Nick Danger wrote:

> Based on what I've seen (and heard) so far, I honestly have to say that
> Cingular is winning. Could it be that Verizon's better coverage is all a
> myth, perpetuated by a well-orchestrated advertising campaign?

In suburban and urban areas the coverage should be about the same. Even
though you need more GSM towers than CDMA towers to cover a given area,
in suburban and urban areas there will be more than the minimum in order
to have sufficient capacity.

I have both Cingular GSM (on an MVNO) and Verizon, in the San Francisco
Bay Area. If I'm in a major city in the area, the Cingular coverage is
just fine. However when I get out into some of the suburbs to visit
friends and relatives, it's often the case that Cingular's coverage is
aporadic. I always find it amusing, that about 2 km from Cingular's
western regional HQ in Pleasanton, at my nephew's house, there is no
Cingular coverage, and it's not a condo, and not up in the hills.

The other issue with Verizon, is that if you get a tri-mode phone, then
nationwide you have about an order of magnitude more coverage than you
get with an all-digital phone from Cingular. Now this coverage is often
out in the boonies, and may not matter much to you, but in my area, I
can drive about ten minutes from my house up into the surrounding
greenbelt, and have no GSM coverage, spotty CDMA coverage, but excellent
analog coverage. When I drive to Lake Tahoe, via the road past one the
largest ski resorts, there is only analog coverage for much of the way
through the mountains. I suppose that if you have Cingular (or a Verizon
dual band phone), any you're worried about the lack of coverage, then
you can plan your routes such that you don't travel through the
no-coverage areas.