

[Andy]

...yeah, they should...maybe it's the same like here in S.L??

[larry]

Nope. Sprint converted many more towers in Washington & Oregon than they did in Utah. I was just looking at the FCC records and there are tons of them.

[Scrumhalf]

You really need a trimode Sprint phone in PNW if you want the best coverage. So, your test with Qwest may not be telling you the full story if you used a digital-only phone. Compare the digital-only and tri-mode coverages in PNW. There is a pretty significant difference which may be important to you.

Digital-Only:



Digital+Analog:

[Quickener]

I've actually been on Qwest for years. When they did their big network switch recently (whatever that was, I don't really know the details), my service immediately developed a lot of holes. Granted, the phone I'm using is so old it actually says Qualcomm on it, but up to this point, I had better RF with this phone on Qwests network than any of my friends with more modern handsets.

Since about a month or 2 ago, when things changed, I can now only get a signal at work about 20% of the time, though this phone never drops calls. At home, my success rate is closer to 65%. I work in Pioneer Square and live on Queen Anne, both inner city neighborhoods.

So whether or not a new Sprint phone would be an improvement is hard to say. The off network areas on that tri-mode map are free of roaming charges, right?

[Steve B]

Well, I live in the Seattle area, more specifically towards the top of Boeing Hill. I do frequently travel I-90. Blue's coverage here kicks ___. I tried using Cingular's network. It seems to be OK. I can't speak for HWY 2 but you should be OK, with Cingular, you would be definitely OK with Verizon. Sprint's coverage is OK in Seattle too. I hope this helps you.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Quickener

I've actually been on Qwest for years. When they did their big network switch recently (whatever that was, I don't really know the details), my service immediately developed a lot of holes. Granted, the phone I'm using is so old it actually says Qualcomm on it, but up to this point, I had better RF with this phone on Qwests network than any of my friends with more modern handsets.

Since about a month or 2 ago, when things changed, I can now only get a signal at work about 20% of the time, though this phone never drops calls. At home, my success rate is closer to 65%. I work in Pioneer Square and live on Queen Anne, both inner city neighborhoods.

So whether or not a new Sprint phone would be an improvement is hard to say. The off network areas on that tri-mode map are free of roaming charges, right?

They are free of roaming charges if you have an F&C America plan which is normally $5/mo more than the standard F&C plans. But some phones roam better than others so if you decide to go with Sprint we'll give you some tips on phones.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Quickener

I've actually been on Qwest for years. When they did their big network switch recently (whatever that was, I don't really know the details), my service immediately developed a lot of holes. Granted, the phone I'm using is so old it actually says Qualcomm on it, but up to this point, I had better RF with this phone on Qwests network than any of my friends with more modern handsets.

Since about a month or 2 ago, when things changed, I can now only get a signal at work about 20% of the time, though this phone never drops calls. At home, my success rate is closer to 65%. I work in Pioneer Square and live on Queen Anne, both inner city neighborhoods.

So whether or not a new Sprint phone would be an improvement is hard to say. The off network areas on that tri-mode map are free of roaming charges, right?

Well this, without a doubt, shows you that the old Qwest network was much better than the Sprint network, which you are on now. So Sprint is not an option, even with the $5 add-on IMO. It will still hang on to a weak Sprint signal even if it's unavailable in a lot of cases.
I would not suggest Sprint ,especially after your statement about your drastic change in service! Look for an alternative.

[TProphet]

Sorry to take so long to respond; I missed this thread until it was recently dredged up.

First and foremost, the old Qwest network was decidedly inferior to the current Sprint network in both quality and coverage. That's one of the reasons why Qwest couldn't compete and unceremoniously retreated from the wireless business. All that Quickener's issue proves is that Sprint has a weak spot in the place where he happens to use his phone, and Sprint hasn't yet converted the old Qwest tower in that area (these tower conversions are still taking place slowly but surely). I can use my Sprint handset all over the Seattle area and only rarely encounter dead spots. My brother's wife, meanwhile, had Qwest until recently, and I can assure you my coverage ran circles around hers! She was very glad to switch her Qwest service to the Sprint side (and ultimately, her account as well).

The deciding factor here will be Highway 2. Headed east from Everett, Sprint's coverage peters out a bit west of Skykomish (finish your call when you see Zeke's Drive In!), and doesn't pick back up again until you're almost to Leavenworth. With the Free and Clear America plan ($5), a highly recommended option for Sprint users in the Great Northwest, you will roam on VZW at no extra charge. In this area, you can also roam at home rate on ATTWS and Cellular One (analog) if you stray outside of VZW coverage. Overall, your voice coverage should be fairly seamless, but as others have noted, some Sprint handsets perform poorly in fringe areas. If you'll be spending a lot of time on the edge of the Sprint coverage area, I recommend a Nokia handset; these roam much more smoothly than the otherwise excellent Sanyo handsets. Also, as others have noted, be sure to get a tri-mode phone. There are still plenty of nooks and crannies--especially in the Cascades--where only analog service is available. Of course, these are the places you're most likely to need it!

If you can't live with roaming in these areas, go with VZW. They have the best coverage, hands-down (which is why Sprint roams on them). Bear in mind, however, that VZW has roaming issues of its own in other parts of the state. Verizon customers roam on US Cellular or Sprint when they venture south of Olympia or east of Snoqualmie Pass on I-90. Also bear in mind that Verizon users can roam on Cellular One, but it will cost you 69 cents per minute on the America's Choice plan--and you can't roam on ATTWS at all.

Where Sprint has coverage in the Seattle area, it's generally very good (on par with VZW; I can't tell the difference and I had VZW until I switched to Sprint last December). VZW has the edge in coverage breadth--but only just barely. With the Nextel merger, Sprint coverage will only improve. I continue to recommend Sprint because they have much better data offerings (including an unlimited SMS plan--no other major carrier offers this), and their roaming story is much better than VZW (you don't have to worry whether the roaming indicator is solid or flashing; you're either roaming or you're not, and if you pay the extra $5/mo you don't even need to care).

[Rich]

When I went to UDUB (University of Washington) and lived in Covington I had Sprint and experienced excellent coverage, and that was 5 years ago. I could only imagine what the coverage it's like now, my suggestion would be to try Sprint out for yourself and take advantage of the trial period.

[Steve B]

Originally Posted by TProphet

Sorry to take so long to respond; I missed this thread until it was recently dredged up.

First and foremost, the old Qwest network was decidedly inferior to the current Sprint network in both quality and coverage. That's one of the reasons why Qwest couldn't compete and unceremoniously retreated from the wireless business. All that Quickener's issue proves is that Sprint has a weak spot in the place where he happens to use his phone, and Sprint hasn't yet converted the old Qwest tower in that area (these tower conversions are still taking place slowly but surely). I can use my Sprint handset all over the Seattle area and only rarely encounter dead spots. My brother's wife, meanwhile, had Qwest until recently, and I can assure you my coverage ran circles around hers! She was very glad to switch her Qwest service to the Sprint side (and ultimately, her account as well).

The deciding factor here will be Highway 2. Headed east from Everett, Sprint's coverage peters out a bit west of Skykomish (finish your call when you see Zeke's Drive In!), and doesn't pick back up again until you're almost to Leavenworth. With the Free and Clear America plan ($5), a highly recommended option for Sprint users in the Great Northwest, you will roam on VZW at no extra charge. In this area, you can also roam at home rate on ATTWS and Cellular One (analog) if you stray outside of VZW coverage. Overall, your voice coverage should be fairly seamless, but as others have noted, some Sprint handsets perform poorly in fringe areas. If you'll be spending a lot of time on the edge of the Sprint coverage area, I recommend a Nokia handset; these roam much more smoothly than the otherwise excellent Sanyo handsets. Also, as others have noted, be sure to get a tri-mode phone. There are still plenty of nooks and crannies--especially in the Cascades--where only analog service is available. Of course, these are the places you're most likely to need it!

If you can't live with roaming in these areas, go with VZW. They have the best coverage, hands-down (which is why Sprint roams on them). Bear in mind, however, that VZW has roaming issues of its own in other parts of the state. Verizon customers roam on US Cellular or Sprint when they venture south of Olympia or east of Snoqualmie Pass on I-90. Also bear in mind that Verizon users can roam on Cellular One, but it will cost you 69 cents per minute on the America's Choice plan--and you can't roam on ATTWS at all.

Where Sprint has coverage in the Seattle area, it's generally very good (on par with VZW; I can't tell the difference and I had VZW until I switched to Sprint last December). VZW has the edge in coverage breadth--but only just barely. With the Nextel merger, Sprint coverage will only improve. I continue to recommend Sprint because they have much better data offerings (including an unlimited SMS plan--no other major carrier offers this), and their roaming story is much better than VZW (you don't have to worry whether the roaming indicator is solid or flashing; you're either roaming or you're not, and if you pay the extra $5/mo you don't even need to care).

True, Verizon's coverage here is great. However, it will not cost him $.69 a minute to talk going past Snoqualmie Pass. Verizon has expanded the AC network in Eastern WA. He would not be charged for roaming. If he signs up for a AC plan, he should be fine. I traveled over Steven's Pass a few months ago when I had VZW service. It went on Extended Network a few times, dropped signal only twice for very short periods of time, but never was hard roaming to be charnged $.69 a minute. So if he gets VZW he actually should be just fine.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by TProphet

First and foremost, the old Qwest network was decidedly inferior to the current Sprint network in both quality and coverage. That's one of the reasons why Qwest couldn't compete and unceremoniously retreated from the wireless business. All that Quickener's issue proves is that Sprint has a weak spot in the place where he happens to use his phone, and Sprint hasn't yet converted the old Qwest tower in that area (these tower conversions are still taking place slowly but surely). I can use my Sprint handset all over the Seattle area and only rarely encounter dead spots. My brother's wife, meanwhile, had Qwest until recently, and I can assure you my coverage ran circles around hers! She was very glad to switch her Qwest service to the Sprint side (and ultimately, her account as well).

TProphet, do you have any solid proof that Sprint will actually convert the Qwest site close to where the OP has trouble using his service? Most likely not, it's just a guess. Sprint, still to date, here in Salt Lake City needs to convert tons of sites in areas where the old Qwest network was superior to Sprint's weak network. They still haven't done that and it's mid december. I'm not so sure if they're ever going to do it. I do, however, have to credit them for fixing some of their weak spot issues by converting some of the old Qwest sites! Most of those were areas that most other carriers were good in already.

[TProphet]

VZW users on the AC plan are charged to roam on Inland Cellular, Cellular One, and ATTWS (where such roaming is available; no roaming is permitted on the Seattle or Portland ATTWS systems). Roaming is home rate on Sprint and US Cellular. Sprint users can roam on VZW, Cellular One, ATTWS (all systems), and US Cellular; this is billed at home rate with the $5 F&CA add-on.

The "extended network" coverage you saw east of the pass was probably Sprint, as that's the only digital coverage that you could conceivably roam on there.

Originally Posted by SBacklin

True, Verizon's coverage here is great. However, it will not cost him $.69 a minute to talk going past Snoqualmie Pass. Verizon has expanded the AC network in Eastern WA. He would not be charged for roaming. If he signs up for a AC plan, he should be fine. I traveled over Steven's Pass a few months ago when I had VZW service. It went on Extended Network a few times, dropped signal only twice for very short periods of time, but never was hard roaming to be charnged $.69 a minute. So if he gets VZW he actually should be just fine.

[TProphet]

Andy, I don't think that's a fair question. How could I have any "solid proof," even if I were privy to Sprint's business plans (which, to be clear, I'm not)? I have no idea where Quickener uses his phone.

That said, Sprint converted a Qwest tower in Centralia only a month or so ago, and Montana users are reporting continued Qwest conversion activity. Slowly but surely, tower conversions continue to happen.

I understand and appreciate that Sprint doesn't have the best coverage on the Wasatch Front; you're not the only person from Utah to have complained. Like the Puget Sound area, it's a geographically difficult place to cover well, and Sprint has some catching up to do there before they're on par with VZW. It will eventually happen; Sprint made a massive investment circa 2001 in the Seattle area which improved coverage to the point that I can't tell the difference now. For the most part, the Qwest tower conversions in this area have added capacity, but only marginal coverage improvement (most evident indoors).

For my part, I am taking a wait and see approach. I'd much rather see Sprint integrate the Qwest towers into their network slowly and carefully; adding a new tower can actually create more problems than it solves if it's not done right.

Originally Posted by Andy84094

TProphet, do you have any solid proof that Sprint will actually convert the Qwest site close to where the OP has trouble using his service? Most likely not, it's just a guess. Sprint, still to date, here in Salt Lake City needs to convert tons of sites in areas where the old Qwest network was superior to Sprint's weak network. They still haven't done that and it's mid december. I'm not so sure if they're ever going to do it. I do, however, have to credit them for fixing some of their weak spot issues by converting some of the old Qwest sites! Most of those were areas that most other carriers were good in already.

[larry]

Good point TP. I've seen on occassion new towers go up aorund here which actually made coverage worse because neighborring towers could not properly hand off to it due to the terrain. It actually would have been in Sprint's best interest not to have put up that tower because even though the signal was a little weak it would never drop. Now calls drop when driving towards or away from it because of a pilot pollution blast and lack of handoff from other distant towers.

[roamer1]

Originally Posted by TProphet

VZW users on the AC plan are charged to roam on Inland Cellular

Inland is now Extended Network.

-SC

[BillRadio]

The Qwest conversion isn't going fast enough, if at all, for quite a few Qwest customers. Now it's hitting the papers. This story mentions that some of these Qwest customers may be SOL.

The Qwest PR people assured me everyone will be served by Sprint. So, I'm let to believe that this is taking longer than they expected, or no more sites are gonna be converted. In some areas, Sprint could just wait and use nearby Nextel sites. I'm going to believe the former until the Fat Lady sings.

[larry]

Oh boy Andy's gonna love this one.

Well it works both ways. There are many former Qwest users getting much better service now with Sprint than they did in the past with Qwest. This is an exception rather than the rule.

[Fathead]

Considering Qwest's network before the change, anything would be an improvement in Pocatello, so that's not saying much .


I did finally get a usable sprint signal in my parent's house last week. I think ubiquitel tweaked an antenna.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by larry

Oh boy Andy's gonna love this one.

Well it works both ways. There are many former Qwest users getting much better service now with Sprint than they did in the past with Qwest. This is an exception rather than the rule.

Of course it works both ways, Larry

From what I heard here in the S.L.C. area, people with Qwest are getting more and more frustrated, because they are, generally, getting worse service with Sprint than with Qwest. The Qwest network here was, in general, built out quite well. A lot of areas Qwest users now have no service indoors, where they, before, had full bars.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by TProphet

Andy, I don't think that's a fair question. How could I have any "solid proof," even if I were privy to Sprint's business plans (which, to be clear, I'm not)? I have no idea where Quickener uses his phone.

That said, Sprint converted a Qwest tower in Centralia only a month or so ago, and Montana users are reporting continued Qwest conversion activity. Slowly but surely, tower conversions continue to happen.

I understand and appreciate that Sprint doesn't have the best coverage on the Wasatch Front; you're not the only person from Utah to have complained. Like the Puget Sound area, it's a geographically difficult place to cover well, and Sprint has some catching up to do there before they're on par with VZW. It will eventually happen; Sprint made a massive investment circa 2001 in the Seattle area which improved coverage to the point that I can't tell the difference now. For the most part, the Qwest tower conversions in this area have added capacity, but only marginal coverage improvement (most evident indoors).

For my part, I am taking a wait and see approach. I'd much rather see Sprint integrate the Qwest towers into their network slowly and carefully; adding a new tower can actually create more problems than it solves if it's not done right.

Mountainous areas are hard to cover, VZW has generally also done a great job there as well(in my area), but I'm just talking about Sprint in the Salt Lake Valley... that's not really too hard to cover in most places. Of course nobody really has any solid proof with Qwest sites being converted, and if the OP is fed up with his service then he should just look for an alternative and not wait for Sprint to finally get their act going...that's what a lot of people(including myself) have done here in the S.L. area.
~Andy