John Navas

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:40:24 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a8bb01$0$84198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>DTC wrote:
>
>> His proof consisted of, "I experienced it and therefore it happened" and
>> "I spoke with an engineer friend and he said it was certainly possible."
>>
>> He has consistently failed to provide credible professional links that
>> any U.S. carrier has deployed extended (range) GSM.
>
>Heck, any links at all would be a start! He can find credible links
>later. Navas _never_ provides links or citations. How would that even be
>possible since he makes all this stuff up?

That's actually you, Steven.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

 

SMS

Ness-Net wrote:

<snip>

> MANY, MANY more....
>
>
> Do you seriously want to keep spouting your complete and utter nonsense??

He started with this nonsense back when Cingular had their GSM network
in the western region at 1900 MHz only. It was a very poor network,
which was over-sold by Pac Bell (with very low prices). Besides the lack
of coverage, it also suffered from tremendous capacity issues. After the
buyout of AT&T Wireless, Cingular got the valuable 800 MHz network in
the west, and sold the 1900 MHz network to T-Mobile. To T-Mobile's
credit, they are really working to fix this network. They frequently
show up at my city's planning commission meetings seeking approval for
new cells, and I expect that the same is occurring in other areas they
serve.

There is no reason for him to keep lying about this. AT&T now has the
sweet 800 MHz spectrum in the west, and in more areas of the country
than Verizon. I.e. in south Florida, Cingular had one of the 800 MHz
networks, and AT&T Wireless had the other, so now AT&T has both.

Thanks for all the citations, but I'm sure you've figured out by now
that a) Navas never cites but demands that everyone else cit, and b)
even when you do provide extensive citations he simply ignores them.

One thing that Verizon has apparently done in their 1900 MHz markets is
to make a big effort to compensate for the less desirable spectrum by
adding more cells. Look at Miami, Tampa, and Dallas, where in each case
Verizon at 1900 MHz did better in terms of "Dropped Calls" and "No
Service" than AT&T at 800 MHz.


[Note: alt.cellular.attws added to follow-up. Cingular no longer exists.
alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service. Please add alt.cellular.attws to follow-ups from
alt.cellular.cingular, and do not post new posts to alt.cellular.cingular]

Thomas T. Veldhouse

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the citations, but I'm sure you've figured out by now
> that a) Navas never cites but demands that everyone else cit, and b)
> even when you do provide extensive citations he simply ignores them.
>

I would like to note that cross-post novice does indeed post citations from
time to time. He did for me just yesterday or the day before. They weren't
particularily supportive though.

> One thing that Verizon has apparently done in their 1900 MHz markets is
> to make a big effort to compensate for the less desirable spectrum by
> adding more cells. Look at Miami, Tampa, and Dallas, where in each case
> Verizon at 1900 MHz did better in terms of "Dropped Calls" and "No
> Service" than AT&T at 800 MHz.
>
>
> [Note: alt.cellular.attws added to follow-up. Cingular no longer exists.
> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
> Wireless Service. Please add alt.cellular.attws to follow-ups from
> alt.cellular.cingular, and do not post new posts to alt.cellular.cingular]

Forgetting to follow you own advice here?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

SMS

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for all the citations, but I'm sure you've figured out by now
>> that a) Navas never cites but demands that everyone else cit, and b)
>> even when you do provide extensive citations he simply ignores them.
>>
>
> I would like to note that cross-post novice does indeed post citations from
> time to time. He did for me just yesterday or the day before. They weren't
> particularily supportive though.
>
>> One thing that Verizon has apparently done in their 1900 MHz markets is
>> to make a big effort to compensate for the less desirable spectrum by
>> adding more cells. Look at Miami, Tampa, and Dallas, where in each case
>> Verizon at 1900 MHz did better in terms of "Dropped Calls" and "No
>> Service" than AT&T at 800 MHz.
>>
>>
>> [Note: alt.cellular.attws added to follow-up. Cingular no longer exists.
>> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>> Wireless Service. Please add alt.cellular.attws to follow-ups from
>> alt.cellular.cingular, and do not post new posts to alt.cellular.cingular]
>
> Forgetting to follow you own advice here?

No. For new posts they should be posted only to alt.cellular.attws.
However for existing posts in alt.cellular.cingular, it makes sense to
not break up the thread.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Forgetting to follow you own advice here?
>
> No. For new posts they should be posted only to alt.cellular.attws.
> However for existing posts in alt.cellular.cingular, it makes sense to
> not break up the thread.

Not to me. As time passes, there is a good chance that some servers will no
longer carry alt.cellular.cingular. So, maintain the cross-post won't be
possible. For me, I don't subscribe to it and since the subject here is AT&T
and Verizon, it seems those two groups are perhaps the only two that should be
posted too.

That is my two-cents. Anyway, I for one am done with the cingular group as I
have no use for it ... if I leave Verizon, it will be for AT&T and not
Cingular.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

John Navas

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:55:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47ab1b3b$0$84238$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>He started with this nonsense back when Cingular had their GSM network
>in the western region at 1900 MHz only. It was a very poor network,
>which was over-sold by Pac Bell (with very low prices). Besides the lack
>of coverage, it also suffered from tremendous capacity issues.

In fact it was a pretty good network in general, particularly in the San
Francisco Bay Area. While there were some spots at certain times with
capacity issues, these were addresses as the network was built out,
particularly after the joint venture between Cingular and T-Mobile.

>After the
>buyout of AT&T Wireless, Cingular got the valuable 800 MHz network in
>the west, and sold the 1900 MHz network to T-Mobile. To T-Mobile's
>credit, they are really working to fix this network. They frequently
>show up at my city's planning commission meetings seeking approval for
>new cells, and I expect that the same is occurring in other areas they
>serve.

This is no different from the time of the joint venture.

>There is no reason for him to keep lying about this.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

>Thanks for all the citations, but I'm sure you've figured out by now
>that a) Navas never cites but demands that everyone else cit, and b)
>even when you do provide extensive citations he simply ignores them.

In fact I post far more citations than you do, and more than most other
posters as well, as can be easily verified with Google.

>One thing that Verizon has apparently done in their 1900 MHz markets is
>to make a big effort to compensate for the less desirable spectrum by
>adding more cells. Look at Miami, Tampa, and Dallas, where in each case
>Verizon at 1900 MHz did better in terms of "Dropped Calls" and "No
>Service" than AT&T at 800 MHz.

Your usual Verizon plug. One wonders what you're doing here. Well ...
not really.

>[Note: alt.cellular.attws added to follow-up. Cingular no longer exists.
> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service. Please add alt.cellular.attws to follow-ups from
>alt.cellular.cingular, and do not post new posts to alt.cellular.cingular]

Your agenda is showing again.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

John Navas

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:12:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47ab3b5e$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>> Forgetting to follow you own advice here?
>
>No. For new posts they should be posted only to alt.cellular.attws.
>However for existing posts in alt.cellular.cingular, it makes sense to
>not break up the thread.

What you've been doing for some time with your rude cross-posting.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Thomas T. Veldhouse

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:12:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47ab3b5e$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>>> Forgetting to follow you own advice here?
>>
>>No. For new posts they should be posted only to alt.cellular.attws.
>>However for existing posts in alt.cellular.cingular, it makes sense to
>>not break up the thread.
>
> What you've been doing for some time with your rude cross-posting.
>

OK, was that a statement, a question, somethign else? Certainly ambiguous
attempt at English.

In any event, YOU are the one posting an invalid charter in THIS newsgroup ...
so talking about "rude cross-posting" is the epitomy of rude cross-posting.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead