 |
 | 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 / Verizon / June 2004Switching to Sprint? Opinions?
My Verizon contract is up, and I went to Radio Shack today to compare phones. I'm very happy with Verizon, except, and this is important, I can only get a Verizon signal in one room of my house, and even that is a bit spotty. My daughter tells me that one of her friends has Sprint, and she gets reception everywhere in my house. My daughter also can't get Verizon reception in her dorm room back in Massachusets, and she says her friends with Sprint phones can. The sales rep at Radio Shack told me that he uses Sprint and likes it. He said that he has found a more stable, stronger signal from Sprint than Verizon here in Marin County California. I don't know if he has any particular agenda, but Radio Shack sells both Verizon and Sprint service, so I would assume that it's all the same to him. I like Verizon very much-- had customer service issues with them in the past, but they've been better this past year, and they work well for me when I travel in Los Angeles, where I spend a lot of time, and in the East Coast, where I often do work as well. Reception in my home is a significant issue, however, and I'd like to have it. The sales rep at Radio Shack pointed out that Sprint, like Verizon, is a CDMA system and that many Sprint phones are tri-mode. I've read that 1900 MHZ systems are not as good as 800 Mhz, but he pointed out that the tri-mode Sprint phones are 1900, 800, and analogue, and he said that with Sprint's Expanded Voice Coverage, a Sprint phone can roam nearly everywhere in the US. I have a few technical questions about that: does that mean that a tri-mode Sprint phone would pick up the SAME analogue signal as my Verizon phone in the outer reaches of Marin, where I sometimes rely on an analogue signal? Does that mean that when a 1900 MHZ Sprint signal is not reaching my phone when I travel, it will pick up the same 800 MHZ signal that my Verizon phone would? I understand that, all other things being equal, the Sprint phone will default to a 1900 MHZ Sprint signal; I'm just not clear what happens when roaming on Sprint and, more importantly, how it would compare with Verizon. Obviously, the easy answer to this would be to try Sprint for 14 days and see how I like it. Unfortunately, I'm on a family plan with 4 phones, so it would be a huge pain to try it, not like it, and go back to Verizon. I must say I haven't heard much good about Sprint in the past, but these companies change all the time. Any opinions? I remember in particular that Sprint had weak coverage in the Los Angeles area. Has that changed? Does anyone have any comments comparing the 1900 MHZ CDMA Sprint quality with Verizon's 800 MHZ CDMA quality? Thanks in advance, Michael > My Verizon contract is up, and I went to Radio Shack today to compare > phones. I'm very happy with Verizon, except, and this is important, I > can only get a Verizon signal in one room of my house, and even that is > a bit spotty. Ask also in the Verizon group, maybe your current model phone is a dog as far as reception goes. Some LG and Samsung models of 2 years ago were poor. > My daughter tells me that one of her friends has Sprint, > and she gets reception everywhere in my house. My daughter also can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > any particular agenda, but Radio Shack sells both Verizon and Sprint > service, so I would assume that it's all the same to him. No, if he didnt tell you Sprint was better he wouldnt sell you. Certainly SprintPCS has millions of happy customers, and 1,400,000 who left during the first quarter of this year. I'd say borrow your daughter's friends Sprint phone this weekend. > I like Verizon very much-- had customer service issues with them in the > past, but they've been better this past year, and they work well for me [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with Sprint's Expanded Voice Coverage, a Sprint phone can roam nearly > everywhere in the US. Sprint natively uses only 1900 MHz. You can only roam where SprintPCS allows you to roam, not just anywhere. > I have a few technical questions about that: does that mean that a > tri-mode Sprint phone would pick up the SAME analogue signal as my > Verizon phone in the outer reaches of Marin, where I sometimes rely on > an analogue signal? Does that mean that when a 1900 MHZ Sprint signal > is not reaching my phone when I travel, it will pick up the same 800 MHZ > signal that my Verizon phone would? If SprintPCS has a roaming agreement with the same analog provider, then yes. > I understand that, all other things > being equal, the Sprint phone will default to a 1900 MHZ Sprint signal; > I'm just not clear what happens when roaming on Sprint and, more > importantly, how it would compare with Verizon. Everyplace is different depending on each companies roaming agreements. > Obviously, the easy answer to this would be to try Sprint for 14 days > and see how I like it. Unfortunately, I'm on a family plan with 4 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Does anyone have any comments comparing the 1900 MHZ CDMA Sprint quality > with Verizon's 800 MHZ CDMA quality? All things being equal (and they never are), 800 MHz would be better; but you've already indicated you think SprintPCS has better coverage in your area. Your best bet is to borrow your daughter's friends' Sprint phone this weekend. Pay her $20 for the insult, it's a bargain to get good hands-on knowledge of how good SprintPCS would be for you. > Thanks in advance, > Michael > > My Verizon contract is up, and I went to Radio Shack today to compare > > phones. I'm very happy with Verizon, except, and this is important, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as far as reception goes. Some LG and Samsung models of 2 years ago were > poor. Phillipe aka: Robert M. may be right ... however the bottom statement says the daughter's phone has coverage problems as well. > > My daughter tells me that one of her friends has Sprint, > > and she gets reception everywhere in my house. My daughter also can't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Certainly SprintPCS has millions of happy customers, and 1,400,000 > who left during the first quarter of this year. I've noticed you've brought back that 1,400,000 number in the past two days. So Phillipe, just where is that simple copy and paste, along with a page number out of the 10Q. After 20 plus requests from quite a few people here, including yours truly, you still haven't backed up your statement. > I'd say borrow your daughter's friends Sprint phone this weekend. That would be a good idea, as long as she didn't need it and had the N & W option on here account. > > I like Verizon very much-- had customer service issues with them in the > > past, but they've been better this past year, and they work well for me [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > is not reaching my phone when I travel, it will pick up the same 800 MHZ > > signal that my Verizon phone would? Actually, with SPCS's newly issued PRL, if you were out of SPCS's coverage, you could be roaming on 800 CDMA before 800 Analog. It all depends on who the agreement is with. > If SprintPCS has a roaming agreement with the same analog provider, then > yes. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > phones, so it would be a huge pain to try it, not like it, and go back > > to Verizon. Well, you can try one phone on their new F & F plan, within the 14 day trial period. If you find that it works for you, then you can decide whether you want to port all your numbers off to SPCS. > > I must say I haven't heard much good about Sprint in the past, but these > > companies change all the time. Any opinions? I remember in particular > > that Sprint had weak coverage in the Los Angeles area. Has that > > changed? Yes, it has. SPCS has added a lot of towers in the LA, SF & SD metro areas. We have a few folks who post here from the LA & SF areas, and all find satisfactory coverage. > > Does anyone have any comments comparing the 1900 MHZ CDMA Sprint quality > > with Verizon's 800 MHZ CDMA quality? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks in advance, > > Michael Anytime ... :) Bob >I've noticed you've brought back that 1,400,000 number in the past two days. >So Phillipe, just where is that simple copy and paste, along with a page >number out of the 10Q. After 20 plus requests from quite a few people here, >including yours truly, you still haven't backed up your statement. I can't speak about the number of customers who have left, but according to the FCC 2003 posting of complaint statistics, Sprint PCS was second only to AT&T in the number of complaints per 10K users. http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/0511%20FCC_Cell_ComplaintsAll3.pdf is the link to the graphic. AT&T wireless had 3.39 per 10K, Sprint had 2.25 per 10K with the other providers listed all having 1.6 or less. >> I'd say borrow your daughter's friends Sprint phone this weekend. > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > >Bob Deb > >I've noticed you've brought back that 1,400,000 number in the past two days. > >So Phillipe, just where is that simple copy and paste, along with a page [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > AT&T wireless had 3.39 per 10K, Sprint had 2.25 per 10K with the other > providers listed all having 1.6 or less. Amazing how a Sprint apologist can have a bad memory when they want to. Sprint's own 10-K filing with the SEC listed it as losing 1,400,000 customers in the first calendar quarter. > > >I've noticed you've brought back that 1,400,000 number in the past two days. > > >So Phillipe, just where is that simple copy and paste, along with a page [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Sprint's own 10-K filing with the SEC listed it as losing 1,400,000 > customers in the first calendar quarter. The only one here who has a bad memory here Phillipe ... is you! Just where is the text from the 10Q and on what page? A simple copy and paste of the text, along with the page number is all that has been asked ... yet you have never posted it ... Just why is that Phillipe? Bob > Sprint natively uses only 1900 MHz. You can only roam where SprintPCS > allows you to roam, not just anywhere. ??? Aside from some really small regional carriers, we've got roaming agreements that cover 97% of the entire land area of the country.  SignatureRØß O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them In alt.cellular.sprintpcs O/Siris <0siris@spr?ntpcs.com> wrote: >> Sprint natively uses only 1900 MHz. You can only roam where SprintPCS >> allows you to roam, not just anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Aside from some really small regional carriers, we've got roaming > agreements that cover 97% of the entire land area of the country. Well, technically, he *is* right. :) You can't force a Sprint phone to use a network not in its PRL, can 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. > Well, technically, he *is* right. :) You can't force a Sprint phone to use > a network not in its PRL, can you? Yes, if you're way out in the boonies, and the phone find an analog signal from Rinky-Dink Telecom, Inc, it will acquire and sign in. Then, if you try to use the phone to place a call, you will wind up redirected to their customer care center, where they'll ask for a credit card number, and they'll charge you some per-minute fee to use their network (and I'm told some of those fees make our international roaming rates look cheap). That's just one example. SignatureRØß O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them >>Well, technically, he *is* right. :) You can't force a Sprint phone to use >>a network not in its PRL, can you? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's just one example. 1998, Mississippi. Qualcomm QCP-2700. No Sprint. No FM radio even. Want to call home to tell them I'm still alive. I check the signal meters, and I do have something. I get this roaming network. I can enter a card number or I can call collect. No disclosure of fees, no customer service people. I decided to call home collect. I figured I'd pay $2-$4 for the call. A month later I get a bill of $16 for a two minute call. -mike > >>Well, technically, he *is* right. :) You can't force a Sprint phone to use > >>a network not in its PRL, can you? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > call. A month later I get a bill of $16 for a two minute call. > -mike Boy, you aint from these parts are you..... LOL >> Sprint natively uses only 1900 MHz. You can only roam where SprintPCS >> allows you to roam, not just anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Aside from some really small regional carriers, we've got roaming >agreements that cover 97% of the entire land area of the country. Other than many 'dead' areas, I have to say that if there is a signal at all, I can get roaming service when not on the PCS network. However, that also means I pay roaming charges, and that happens in far too many metropolitan areas for a "nationwide, no roaming network". Deb >The sales rep at Radio Shack told me that he uses Sprint and likes it. >He said that he has found a more stable, stronger signal from Sprint >than Verizon here in Marin County California. I don't know if he has >any particular agenda, but Radio Shack sells both Verizon and Sprint >service, so I would assume that it's all the same to him. I assume he gets a commission for selling new service, so he doesn't care whether you change from Sprint to Verizon Wireless or Verizon Wireless to Sprint - as long as you change. >Obviously, the easy answer to this would be to try Sprint for 14 days >and see how I like it. Unfortunately, I'm on a family plan with 4 >phones, so it would be a huge pain to try it, not like it, and go back >to Verizon. Why is that? You don't have to port all your numbers, or even one number, to try a different carrier. When I was thinking of switching from ATTWS to Verizon, I tried out the phone for a week and then ported my number. It would have cost me a bit of money if I hadn't switched, but not a lot (one prorated plan week). >I must say I haven't heard much good about Sprint in the past, but these >companies change all the time. Yes, ATTWS was good when I started with them, but deteriorated greatly over the past few years, in both coverage and customer service. I had previously had Sprint service, but switched when I started to need better roaming capabilities. With their new plans, that wouldn't be as big a concern. Have you tried a different Verizon phone? Maybe the model you have is just a poor performer. == 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 Gibbons > Why is that? You don't have to port all your numbers, or even one > number, to try a different carrier. When I was thinking of switching > from ATTWS to Verizon, I tried out the phone for a week and then ported > my number. It would have cost me a bit of money if I hadn't switched, > but not a lot (one prorated plan week). Sprint will charge you Activation Fee Prorated charges for initial short billing period a Full month if you go 10 seconds past initial billing period. So even a short 1 week trial on Sprint commonly will cost ~ $100 > > Why is that? You don't have to port all your numbers, or even one > > number, to try a different carrier. When I was thinking of switching [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So even a short 1 week trial on Sprint commonly will cost ~ $100 Oh, I think it would be more like $50-$70. Can't see it coming close to $100. Bob Thankfully, this has apparently changed for the better: http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=61b4131fb8db0f433da85c4382e3e77d&th readid=382258 > > Why is that? You don't have to port all your numbers, or even one > > number, to try a different carrier. When I was thinking of switching [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So even a short 1 week trial on Sprint commonly will cost ~ $100 > Thankfully, this has apparently changed for the better: > > http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=61b4131fb8db0f433da85c4382e3e77d& > threadid=382258 I would love to be wrong and for SprintPCS to have changed its policy about the 14 day testing period. However an anonymous poster at Howard is not what I would call an Authoritative source. Heck you can't even believe SprintPCS authoritative sources. Just recently eCare emailed me these lies: " To acquire Ready Link for your two Phones, must have a 2 year Advantage Agreement and business shared minutes." As they likely cut and paste from Scripts, who provides the CSRs with such lies? > > > Why is that? You don't have to port all your numbers, or even one > > > number, to try a different carrier. When I was thinking of switching [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > So even a short 1 week trial on Sprint commonly will cost ~ $100 > > Thankfully, this has apparently changed for the better: http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=61b4131fb8db0f433da85c4382e3e77d& > > threadid=382258 > > I would love to be wrong and for SprintPCS to have changed its policy > about the 14 day testing period. However an anonymous poster at Howard > is not what I would call an Authoritative source. Well, he's not anonymous ... as he's one of the moderators for Howard Forums. In saying that, the current policy, per the agreement one has to agree to says - Satisfaction Guarantee: Requires return of your complete, undamaged PCS Phone from Sprint with the original retailer's proof of purchase within 14 days of purchase. We will send a refund either by check or a charge-card credit. You will remain responsible for all charges incurred prior to the return of the phone (e.g. activation fees, service charges, etc.)." SPCS could be in the process of changing that, as they are with the WLNP monthly charges, that were announced at the beginning of that thread from $1.10 down to $0.40, starting sometime in July. Bob I switched to Verizon because I had a very poor reception with my Sprint phone inside my house. Before I switched to Verizon, I borrowed a Verizon phone from one of my friends at work. During one lunch break, I took the phone home. I was impressed because I can place/receive calls with a very good quality signal. That made me decide that I have had it with Sprint. I had discussed this problem with Sprint for almost 2 years but there was never a hint of improvement on my signal quality in my house! > My Verizon contract is up, and I went to Radio Shack today to compare > phones. I'm very happy with Verizon, except, and this is important, I [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Michael > I switched to Verizon because I had a very poor reception with my Sprint > phone inside my house. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > I'm just not clear what happens when roaming on Sprint and, more > > importantly, how it would compare with Verizon. Funny - I'm now having this problem with Verizon, when I never had it before. I think we should try to post with our location - btw, I'm in Manhattan Louise In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Michael L. <FIGHTALLSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > My Verizon contract is up, and I went to Radio Shack today to compare > phones. I'm very happy with Verizon, except, and this is important, I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get Verizon reception in her dorm room back in Massachusets, and she > says her friends with Sprint phones can. Ok, how does Sprint work at YOUR house and in other places where you use it? That's what counts. Verizon and Sprint both work well in most of Southern California, for example, but Verizon has a few issues up here in the Victor Valley that are causing me to move to Sprint - but I already know Sprint works everywhere I need it to, since my wife has a Sprint phone. It is essential that you check coverage BEFORE you make a committment, since you know someone who has the service. > Obviously, the easy answer to this would be to try Sprint for 14 days > and see how I like it. Unfortunately, I'm on a family plan with 4 > phones, so it would be a huge pain to try it, not like it, and go back > to Verizon. So don't get rid of the Verizon contract until you're sure a Sprint phone will work where you need it to. Obviously, only try one phone at first. :) > I must say I haven't heard much good about Sprint in the past, but these > companies change all the time. Any opinions? I remember in particular > that Sprint had weak coverage in the Los Angeles area. Has that > changed? They're solid in the areas where I go, but I hang out primarily in the Inland Empire, especially Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino, and I live in the High Desert (Apple Valley, and I spend tons of time in Victorville, Adelanto and Hesperia too). Coverage in the places I've been to (Anaheim and Orange County, and west and south of LA) has been good. However, there are probably other people here who can give you a better picture of LA proper. > Does anyone have any comments comparing the 1900 MHZ CDMA Sprint quality > with Verizon's 800 MHZ CDMA quality? 1900 MHz is supposed to have a harder time penetrating buildings than 800 MHz. However, I've not seen any major differences. (Remember that Verizon is 1900 in certain areas too.) I am both a Verizon *and* Sprint customer right now, with my phone being a VZ phone and my wife's a Sprint phone, but I'm porting my number to Sprint due to some issues at my house and in a couple spots in Victorville where I spend a lot of my time. 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. > My Verizon contract is up, and I went to Radio Shack today to > compare phones. I'm very happy with Verizon, except, and this is [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Michael If you have a phone that allows it, you may be able to force Sprint PCS on your Verizon phone. I'm in the San Francisco Bay area and on my LG4400B I can force roaming on Sprint (extended network) by going to menu 0 (then 000000) -> 3 -> PCS only. This will allow you to test Sprint in your home. Restore Verizon by selecting Automatic (or CDMA only if you want to block out analog). Signatureregards, jerry Michael - I live in SF and work in Oakland, have 4 phones on my plan, and am very satisfied with Sprint PCS service here, and in LA when we visit there. I've been a customer since 1997 and have had no customer service issues. Verizon is Sprint's primary roaming partner in the SF Bay Area, so yes, if your Sprint phone can't find a Sprint signal in West Marin, and if you set your Sprint phone to allow it to roam off of Sprint, then it will use the same Verizon signal (CDMA 800 or analog 800) that your Verizon phone uses. But it will cost 69 cents/min, unless you have a Free & Clear America Plan for $5 extra per month (then no extra cost). In other cities around the country, the preferred roaming partner may be Verizon, or it may be some other carrier that gave Sprint a better deal, so roaming coverage (off the Sprint network) may not be the same as for your Verizon phone. Sprint's map shows they have roaming agreements nearly everywhere, but they may not all be using the same providers that your Verizon phone was using. In Cleveland, Ohio, the two cellular providers are Verizon (A-side) and Alltel (B-side). I was just there, and when I was in a weak Sprint signal area between towers on the Ohio Tpk west of Youngstown, or if I set my phone to 'analog only', it used Alltel, not Verizon. SignatureFrank Harris in San Francisco with an A620 > Michael - > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Verizon phone uses. But it will cost 69 cents/min, unless you have a > Free & Clear America Plan for $5 extra per month (then no extra cost). ONLY if total roaming minutes are less than half of the total minutes used that month. > ONLY if total roaming minutes are less than half of the total minutes > used that month. Actually, no. If you exceed that 50% limit, you're still covered. We send you a friendly reminder of the 50% limit, but cover you unless you exceed it twice within a 3-month period. SignatureRØß O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them What if you have 700 regular minutes and the unlimited evening/weekends of course. Your total for the month turns out to be 600 regular minutes and 2,000 evening/weekend minutes. 400 of your regular minutes are roaming and only 600 of the evening/weekend minutes are. Do you get warned? What about if only 250 of the regular minutes are roaming but 1,500 of the evening/weekend ones are? What happens then? I'm thinking about switching from Verizon to Sprint, but I keep hearing stuff that scares me away. And I can't find anyone who can tell me if the service will work well in an area that's about 2 miles from the Interstate but kind of in the country (Verizon works well there). A 14-day trial isn't very reasonable for me, because I'll be putting 3 phones on the same account and keeping my numbers that I currently have with Verizon. So I need to know for sure what to do before I make a decision. Also, I want a phone that is a good camera phone, is reliable, and works well with PCS Vision. I was going to get the PM8200 (even though I don't need RL), but some people on here have been saying the phone isn't so reliable. I don't want to spend more than $100/phone after the instant rebates. Ernest ---------------------- In article <rmarkoff-40C2C5.04233008062004@news5.west.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@faq.city says... > ONLY if total roaming minutes are less than half of the total minutes > used that month. Actually, no. If you exceed that 50% limit, you're still covered. We send you a friendly reminder of the 50% limit, but cover you unless you exceed it twice within a 3-month period. SignatureR?? O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them > What if you have 700 regular minutes and the unlimited evening/weekends of > course. Your total for the month turns out to be 600 regular minutes and > 2,000 evening/weekend minutes. 400 of your regular minutes are roaming and > only 600 of the evening/weekend minutes are. Do you get warned? What about > if only 250 of the regular minutes are roaming but 1,500 of the > evening/weekend ones are? What happens then? SPCS does not make any distinction between AT & N & W minutes on their web site. They just say 50% of the minutes used during a billing cycle can be used for roaming. If you expect to be roaming that much, even with SPCS's F&CA deal, SPCS is not for you. Why would you go to a carrier where you expect to make so many off network calls? From your email addy, it looks like you are @ Purdue, and in the Indy coverage area which is pretty well covered. It might behoove you to list out where you expect to your phone the most, and possibly some lurker in this newsgroup from your area(s) will pipe in with their coverage results. > I'm thinking about switching from Verizon to Sprint, but I keep hearing > stuff that scares me away. And I can't find anyone who can tell me if the > service will work well in an area that's about 2 miles from the Interstate > but kind of in the country (Verizon works well there). Again, if you post the neighborhood area you are in, someone in here might answer. Another idea is to go to your local bars and restaurants, and ask around if anyone uses SPCS and whether they are satisfied. > A 14-day trial isn't very reasonable for me, because I'll be putting 3 > phones on the same account and keeping my numbers that I currently have with > Verizon. So I need to know for sure what to do before I make a decision. Actually, you don't need to port all three phones to try it. Just get one phone, and use it on SPCS's minimum plan @ with F&CA. You can change your plan, (which will change on the next billing cycle), with no requirements to extend your annual agreement. As for the 8200, I've seen a lot more positive comments on the model than negative comments. If you find that the coverage fits your needs, you can get two other phones, and port all three numbers to SPCS. If the service doesn't work out for you, just turn in the phone in 13 days, and you will only be responsible for the > Also, I want a phone that is a good camera phone, is reliable, and works > well with PCS Vision. I was going to get the PM8200 (even though I don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ernest Keep in mind that there are other sources to get SPCS phones, like Best Buy, and other big retail outfits. Bob >If you expect to be roaming that much, even with SPCS's F&CA deal, SPCS is >not for you. Why would you go to a carrier where you expect to make so many >off network calls? Perhaps he, as I was, has been taken in by the ads that state "true nationwide coverage with no roaming" that don't mention that only applies on a PCS network that does not really have true nationwide capability? I travel all over the country. They said nationwide coverage, and silly me, I believed them. For some funny reason, their ads never quite mention that little "only when on the PCS network" exception. My bad, I did not research thoroughly enough before going to Sprint. This time, I know better and am doing my homework. Deb > What if you have 700 regular minutes and the unlimited > evening/weekends of course. Your total for the month turns out to be [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > We send you a friendly reminder of the 50% limit, but cover you > unless you exceed it twice within a 3-month period. The 50% limit only applies to total usage. If more than 50% of your total usage in a month is roaming, then we cover you and send you a reminder about the 50% limit. Do it again within 3 months, and we still cover you, but we remove the Free&Clear America option. Do you really think you'll use that many roaming minutes more than once within a 3-month period? >The 50% limit only applies to total usage. If more than 50% of your total >usage in a month is roaming, then we cover you and send you a reminder about >the 50% limit. Do it again within 3 months, and we still cover you, but we >remove the Free&Clear America option. Are you saying that if I had a Sprint plan with 800 minutes a month, used 40 of them, and 21 of them were roaming, I'd be in violation? Or would it take 401 minutes? == 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 Gibbons > >The 50% limit only applies to total usage. If more than 50% of your total > >usage in a month is roaming, then we cover you and send you a reminder about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > used 40 of them, and 21 of them were roaming, I'd be in violation? Or > would it take 401 minutes? In your scenario 21 would be a violation. > >The 50% limit only applies to total usage. If more than 50% of your total > >usage in a month is roaming, then we cover you and send you a reminder about [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Jack Hamilton > jfh@acm.org In the 21/40 example - Yes, but I don't think the word "violation" is the right terminology to use. More likely described as an overage. On the 401/800 example - No. It's 50% of the minutes "used" during a billing cycle, not the amount of plan minutes included in your monthly plan. Bob >> >The 50% limit only applies to total usage. If more than 50% of your >total [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >401/800 example - No. It's 50% of the minutes "used" during a billing cycle, >not the amount of plan minutes included in your monthly plan. So I'd be better off calling my home phone and just letting the two phones stay connected for two hours when I got back, so the denominator would be larger. I wouldn't think Sprint would want to encourage that. == 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 Gibbons <snipped> > So I'd be better off calling my home phone and just letting the two > phones stay connected for two hours when I got back, so the denominator > would be larger. I wouldn't think Sprint would want to encourage that. These all sound like hypothetical arguments. First off Jack, let's get something straight. It sounds like you don't have SPCS coverage with all this talk of roaming. If you were roaming that much, you should have dumped SPCS and found another provider. If you do have coverage with SPCS and roam that much, I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY I'd like to sell you ... We have not had any complaints about the F&CA option in the SPCS newsgroup. In fact, I don't remember anyone filing a post where they received a notification of having too many roaming minutes. It's probably the best $5 monthly investment offered by SPCS for those that do find they roam occasionally, either off network or in a dead spot. As Rob has mentioned a number of times, if SPCS sees a trend where there are more that 50% roaming minutes in a billing cycle, they will send a notification to the customer. If a customer does exceed the 50% threshold, SPCS doesn't charge them any more $$$. If the customer continues with that calling pattern, they will remove the F&CA option from the plan after 90 days. Bob ><snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >SPCS and found another provider. If you do have coverage with SPCS and roam >that much, I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY I'd like to sell you ... You're right. I'm a former Sprint customer, and I left partly because of the roaming problem and partly because of the customer service problem. I don't roam much, but when I do I want coverage. I didn't leave Sprint vowing I'd never come back, so I want to keep up with what they're doing - it's not impossible for a formerly good carrier to destroy itself, as AT&T Wireless was doing last year, and I might decide to leave VZW someday. Sprint has certainly improved their plans over the past few years, but it sounds like they still have some thinking to do. Can you really say that their current rule as described makes sense? == 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 Gibbons > ><snipped> > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > thinking to do. Can you really say that their current rule as described > makes sense? Sure I do. Again, if you find yourself roaming over 50% of the time, then you need to change carriers. Like I said before, SPCS doesn't make a distinction between AT & N & W minutes, as you questioned previously. Bob Bob >These all sound like hypothetical arguments. First off Jack, let's get >something straight. It sounds like you don't have SPCS coverage with all >this talk of roaming. If you were roaming that much, you should have dumped >SPCS and found another provider. If you do have coverage with SPCS and roam >that much, I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY I'd like to sell you ... I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no roaming" that the ads promised. My contract is up, and yes, I am changing providers. The plan I have found is $20.00 per month cheaper, has TRUE no roaming anywhere in the US, regardless of what network I am currently connected to, and has more minutes per month. My sister has the same provider, and I have done side by side tests with her phone and mine in all the areas of Orlando that I can't get a signal. I'm at "searching for signal" and she's at 4 or 5 bars in every location. >notification of having too many roaming minutes. It's probably the best $5 >monthly investment offered by SPCS for those that do find they roam >occasionally, either off network or in a dead spot. $5.00 per month to get a true national plan without roaming charges. It just torques me. Deb In alt.cellular.sprintpcs deb.milner@att.net wrote: > $5.00 per month to get a true national plan without roaming charges. > It just torques me. Yes, but if you get a true nationwide plan -- say, Verizon National Single- Rate, or Alltel Total Freedom, or Cingular Nation -- it will still cost more than the equivalent preferred-network plan -- Verizon America's Choice, Alltel National Freedom, or Cingular Preferred. The preferred network plans allow you to roam nationwide on the carrier's network and on the networks of certain other carriers where they've negotiated inexpensive roaming agreements. Everywhere else you pay for roaming. Sprint Free & Clear is a preferred-network plan (albeit one that only includes Sprint networks). Always has been. And the reason those other preferred-network plans were introduced was to compete with F&C, which was at the time a much better deal than pioneering plans like AT&T's Digital One-Rate (the first-ever true nationwide plan). The true nationwide plans will always be more, and in some cases will cost more than $5/month above the preferred-network plans. The real issue is that with the possible exception of Cingular, the others don't limit you to a certain percentage of your calls being on the carrier's own network. But the cost is in line with, and is often less than, other carriers' equivalent true nationwide plans. You *will* pay more because when you roam, the carriers pay the roaming networks for the privilege of letting you roam and on the true nationwide plans, they *can't* bill those minutes back to you as roaming minutes, so they eat the 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. >Yes, but if you get a true nationwide plan -- say, Verizon National Single- >Rate, or Alltel Total Freedom, or Cingular Nation -- it will still cost >more than the equivalent preferred-network plan -- Verizon America's Choice, >Alltel National Freedom, or Cingular Preferred. The preferred network plans Not necessarily. I have found a true nationwide plan, that will give me 50 less anytime minutes a month, and more N&W minues, but with rollover, so for those months where I use less than the anytime (most months), they'll bank and be used for the months where I spike. The plan will actually cost me at least $10.00 or more less per month than I am currently paying for my Sprint plan, with the same feature, but only the 50 minute difference. Most months, I don't use more than 300 minutes in a month. About 3 - 4 months a year, I'll spike to about 500 - 600 minutes. With the Cingular plan, I'll be able to roll the minutes I don't use over, and not get the overage charges get on the "spike months" now. >introduced was to compete with F&C, which was at the time a much better >deal than pioneering plans like AT&T's Digital One-Rate (the first-ever >true nationwide plan). Actually, AT&T had a true no-roaming national plan well before they came out with the Digital One-Rate. I was with them for two years before they introduced the Digital One-Rate, and was never charged a roaming fee, even when in roaming areas. That's one reason I was so ticked when I found out that what Sprint meant by "national coverage with no roaming" was not really national coverage with no roaming, even on the Free and Clear plan. >own network. But the cost is in line with, and is often less than, other >carriers' equivalent true nationwide plans. You *will* pay more because I'm not sure how a service that is calculating out to be $10.00 or more less per month, with the same features (including the second line), is going to cost me more than the "equivalent service" with Sprint. Right now, with Sprint, my first line is $55.00 per month, the second adds 20.00, making the cost $75.00 before the "extra" charges are added on. The plan I will be going to has the same feature, with 50 less anytime minutes per month (more than made up for with rollover) and with the second line will cost about $60.00 per month before the added regulatory fees and taxes. Deb > Not necessarily. I have found a true nationwide plan, that will give > me 50 less anytime minutes a month, and more N&W minues, but with > rollover, so for those months where I use less than the anytime (most > months), they'll bank and be used for the months where I spike. That's a *very* intriguing insight you've provided. More N&W minutes? Our plans provide *unlimited* N&W minutes now. Truly so. Based on a few posts I've seen in the Cingular group, that appears to be not truly unlimited. And for $60/month, your phones could be covered under Fair & Flexible America For $65, Unlimited N&W minutes could start at 7. For those four months, assuming max usage at 600 minutes, you'd pay an additional $30 each month it happens. And that's not a "use it or lose it" feature. Not nearly the catastrophic cost involved in, for example, running out of rollover minutes and going into $0.40/min usage rates. So, you've got some coverage issues, and that's certainly a valid reason to be on your way. No question about that. But, when it comes to plan options and monthly costs, it sounds like you've compared Sprint apples to Cingular oranges. >> rollover, so for those months where I use less than the anytime (most >> months), they'll bank and be used for the months where I spike. >> >That's a *very* intriguing insight you've provided. More N&W minutes? Our >plans provide *unlimited* N&W minutes now. Truly so. Based on a few posts >I've seen in the Cingular group, that appears to be not truly unlimited. Ok, I hadn't noticed that I had unlimited N&W on the plan I have now. However, 8K, 80K or Unlimited makes no real difference to me, since I rarely go over 1500 minutes in any month on N&W. The main point is, I get a better price for the features I AM using. >And for $60/month, your phones could be covered under Fair & Flexible >America For $65, Unlimited N&W minutes could start at 7. For a 2 year commitment, which I am NOT about to go into with Sprint. Keep in mind, that having any amount of minutes is not going to help if I can't get a signal or am on roaming a significant percentage of the places I travel to. For $39.00 per month, I get 450 anytime minutes and more N&W than I'll ever use in a month. If I don't use the 450 minutes, the difference rolls over. On the Fair and Flexible plan, I get 300 minutes for $35.00 a month, a difference of $4.00. Then, for those months where I wind up using more than 300 minutes (about 3 - 4 months a year), I am paying more than the monthly plan with Cingular. With Cingular, those unused minutes bank, which in the long term will be cheaper. >For those four months, assuming max usage at 600 minutes, you'd pay an >additional $30 each month it happens. And that's not a "use it or lose it" >feature. Not nearly the catastrophic cost involved in, for example, running >out of rollover minutes and going into $0.40/min usage rates. You are leaving out those months where I go between the 300 and 600 minutes, where the costs are incremental based on minutes used. Ok, having figured out my average anytime usage, the Fair and Flexible plan will cost me this: For the months where I use less than 300, $35.00 per month (I'm figuring 5 months making that $175.00) For the months I use between 301 and 450, the cost will range between $37.50 to $50.00 per month, depending on how many minutes. I'll split the difference and we'll call it $45.00 at the 376-400 rate that I'll probably hit for 3 of those 5 months making that $225.00 for the 5 month average. The other 2 months of the year will probably be above the 450 per month, but less than 600 minutes. Now, I'll pay about $65.00 per month for those 2 months, maybe a little less, maybe a bit more. An annual total of $530.00 per month for the base service. At the end of the year, I have nothing banked. Add to that any costs for roaming, if the option I have available now at $5.00 per month to get "free roaming", that adds another $60.00 annually. With the Cingular plan, 5 months out of the year, I'll bank a minimum of 150 minutes, probably more than that. That is a 750 minute surplus once they're banked. For another 5 months, I'll bank somewhere between 0 and 150 minutes, which adds to the bank, let's call it, conservatively, a total of 50 minutes for the entire 5 months, giving me 800 banked minutes. For the 2 months I spike, I have, 800 minutes in my bank that will be used. I could call 800 anytime minutes each month, and still have minutes in the bank. All this for an annual cost of $468.00 for the base service plan, with no additional roaming charges of any kind. A minimum savings of over $100.00. >So, you've got some coverage issues, and that's certainly a valid reason to >be on your way. No question about that. But, when it comes to plan options >and monthly costs, it sounds like you've compared Sprint apples to Cingular >oranges. No, I did the math based on my usage. Deb >That's a *very* intriguing insight you've provided. More N&W minutes? Our >plans provide *unlimited* N&W minutes now. Truly so. Based on a few posts >I've seen in the Cingular group, that appears to be not truly unlimited. Addendum: The plan I am looking at includes either 6K or 8K N&W minutes. More than enough, I should think. Heck, if I spent 24 solid hours on the phone each weekend, I'm still only using 5760 minutes....Not bloody likely in my life. >And for $60/month, your phones could be covered under Fair & Flexible >America For $65, Unlimited N&W minutes could start at 7. What about roaming? How much do I pay for that? Deb > >That's a *very* intriguing insight you've provided. More N&W minutes? Our > >plans provide *unlimited* N&W minutes now. Truly so. Based on a few posts [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What about roaming? How much do I pay for that? Forget Fair and Flexible. For 750 minutes it costs $75. You call up SprintPCS cancellation and tell them you're about to go to Cingular, they'll give you a Retention plan that charges $40/month for 750 minutes. Then forget Cingular, none of their GSM phones allows roaming in analog coverage, so outside of big cities or major interstates you'd have ZERO coverage. In alt.cellular.sprintpcs "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote: > Forget Fair and Flexible. For 750 minutes it costs $75. You call up > SprintPCS cancellation and tell them you're about to go to Cingular, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coverage, so outside of big cities or major interstates you'd have ZERO > coverage. Since AT&T converted much of its TDMA 800 over to GSM 800 (850), and with many new AT&T roaming agreements with some regional carriers, AT&T has wonderful GSM coverage WAY off of major interstates and FAR from major cities in Minnesota. The Iron Range and Arrowhead regions are quite well covered where there is any population at all. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >Since AT&T converted much of its TDMA 800 over to GSM 800 (850), and No, they didn't. There was no conversion, it is an overlay. The cabinets (GSM) have been installed right next to to the TDMA/AMPS cabinets without them even being opened up. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >>Since AT&T converted much of its TDMA 800 over to GSM 800 (850), and > >No, they didn't. There was no conversion, it is an overlay. The cabinets (GSM) >have been installed right next to to the TDMA/AMPS cabinets without them even >being opened up. I think this is a semantic point. When GSM850 is "overlayed", a certain number of TDMA/AMPS channels are deactivated and GSM850 activated on the freed-up frequencies. The TDMA/AMPS cabinets may not be physically opened, but the software on them is certainly reconfigured. > >>Since AT&T converted much of its TDMA 800 over to GSM 800 (850), and > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the freed-up frequencies. The TDMA/AMPS cabinets may not be physically > opened, but the software on them is certainly reconfigured. Same result for the end user. More GSM, less TDMA. > What about roaming? How much do I pay for that? The price I quoted included the Fair & Flexible America add-on to cover roaming. Good job on the math. You've done your homework, without a doubt. It sounds like you've made your decision. Sorry to see you go, but I wish you well. Signature-+- RX_ O/Siris I work for SprintPCS I *don't* speak for them. > Not necessarily. I have found a true nationwide plan, that will give > me 50 less anytime minutes a month, and more N&W minues, but with [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > second line will cost about $60.00 per month before the added > regulatory fees and taxes. All of Sprint's small prices increases over the past 2 years allow other carriers to easily underprice it when only checking advertised plans. > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no > roaming" that the ads promised. You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon, where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming. Period. This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual context of that claim. > You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at > Verizon, where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* > roaming at the same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS > network, you're not roaming. Period. That's one of the silliest statements I ever heard. If you have a Verizon account, either you are on the Verizon network, the extended network, or roaming. How can you be on two things at once? Sounds like another one of Sprint's bogus made up lies, akin to their claiming PCS means Pretty Clear Sound, and they invented it, and every one else stole it from them. Reminds me of Al Gore inventing the Internet.. Hmmm Wonder if he has anything to do with Sprint? > > You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at > > Verizon, where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > me of Al Gore inventing the Internet.. Hmmm Wonder if he has anything to do > with Sprint? For all intents and purposes Al Gore did invent the internet. He pushed the bill for the Government to take and fund the move to move the internet out of Government and Research Institutions and open it up to everyone. Without that you'd still need to be in the bowels of MIT to use the internet. <http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg 00052.html > For all intents and purposes Al Gore did invent the internet. He > pushed the bill for the Government to take and fund the move to move [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg > 00052.html> If you are gonna post utterly silly, idiotic, wrong crap, at least use a smiley so people know you are joking. One of the first sentences at the begging of the article even says: "No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community." Sure looks like an absolute statement, FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!, proving he didn't invent it, and that it was a lie. > > For all intents and purposes Al Gore did invent the internet. He > > pushed the bill for the Government to take and fund the move to move [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Sure looks like an absolute statement, FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!, proving he > didn't invent it, and that it was a lie. The fact that you can use it, means as far as you're concerned AL Gore invented it, unless you're at MIT or Naval Research Labs. >>> For all intents and purposes Al Gore did invent the internet. He >>> pushed the bill for the Government to take and fund the move to move >>> the internet out of Government and Research Institutions and open it >>> up to everyone. Without that you'd still need to be in the bowels of >>> MIT to use the internet. <http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg >>> 00052.html> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The fact that you can use it, means as far as you're concerned AL Gore > invented it, unless you're at MIT or Naval Research Labs. Since 1971, Purdue University, back when it was still called Arpanet and developed by the Defense Agency. I can say definatively that your above statement is incorrect. Funny thing, I went to Purdue, got my Doctorate, worked there on the project, yet never went to MIT or worked at the Naval Research Labs. Funny how someone can work on legislation 20+ years AFTER the invention and everyday use, and then claim that "he" invented it. Sorry, but I worked with hundreds of people on the software/implementation/distribution/etc and never even heard of Al Gore, come to think of it, was he even a senator back when The defense agency started the project? Did he have anything to do with funding? Did he have anything to do with the people that did the actual work years earlier getting paid? I think not.... So what does the hard work of hundreds/thousands of people mean? Obviously to gore treating them like sh.t, and stealing their hard work of years, nothing. Sorry, I look at him as a glory grabbing liar and thief. > >>> For all intents and purposes Al Gore did invent the internet. He > >>> pushed the bill for the Government to take and fund the move to move [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > developed by the Defense Agency. I can say definatively that your above > statement is incorrect. Fine MIT and other universities, but you didnt get to Arapanet from home in 1983 even. > Funny thing, I went to Purdue, got my Doctorate, > worked there on the project, yet never went to MIT or worked at the Naval [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sh.t, and stealing their hard work of years, nothing. Sorry, I look at him > as a glory grabbing liar and thief. > Fine MIT and other universities, but you didnt get to Arapanet from > home in 1983 even. Wrong. In 1980, I was sending email over ARPANET from my living room, with nothing more than a 1200 bps modem and a VT100 terminal. Not too many years later (1985?), I used the same setup (as well as home computers running CP/M and MS-DOS) to access Usenet newsgroups via telnet to Unix systems on the Net. Al Gore "invented" the Internet? Not! [This is really OT for these groups, but I couldn't let that stand.] > > Fine MIT and other universities, but you didnt get to Arapanet from > > home in 1983 even. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > running CP/M and MS-DOS) to access Usenet newsgroups via telnet to Unix > systems on the Net. There was no WWW until 1989 and thats what most folks think of as the Internet. You were certainly in a 1% of 1% that did go to Arapanet from home. Congratulations. Even today, most folks wouldn't know a VT52 or a Wyse or a VT100. P.S. In 1980 there were no 1200 bps modems. They came in about 1984. <http://www.cyberroach.com/analog/an19/hayes_1200.htm> $699 for a Hayes 1200 modem in 1984. > There was no WWW until 1989 and thats what most folks think of as the > Internet. The "Net" consists of much more than the World Wide Web and did so *long* (more than a decade) before 1989. Most folks are uninformed. > You were certainly in a 1% of 1% that did go to Arapanet > from home. Congratulations. Even today, most folks wouldn't know a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > $699 for a Hayes 1200 modem in 1984. P.S. Please stop arguing what you don't know. Hayes did not invent the modem. My first personally-owned home modem, purchased in 1979 for ca. $800 wholesale, was an Anderson-Jacobsen 1259 "triple" modem (equivalent to the Racal-Vadic 3451 model). This supported Bell 100-300 bps and 1200 bps standards, as well as the 1200 bps Vadic format favored by many commercial data services. [ Before that (as early as 1971), I was using an employer-supplied Bell dataset (110 Baud) with an ASR-33 Teletype from home, followed by various 300 bps Bell and Racal modems and video terminals starting with a Lear-Siegler ADM 3A. Those were the days... :-) ] P.S.S. Let's stop the OT chatter, ok? This is a bit far afield from wireless phones. > > There was no WWW until 1989 and thats what most folks think of as the > > Internet. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > bps standards, as well as the 1200 bps Vadic format favored by many > commercial data services. Then you were 1% of 1% of 1% or less. And you still didn't get to the Web in 1980. > And you still didn't get to the Web in 1980. Never said I did. But I sent messages just like this one in 1980. And I don't need the Web to do so even in 2004. And we still don't owe the Internet to Al Gore. > And you still didn't get to the Web in 1980. You are such a stupid friggen jerk. NOBODY EXCEPTG YOU STUPID, said ANYTHING about 1980!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gads, you have one of the densist stupidist brains on the planet. > > And you still didn't get to the Web in 1980. > > You are such a stupid friggen jerk. NOBODY EXCEPTG YOU STUPID, said ANYTHING > about 1980!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Gads, you have one of the densist stupidist brains on the planet. Don't worry about it PP. Ole Phillipe / Robert M. is well known for sidestepping issues and redirecting with false statements ... Bob >>> And you still didn't get to the Web in 1980. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bob Thanks, As I wrote that, I was watching a TV commercial about the guy that got a sports car and went to a doctor with a "lead foot", it occurred to me that with lead being dense, I should have mentioned lead-brain, instead of just dense. Oh well, typical should-a/would-a/could-a :) In alt.cellular.sprintpcs "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote: > There was no WWW until 1989 and thats what most folks think of as the > Internet. And unless Al Gore suddenly became Tim Berners-Lee, he didn't invent the WWW 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. That's right - the guy who invented the world wide web is British - just read this article the other day... http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_hi_te/web_founder_4 > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote: > > And unless Al Gore suddenly became Tim Berners-Lee, he didn't invent > the WWW either. In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Alan M. <letsgohokies@hotmail.com> wrote: > That's right - the guy who invented the world wide web is British - just > read this article the other day... With all the other people making money off the web, it's about time he did 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. On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:36:10 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote: >> > The fact that you can use it, means as far as you're concerned AL Gore >> > invented it, unless you're at MIT or Naval Research Labs. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Fine MIT and other universities, but you didnt get to Arapanet from home >in 1983 even. On the contrary, with a 300 baud modem and a University account, you most certainly could get to ARPAnet from home in 1983. It wasn't easy, but it was doable. >> Funny thing, I went to Purdue, got my Doctorate, >> worked there on the project, yet never went to MIT or worked at the Naval [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> sh.t, and stealing their hard work of years, nothing. Sorry, I look at him >> as a glory grabbing liar and thief. Deb In alt.cellular.sprintpcs "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote: > The fact that you can use it, means as far as you're concerned AL Gore > invented it, unless you're at MIT or Naval Research Labs. Oh balogne. I was using it at the Univerisity of Minnesota before Al Gore was Vice President. Ever here of Gopher? Do you remember Mosaic, the first GUI based browser? Do you remember Netscape 1.0(n)? Hmm, Al Gore had NOTHING to do with that. I used to surf the net for free on a 4800 baud modem using a dial-up SLIP connection to the University of Minnesota with Mozilla and then Netscape. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > =3BSU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Remember it, The NYS Museum library is still using it :-) Elector > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thomas T. Veldhouse > > Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Exactly my point, the internet was restricted to Universities and Miltary. Who got access to Univ of Minn computers in 1983? Not you folks with your home computers. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 4800 baud modem using a dial-up SLIP connection to the University of > Minnesota with Mozilla and then Netscape. Gotcha beat Tom. I was cruising bulletin boards nationwide back in 84, with my mighty Kaypro 10 CPM computer and a 300 baud modem ... :) Geez, I'm starting to feel old, when I think of my ole Kaypro ... Before I got rid of it, I do remember using a browser of some sorts, but don't have a clue what the name for it was ... Bob ::still pipping away:: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob ::still pipping away:: If you think you feel old, I wrote BBS software, and ran one (MMMMMM#1) for 7 years starting in 1982. I remember Terminal Emulators back then, don't recall browsers.... Gads, feeling old, time to take my Arthritis medicine.... :) > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Gads, feeling old, time to take my Arthritis medicine.... :) How about a 300 baud accoustic coupling Novation modem? >The fact that you can use it, means as far as you're concerned AL Gore >invented it, unless you're at MIT or Naval Research Labs. The first Interop confernece was in 1988. By that time, the Internet had already been opened up to public, commercial interests. Al Gore was elected VP in 1992. Further, he never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. That is both a misquote, and without context. -- Larry > >The fact that you can use it, means as far as you're concerned AL Gore > >invented it, unless you're at MIT or Naval Research Labs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -- Larry What Al Gore did that opened up the Internet was promote the legislation to do that while he was a Senator. "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:rmarkoff-CFAB66.17143717062004@news01.east.earthlink.net... > What Al Gore did that opened up the Internet was promote the legislation > to do that while he was a Senator. And which particular piece of legislation would that be? Somehow I don't recall Gore being a significant player in promoting the Internet. SignatureJohn Richards Do you remember the list containing all the "Goreisms"? That was on it as well. He was famous for making politically convenient lies; his problem was it was very easy to show they weren't true. > "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:rmarkoff-CFAB66.17143717062004@news01.east.earthlink.net... > And which particular piece of legislation would that be? > Somehow I don't recall Gore being a significant player in promoting the Internet. > Do you remember the list containing all the "Goreisms"? Are you still upset that Al Gore won the election in 2000? "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in news:rmarkoff- E1FD64.06530418062004@news01.east.earthlink.net: > Are you still upset that Al Gore won the election in 2000? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message