 |
 | 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 / General / General Topics / December 2004Sprint Nextel Merger: Employee Benefits and Bashing the Messenger
I've been reading the posts about the Sprint Nextel merger (or more accurately, Sprint's acquisition of Nextel), and was surprised to see how negatively people had responded to comments in regard to how Nextel employees will suffer negative consequences as a result. I have worked as a site acquisition agent as an employee of Alltel, Nextel, and Sprint. Currently I do it as an independent contractor which has its advantages and disadvantages, but I digress. It is true that Sprint PCS does not offer nearly the quality of benefits as Nextel. It is also true that Nextel is much more people-oriented in it's management style. The Nextel employees will be the ones getting the short end of the stick here, and many will probably be laid off. Personally, I see it as a loss for corporate america as a whole. Here is this profitable company about to be bought by one that is losing money and customers, yet for some reason the Nextel Board of Directors appears to be going along with it. When the Nextel employees who have worked to make the company profitable leave "Sprint-Nextel" in droves as they will, we will be looking at another colossal failure on the magnitude of Worldcom within five years. > I've been reading the posts about the Sprint Nextel merger (or more > accurately, Sprint's acquisition of Nextel), and was surprised to see > how negatively people had responded to comments in regard to how Nextel > employees will suffer negative consequences as a result. If you read *my* negative replies, you would find out that I wasn't complaining about the message, but the fact that the messenger posts the same thing multiple times under different IDs. And I'm probably complaining about the messenger more loudly than anyone else.  SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. In article <1102911627.824875.97100 @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, rickborreli@hotmail.comrickborreli@hotmail.com says... > Personally, I see it as a loss for corporate america as a whole. Here > is this profitable company about to be bought by one that is losing > money and customers, There's that doubtful agenda and sincerity again. Sprint PCS has net gained customers in each of the last three quarters, and I think even farther back than that. In addition, Sprint's 3Q2004 financial results: http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/3q04.pdf show a profit in their wireless business for the last quarter. There's certainly a lot needing to be fixed, but that doesn't make your characterization correct. SignatureRØß O/Siris -+- **A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.** -Thomas Paine. The Rights of Man. 1792- > In article <1102911627.824875.97100 > @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There's that doubtful agenda and sincerity again. From a googlegroups account, no less, that homes in from a hotmail account. Ten bucks says this is the same troll as before, trying to bolster his credibility. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. > > In article <1102911627.824875.97100 > > @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Ten bucks says this is the same troll as before, trying to bolster his > credibility. How about addressing the subject instead of creating a personal attack? >How about addressing the subject instead of creating a personal attack? How about taking your own advice? SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > >>How about addressing the subject instead of creating a personal attack? > >How about taking your own advice? How about learning the difference between criticism and personal attack? >> Ten bucks says this is the same troll as before, trying to bolster his >> credibility. > >How about addressing the subject instead of creating a personal attack? Because Troll's aren't creditable and this the subject matter is questionable at best. ESPECIALLY those that post under multiple names to try to bolster their position. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >>>There's that doubtful agenda and sincerity again. >> >> From a googlegroups account, no less, that homes in from a hotmail account. >> >>Ten bucks says this is the same troll as before, trying to bolster his >>credibility. > How about addressing the subject instead of creating a personal attack? The subject is that a person with grudge and an agenda is spamming the wireless newsgroups with propaganda, and creating false identities to attempt to bolster his or her position with imaginary support. I think I am addressing the subject (that being: you) quite well. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >>>>There's that doubtful agenda and sincerity again. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I think I am addressing the subject (that being: you) quite well. Yes, indeed, William Frank aka Phillipe aka Jack Zwick has returned to alt.cellular.sprintpcs, after promising to leave forever. ---- No need to put up with a newsgroup full of incorrect information by self-appointed know it alls, with unbearable arrogance. No need to fight through virus and worm laden posts. No need to fight through personal vendettas, and obscenity laden posts. -- So sez Phillipe, taking his leave of alt.cellular.sprintpcs In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote: >> From a googlegroups account, no less, that homes in from a hotmail account. >> >> Ten bucks says this is the same troll as before, trying to bolster his >> credibility. > > How about addressing the subject instead of creating a personal attack? Yes, he is the same troll. He probably sensed a new opportunity with the recent changes in the mobile phone industry enough to create material to easily troll with. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. In article <41c0aa83$0$188 $8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouseveldy71@yahoo.com says... > Yes, he is the same troll. He probably sensed a new opportunity with > the recent changes in the mobile phone industry enough to create > material to easily troll with. Whatever he sensed, I notice he's gone deathly silent on his own "subject" since I pointed out Sprint PCS' profitability last quarter. And their growing user base. SignatureRØß O/Siris -+- **A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.** -Thomas Paine. The Rights of Man. 1792- > In article <41c0aa83$0$188 > $8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, Thomas T. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > his own "subject" since I pointed out Sprint PCS' > profitability last quarter. And their growing user base. And he refuses to post ANYTHING to alt.cellular.sprintpcs in this thread. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > I've been reading the posts about the Sprint Nextel merger (or more > accurately, Sprint's acquisition of Nextel), Yes, over and over again, like a true troll. And by the way? The merger is nowhere near final. So, cool your jets. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >> I've been reading the posts about the Sprint Nextel merger (or more >> accurately, Sprint's acquisition of Nextel), > > Yes, over and over again, like a true troll. > > And by the way? The merger is nowhere near final. So, cool your jets. Yeah but the real tragedy is that Verizon will replace the "Can You Hear Me Now" nerd with that suave Sprint Bus snake oil salesman. X > Yeah but the real tragedy is that Verizon will replace the "Can You Hear Me > Now" nerd with that suave Sprint Bus snake oil salesman. That's not a bad thing. At least the Sprint dude has more than six words in his vocabulary. Can you hear me now? Good! SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote: >> I've been reading the posts about the Sprint Nextel merger (or more >> accurately, Sprint's acquisition of Nextel), > > Yes, over and over again, like a true troll. > > And by the way? The merger is nowhere near final. So, cool your jets. Hell, it isn't even officially made yet. It is just a rumored deal for about $35 billion. As far as I am concerned, it is a likely trap to pull in Verizon. So far, nothing has been officially announced about either a Verizon bid on Sprint or a Sprint bid on Nextel. The only thing that could be considered as fact at all is that Vodophone has authorized forward progress on looking at bidding for Sprint. So, with that in mind, I wouldn't worry about Nextel at all. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > > I've been reading the posts about the Sprint Nextel merger (or more > > accurately, Sprint's acquisition of Nextel), > > Yes, over and over again, like a true troll. > > And by the way? The merger is nowhere near final. So, cool your jets. And today the story is Verizon may try to buy Sprint first. >> > I've been reading the posts about the Sprint Nextel merger (or more >> > accurately, Sprint's acquisition of Nextel), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >And today the story is Verizon may try to buy Sprint first. The key word there is "may". SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular > And today the story is Verizon may try to buy Sprint first. Which would suck, because in this part of the country, at least in my region of San Bernardino County, CA, they take forever to fix capacity and network problems, which is why I left Verizon in the first place. I don't WANT to be a Verizon customer. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > And today the story is Verizon may try to buy Sprint first. > > Which would suck, because in this part of the country, at least in my region of > San Bernardino County, CA, they take forever to fix capacity and network > problems, which is why I left Verizon in the first place. I don't WANT to be a > Verizon customer. Exact opposite in the Northeast (not just part of a county). Sprint is a weak carrier with a poor infrastructure. A Sprint buyout would be a big boost for existing Sprint customers here. > > > And today the story is Verizon may try to buy Sprint first. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > weak carrier with a poor infrastructure. A Sprint buyout would be a big > boost for existing Sprint customers here. Here in Texas, Cingular service, rate plans, coverage, customer support and phones are all infinitely superior to what SprintPCS has. > Here in Texas, Cingular service, rate plans, coverage, customer support > and phones are all infinitely superior to what SprintPCS has. Yeah, but their signage sucks! ;) Frankly, if I lived in that part of the country and didn't hate SBC, I'd probably use Cingular. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. >Here in Texas, Cingular service, rate plans, coverage, customer support >and phones are all infinitely superior to what SprintPCS has. Jack, Having both I have to disaree. I find that Sprint service here in Texas is GREAT. Although I also find that Cingular is great...... <notice the case of the word> -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > Exact opposite in the Northeast (not just part of a county). Sprint is a > weak carrier with a poor infrastructure. I would have to disagree with you. I've used Sprint without roaming from Washington D.C. to Connecticut without any issues. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. I wonder what will happen to the Free Incoming that Nextel has been offering >> Exact opposite in the Northeast (not just part of a county). Sprint is a >> weak carrier with a poor infrastructure. > > I would have to disagree with you. I've used Sprint without roaming from > Washington D.C. to Connecticut without any issues. > I wonder what will happen to the Free Incoming that Nextel has been offering Well, I wouldn't worry too much about that. It seems that Sprint is perfectly fine with letting people grandfather their old plans, some people are still on the pioneer plans that Sprint first offered at launch. So as long as you don't switch to a newer plan, it should be fine... hopefully. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >> Exact opposite in the Northeast (not just part of a county). Sprint is a >> weak carrier with a poor infrastructure. >I would have to disagree with you. I've used Sprint without roaming >from Washington D.C. to Connecticut without any issues. Try the north shore of Long Island. >>I would have to disagree with you. I've used Sprint without roaming > >>from Washington D.C. to Connecticut without any issues. > > Try the north shore of Long Island. Been there too, done that and made calls. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. > > Exact opposite in the Northeast (not just part of a county). Sprint is a > > weak carrier with a poor infrastructure. > > I would have to disagree with you. I've used Sprint without roaming > from Washington D.C. to Connecticut without any issues. Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways. Fine for traveling on the Interstate but not so good if you happen to live or work >5 miles away from the highway. > > > Exact opposite in the Northeast (not just part of a county). Sprint is a > > > weak carrier with a poor infrastructure. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > traveling on the Interstate but not so good if you happen to live or work >5 > miles away from the highway. and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. > and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt > even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. And you WOULD have complete coverage with....? SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt > > even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. > > And you WOULD have complete coverage with....? I believe one would stand a far better chance of coverage with a tri-mode VZW phone. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com >I believe one would stand a far better chance of coverage with a tri-mode >VZW phone. Tri Mode..... Let's see, VZW is Digital (mode 1) or AMPS/Analog (mode 2). What might the 3rd mode be? GSM? That's still DIgital (mode 1) The GSM only works in Europe or Asia..... -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >>I believe one would stand a far better chance of coverage with a tri-mode >>VZW phone. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What might the 3rd mode be? GSM? That's still DIgital (mode 1) The GSM only > works in Europe or Asia..... Oh, quit trolling. :) CDMA 800, CDMA 1900, AMPS 800, you know the name tri-mode is probably a misnomer, but you also know what it means :) SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. >CDMA 800, CDMA 1900, AMPS 800, you know the name tri-mode is probably a >misnomer, but you also know what it means :) Everyone's called it tri-mode for so long you can't point out that "tri-mode" means you're using three different *modes* and that a different band is not a different mode. The reality is that a phone that can do analog AMPS and digital CDMA is only two modes. Just because you can do both cellular at 800 Mhz and PCS at 1900 doesn't make it a different mode. It's useless to argue that point since even the carriers call it tri-mode even though it's only dual mode. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>CDMA 800, CDMA 1900, AMPS 800, you know the name tri-mode is probably a <snip> > Everyone's called it tri-mode for so long you can't point out that > "tri-mode" means you're using three different *modes* and that a > different band is not a different mode. The reality is that a phone > that can do analog AMPS and digital CDMA is only two modes. Correct. The proper phrase is "dual-mode, tri-band" -- or is it, since the phone only runs on 800 MHz and 1900 MHz? SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > > and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt > > > even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I believe one would stand a far better chance of coverage with a tri-mode > VZW phone. If you had a plan that allowed Free Analog roaming, yes. >>>>and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt >>>>even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you had a plan that allowed Free Analog roaming, yes. Hm, gee whiz, Sprint has such a plan too. So, you WOULD have complete coverage with who? By that definition, Sprint has complete coverage too. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. >> > > and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt >> > > even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >If you had a plan that allowed Free Analog roaming, yes. On VZW, analog has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with roaming charges. A given provider in a given area may be included in your rate plan, or may incur roaming charges, or may not allow roaming at all. Completely independently, a provider may offer only analog, both analog and digital, or only digital service. Blame SprintPCS for this bogus ANALOG = ROAMING CHARGES misconception, since they used to disable digital roaming on their plans. > On VZW, analog has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with roaming charges. Analog has nothing to do whatsoever with roaming charges even on Sprint these days as they add CDMA digital networks to their Preferred Roaming Lists. > or only digital service. Blame SprintPCS for this bogus ANALOG = ROAMING > CHARGES misconception, since they used to disable digital roaming on > their plans. Agreed. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. >> > and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt >> > even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I believe one would stand a far better chance of coverage with a tri-mode >VZW phone. Or Cingular-ATTWS GAIT. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular >>>and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt >>>even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I believe one would stand a far better chance of coverage with a tri-mode > VZW phone. Does VZW have native coverage all the way from Mobile to LA? Sprint has tri-mode phones that can roam on other CDMA or analog carriers too. I guarantee "Jack Zwick" (former resident alt.cellular.sprintpcs troll) doesn't have an answer either.... SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > >>>and if you were to drive from Mobile, Ala to Los Angeles you wouldnt > >>>even have complete coverage on I-10 with Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Does VZW have native coverage all the way from Mobile to LA? Nope--but my tri-mode VZW phone on the America's Choice plan doesn't *need* "native coverage." > Sprint has tri-mode phones that can roam on other CDMA or analog carriers too. > > I guarantee "Jack Zwick" (former resident alt.cellular.sprintpcs troll) doesn't > have an answer either.... SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways. That's a crass over-generalization. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways. > > That's a crass over-generalization. Please tell us *exactly* what's wrong with the statement. I believe it's generally accurate. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com >> > Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways. >> >> That's a crass over-generalization. > >Please tell us *exactly* what's wrong with the statement. I believe it's >generally accurate. Actually I have been WAY off a freeway and Sprint was the ONLY company with coverage - twice in two different parts of the country. The statement is not generally accurate. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > Please tell us *exactly* what's wrong with the statement. I believe it's > generally accurate. There are places where there is decent service off the beaten path too. Sprint's coverage didn't quite match Alltel's and Verizon's in Northeast Ohio, for example, but there were some places NOT on an interstate where I ended up forcing my old Verizon phone to roam on Sprint. The Ashtabula area, for one. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > Please tell us *exactly* what's wrong with the statement. I believe it's > > generally accurate. > > There are places where there is decent service off the beaten path too. Neither he--nor I--claimed that they don't have some "decent service off the beaten path." His description, then, is still reasonably accurate. > Sprint's coverage didn't quite match Alltel's and Verizon's in Northeast Ohio, > for example, but there were some places NOT on an interstate where I ended up > forcing my old Verizon phone to roam on Sprint. The Ashtabula area, for one. So what? His description is still reasonably accurate. Yu *still* haven't told us *exactly* what's wrong with his statement. You can't--because it's generally accurate. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > Yu *still* haven't told us *exactly* what's wrong with his statement. You > can't--because it's generally accurate. Well, I'm sorry I could only pull two examples off the top of my head. There are several more. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > Yu *still* haven't told us *exactly* what's wrong with his statement. You > > can't--because it's generally accurate. > > Well, I'm sorry I could only pull two examples off the top of my head. There > are several more. Even if you do have "several more," it *still* doesn't change the fact that his statement is substantially accurate. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > Please tell us *exactly* what's wrong with the statement. I believe it's > generally accurate. How do you expect anyone to tell you *exactly* what is wrong with that statement when not even you can exactly quantify it, and the best you can do is say it's "generally" accurate? The problem with your statement is that it quantifies nothing, except your own opinion. There are no hard facts to verify it with. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. > > Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways. > > That's a crass over-generalization. Not really, have a look at the coverage maps. All you see in most of the country is just a narrow ribbon overlaying the interstate highways. >>>Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways. >> >>That's a crass over-generalization. > > Not really, have a look at the coverage maps. All you see in most of the > country is just a narrow ribbon overlaying the interstate highways. Which is partially accurate. OTOH, Sprint has outstanding coverage along the lake in Lake County, Ohio, and the Lake County (Mentor, Ohio) store didn't even show coverage there when I lived in the area and set up service back in 2000. And they SHOULD show the lakefront as covered, since I lived in Mentor on the Lake and had a Sprint-owned cell tower sitting two minutes from my house, and no more than a quarter-mile south of the lake. And I had solid coverage in Ashtabula County, Ohio, way off the freeway. So, I'd argue that you are correct in MANY cases, but not in ALL cases as evidenced by the situation I just described. :) SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > >>>Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > even > show coverage there when I lived in the area and set up service back in 2000. Fine, the exception that proves the rule. > Fine, the exception that proves the rule. I'm sure that if you had the balls to actually post this to alt.cellular.sprintpcs (which you don't because you don't want to be proven wrong), people like me who actually use Sprint every day could give you plenty more. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. >> Which is partially accurate. OTOH, Sprint has outstanding coverage along the >> lake in Lake County, Ohio, and the Lake County (Mentor, Ohio) store didn't >> even >> show coverage there when I lived in the area and set up service back in 2000. > >Fine, the exception that proves the rule. No, I think that's pretty much the rule these days...Sprint does cover more than just the highways in metro areas. Mentor/Lake County, OH is part of the Cleveland metro area. The "spiderweb" coverage patterns (only the highways) are primarily outside of major metro areas. Of course, as major highways group together in major metro areas, you'd have that coverage almost by default if you built along the highways. This is at least from what I've seen and heard about at any rate, since I don't even use Sprint... Mike > >> Which is partially accurate. OTOH, Sprint has outstanding coverage along > >> the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, I think that's pretty much the rule these days...Sprint does cover > more than just the highways in metro areas. Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas. >> >> Which is partially accurate. OTOH, Sprint has outstanding coverage along >> >> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas. Like any other digital cellular carrier. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular >Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas. I hope you're not implying that there's *any* carrier that covers the whole US. Doesn't exist and probably never will since there are parts of the US that are almost uninhabited so it'd be a waste of any company's money to try and provide service there. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas. > > I hope you're not implying that there's *any* carrier that covers the > whole US. Doesn't exist and probably never will since there are parts > of the US that are almost uninhabited so it'd be a waste of any > company's money to try and provide service there. But look at a Cingular map or a Verizon map and compare with the Sprint map. Sprint is a spiders web. Joseph in Seattle replied to this comment about Sprint's coverage maps from a.c.sprintpcs's favorite resident troll... >>>Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But look at a Cingular map or a Verizon map and compare with the Sprint > map. Sprint is a spiders web. Sprint has coverage, and for that matter Cingular has coverage, in whole CHUNKS of the country where Verizon does not. Try the Pacific Northwest -- much of Oregon -- or Oklahoma/New Mexico/Arkansas. Granted, Verizon coverage is solid back East. Out here, not so much. :) Hey, Dan Albrich in Oregon. Has your Verizon coverage gotten any better lately? And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on arguing that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to bashing your favorite former cellular carrier (Sprint), you conveniently ignore that fact. Now you accept the maps as gospel! AMEN, brother! :) Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on arguing > that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to > bashing > your favorite former cellular carrier (Sprint), you conveniently ignore that > fact. Now you accept the maps as gospel! AMEN, brother! :) The maps show how much of a spider web Sprint coverage is, they dont show the holes in coverage in metropolitan areas. And calling me names doesn't make Sprint coverage any better, it just shows your immaturity. >>And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on arguing >>that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And calling me names doesn't make Sprint coverage any better, it just > shows your immaturity. Hm, we no longer have alt.cellular.verizon or alt.cellular.sprintpcs in the newsgroup list? What are you trying to hide? (re-added) You're still a hypocrite. You're the one that keeps on saying coverage maps can't be trusted. I made a point, and you conveniently ignored it. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > >>And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on > >>arguing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Hm, we no longer have alt.cellular.verizon or alt.cellular.sprintpcs in the > newsgroup list? What are you trying to hide? (re-added) Superfluous crossposting removed. > You're still a hypocrite. You're the one that keeps on saying coverage maps > can't be trusted. They cant for detail. > I made a point, and you conveniently ignored it. I answered it, you just called me a name cause EVERYONE but you knows how poor Sprint's coverage is compared to Cingular and Verizon. Calling me names doesn't make SprintPCS one iota better. In fact you are the hypocrite, formerly having a website saying how you loved Ohio, and then you jumped ship for California. PLONK to name callers. > I answered it, you just called me a name cause EVERYONE but you knows > how poor Sprint's coverage is compared to Cingular and Verizon. Make that everyone but your beloved JD Powers, who rated the Sprint network the best on both coasts. > Calling me names doesn't make SprintPCS one iota better. And whining about it just shows the true lack of a clue you possess. > In fact you are > the hypocrite, formerly having a website saying how you loved Ohio, and > then you jumped ship for California. And pointing out something like serves what purpose? Sounds like an immature attempt to cause trouble. > PLONK to name callers. Yeah, yeah, yeah- all talk, no facts. > And pointing out something like serves what purpose? Sounds like an > immature attempt to cause trouble. I already answered that. The move was an extremely difficult one to make and necessitated by economic factors - as in, there's more work out here than there is back there. In addition, my wife and her entire family are from the High Desert area. And it took me a lot longer than it should have to update the website. I do love Ohio, espeically Northeast Ohio, especially, ESPECIALLY the corner of Lake County where I used to live. But all that's been explained, and I already apologized for taking way too long to update the site. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > And pointing out something like serves what purpose? Sounds like an > > immature attempt to cause trouble. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But all that's been explained, and I already apologized for taking way too long > to update the site. Calm down, big guy- I was responding to the troll child, not questioning your move. I know you did it for the right reasons. > Joseph in Seattle replied to this comment about Sprint's coverage maps > from a.c.sprintpcs's favorite resident troll... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Oregon -- or Oklahoma/New Mexico/Arkansas. Granted, Verizon coverage is solid > back East. Out here, not so much. :) You keep ignoring the VZW partners, and the fact that in most cases they can be accessed for absolutely no additional cost on a VZW AC plan. > Hey, Dan Albrich in Oregon. Has your Verizon coverage gotten any better lately? > > And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on arguing > that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to bashing > your favorite former cellular carrier (Sprint), you conveniently ignore that > fact. Now you accept the maps as gospel! AMEN, brother! :) You keep ignoring his point. > Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to > a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him. So what? SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > You keep ignoring the VZW partners, and the fact that in most cases they can > be accessed for absolutely no additional cost on a VZW AC plan. Of course I keep ignoring the VZW partners, BECAUSE THEY'RE IRRELEVANT. For $5 additional on top of the monthly price of any PCS Free and Clear, or Fair and Flexible plan, both of which allow for no roaming charges only on Sprint's network, you can take advantage of the "America" add-on option which allows you to roam anywhere Sprint has a roaming agreement in the USA without paying those additional charges. It's similar to the difference between America's Choice and the true VZW no-roaming-anywhere-in-the-US plans, National Single-Rate and North America's Choice. The only big difference is that Sprint only allows you to use 50% of your minutes in any given month off their network. On the other hand, if you use that many minutes roaming, either (a) you need more minutes or (b) you need to find a carrier that services the areas you visit, natively. The "largest nationwide network" spiel Verizon likes to talk about is a crock. A large portion of it isn't theirs. >>Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to >>a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him. > > So what? "Jack" (under a different pseudonym) stated he was leaving a.c.spcs very publically, about the same time he left Sprint for Cingular. I just wanted to clarify that he wasn't coming back on his own. Irrelevant, really, for anyone reading this thread outside the SPCS newsgroup. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. >> You keep ignoring the VZW partners, and the fact that in most cases they can >> be accessed for absolutely no additional cost on a VZW AC plan. > >Of course I keep ignoring the VZW partners, BECAUSE THEY'RE IRRELEVANT. As a caller, I don't necessarily know or care who the underlying carrier is, as long as I can make calls and am not charged roaming fees. It's whether a partner's in use that's irrelevant to me. What's relevant to me (topic switch) is that Verizon's network isn't consistent internally. I'd like to have incoming calls go to voicemail after 8 rings instead of 4, but that's not possible in my area - supposedly it is in some locations. >For $5 additional on top of the monthly price of any PCS Free and Clear, or >Fair and Flexible plan, both of which allow for no roaming charges only on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >you need more minutes or (b) you need to find a carrier that services the areas >you visit, natively. Why? If it works and it's included in my plan, why should I care whether it's "native" or not? >The "largest nationwide network" spiel Verizon likes to talk about is a crock. >A large portion of it isn't theirs. "Network", to me, means something on which I can place calls. What's your definition, and why is "directly owned by the carrier" apparently part of that definition? == Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org == In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security. And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security. Edward Gibbon > Why? If it works and it's included in my plan, why should I care > whether it's "native" or not? Admittedly, it seems to be less of a problem with Verizon than with other carriers, but other carriers don't allow you to spend the majority of your airtime roaming. (At least, not if you're not paying roaming charges.) SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > You keep ignoring the VZW partners, and the fact that in most cases they can > > be accessed for absolutely no additional cost on a VZW AC plan. > > Of course I keep ignoring the VZW partners, BECAUSE THEY'RE IRRELEVANT. They're not "IRRELEVANT" at all. They're an integral part of the America's Choice network. > For $5 additional on top of the monthly price of any PCS Free and Clear, or > Fair and Flexible plan, both of which allow for no roaming charges only on > Sprint's network, you can take advantage of the "America" add-on option which > allows you to roam anywhere Sprint has a roaming agreement in the USA without > paying those additional charges. Those add-on fees aren't there with the VZW America's Choice plans. > It's similar to the difference between > America's Choice and the true VZW no-roaming-anywhere-in-the-US plans, National > Single-Rate and North America's Choice. It's not similar at all. Sprint charges extra to get a reasonable national coverage area. VZW doesn't. > The only big difference is that Sprint > only allows you to use 50% of your minutes in any given month off their > network. That's *one* big difference. The *other* big difference is that Sprint charges extra to get a reasonable national coverage area, while VZW doesn't. > On the other hand, if you use that many minutes roaming, either (a) > you need more minutes or (b) you need to find a carrier that services the areas > you visit, natively. > > The "largest nationwide network" spiel Verizon likes to talk about is a crock. > A large portion of it isn't theirs. It's available at no extra cost on the America's Choice plans, and so it doesn't make any difference whether or not it's native VZW. > >>Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to > >>a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > clarify that he wasn't coming back on his own. Irrelevant, really, for anyone > reading this thread outside the SPCS newsgroup. So what? SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > They're not "IRRELEVANT" at all. They're an integral part of the America's > Choice network. Yes, they are. Everyone has plans that include roaming on other carriers for free. My point was that even Sprint does now. > Those add-on fees aren't there with the VZW America's Choice plans. Riiiiiight. And you can roam on ANY network where VZW has a roaming agreement for free, if you're on AC, right? Bzzzzt! Wrong! Roaming charges still exist if you aren't on Extended Network. Free&Clear America is analogous to National Single Rate, which DOES cost more, or North America's Choice, which DOES cost more. On F&CA, NAC and NSR, as long as the network you're roaming on is one for which your carrier has an agreement, you don't pay roaming. On AC, as long as the network you're roaming on is one for which your carrier has an agreement, you don't pay roaming as long as it happens to be one of the networks Verizon has set up as Extended. Why do you think AC is cheaper? Because Verizon doesn't eat roaming fees except on the selected networks where they've negotiated cheap rates. Apples to apples, please? > It's not similar at all. Sprint charges extra to get a reasonable national > coverage area. VZW doesn't. Depends on what you consider reasonable. At least up until recently, for example, IIRC, part of Northern California wasn't on AC because USCC and Verizon weren't playing nice with each other. > It's available at no extra cost on the America's Choice plans, and so it > doesn't make any difference whether or not it's native VZW. It looked to me that the southern chunk of the US had a decent amount of non-extended-network roaming, along the Interstates even. But I could be wrong about that. > So what? Irrelevant, as I said. I know you don't read a.c.spcs, so obviously it wouldn't make a difference to you. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > Depends on what you consider reasonable. At least up until recently, for > example, IIRC, part of Northern California wasn't on AC because USCC and > Verizon weren't playing nice with each other. Oh, and my favorite example: I-40 between Kingman, Arizona and Barstow, California. Analog. You're screwed if you have a digital-only handset. Apparently it used to be that you could roam digital on Sprint's Los Angeles network, but VZW removed it from the PRLs. Supposedly, Verizon coverage starts once you hit Needles just on the other side of I-40, but Verizon coverage sucked eggs in Needles last time I was there, even though you'd THINK it wouldn't because the CalTrans emergency call box contract belongs to Verizon. So, you get to roam analog on a regional TDMA carrier IF you have a tri-mode phone. If not, you have no coverage. I-40, FWIW, is a major transcontinental freeway. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > Depends on what you consider reasonable. At least up until recently, for > > example, IIRC, part of Northern California wasn't on AC because USCC and > > Verizon weren't playing nice with each other. > > Oh, and my favorite example: I-40 between Kingman, Arizona and Barstow, > California. Analog. You're screwed if you have a digital-only handset. Wise people don't have digital-only handsets. > Apparently it used to be that you could roam digital on Sprint's Los Angeles > network, but VZW removed it from the PRLs. Supposedly, Verizon coverage starts [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So, you get to roam analog on a regional TDMA carrier IF you have a tri-mode > phone. If not, you have no coverage. That's why wise people have tri-mode phones--and it's why VZW shows different coverage areas for digital-only and for tri-mode phones. > I-40, FWIW, is a major transcontinental freeway. We all know that. What *else* would you like to tell us that we already know? SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > Wise people don't have digital-only handsets. Not a question of wise: many people wouldn't know better and just buy whatever looks cool. Or whatever the sales rep happens to be selling. There are an awful lot of cellular consumers out there who probably aren't as aware of the differences as people who read these groups. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > Wise people don't have digital-only handsets. > > Not a question of wise: many people wouldn't know better and just buy whatever > looks cool. Or whatever the sales rep happens to be selling. There are an awful > lot of cellular consumers out there who probably aren't as aware of the > differences as people who read these groups. "Many people" are unwise people. As I stated: Wise people don't buy all-digital phones. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > "Many people" are unwise people. As I stated: Wise people don't buy > all-digital phones. That may be, but it doesn't change the basic truth: people just expect the phones to work and don't want to have to worry about whether their phones speak AMPS, CDMA, GSM or something else. You don't have to worry about buying a television or some other electronic device and have it work if you move from one area to another. Yes, analog TVs are useless with HDTV signals, but HDTV will be deployed everywhere and you will be able to get a digital signal from any TV station from the country if you have a high-def TV, and you can already get a signal from any TV station if you're still using an analog TV. Of course, the FCC is mandating that all TV stations broadcast in digital (I forget what the deadline is, but it's near, IIRC). The FCC has NOT mandated that all cellular carriers be digital, which would be fine if (a) you could only buy tri-mode phones or (b) the carriers made it clear that the digital-only coverage area is different. Verizon is the only carrier I know of that implements (b). SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > "Many people" are unwise people. As I stated: Wise people don't buy > > all-digital phones. > > That may be, but it doesn't change the basic truth: people just expect the > phones to work and don't want to have to worry about whether their phones speak > AMPS, CDMA, GSM or something else. They should have the desire to be concerned. > You don't have to worry about buying a > television or some other electronic device and have it work if you move from > one area to another. It's moving in that direction, though. Tha's why a wise person will do his research before purchasing a TV. >Yes, analog TVs are useless with HDTV signals, but HDTV > will be deployed everywhere and you will be able to get a digital signal from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > coverage area is different. Verizon is the only carrier I know of that > implements (b). Wise people do research and make informed buying decisions. Unwise people don't. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > They should have the desire to be concerned. I agree, actually, but the reality is that people don't want to be hassled with trying to figure out what underlying technology they need to use to be able to place calls. >>You don't have to worry about buying a >>television or some other electronic device and have it work if you move [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's moving in that direction, though. Tha's why a wise person will do his > research before purchasing a TV. It is moving in that direction, but will be a lot less of an issue than it is with cell phones, as I already mentioned, since every service provider (i.e., TV station) in the country MUST go digital. > Wise people do research and make informed buying decisions. Unwise people > don't. Well, I know the reality of the situation, and that's why I have a tri-mode AMPS-capable phone on a carrier that has no native analog coverage anywhere. Really, you're preaching to the choir on this particular point. People SHOULD research their buying decisions. But many DON'T. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > They should have the desire to be concerned. > > I agree, actually, but the reality is that people don't want to be hassled with > trying to figure out what underlying technology they need to use to be able to > place calls. That means they're not wise consumers. > >>You don't have to worry about buying a > >>television or some other electronic device and have it work if you move [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with cell phones, as I already mentioned, since every service provider (i.e., > TV station) in the country MUST go digital. It still doesn't tell people which Tv to buy to give them what they need--or want. Do they get analog, or is EDTV good enough, or must it be HDTV. Does it have a built-in digital tuner, or does it require a set-top box? It's another situation where it's quite easy to make a poor cjoice unless one is a wise consumer. > > Wise people do research and make informed buying decisions. Unwise people > > don't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Really, you're preaching to the choir on this particular point. People SHOULD > research their buying decisions. But many DON'T. That means they're not wise consumers. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > It still doesn't tell people which Tv to buy to give them what they need--or > want. Do they get analog, or is EDTV good enough, or must it be HDTV. Does > it have a built-in digital tuner, or does it require a set-top box? It's > another situation where it's quite easy to make a poor cjoice unless one is > a wise consumer. There's really no point in continuing this particular discussion, as we keep saying the same thing over and over. Again, I think we agree on the basic fact that people SHOULD do their homework. In a perfect world, everyone WOULD. In a perfect world, cellular carriers wouldn't have to spell everything out. In the real world, it would be helpful if carriers did do a better job of laying everything out for the customer. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. > > It still doesn't tell people which Tv to buy to give them what they need--or > > want. Do they get analog, or is EDTV good enough, or must it be HDTV. Does [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > real world, it would be helpful if carriers did do a better job of laying > everything out for the customer. Agreed. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:14:23 GMT, "D.J. Osborn" <dj_osborn@yahoooo.com> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything: >> > It still doesn't tell people which Tv to buy to give them what they >need--or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> There's really no point in continuing this particular discussion, as we Thank you! >keep >> saying the same thing over and over. Again, I think we agree on the basic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Agreed. Thank you! SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "I've always said that if God gave me only five years to live, I'd spend it as a member of Congress because they've been the longest years of my life." - Rep. J.C. Watts Jr. >> They should have the desire to be concerned. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >with cell phones, as I already mentioned, since every service provider (i.e., >TV station) in the country MUST go digital. And all on the same standard. SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "I'd rather for him to use his brain than for him to get it beat out of him." - Anthony Thompson, Indiana University running-back coach, on whether he wants his son Anthony Jr. to play football > >> They should have the desire to be concerned. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And all on the same standard. Nope. There are multiple digital television standards in the US. DO your research next time before you make silly statements. SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com > Nope. There are multiple digital telev |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message