 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / February 2008Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting 2/21/08
T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman Today T-Mobile also announced that it will offer subscribers an unlimited plan for $99 per month. T-Mobile's offering is the only plan announced today that includes both voice and messaging services at the $99 price point. The new plan will be available beginning February 21. from T-Mobile The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. >The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! >>The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. > >But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! Depends on where you are. There are many places where T-Mobile service is good.  SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >>The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. > > But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! On Verizon, you have to look carefully at the offer....... Unlimited voice....................................and data. It doesn't say unlimited DATA....See? It would be fun to test "unlimited data" on Verizon, again, though in conjuction with the NY State Attorney General's office, just to see their faces. We'll use AG Cuomo's Aircard....(c; >>>The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It doesn't say unlimited DATA....See? Actually it does -- what the Verizon website says for Nationwide Premium: UNLIMITED MESSAGING, VZ NAVIGATOR, MOBILE EMAIL, AND V CAST VPAK PLUS UNLIMITED MEGABYTES FOR MOBILE WEB 2.0 AND GET IT NOW! ON SELECT VERIZON WIRELESS PHONES. >It would be fun to test "unlimited data" on Verizon, again, though in >conjuction with the NY State Attorney General's office, just to see their >faces. We'll use AG Cuomo's Aircard....(c; SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > >>>The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind > boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford Wrong John, a discussion by analysists of yesterday's news mentioned that Verizon's data is now tightly capped at one fo two levels. 50MB or 5GB at two different price points. You do not get the 5GB at the $99 price level! T-Mo is a much bigger bang for the dollar than Verizon at $99! >> Actually it does -- what the Verizon website says for >> Nationwide Premium: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> UNLIMITED MESSAGING, VZ NAVIGATOR, MOBILE EMAIL, AND V CAST VPAK PLUS >> UNLIMITED MEGABYTES FOR MOBILE WEB 2.0 AND GET IT NOW! ON SELECT >> VERIZON WIRELESS PHONES. >Wrong John, a discussion by analysists of yesterday's news mentioned >that Verizon's data is now tightly capped at one fo two levels. 50MB >or 5GB at two different price points. That's Broadband Connect, not Nationwide Premium. >ou do not get the 5GB at the >$99 price level! I never said you did -- Nationwide Connect is $140. >T-Mo is a much bigger bang for the dollar than Verizon at $99! Depends on what you want/need both in terms of service and in terms of coverage. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >Wrong John, a discussion by analysists of yesterday's news mentioned >that Verizon's data is now tightly capped at one fo two levels. 50MB >or 5GB at two different price points. You do not get the 5GB at the >$99 price level! > >T-Mo is a much bigger bang for the dollar than Verizon at $99! Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for $39.99...you have to be kidding! >>Wrong John, a discussion by analysists of yesterday's news mentioned >>that Verizon's data is now tightly capped at one fo two levels. 50MB [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for > $39.99...you have to be kidding! Alltel - 1X to smartphones $10/mo extra EVDO to tethered computers $25/mo extra The bills all say MEGABYTES 99,999 when they come...too funny. I'm watching XRM-TV videos on it, now: http://75.126.100.178:8000/xrm-tv.nsv?refid=1 It even plays rolling down the highway at...er, ah....65. If you buy 1X for your smartphone, it still tethers over BT or USB to your computer, but you only get 1X speed for $10 if you're cheap...(c; Still no MB limits...just less MBs/day... In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote: > Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for > $39.99...you have to be kidding! They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of data. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead. -- Egyptian Book of the Dead > In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote: >> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of > data. But corporations get unlimited for less than that. I always thought those sort of plans were just a disingenuous slap in the face of the average guy so they could claim they have something besides unlimited. It would be like going into a buffet and being told that the complete buffet is available for $15 but for those who may not want that they do offer a "special" rate where you can fill a 3" plate one time for $9.50 . >> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > want that they do offer a "special" rate where you can fill a 3" plate > one time for $9.50 . If you are a corporation and if you have several dozen or several hundred cell phones, you have a great deal of bargaining power! > If you are a corporation and if you have several dozen or several > hundred cell phones, you have a great deal of bargaining power! You get an even better deal if you have a plot of pasture they wanna put a sellphone tower on..... >> If you are a corporation and if you have several dozen or several >> hundred cell phones, you have a great deal of bargaining power! > > You get an even better deal if you have a plot of pasture they wanna put > a sellphone tower on..... Or put up your own tower and lease it back to the celltelcos... It is best to get Sprint for data since they don't have any cap on usage. I have used both and they perform equally except for the price. > In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of > data. Jar-Jar Binks wrote : > It is best to get Sprint for data since they don't have any cap on usage. I > have used both and they perform equally except for the price. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> of >> data. You forgot to mention forced roaming to Verizon because Verizon's network is betterthan Sprint. This reply is not cross posted > In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote: >> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of > data. "We have all the supply so we can demand whatever the %^&$ we want." Verizon's date offerings are higher quality than those from Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile so they can charge more. Actually AT&T charges about the same, despite having less 3G coverage, though they have announced an expansion of 3G that, when complete, will put them about equal to Verizon in coverage. The problem for Sprint and T-Mobile is that while they can roam for voice, AT&T and Verizon have thus far not allowed 3G data roaming. So unless you can live with the coverage limitations of Sprint and T-Mobile, which will not be solved for a very long time, if ever, you're stuck with paying for the higher quality product. People complain about Verizon's prices for voice and for data, but Verizon still signs up the most new retail contract customers, by a large margin, every quarter. Obviously a lot of customers are willing to pay a slightly higher price for the higher quality. > People complain about Verizon's prices for voice and for data, but > Verizon still signs up the most new retail contract customers, by a > large margin, every quarter. Obviously a lot of customers are willing to > pay a slightly higher price for the higher quality. "Slightly", he says. SignatureObama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/print/obamas-communist-mentor/ >> People complain about Verizon's prices for voice and for data, but >> Verizon still signs up the most new retail contract customers, by a >> large margin, every quarter. Obviously a lot of customers are willing to >> pay a slightly higher price for the higher quality. > > "Slightly", he says. If you compare the plan minutes at different price points, using one of the comparison engines for wireless, the prices for peak minutes of voice are very comparable at AT&T, Sprint, & Verizon. T-Mobile gives you a lot more peak minutes for the price. See "http://www.myrateplan.com/wireless_plans/". With Sprint you can get SERO rates which don't show up of course in the plan comparisons. For unlimited, T-Mobile is cheaper because it includes text messaging, though the savvy consumer that wanted unlimited would port their number to PagePlus and get unlimited on the Verizon network for significantly less, around $75, versus what will be about $115 after taxes and fees on Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile. For data, Verizon is comparable to AT&T, even though they have a much larger 3G network. Sprint is cheaper, if they cover the places you expect to need 3G. > For unlimited, T-Mobile is cheaper because it includes text messaging, > though the savvy consumer that wanted unlimited would port their > number to PagePlus and get unlimited on the Verizon network for > significantly less, around $75, versus what will be about $115 after > taxes and fees on Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile. The $75. PagePlus plan is not unlimited. >> For unlimited, T-Mobile is cheaper because it includes text messaging, >> though the savvy consumer that wanted unlimited would port their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The $75. PagePlus plan is not unlimited. It's unlimited on Verizon's network. Close enough. "http://pagepluscellular.com/Plans/Unlimited%20Voice.aspx" It's actually around $69 (for a 30 day month), since you can buy the $80 PagePlus card for around $74. $2.49*30*74/80. I'm sure that the total cost of the $99 unlimited deals are closer to $115 once all the taxes and fees are added. > > The $75. PagePlus plan is not unlimited. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's actually around $69 (for a 30 day month), since you can buy the $80 > PagePlus card for around $74. $2.49*30*74/80. And then it's only $1.99/day in many states as well. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47c45c16$0$36372 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > versus what will be about $115 after taxes and fees on > Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile. .....it just makes my heart flutter....$1,380/year. At THIS price point, it oughta come with a hooker! Seems kinda stupid, don't it? > > versus what will be about $115 after taxes and fees on > > Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile. > > .....it just makes my heart flutter....$1,380/year. > > At THIS price point, it oughta come with a hooker! says Larry, who's looking for ANY woman to visit him. I guess the eight year old girls at the mall aren't doing it for him anymore. After serious thinking Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote : >>> versus what will be about $115 after taxes and fees on >>> Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I guess the eight year old girls at the mall aren't doing it for him > anymore. Larry doesn't hang out at the mall. He parks his pickup outside Walmart. > If you compare the plan minutes at different price points, using one of > the comparison engines for wireless, the prices for peak minutes of > voice are very comparable at AT&T, Sprint, & Verizon. Here we go again... That's a loaded comparison, since Sprint's nights start 2 hours earlier, and AT&T's minutes rollover, both of which give more effective minutes than the comparable number from Verizon, but of course, that's Verizon's intent- to make us believe they offer and equal number of minutes for the dollar. > T-Mobile gives you a lot more peak minutes for the price. > See "http://www.myrateplan.com/wireless_plans/". With Sprint you can > get SERO rates which don't show up of course in the plan comparisons. To be fair to other carriers, however, T-Mo doesn't include M2M in their non-family plans. (Arguably, since they're the smallest carrier of the four, more peak minutes is better than free M2M as your friends and family members are less likely to also be T-Mo subscribers!) > For unlimited, T-Mobile is cheaper because it includes text messaging, > though the savvy consumer that wanted unlimited would port their > number to PagePlus and get unlimited on the Verizon network for > significantly less, around $75, versus what will be about $115 after > taxes and fees on Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile. True, unless they want data. An unlimted tal, text and data plan on T-Mo would be $106. ($120 on PDAs/Blackberries.) > For data, Verizon is comparable to AT&T, even though they have a > much larger 3G network. PDA data on Verizon is $40, vs. $30 on AT&T. > Sprint is cheaper, if they cover the places you expect to need 3G. You're assuming a separate data account with a PC card, rather than a tetherable-data add-on. > >> If you compare the plan minutes at different price points, using one of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that's Verizon's intent- to make us believe they offer and equal number of > minutes for the dollar. Actually their intent is to get users to buy a larger plan once they get dinged with overages because of the worse off-peak. AT&T's rollover does not give you more effective minutes. It's the same average number of minutes each month. If you purchase a plan too large for you then you end up racking up massive numbers of rollover minutes, if you purchase a plan too small for you then you still get dinged with overages. Rollover is great if you have occasional peaks in usage at some times of year. >> For unlimited, T-Mobile is cheaper because it includes text messaging, >> though the savvy consumer that wanted unlimited would port their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > True, unless they want data. An unlimted tal, text and data plan on T-Mo > would be $106. ($120 on PDAs/Blackberries.) Even cheaper on Sprint. > You're assuming a separate data account with a PC card, rather than a > tetherable-data add-on. No, I'm assuming data on a PDA type phone or data on a PC Card, Express Card, or USB card. > AT&T's rollover does not give you more effective minutes. It's the same > average number of minutes each month. If you purchase a plan too large > for you then you end up racking up massive numbers of rollover minutes, A couple of years ago I bought the lowest plan I could from Cingular--450 minute family plan, offered only to corporate discount partners. After discount and taxes, it came in right at about $47/month for the two of us. I gave that up at the end of December, at the end of my two years. I had 3000 or so rollover minutes. And of course, by the time my two years was up, they didn't have anything under a 700 minute plan for more money--just like Verizon and Sprint. I could have stayed on that plan, but the 3000 rollover minutes showed me that I had no need to pay $50/month ongoing. So it wasn't that I bought a plan too large for me--it was the lowest plan offered. I should have been on prepaid from the beginning... >> AT&T's rollover does not give you more effective minutes. It's the >> same average number of minutes each month. If you purchase a plan [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So it wasn't that I bought a plan too large for me--it was the lowest > plan offered. I should have been on prepaid from the beginning... Your experience mirrors mine very closely. I'm on the T-mobile prepaid gold now. 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:71b1cb15-643f-4314-b08a- a64c395d580c@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > T-Mo is a much bigger bang for the dollar than Verizon at $99! Alltel's better than both of them. 700 mins, Unlimited M2M/N-W with the toys $40 UNLIMITED smartphone data $10 Total w/o taxes $50 700 min regional phone plan above $40 UNLIMITED Tethered to computer via Bluetooth or USB $25 Total to your computer w/o VZW BS $65/mo Streaming and gaming to the N800 Linux tablet ad nauseum doesn't seem to bother them at all.... Their Megabyte counter on my bill maxes out at 99,999 Megabytes every month and noone complains....(c; Alltel's footprint is huge in comparison. If you get lots of mins on a regional phone plan, you can ADD nationwide minutes for travel on vacation outside your area. $10 buys 100 minutes with a 611 call before you leave or anytime during your vacation. You don't have to pay roaming charges outside your area, and you don't have to pay for nationwide coverage you rarely use at double the price the other carriers charge. My total bill with all the tax loads and charges is about $74/mo for great phone coverage from MD to FL along the coast, NC/SC complete and into the surrounding states of GA/TN/VA before I need national coverage.....including really unlimited internet to my Linux tablet. $100 my a.s.....(c; > Alltel's footprint is huge in comparison. Really. They don't exist here. Larry, the world is much larger than the road from your house to the Waffle House. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > They don't exist here. Nor here; they don't get any closer to California than, roughly, the Grand Canyon. Plus, he's crowing about unlimited data... well, the voice minutes are not unlimited, it's an apples/oranges comparison. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > 700 mins, Unlimited M2M/N-W with the toys $40 > UNLIMITED smartphone data $10 That's great for people who use less than 700 minutes every month. Some people need voice minutes. That plan would make no sense for me, for example. I use 750-950, average, per month. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile gives me great service. More bang for the buck. >>The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. > > But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! >I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile >gives me great service. More bang for the buck. They have no coverage here! >>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile >>gives me great service. More bang for the buck. > >They have no coverage here! It's like a store with a great price that's out of stock. Go to another store and say, "It's cheaper down the street." The other store replies, "Our price would be cheaper too if we didn't have any in stock." SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford Where is here???? >>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. >>T-Mobile >>gives me great service. More bang for the buck. > > They have no coverage here! > >The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. > > But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem satisfied! ;-) I'm very satisfiied. I pay $39.99 for 1000 minutes & free nights & weekends. And I get great service too. >> >The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. >> >> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! > > The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem > satisfied! ;-) >>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. >> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! > > The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem > satisfied! ;-) Perhaps, but apparently not as satisfied as other carrier's users considering the churn numbers. About 25% of T-Mobile's U.S. retail subscribers leave each year, compared to about 11% of Verizon's retail subscribers, and about 14% of AT&T's retail subscribers. At least they now have less churn than Sprint! > Perhaps, but apparently not as satisfied as other carrier's users > considering the churn numbers. About 25% of T-Mobile's U.S. > retail subscribers leave each year, compared to about 11% of > Verizon's retail subscribers, and about 14% of AT&T's retail subscribers. > At least they now have less churn than Sprint! Yep- T-Mo's churn is still high, but it too is much improved from a few years ago. T-Mo's biggest problems right now, IMO, are the lack of 3G, and a crummy lineup of phone (partially because of the lack of 3G! T-Mo refuses to add 3G phones to it's lineup until they launch 3G, and typically only the low- end and some mid-tier phones today omit 3G, making T-Mo's selection pretty ratty looking.) > making T-Mo's selection pretty >ratty looking.) Rattier than Verizon? My disappointment with VZW (been with them from before they were Verizon) is their selection of phones. They have so many crap phones and the frequency of new phones leaves much to be desired. JMO! > > making T-Mo's selection pretty > >ratty looking.) > > Rattier than Verizon? Not really, but Verizon has an excuse! As a CDMA carrier, there's less equipment for them to choose from, since the GSM market (worldwide) is so much larger. T-Mo has no real excuse for a lousy selection since they can use "off the shelf" hardware from dozens of manufacturers with little to no modification. > My disappointment with VZW (been with them from > before they were Verizon) is their selection of phones. They have so > many crap phones and the frequency of new phones leaves much to be > desired. JMO! True, but Verizon's handsets have to essentially be designed and built for them and then specially crippled to their exacting specifications! ;-) That takes time and effort! >> My disappointment with VZW (been with them from >> before they were Verizon) is their selection of phones. They have so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >them and then specially crippled to their exacting specifications! ;-) >That takes time and effort! You definitely have a point there! > T-Mo's biggest problems right now, IMO, are the lack of 3G, and a > crummy lineup of phone (partially because of the lack of 3G! T-Mobile can use most AT&T phones after unlocking. Todd Allcock wrote : >>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. >> >> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time! > > The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem > satisfied! ;-) Are you speaking for all 26 million or just yourself? > T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too > Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. It's unlimited voice and messaging, not voice and data. You need to understand the difference. T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about their network being overwhelmed. Sprint is now the only carrier without an unlimited plan. If they really want to trump the competition then they could offer a true unlimited voice _and_ data plan. Unlikely since the reason AT&T and Verizon have capped their data plans is because the 3G networks don't have sufficient capacity for such plans. At $60/month for true unlimited data, a lot of DSL users might be tempted to use 3G as their primary Internet connection. In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > At $60/month for true unlimited data, a lot of > DSL users might be tempted to use 3G as their primary Internet connection. Nah ... latency is too poor for many applications. The pipe is quite asymetric as well. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead. -- Egyptian Book of the Dead >> T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too >> Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about >their network being overwhelmed. T-Mobile most certainly does have a data network in the USA. >Sprint is now the only carrier without an unlimited plan. Sprint actually has an unlimited plan in trial. >If they really >want to trump the competition then they could offer a true unlimited >voice _and_ data plan. Unlikely since the reason AT&T and Verizon have >capped their data plans is because the 3G networks don't have sufficient >capacity for such plans. Total nonsense. >At $60/month for true unlimited data, a lot of >DSL users might be tempted to use 3G as their primary Internet connection. Such abuse is the reason for capping. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they > don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about > their network being overwhelmed. They have a 2G data network. > Sprint is now the only carrier without an unlimited plan. If they reall >y want to trump the competition then they could offer a true unlimited > voice _and_ data plan. Unlikely since the reason AT&T and Verizon > have capped their data plans is because the 3G networks don't have > sufficient capacity for such plans. At $60/month for true unlimited data, > a lot of DSL users might be tempted to use 3G as their primary Internet connection. Sprint beat everyone to it. They offered unlimited voice and data in a few "beta" markets late last year for $99, IIRC. It included "Power Vision" data only (on-phone data- no tethering.) I suspect they'll just expand that plan everywhere to compete. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] >> T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they >> don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about >> their network being overwhelmed. > > They have a 2G data network. Exactly. In other words, they don't have a data network. ;) (I don't consider GPRS to be up to par when ATTWS is already EDGE-ified over most of its network and is moving to HDSPA, and when Verizon and Sprint offer DSL speeds.) Sprint seems to be the best bet for data. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > > They have a 2G data network. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > over most of its network and is moving to HDSPA, and when Verizon and > Sprint offer DSL speeds.) T-Mo is pretty much "EDGE-ified" across their (native) network as well, but occasionally it falls down when roaming or in very small markets. (I was up in the Colorado mountains off route 40 last weekend roaming on "Union Telephone" which didn't seem to offer either GPRS or EDGE. If the hotel didn't have free WiFi, I'd probably have had to try CSD as a last resort!) Supposedly T-Mo's 3G will be up this summer if the Feds ever vacate the 1700 MHz band. As to the usefulness of EDGE, it depends what you're after, I guess. Is it sufficient for PC-card use? No, except as a last resort, but for mobile e- mail and on-phone browser lookups/Google Maps/Windows Live Navigation-type stuff it's fine, and the price ($6/month) is certainly right. > Sprint seems to be the best bet for data. For SERO (free), on-phone ($15) and PC card use ($49 SERO), I'll agree. For doing a WAP-page 411 lookup on m.411.com? Hell, CSD used to pull that kind of stuff off fine at 9600-14.4k! (And still can!...) I've been playing with "1G" again mostly for laughs and nostalgia. PagePlus, the Verizon MVNO, has free unlimited 14.4kbps Verizon QNC data right now, probably via a billing system oversight. It's hard to recall these days, but there was a time when 14.4 was top-of-the-line! I've got an old Verizon WinMo smartphone I picked up cheap on eBay hooked to PagePlus. It's my backup phone for when I (very rarely) find myself outside T-Mo's coverage area. Even with it's lousy 14.4k connection, it automatically keeps contacts and calendar info synched over-the-air with my "real" T-Mo Windows Mobile phone via Exchange, and it pulls my IMAP e-mail down hourly. (The Exchange sync alone is worth it's weight in gold- prior to Page Plus, I used to use Beyond Wireless TDMA on Cingular as my rural backup, but still had to lug the T-Mo PDA phone around for access to my contacts/calendar info that wouldn't sync to an ancient Nokia 5160!) >As to the usefulness of EDGE, it depends what you're after, I guess. Is it >sufficient for PC-card use? No, except as a last resort, but for mobile e- >mail and on-phone browser lookups/Google Maps/Windows Live Navigation-type >stuff it's fine, and the price ($6/month) is certainly right. My own take is that EGPRS(EDGE) is quite satisfactory for many things, including laptop access. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > Sprint beat everyone to it. They offered unlimited voice and data in a few > "beta" markets late last year for $99, IIRC. It included "Power Vision" > data only (on-phone data- no tethering.) I suspect they'll just expand > that plan everywhere to compete. Sprint could try a desperation move and offer 3G pseudo-unlimited data and unlimited voice (including unlimited voice roaming to make up for their limited network). For $80 I'd sign up in a minute if Sprint were to add coverage to my area. > T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too > Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The GSM deal is better than Verizon's. Analysts say Sprint will offer unlimited voice and messaging for between $60 and $80 in the next few weeks. If Sprint went one further, and offered unlimited voice and (relatively) unlimited 3G data for $100, that would really shake things up. What does Sprint have to lose at this point? >> T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too >> Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Analysts say Sprint will offer unlimited voice and messaging for between >$60 and $80 in the next few weeks. Citation? Oh wait ... you almost never have any ... you mostly just make stuff up. >If Sprint went one further, and >offered unlimited voice and (relatively) unlimited 3G data for $100, >that would really shake things up. What does Sprint have to lose at this >point? It's a.s. That would make no sense at all. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >>> T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too >>> Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Citation? Oh wait ... you almost never have any ... you mostly just > make stuff up. John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-) As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped over the headline: http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-to-undercut-rivals-call-plans/2100-1039_3-62 31277.html?tag=nefd.top -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ > As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped > over the headline: > > http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-to-undercut-rivals-call-plans/2100-1039_3-62 31277.html?tag=nefd.top Actually I saw the "$60-80" from "http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html" It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that others make. He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated requests. He's never provided a citation disputing the accuracy of the network quality surveys, despite repeated requests. He's never provided a citation disputing the USA Today story that Apple approached Verizon with the iPhone prior to going to Cingular/AT&T, despite repeated requests. He complains that people treat him badly, but if he would change his behavior he would be forgiven and perhaps he could make some useful contributions. >> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >> over the headline: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that >others make. Total nonsense. >He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated requests. Actually several of them. >He's never provided a citation disputing the accuracy of the network >quality surveys, despite repeated requests. Actually several of them. >He's never provided a citation disputing the USA Today story that Apple >approached Verizon with the iPhone prior to going to Cingular/AT&T, >despite repeated requests. There's no need to refute spin solely from Verizon. The other companies don't comment. >He complains that people treat him badly, but if he would change his >behavior he would be forgiven and perhaps he could make some useful >contributions. Total nonsense. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >> over the headline: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Actually I saw the "$60-80" from >"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html" These stories are nothing more than analyst *speculation* -- nobody knows what Sprint will do, maybe not yet even Sprint -- only time will tell. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >over the headline: Thanks for the insult. >http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-to-undercut-rivals-call-plans/2100-1039_3-62 31277.html?tag=nefd.top Thanks for that. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >>As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >>over the headline: > > Thanks for the insult. It wasn't meant as an insult, but rather criticism of criticism. Why be a pain in the a.s over a cite when a) you rarely give them yourself, and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?" >>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-to-undercut-rivals-call-plans/2100-1039_3-62 31277.html?tag=nefd.top -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ >>>As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >>>over the headline: >> >> Thanks for the insult. > >It wasn't meant as an insult, but rather criticism of criticism. It looked like an insult to me, and still does. I've been to several news sites today, and didn't see anything on this until now. If I had, then I would not have asked. >Why be a pain in the a.s over a cite when a) you rarely give them >yourself, In fact I probably post more links than anyone else here. I just don't post them over and over. and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?" I'm not interested in a potential wild goose chase, having been sent on too many of those already. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >>> over the headline: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why be a pain in the a.s over a cite when a) you rarely give them > yourself, and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?" For such a widely publicized and current news item I didn't see the need to include a link, but "he who must not be named" isn't happy unless he has something to complain about. Yet he rarely includes any citations on anything he posts because when you make up stuff out of thin air it's tough to find any citations to back you up. >>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >>>> over the headline: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >anything he posts because when you make up stuff out of thin air it's >tough to find any citations to back you up. That would be you, Steven, as your own admission (lame excuse) makes clear. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped >>> over the headline: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why be a pain in the a.s over a cite when a) you rarely give them > yourself, and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?" For such a widely publicized and current news item I didn't see the need to include a link, but "he who must not be named" isn't happy unless he has something to complain about. Yet he rarely includes any citations on anything he posts because when you make up stuff out of thin air it's tough to find any citations to back you up. BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named," which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed to include alt.cellular.cingular, a newsgroup for which there is no corresponding carrier, while removing newsgroups that are actually relevant. Pathetic and sad. >BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named," >which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed >to include alt.cellular.cingular, a newsgroup for which there is no >corresponding carrier, while removing newsgroups that are actually >relevant. Pathetic and sad. Just taking a page out of your book, Steven. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > >BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named," > >which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just taking a page out of your book, Steven. > You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Um, no. Steven ADDED the .attws group to a bunch of threads, but he never dropped groups already there and forced redirection SOLELY to a group not in the original conversation like you're attempting now. IIRC, you condemned Steven for that because it caused disruption of the group due to fragmented threads, and yet you're doing it yourself... Hmmm... Hypocrisy, thy name is Nav... Ah, forget it- too easy! > Um, no. Steven ADDED the .attws group to a bunch of threads, but he never > dropped groups already there and forced redirection SOLELY to a group not > in the original conversation like you're attempting now. True. > IIRC, you condemned Steven for that because it caused disruption of the > group due to fragmented threads, and yet you're doing it yourself... Hmmm... Yes, copying alt.cellular.attws on follow-ups to posts to alt.cellular.cingular did cause fragmented threads. However I felt it was helpful to get threads moved over to the proper newsgroup, and that it helped speed the transition. A similar thing happened when the T-Mobile newsgroup took over from the Voicestream newsgroup. > Hypocrisy, thy name is Nav... > > Ah, forget it- too easy! Argh, don't say the name. It's "he who must not be named." >John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post >that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-) On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS, aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by <news:462cc5ff$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>), and my follow-up header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it. See how easy that was? ;) SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > >John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post > >that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-) > > On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because > alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. And your follow-up header refers to alt.cellular.cingular, which is equally long since defunct. Whachoo gon' do now, boy? Are you saying that Cingular is NOT defunct? What is your stand on this? >>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post >>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it. > See how easy that was? ;) Make the charter next. > >>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post > >>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Make the charter next. The incessant charter posting is pure obsessive-compulsive. Multiple header posting to a particular topic should be let alone, but knowing the poster (sorry John) probably along the same lines. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post >>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS, > aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert" While both of your actions were childish and wrong, at least Steven just added alt.cellular.attws to the newsgroups list- he didn't set a follow-up designed to divert responses ONLY to his NG of choice. You attempted to hijack all responses to you to alt.cellular.cingular and alt.cellular.cingular alone. For a guy who claims to desire civility, you seem to have absolutely no problem emulating behavior you condemn in others. > my follow-up header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader So are your posts. I find your postings occasionally informative and entertaining, but your personal S/N ratio is taking a pretty steep dive lately. >So are your posts. I find your postings occasionally informative and >entertaining, but your personal S/N ratio is taking a pretty steep dive >lately. Thank you, Mr, Pot. ;) SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > While both of your actions were childish and wrong, at least Steven just > added alt.cellular.attws to the newsgroups list- he didn't set a > follow-up designed to divert responses ONLY to his NG of choice. Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless by AT&T. Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and eventually moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing "alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely. Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular, because he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and wrote the charter for is going away, it's as simple as that. It's the same reason he posts the Cingular charter to the alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even though it has no relevance, and even though several regular contributors have requested that he stop. Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to his ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you." His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going to do anything about. He certainly was free to create a new group when Cingular changed its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do so. alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates peripherally to Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless. > Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start > moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless > by AT&T. Why "was it time?" The .attws group was for the defunct AT&T "Blue" service. Cingular was the Company that adopted the AT&T name. Based on the past content in the groups alone "Cingular " is probably the correct group for the current AT&T service, at least until an AT&T Mobility group is created. Personally, I don't care which group is "adopted" by the current readers- I'll go where they take me. But let's face it, unilaterally deciding attws was now the "correct" group and adding it to every post had nothing to do with nomenclature, but simply to get under the skin of your nemesis. As I said, his "stealth" counter-attack was even more wrong, and frankly counterproductive since anyone not reading his group would never see further posts in the sub-thread, but I guess it had the advantage of directing many flames directed toward him in his "territory" and out of the eye of readers of the other cellular groups. > Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result > of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and eventually > moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing > "alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely. But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old Cingular- not the old ATTWS. If people choose to migrate there, fine (and seemingly many, if not most, have) but that decision doesn't need you or I "declaring" it to be the correct one. > Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular, > because he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and > wrote the charter for is going away, it's as simple as that. Probably, but the readers and posters of a.c.c don't really need you to decide for them that it's dead! > It's the same reason he posts the Cingular charter to the >alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even though it has no relevance, and even > though several regular contributors have requested that he stop. So? He's doing a petty, childish thing then. That doesn't make his behavior something to aspire to! > Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to his > ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you." I agree, but history aside, his posts, while unwelcome and not applicable, are less offensive than the continual "We are reputable sellers of handys" fraud posts and "How to convert video for your iPhone" spam posts that appear in the cellular NGs far more frequently, yet no one starts 20-post flame wars over those. > His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going to > do anything about. While I rarely agree with him, he is correct that the reactions to his posts are more disruptive than the posts themselves. We really should all take his recent advice- filter him. > He certainly was free to create a new group when Cingular changed > its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do so. Nor did anyone else. > alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates peripherally to > Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless. By amazing coincidence it fits "pretty well," but frankly no better or worse that the Cingular group. Again, if you and anyone else wants to add the .attws group to .cingular posts, fine- and if you want to add a footer saying "I THINK the .attws group is a more appropriate place to discuss the new AT&T, that's fine as well. But to play netcop and declare "posts regarding AT&T SHOULD be posted to alt.cellular.attws" is outside your purview. More importantly, it reduces you to his level, which makes it hard to argue the moral high ground. ("John, you're an a.s because you pull the same sort of stunts that I do!" is hardly a compelling arguement!) ;-) > But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old > Cingular- not the old ATTWS. While technically alt.cellular.attws was for AT&T Wireless, no one proposed a new group when Cingular changed to "Wireless from AT&T," and their URL became "http://www.wireless.att.com." There is some history there too, as the old AT&T Wireless _was_ formed by spinning off the wireless division of AT&T into a separate company, and the current "Wireless from AT&T" does include the old AT&T Wireless company. A better explanation is at "http://tinyurl.com/2jmkx8". There's nothing "official" about "alt.cellular.attws" becoming the group for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an existing newsgroup with an appropriate name. >> But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old >> Cingular- not the old ATTWS. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an > existing newsgroup with an appropriate name. Logical, perhaps, but not self-evident. Realistically, your saying both are the wrong group, but .attws is "less wrong!" If you want to search the "archives" for recent and relevant info on AT&T Mobility, prior to the name change, Cingular's the group to find it in. The .attws group became a desolate wasteland for quite awhile. Again, I'll go where the users go, and that does seem to mostly be .attws, but we should still keep tabs on the Cingular group. I still monitor the "Voicestream" group for those who haven't discovered alt.cellular.t-mobile! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.