AT+T vs. Sprint Cell Coverage
 

I travel through out the USA weekly in most major cities and sometimes rural areas.
Occasionally I’ll hit a dead area where my AT+T cell phone won’t work.
I’m thinking of changing to Sprint mostly because their TV ads make such a big deal out of the fact that their phones work everywhere.
Does AT+T have better or the same coverage as Sprint?
Do major cell phone companies share the same cell airwaves so if my AT+T phone is in a dead area a Sprint phone would be as well?


------------------

If you have an AT&T phone that does analog you already have more coverage than Sprint. Sprint has the most *digital* coverage compared to anyone else's digital network. Sprint also offers analog roaming, either at extra cost per minute or at extra cost per month with that roaming included, assuming you get a phone that's digital/analog, but unlike AT&T and Verizon, they have no analog network of their own. (Sprint's network began later and they never competed in the analog market.)

AT&T is a bit in flux due to their switching from TDMA to GSM setup. If you have the GSM-based AT&T service, you would actually get more coverage area by switching. You might want to look at Verizon more than Sprint though.

I've had many colleagues with Sprint and they have told me that their phones did not work in many places, while my Verizon phone will work almost anywhere. Some places have good Sprint coverage, but often the coverage fails off the major highways.

This is a result of Sprint's go it alone approach.

With AT&T, they have partnered with many local providers so you will probably have coverage in more places. Certain places will be very poor with AT&T but in general it will cover more places.

Verizon has the largest network and is the best in my experience although the most expensive also. And there are places with poor Verizon coverage that have great coverage with another carrier.

If coverage is an issue, you may want two providers and carry two cellphones. I carry T-Mobile and Verizon and often if one doesn't work, the other does.

I switched from Sprint to AT&T because I couldn't get any decent coverage in my part of Manhattan during the prime rush hours. My wife, ten blocks away has never had a problem with her sprint coverage, and AT&T is spotty by her office.

It all depends on where you are as to who is better.

So.....it sounds like that Sprint isn't any better than AT+T? Meaning they both have pluses/minus’s with no one being the far and above winner when it comes to domestic usa coverage. Sounds like I should stay with my AT+T nationwide digital phone service.

------------------

In 5 years time rural coverage isn't going to be a big issue on ANY network as AMPS will be dead. Right now most rural AMPS networks (that partner with the majors for roaming) are overlaying CDMA800 and GSM850 onto their AMP (in some cases limited TDMA networks).

These rural operators are going with BOTH CDMA and GSM overlays to ensure they can capture ALL roaming traffic (we're talking about places in the US where there is NO need for competition, e.g. VERY sparse local populations)

No, no clear winner. Generally every metro area has it's winners and losers. Sprint and T-Mobile have worked well here for me, for instance. Verizon is the only one I would think might have a slight edge, but I'm still not sure it's that compelling. When you're talking about no signal in a rural area, there's no guarantee it will be better with another provider unless you mean one specific rural area and can track down the exact network coverage for that spot. If you mean various areas, switching probably won't help.

CrazyOne,
Thanks - that's my conclusion as well - I'll stay with AT+T.

------------------