"Free" Home Phone Service via Google Voice

There is a huge trend of people canceling their home phone service and relying solely on their mobile phone for all their voice communication.  For many, especially those with unlimited minutes and great cell coverage at their house, it's a very tempting idea...who doesn't like to have some extra cash in their pocket each month?  There are others, myself included, who really don't want to give companies I do business with my mobile number.  I receive enough telemarketers calling on my home phone (so much for donotcall.gov) and prefer not to have them calling my mobile too.  Also, maybe I'm just a little old fashioned, but I prefer talking on a regular "old" cordless phone handset instead of my iPhone.

We've used Vonage as our home phone service for several years and I was very happy with their service and the features they provide, especially emailing & transcription of voice mail messages.  Unfortunately, the service was ~$34 (including tax) per month.  [For those unfamiliar with Vonage, they are a VoIP telephone provider and utilize your internet connection to provide phone service using standard analog phones].  There are many VoIP providers out there, some of which, like Ooma, are significantly cheaper that Vonage. However, to get the features we wanted, we would need to subscribe to Ooma Premier plus the voice-to-text add-on for a total monthly cost of $15 +tax.  While that is a nice savings over Vonage, I wanted to find something even better.  Enter Google Voice + Obi....

You are probably familiar with Google Voice and all if it's awesome (and free) features but you probably thought you could only use it with your existing mobile or home phone service.  That's how it's designed to be used, but an Obi adapter from Obihai Technology can get you around that limitation.  You can pick up the base model Obi (100) from Amazon for about $40 and then configure it to use Google Voice, FREE of monthly service charges.  You will have a ton a amazing features for a great monthly price (free) but there are two features you will not have by default: caller ID with name and 911 service.  Google Voice does display the number of the person calling, but not the name.  If caller ID with name is an essential feature for you, it's possible to use the Simon Telephonics Google Voice Gateway to enable it. Use of the gateway is free, but donations are encouraged.  If 911 service is important to you, Obi supports getting this service from Anveo for only $12 per year.

Interested?  Follow the steps below to get up and running with Google Voice via Obi:

1. If you don't already have VoIP service, run a test to see if the quality of your internet connection is sufficient for a VoIP connection:  http://myspeed.visualware.com/indexvoip.php
2. Determine which Obi is right for you and purchase 
3. Create a new gmail (or Google Apps) account to use with Google Voice (this step isn't necessary if you have an existing Google Voice account/number you want to use).  You can configure this new gmail to automatically forward messages to your existing email account.
4. Sign up for Google Voice using your new Gmail account:  http://www.google.com/voice (I suggest you create a new [temporary] phone number as you can port your number later)
5. Configure your Obi to use Google Voice:  http://www.obihai.com/googlevoice.html
6. If possible, Call Forward your existing service to your temporary Google Voice number.  Make test calls for a few days and see how the service performs.  If you are having audio quality issues, consider enabling/configuring QoS settings on your router
7. Once testing is complete, you can port your existing number to Google Voice.  Do not cancel your existing service, that will happen automatically as part of the porting process.  Unfortunately, Google Voice does not allow you to port land line numbers.  The work around is to port your home number to a pre-paid mobile provider (like TracFone) and then port from that mobile provider to Google Voice.  [I was able to do this for about $40 ($5 TracFone, $5 shipping, $10 TracFone airtime, and $20 Google Voice port fee).  Should you choose the TracFone route, a few helpful tips: 1) you probably don't need to purchase any airtime as you get 10 minutes just for activating 2) when filling out the Google Voice port form, your TracFone carrier will show as the actual network the phone is using rather than TracFone 3) Your TracFone account number is your phone's serial number (also called IMEI)].  Google Voice will notify you via email once your port is complete.
8. If caller ID with name is important to you, follow these instructions to sign up for Simon Telephonics Google Voice Gateway and reconfigure your Obi device. (don't forget to donate)
9. If 911 service is important to you, log into ObiTalk and follow these instructions to setup 911 service.
10. Enjoy your "free" home phone service and Google Voice features

Please let me know if you have any additional tips steps or hints I can add to this list!

Cutting the Cord...Five Months Later

It's been about five month's since we "cut the cord" and cancelled our satellite service.  Overall, I think it's been a great experience and I've not missed cable at all; although my wife may disagree.

The majority of our content comes from streaming services, primarily Netflix & Amazon, but we also utilize a few other sources, including Hulu+.   One thing is for sure, there are plenty of options. The only challenge is getting everyone in the family to agree on what to watch.

Our antenna & TiVo service are important and enable us watch our local stations, including the news, with DVR functionality.  I was really excited about TiVo, and with respect to an over-the-air DVR, it doesn't disappoint.  However, their integrated search and streaming applications leave a lot to be desired.  I was hoping that the TiVo device would be able to handle all of our over-the-air content as well as streaming content, but that wasn't the case.

Another complaint I have about TiVo is how expensive it is to stream your over-the-air content to other rooms and other devices.  You have to purchase additional hardware and pay additional monthly services charges for this service.  At $15 a month for a single DVR service, TiVo is already more expensive than their competitors and I doubt anyone is interested in paying another $10 to $15 a month (plus cost of hardware) just to add DVR functionality to an additional room.

The good news is that there are some very innovative TiVo alternatives out there.  I've got my eye on Simple.TV.  It's a small device that plugs into your home network and your antenna and then streams over-the-air content (with DVR functionality) to your tablets, computers, and Roku devices.  There are a few things that set Simple.TV apart from TiVo.  Both devices cost about the same, but the monthly cost for Simple.TV is only $5 verse $15 for TiVo.  Also, Simple.TV will let you stream to any TV with a  Roku connected to it, and on tablets and computers, both at home and on the road. I look forward to giving Simple.TV a try as my year-long TiVo commitment comes to and end.

Another over-the-air DVR service to keep an eye on is Aereo.  It is only available in select markets, none of which are in Northern California, but essentially provides over-the-air DVR functionality via "the cloud".  What makes it even cooler is that the antenna used by Aereo lives at their data center rather than your house.  This allows people who have trouble picking up TV signals at their house the ability to cut-the-cord and still receive local channels (with DVR functionality) for about $8 to $12 per month.  Aereo can display over-the-air content on Roku as well as tablets, smartphones, and PCs.

So I've talked about some over-the-air DVR options but what about streaming devices?  Apple TV easily has the best interface around but unfortunately, the content is somewhat limited.  My recommendation when it comes to streaming is Roku.  We'd been using Roku all along in our bedroom but added one to the living room as well.  For us, a major advantage of Roku over Apple TV is support for Amazon (both pay-per-view/purchase and free Prime content) as well as a ton of other "channels" like Spotify and iHeartRadio.  Plus, both Simple.TV and Aereo can work with your Roku device to deliver over-the-air content. 

We didn't watch a ton of TV before, but we watch even less now, which is a good thing.   Given our experience so far, we don't plan to go back to cable anytime soon.

My previous blogs on this topic can be found at:
Thinking of Cutting the Cord? (Part 1)
Thinking of Cutting the Cord? (Part 2)

I'd love to hear about your cord-cutting experience and/or questions in the comments.

Thinking of Cutting the Cord? (Part 2)

In my last post, I talked about the why people might choose to get ride of their cable/satellite subscription (aka "cut the cord") and a few options for getting content, including over the air broadcasts and streaming services like Netflix, Hulu+, and Amazon.  This post will focus more on some of the options to get that content onto your TV screen.  This consideration really depends on which streaming services you plan to use and if you will be incorporating over-the-air channels.

Apple TV
It's no secret I'm a bit of an Apple fanboy (ok, maybe more than just a bit of one) but they make a great product.  We have an Apple TV and there is a lot to love about it, especially if you have a Mac, iPhone, iPad, or all of the above.  The interface is great; simple and elegant. Airplay, which is the ability to send content from your Mac/iOS device to your TV can be quite useful. Most people have their music library in iTunes and Apple TV let's you play the library directly from your computer via home sharing and/or play the songs you've purchased from iTunes directly from the cloud.  You can use Apple TV to stream both Netflix & Hulu+ and you can purchase and rent movies/shows through iTunes.  I highly recommend the Apple TV as a streaming device, especially for those with iOS devices, but if you are cutting the cord, I don't think it would make a good choice for your primary streaming device.  Sure, you can get Netflix, Hulu+, iTunes, and more, but it is lacking a lot of other content options provided by other devices.  However, if you have the budget ($99), and have iOS devices, it is a nice addition to your media options.  You can read more about Apple TV at Apple's website.

Roku
While I don't think the interface on Roku can compete with Apple TV it has way more content.  Not only does it have Netflix, Hulu+, Blockbuster, Vudu, and Amazon, it has over 700 more channels worth of content including multiple free movie channels. With all of that content, you are sure to find something to watch. We have a Roku HD in our bedroom and it does a great job of delivering a wide range of options, and from what I've seen, the interface on the new Roku 3 is much improved.   Roku also gives you the ability ability to play songs and display photos from your smartphone on your TV.  If you are doing over-the-air as part of your cord cutting strategy, I can't recommend Roku as your primary device, but if you have the budget ($99), it can make a great addition to your streaming options due to all the extra content it provides.  If you don't care about over-the-air DVR functionality, then I believe this is your best option for streaming devices.  You can read more about Roku at their website.

Boxee TV
Boxee TV takes the basic streaming device and adds support for over-the-air channels. It supports a few different "apps" (services) including Netflix, Vudu (for on-demand movie rentals/purchases), YouTube, Vimo, MLB.tv and Pandora. You can't access Hulu+ content at this point, so if you plan to subscribe to that service, then this may not be the device for you. For $10 a month, you can add on the Boxee TV cloud DVR service and record unlimited over-the-air content and to watch on your TV or on your smartphone/tablet anywhere you have internet access. That is a great feature, but, unfortunately, the Cloud DVR service is only available in eight major metro areas right now. Given the lack of DVR availability and limited content options, the Boxee TV will not be a good choice for most people. However, I think they have a great concept and as content options and DVR service availability expand, this device may become a great option.  You can read more and view market availability of the Cloud DVR Service at Boxee.TV

Tivo Premier
Like Boxee TV, the Tivo Premier takes a streaming device and adds a DVR and guide for over-the-air channels. Unfortunately, there is a monthly subscription fee of $15 which might cause you to shy away from this option. Unlike Boxee, the DVR is built into the device on a local hard drive and can store up to 75 hours of HD content. That should be more than enough for your over-the-air content.  While the Tivo Premier doesn't support anywhere near the amount of content that the Roku does, it supports the streaming services you are likely to care about most. Netflix & Hulu+ content are available for those who subscribe to those services. On demand content may be purchased and/or rented from providers like Amazon and Blockbuster. YouTube is supported, as are multiple music streaming services. Tivo has integrated search that allows you find content and understand your options for viewing it (over-the-air channels, subscription services, or on-demand rental/purchase). I have decided this is the primary streaming device we will be going with. For us, an over-the-air DVR was an important consideration and the ability to do an integrated search should help us easily locate content we are interested in.  We already have a Roku in our bedroom, but may find spending an additional $99 to add one to the family room will complement the great options the Tivo Premier provides.  You can read more about the Tivo Premier at the Tivo webiste.

Other Options
Some other common options for streaming include gaming systems (such as Wii, PlayStation, and Xbox), Google TV, as well as many blu-ray players and Smart TVs. I wouldn't recommend these options for cord cutters as they have limited content options, but if you already have one, it certainly would be a budget friendly approach.

In the end, it really depends on your needs as to which of these devices would be best for you. At this point, my recommendation is Roku for those who don't require over-the-air DVR functionality and Tivo Premier for those who do.  Of course, if your budget allows, adding a secondary device can increase your content options.   Once we "cut the cord" and have been cable/satellite free for a bit, I'll write a follow-up blog to let you know what I think of the experience.

September 2013 Update:  Boxee is no longer an available option and I've written a follow-up post that discusses my experience with TiVo and some new over-the-air DVR options.  You can read more here

Fluoridation Statement

At our February meeting, the OPUD board voted 3-2 to discontinue fluoridation of the water supply in Olivehurst in Plumas Lake.  First 5 Yuba asked the board to reconsider our decision and we did so on 3/21.  After hearing from public on both sides of the issue, and receiving a petition signed by 130+ residents urging us to strop fluoridation, I read this statement:


At previous board meetings I've indicated that my decision to vote to stop fluoridation was not an easy one as the issue is very complex and not black and white.  However, the more time I spend considering this topic, the more black and white it has become for me and the more I believe my vote was the right one.

One area that I believe isn't black and white is the benefit of  fluoridation verse the possible risks.  There are very passionate people and arguments on both sides of this debate.  Frankly, I think the benefit is less than is claimed by some on the pro-fluoridation side while the risk is less than that portrayed by some on the anti-fluoridation side.

What I believe is black and white is the argument that OPUD should not be adding a substance to the water that is used for a medical purpose, especially when there are alternative treatments and residents have approached this board and asked us to stop.  I believe our customers have a right to have water that is fluoride free.  Those OPUD customers who wish to add fluoride to their water have the ability to do so.  Those who want water without fluoride have no easy way to remove it. 

I would support donating the funding we spent on fluoridation to improve dental care for the economically disadvantaged in our community.  However, based on my experience on this board, I anticipate that doing so would be considered "a gift of public funds" and would not be allowed.  Interesting that it is ok for us to spend rate payer money on improving dental health as long as it is done through the water supply and not directly, where I believe it would make the most difference. 

I want to thank the citizens who have stepped up and made your desires and concerns on this topic known to the board, no matter which side you were on. While we received feedback from those on both side of the issue,  I personally heard from far more residents who wanted fluoridation stopped and I hope the board listens to our constituents and upholds our decision last month to discontinue it. 

After directors had an opportunity to comment, a vote was taken and the result was the same as the month before.  Essentially, a 3-2 decision to stop fluoridation.

Thinking of Cutting the Cord? (Part 1)

In 2012, for the first time ever, the number of cable & satellite subscribers in the US actually declined over the previous year. The number of channels available on cable/satellite continues to increase...but so does the cost. Many people stare at a guide with hundreds of channels and realize that there isn't anything on they are interested in. An increase in channels does not equal an increase in value if you don't watch most of them. Sure most of us have some regular shows we record and watch with our DVR but we are getting an increasing amount of the content we watch on our TV via streaming services such as Netflix. This is causing many people to "cut the cord" and rely on streaming services and over the air broadcasts for their TV content. We plan to join them. While there can be some serious savings associated with "cutting the cord" it isn't for everyone and there are plenty of things to consider.

The first is availability of content. While streaming services such as Netflix & Hulu+ have an amazing amount of movies and popular shows you can stream, as well as shows they produce, chances are they don't have current seasons of the shows you watch right now. Hulu+ is the exception and has many recent episodes from the broadcast networks but you are unlikely to find current seasons from cable channels like TNT, Discovery, History, etc. The good news is there is an alternative. You can purchase episodes of most cable network shows on Amazon (and iTunes) for $1.99 an episode. We watch several shows we will have to purchase from Amazon, but will still be far less than our current satellite bill.

If you are like us, you like to watch your local news and/or other live TV like sports from the major networks. For most people, "cutting the cord" doesn't have to mean giving this up. The major networks are still broadcasting their programming and as long as you are within range of their signal, you can get a crystal clear digital picture for FREE, which in many cases is in HD. To get an idea what channels you can get at your house, visit antennaweb.org and plug in your address. You can also get similar information from tvfool.com.

We are just over 50 miles north of the primary broadcast towers for the Sacramento area. It was clear from the research that we would need an outdoor antenna and one that could get both UHF and VHF stations. This is because in the Sacramento area both PBS (6.x) and ABC (10.x) are still broadcasting on VHF frequencies.  Something confusing about the digital transition is that broadcast stations now have virtual channels, such as 3.1, and an associated RF broadcast channel.  For example, KCRA 3.1 (NBC) actually broadcasts on RF 35.  If you want to pick up stations that broadcast on RF channels < 14 you will need an antenna that supports VHF as well UHF.  Otherwise, a standard UHF antenna will meet your needs.

Given our distance and need for both UHF & VHF, I went with the Clearstream 2V from Antenna's Direct. I've hooked up the antenna to test it out and I'm able to pick up ALL the major Sacramento stations crystal clear [3.1 (NBC), 3.2 (MeTV), 6.1 (PBS), 6.2 (PBS2), 6.3 (vME), 10.1 (ABC), 10.2 (ABC2), 13.1 (CBS), 29.1 (ION), 29.2 (Qubo), 29.3 (ION Life), 29.4 (Shop TV), 31.1 (CW), 40.1 (FOX), 40.2 (AntennaTV), 58.1 (MyTV), 58.2 (ThisTV)].

Yuba County is the northern boundary of the Sacramento TV market and by getting a multidirectional antenna, I hopped to pull in a few stations from the north of us as well.  Chico news sometimes provides more coverage of our area than do Sacramento stations.  I expected to get CBS 12.1 and possibly FOX 20.1 from Chico, but was unable to do so.  While the Clearstream 2V is able to pick up signals from the back side of the antenna, it can't do that with the same strength as the side I have pointed toward Sacramento...not to mention my roof is likely blocking the signal from the north.  This goes to show that your mileage may vary from what antennaweb.org says.  It depends on antenna placement, design, and what might be between you and the broadcast tower.

In a follow-up post, I talk about some devices you can use to stream your content and which one I plan to use.

Why I don't support fluoridation of our drinking water

Adding fluoride to the public water supply is a very controversial issue.  However, I believe if you stopped the majority of people on the street and asked them about the topic they wouldn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but in general would support it because they trust their local water provider and because their dentist says it's a good thing.  One the other side of the fence is a growing number of people who have actually researched the topic and are fighting to have the practice stopped.  I used to fall into the first group of people but now consider myself part of the second.

My local water provider, Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) started adding fluoride to our water in July of 2010.  At the time, I remember some discussion about it on our community forum, and some minor opposition, but I personally thought it was a good idea.  Like most people, I trust my water provider and dentist to be looking out for me.  Why would they do something that may not be in my best interest?  Later in 2010, I decided to run for an open seat on the OPUD board of directors and was elected to represent my fellow residents.  My run for the board had nothing to do with fluoridation, and I didn't think much about it until early 2012 when a friend of mine, who is opposed to the practice, came before the board and requested that it be stopped.  He gave the board a thorough presentation explaining why fluoridation should be ended and provided adequate resources for board members to conduct their own research on the subject.  The board also received presentations from the Yuba County Health Department and local dentists who support the practice.  When the board voted, it was 3-2 in favor continuing water fluoridation.  I cast my vote in favor of stopping it.  In the November 2012 election, one of the OPUD board members who voted to continue fluoridation lost to an individual who ran on a platform opposing it.  As a result, the OPUD board once again took up the topic of fluoridation in February 2013 and this time the vote was 3-2 to stop it.

How could someone who was a supporter of fluoridation no all that log ago vote to end it?  The answer is simple, I researched it and was surprised by what I found out.

As with any controversial issue, there is plenty of information both for and against and it's often hard to know what to believe and what not to. There are claims that fluoridation of the water supply can cause cancer and bone damage.  While I don't deny these are possibilities, I didn't read anything that persuaded me to believe these claims as hard fact.  Also, while fluoride is toxic in large quantities, I believe that at the level it is added to drinking water, it's "likely" safe.  However, many people don't think so and don't want it in their water. It's claimed that the source of fluoride used by most water providers comes from a waste product of the fertilizer industry. While this doesn't automatically mean it's dangerous for consumption, it does point out a reason why there could be corporate financial pressure to continue the practice.  Without a market for this fluoride, it would be very expensive for these companies to dispose of it, as it is considered a hazardous material.

Some additional arguments against fluoridation that I found very interesting and contributed to my decision to vote against it both times include the following:

• Tooth decay rates in many "first world" nations have seen similar rates of reduction over the last 30 years in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. (see graph below)
• The CDC recommends against reconstituting infant formula with fluoridated water (link)
• Prior to 2011, the recommended range of fluoride in drinking water was .07 ppm to 1.2 ppm.  In 2011, the EPA and HHS changed that recommendation to .7 ppm, cutting the previous maximum recommendation almost in half (link).
• Fluoride in the water supply increases the likelihood and severity of dental fluorosis.  (This is claimed to be the primary driver for the two bullet points above).
• Fluoride is the only chemical added to the water for medical reasons; all other chemicals added to the water are done so to make it safe and/or more pleasant for consumption.
• You can't purchase fluoride at a pharmacy without a prescription, yet water providers can add it to the water supply.

I have no doubt that fluoridation of the water supply has benefit, especially in those areas where there is limited access to dental care and it isn't common practice to brush regularly with fluoride toothpaste.  However, I think that the scope of the population receiving benefit continues to shrink while there are many valid concerns with the practice of fluoridation.  As a result, I don't think it is wise to add fluoride to our water supply and I couldn't in good conscious vote to continue doing so.  It should also be noted that while the board heard from multiple citizens requesting that OPUD stop fluoridation, the only people who addressed the board in favor or fluoridation where dentists, none of which identified themselves as residents of the OPUD service area.

The City of Fairbanks put together a task force to study the issue and I think it's a great non-biased report on the topic.  You can read it here.  After receiving the report, that city council voted to stop fluoridation.  It should also be noted that Olivehurst, Plumas Lake & Fairbanks are not the only communities that have discontinued fluoridation in recent years; here is a list of other communities who have also stopped fluoridation since 2010.

I encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusion.

How Technology Can Charge You Up

Like many other smartphone/tablet owners that I know, rather than bring my Bible to church and Bible study each week, I use a a Bible app installed on my smartphone/tablet. My Bible app of choice, and the app of choice for pretty much everyone I know is YouVersion. If you have a smartphone or tablet and haven't checked out this app, I suggest you give it a try. It has some pretty great features, including:

• Easily get to the text you want by tapping to select book, chapter, verse
• Support for a ton of translations and the ability to easily switch between them. The iPad version even allows you to view two translations side by side.
• Some translations can be downloaded to your device so you can use them when you don't have a cellular or WiFi connection.
• The ability to add notes to a verse and have them saved in the cloud so you can view them across all your devices.
• Display all verses containing a search phrase.
• Built in reading plans, some with associated devotional text

So what does this app have to do with the title of the blog? I'm not sure about you, but I struggle to spend time reading my Bible on a daily basis. It's not that I don't think it's important...I do. In fact, this last weekend the pastor used a great illustration to hammer this truth home. We all know that our smartphone/tablet must be connected to a power source on a regular basis or it's worthless. It's the same with us. We must charge up regularly by spending time in prayer and reading our Bible. I know this, and have experienced its truth in my life but yet I still struggle.

It's not that I don't have the time, although that is my excuse. It's that I don't make the time. Much like regular exercise, which I also struggle with, if we don't set aside a specific time in our routine to spend time with God, it won't happen.

I have a ~1 hour commute to work in the morning, and I've found that I can use some of that time to pray. I know this isn't the most ideal prayer environment due to the distraction of driving, but I've still managed to have some good prayer times. While I may be able to pray (eyes open) during my commute, it's probably not a good idea to try and read my Bible.

Recently, it hit me there was an easy solution to this dilemma. I don't have a line-in port on my car stereo, but that doesn't stop me from using my smartphone to listen to Pandora or songs that I've downloaded. (Yes,I use one of those cassette tapes from the 90's that was used to connect your portable CD player to your car stereo). I mentioned above that the YouVersion Bible app has some built in reading plans. The word "some" is an understatement, there are a ton of plans, both topical and thru-the-Bible. Many of the translations even include the ability for the app to read the text to you. Starting to see where I'm going with this? I started a plan and let the YouVersion app read me the text through my car stereo. It's working great, and I often find myself letting the app read beyond that day's reading. If you struggle with spending time reading your Bible, why not let the Bible read itself to you on your way to work or during some other regular activity?

Don't have a way to play audio from your phone during your commute? Still, check out the YouVersion reading plans on your smartphone. I'm pretty sure that at least once during the day, instead of checking what your friends are saying on Facebook, you could see what God is saying in his Word.

What do you do to make sure you are getting charged up regularly?

Why I ditched Sprint & why I chose AT&T (Part 2)

About a month ago, I made the jump from Sprint to AT&T as my cell phone provider.  In a previous post, Why I ditched Sprint & why I chose AT&T (Part 1), I talked about why I left Sprint.  In this post I'll focus on why I chose AT&T over Verizon and discuss a few components that factored into my decision.

Plan & Cost:
Big reasons people choose one carrier over another are the types of plans available and their associated costs.  Both AT&T and Verizon have plans that include unlimited minutes, unlimited texts, mobile hotspot capability, and a pool of data to share between devices.  For my family, this type of plan really aligns with our needs.  We don't need that many minutes but unlimited texting is critical and the mobile hotspot feature allowed me to drop the separate iPad data plan I had been paying for.  I use way more data than my wife, so having a plan that allows sharing the data between devices rather than a fixed amount for each device gives us more flexibility.  The way these plans are priced varies between AT&T and Verizon. However, both carriers charge a per device fee and a fee for the plan itself that is based on the amount of data you want to share.  For us, I was interested in the 6 GB plan with two smartphones, which just happens to be priced exactly the same at both carriers.  No clear winner in this category.

Coverage:
Cellular coverage varies by carrier and location.  It's unlikely that you can find a single carrier that has great service everywhere you go.  Verizon claims to have "more bars in more places", and that claim may be valid if you consider their entire US coverage area, or even all of California, but in the Sacramento region where I spend most of my time, I'm not sure there is a clear winner between the two.  In some areas AT&T has better coverage and in others Verizon.  Unfortunately, unlike some of the other carriers, neither AT&T nor Verizon provide detailed coverage strength maps on their website. I knew that AT&T recently installed a new tower in Plumas Lake where I live, taking them from being known as having the worst signal strength in town to having the best.  That was a factor in my decision to go with AT&T but a fairly minor one as Verizon is known for having decent coverage there as well.

Data Speed:
In my previous post, I mentioned that I hardly talk on my phone but use the data quite a bit.  Therefore, data speed was an important consideration for me.  AT&T says they have the "largest 4G network" and Verizon claims to have the "largest 4G LTE network" and the "fastest 4G network".  Depending on how you look at it, all of these statements are true.  First, some technical terminology that is essential to understanding their marketing slogans and my choice for AT&T.

EVDO - Standard for 3G data networks used by CDMA carriers like Verizon and Sprint
HSPA - Standard for 3G data networks used by GSM carriers like AT&T and T-Mobile
HSPA+ - Standard for 4G data networks used by AT&T and T-Mobile (some call this 3.5G)
LTE - Standard for 4G data networks used by all carriers

The actual speed you experience on each of these network types depends on device, signal strength, and how busy the tower is so I won't get into specific speed numbers but EVDO is the slowest and HSPA is a bit faster but still fairly slow.  HSPA+ is a decent jump up in speed (we'll call it fast) and LTE is super fast.

Verizon has the largest LTE network in the country by far, covering almost 500 cities compared to less than 200 by AT&T.  The LTE coverage difference here in Northern California between the two carriers is also substantial, with Verizon the clear winner.  Thus, their claim that they have the "largest 4G LTE network" is valid, even here in California.  Since LTE is faster than HSPA+, they can also claim that they have the "fastest 4G network".  Seems like Verizon would be the easy choice if I was looking for pure speed, but there is one other thing to consider.  While they have significant areas of LTE coverage in Northern California, there are still plenty of areas without it; especially rural areas.  If you use a Verizon LTE phone and leave their LTE coverage area, or can't get LTE signal in a building, you fall back to their 3G EVDO network, which is SLOW.

Prior to rolling out LTE, AT&T deployed HSPA+ to almost all areas where they had 3G service in Northern California.  This means that if you happen to be outside the somewhat limited AT&T LTE coverage area, instead of falling back to a slow 3G data network, you fall back to a decent 4G network.  In other words, you get "super fast" in more places with Verizon but fall back to "slow".  With AT&T, you have less "super fast" coverage but fall back to "fast".  For me, a more consistent "fast" experience was important, so I went with AT&T.

LTE coverage by both AT&T and Verizon is expanding on an almost daily basis and both carriers plan to provide LTE coverage everywhere they provide 3G coverage within a few years.  When that happens, the difference between falling back to HSPA+ verse EVDO will be mostly irrelevant.  But until that time, I think HSPA+ is a great reason to choose AT&T, especially in Northern California. 

Why I ditched Sprint & why I chose AT&T (Part 1)

About a month ago, I made the jump from Sprint to AT&T as my cell phone provider.  

I had been a Sprint customer for the last 9 years, and on and off for several years before that, so why did I make this change?  The answer is simple.  Sprint's data network.  In this post I'll explain why I left Sprint and in a follow-up post I'll share why I chose AT&T over Verizon.

Until about two years, I was a big proponent of Sprint.  I'm a pretty money conscious guy (aka cheap) and Sprint has always provided the best bang for your buck of the top three carriers.  Not only are their plans priced better but often they were also the most innovative.  Who doesn't like unlimited data and unlimited mobile to any mobile calling?  Sprint has never been know for amazing coverage but the fact that they allow you to roam on the Verizon network free of charge mitigated that issue for me.  They also have very impressive integration with Googe Voice if you utilize that service, which I do.  As for their customer service, I can't recall ever having a complaint about it.   

I had poor Sprint coverage at my house but Sprint mitigated that by providing an Airave free of charge.  That is a great little device that essentially creates a mini cell-tower in your house using your broadband connection.  The range within the house wasn't as good as I would have liked (coverage is similar to WiFi) but it did the job and allowed me to use my phone to make/receive calls while at home.  The Airave only provides voice/text services but since my phone was able to utilize my WiFi network for data that didn't matter.  It was a bit of a pain that Sprint coverage was so poor in my community, but it never bothered me enough to look at another carrier.

So what did it?  Like many of you, my mobile device usage has changed from primarily voice to mostly texting and data.  A little over two years ago, I upgraded my Blackberry to an Epic 4G (Android) device.  My wife had one as well.  Lucky for me, the day after I got this phone, Sprint launched their WiMax 4G network in Sacramento (where I work).  I was very impressed by the speed.  However, I noticed that coverage was very spotty.  I figured they would be adding more towers as they continued their WiMax rollout so didn't worry too much.  I also didn't mind paying $10 extra per phone as we were told that other areas (such as Yuba-Sutter, where I live) would be seeing WiMax coverage soon.   Unfortunately, Sprint didn't expand their WiMax network any further nor did they improve it in Sacramento, leaving me to pay an extra $20 a month for a service that I could hardly use.  I eventually just turned 4G off on my phone because there were large gaps in 4G coverage in the Sacramento area and the phone would not switch gracefully from 3G to 4G service.  My WiMax experience bothered me, but still not enough to make me consider switching.

Then, a little over a year ago I noticed something very annoying.  A spot in Olivehurst that I frequented on a regular basis where my phone showed almost full signal strength but data requests (such as pulling up FB or checking in on Foursquare) were very slow and often timed out.  This experience was consistant at that location.  I expect data performance problems in areas with poor signal but that didn't fall into that category   I called Sprint to report the problem but it was never addressed.  I began to notice other areas with similar issues.  Decent coverage but poor data performance on a consistant basis.  Two spots that come to mind were near my office in Rancho Cordova and in Downtown Yuba City.  As time went on, the number of spots where I experienced this issue seemed to grow.  Eventually, I started using the SpeedTest.net app to measure performance.  I frequently got less than < 100 kbps and in the worst trouble spots speeds were typically in the 10 kbps to 50 kbps range.  That is worse than dialup speeds.  Sprint 3G should be operating in the 300 kbps to 800 kbps range.

I also noticed a delay in the time it took me to send/receive text messages.  This didn't appear to be location or time specific and didn't happen all the time but when it did the delay could be measured in minutes rather than seconds.  This is very frustrating when you are trying to hold a time sensitive conversation via text messages.

As someone who hardly places a call on his phone, but primarily uses it for texting and data, I could no longer stand to use such a poor performing network.  As soon as my contract was up, I jumped ship for another carrier.  My next post will focus on why I chose AT&T over Verizon.

Do you have Sprint?  What has your experience been like?

Is this thing on?

Here it is...the first blog post on my very first blog.  I've been an activate poster on the Plumas Lake Community Forum, an active sharer on Facebook (my wife would use the term "over sharer" instead), and even a pretty  regular Tweeter, but I never had an interest in blogging.  A tweet is just 140 characters and Facebook posts aren't all that much longer. They are easy. However, what could I possibly want to write that would fill a blog?  I recently thought of a few things and so I figured maybe it was time to give it a try. If all goes as planned I'll hop in here from time to time and ramble about a wide range of stuff that I'm passionate about.  Stuff like technology, my community, politics, and what ever else has my attention.

The next question is...is anyone actually interested in my ramblings?  Guess I'll find out.