Hearst Castle

[CR]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
coverage there?
A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked fine.
Thanks

 

[CR]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Someone who has actually been there......... please


"cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
> I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> coverage there?
> A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked
fine.
> Thanks
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
"cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> coverage there?
> A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked fine.
> Thanks

If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
native coverage along Highway 1.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." wrote:
>
> In article <75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> > coverage there?
> > A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked fine.
> > Thanks
>
> If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> native coverage along Highway 1.

But roaming's a good possibility.

Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-7F8AE1.10420022042004@news04.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> > coverage there?
> > A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked fine.
> > Thanks
>
> If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> native coverage along Highway 1.

Sprint absolutely has native (non-roaming) coverage at Hearst Castle.
It's shown right on the map that I'm looking at. (I was also there in
December and coverage).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <4087E957.95EAC3B9@spamcop.net>,
Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:

> "Robert M." wrote:
> >
> > In article <75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> > "cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> > > coverage there?
> > > A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked
> > > fine.
> > > Thanks
> >
> > If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> > native coverage along Highway 1.
>
> But roaming's a good possibility.

Hope he has a roaming plan, and a phone that works well in Analog mode.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>...
> I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> coverage there?
> A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked fine.
> Thanks

Yes Sprint does have coverage at Hearst Castle now. The new tower was
put up last year.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." wrote:
>
> In article <4087E957.95EAC3B9@spamcop.net>,
> Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > "Robert M." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> > > "cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> > > > coverage there?
> > > > A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked
> > > > fine.
> > > > Thanks
> > >
> > > If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> > > native coverage along Highway 1.
> >
> > But roaming's a good possibility.
>
> Hope he has a roaming plan, and a phone that works well in Analog mode.

Hence, the reason to stick with tri-mode, dual-band!

Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <4087EFD5.AF416A99@spamcop.net>,
Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > > > If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> > > > native coverage along Highway 1.
> > >
> > > But roaming's a good possibility.
> >
> > Hope he has a roaming plan, and a phone that works well in Analog mode.
>
> Hence, the reason to stick with tri-mode, dual-band!

But if he has a non upgraded A500, or a black Samsung 8500, that wou;dnt
help.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Lawrence Glasser" <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:4087EFD5.AF416A99@spamcop.net...
> "Robert M." wrote:
> >
> > In article <4087E957.95EAC3B9@spamcop.net>,
> > Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert M." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> > > > "cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint
have
> > > > > coverage there?
> > > > > A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone
worked
> > > > > fine.
> > > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> > > > native coverage along Highway 1.
> > >
> > > But roaming's a good possibility.
> >
> > Hope he has a roaming plan, and a phone that works well in Analog mode.
>
> Hence, the reason to stick with tri-mode, dual-band!
>
> Larry

True ... In saying that though, San Simeon, CA is listed as a being in the
coverage area in SPCS's coverage database.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." wrote:
>
> In article <4087EFD5.AF416A99@spamcop.net>,
> Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> > > > > native coverage along Highway 1.
> > > >
> > > > But roaming's a good possibility.
> > >
> > > Hope he has a roaming plan, and a phone that works well in Analog mode.
> >
> > Hence, the reason to stick with tri-mode, dual-band!
>
> But if he has a non upgraded A500, or a black Samsung 8500, that wou;dnt
> help.

What's a "non upgraded A500?"

Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <4087F6C7.FC8E38DD@spamcop.net>,
Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:

> What's a "non upgraded A500?"

One without WD19 firmware

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-A95213.11325722042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <4087EFD5.AF416A99@spamcop.net>,
> Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > If you go by SprintPCS' map online, south of Big Sur, they have no
> > > > > native coverage along Highway 1.
> > > >
> > > > But roaming's a good possibility.
> > >
> > > Hope he has a roaming plan, and a phone that works well in Analog
mode.
> >
> > Hence, the reason to stick with tri-mode, dual-band!
>
> But if he has a non upgraded A500, or a black Samsung 8500, that wou;dnt
> help.

You infer that neither of these models can roam in analog, and that's simply
not the case. Samsung released a bad batch of phones, in these two lines and
with the 3500 line as well.

I had a 3500 that experienced that problem, after 18 months of use and had
the phone replaced, and it worked well, till I replaced it with a Sanyo
4700.

My daughter's A500, which she's had for over 18 months, roams in Analog
quite well when she's out of SPCS's coverage area.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." wrote:
>
> In article <4087F6C7.FC8E38DD@spamcop.net>,
> Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > What's a "non upgraded A500?"
>
> One without WD19 firmware

I was under the impression that PRLs were the only updates
necessary for improved roaming.

What improvement does a firmware update make?

Larry

PS - For whatever it's worth, the latest firmware version
is WD29.

 

[Mike]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> But if he has a non upgraded A500, or a black Samsung 8500, that wou;dnt
> help.


I can tell you that even with firmware in the VI## series (been a long
time - VI10 and VI16?) I've roamed with an A500.
-mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <4087FDC2.3EEF9C59@spamcop.net>,
Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:

> "Robert M." wrote:
> >
> > In article <4087F6C7.FC8E38DD@spamcop.net>,
> > Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > > What's a "non upgraded A500?"
> >
> > One without WD19 firmware
>
> I was under the impression that PRLs were the only updates
> necessary for improved roaming.
>
> What improvement does a firmware update make?
>
> Larry
>
> PS - For whatever it's worth, the latest firmware version
> is WD29.

On the A500, WD29 apparently improved it functionality for roaming

 

[CR]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Thanks! Larry
Just curious do you know where the tower is?
As I mentioned a friend of mine was there and he swears the site was on
Hearst Castle itself....a microcell perhaps?
He said he got 5 bars on his phone all around the property.
This was with his Verizon phone.
He said he couldn't see any other towers in the area.






"Larry Thomas" <larryt510@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c02589b.0404221501.3524f67f@posting.google.com...
> "cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<75idnTvm9OUkfBrdRVn-ig@adelphia.com>...
> > I'm going to be visiting Hearst Castle in California. Does Sprint have
> > coverage there?
> > A friend of mine was there last year and said his Verizon phone worked
fine.
> > Thanks
>
> Yes Sprint does have coverage at Hearst Castle now. The new tower was
> put up last year.

 

[techgeek]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"cr" <cr_resources@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9J-dneKtW_IZaxrdRVn-hA@adelphia.com>...
> Someone who has actually been there......... please
>
>

What part of CA is it in? What's it near, I may know some people out there.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

cr wrote:
>
> Thanks! Larry
> Just curious do you know where the tower is?
> As I mentioned a friend of mine was there and he swears the site was on
> Hearst Castle itself....a microcell perhaps?
> He said he got 5 bars on his phone all around the property.
> This was with his Verizon phone.
> He said he couldn't see any other towers in the area.

For those of you who have seen the following statement, or something
similar, just ignore it. For those who haven't, it's worth repeating:

One should never look at the number of "bars" as any indication of
signal strength. They're put there by the manufacturer of the phone.
One manufacturer might decide that a weak signal deserves one bar,
while the next thinks two would be more appropriate. Etc., etc. Not
only is there no standard between manufacturers, there's not even a
standard between phones from the *same* manufacturer.

Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Lawrence Glasser" <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:4088597E.BEE9E8E0@spamcop.net...
> cr wrote:
> >
> > Thanks! Larry
> > Just curious do you know where the tower is?
> > As I mentioned a friend of mine was there and he swears the site was on
> > Hearst Castle itself....a microcell perhaps?
> > He said he got 5 bars on his phone all around the property.
> > This was with his Verizon phone.
> > He said he couldn't see any other towers in the area.
>
> For those of you who have seen the following statement, or something
> similar, just ignore it. For those who haven't, it's worth repeating:
>
> One should never look at the number of "bars" as any indication of
> signal strength. They're put there by the manufacturer of the phone.
> One manufacturer might decide that a weak signal deserves one bar,
> while the next thinks two would be more appropriate. Etc., etc. Not
> only is there no standard between manufacturers, there's not even a
> standard between phones from the *same* manufacturer.
>
> Larry

There's not even a standard on what the bars represent!
It could be signal strength, or it could be signal-to-noise ratio.
---JRC---