Virgin Mobile to Begin Offering $40 Unlimited Prepaid 3G BroadbandService Tomorrow

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/204036/virgin_mobile_announces_unlimited_mobile_broadband_plan.html"
>
> Pretty good deal if you can live with Sprint's native 3G network coverage.

I posted a similar thread awhile ago -
but the thread quickly degenerated into a Sprint vs Others discussion
and totally lost sight of the impact of the posted title/topic....

---

› See More: Virgin Mobile to Begin Offering $40 Unlimited Prepaid 3G BroadbandService Tomorrow

On 8/26/2010 1:33 PM, ps56k wrote:
> "SMS"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/204036/virgin_mobile_announces_unlimited_mobile_broadband_plan.html"
>>
>> Pretty good deal if you can live with Sprint's native 3G network coverage.
>
> I posted a similar thread awhile ago -
> but the thread quickly degenerated into a Sprint vs Others discussion
> and totally lost sight of the impact of the posted title/topic....

As did this one. When you let emotion take the place of facts and logic
that's what happens.

No one disputes the fact that Sprint's native network has a much smaller
coverage area than AT&T or Verizon, but it seems like it's an affront to
some people when you point out that the limited Sprint-only coverage on
Virgin, for both voice and data, needs to be considered when making a
purchasing decision.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:28:27 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/26/2010 1:33 PM, ps56k wrote:
>> "SMS"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/204036/virgin_mobile_announces_unlimited_mobile_broadband_plan.html"
>>>
>>> Pretty good deal if you can live with Sprint's native 3G network coverage.
>>
>> I posted a similar thread awhile ago -
>> but the thread quickly degenerated into a Sprint vs Others discussion
>> and totally lost sight of the impact of the posted title/topic....
>
>As did this one. When you let emotion take the place of facts and logic
>that's what happens.
>
>No one disputes the fact that Sprint's native network has a much smaller
>coverage area than AT&T or Verizon, but it seems like it's an affront to
>some people when you point out that the limited Sprint-only coverage on
>Virgin, for both voice and data, needs to be considered when making a
>purchasing decision.

The affronts are your repeatedly misstatements, exaggerations,
suppositions, and made-up "facts".

--
John

"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

On 8/26/2010 5:28 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 8/26/2010 1:33 PM, ps56k wrote:
>> "SMS"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/204036/virgin_mobile_announces_unlimited_mobile_broadband_plan.html"
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty good deal if you can live with Sprint's native 3G network
>>> coverage.
>>
>> I posted a similar thread awhile ago -
>> but the thread quickly degenerated into a Sprint vs Others discussion
>> and totally lost sight of the impact of the posted title/topic....
>
> As did this one. When you let emotion take the place of facts and logic
> that's what happens.
>
> No one disputes the fact that Sprint's native network has a much smaller
> coverage area than AT&T or Verizon, but it seems like it's an affront to
> some people when you point out that the limited Sprint-only coverage on
> Virgin, for both voice and data, needs to be considered when making a
> purchasing decision.

Its not only Virgin it also affects Sprint customers. My buddy works for
a company that had ~ 30 Nextel phones. They didn't have coverage in some
key areas and a few folks liked the PTT. So Sprint offered them a deal
and sent them a box of PTT phones that use Sprints network. They quickly
found out how useless that was because a good portion of the locations
where they use the phones only has 1X. That didn't matter to some
because they could roam onto VZW but the PTT needs EvDO but won't work
when roaming.

On 8/26/2010 6:01 PM, John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:28:27 -0700, in
> <[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/2010 1:33 PM, ps56k wrote:
>>> "SMS"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/204036/virgin_mobile_announces_unlimited_mobile_broadband_plan.html"
>>>>
>>>> Pretty good deal if you can live with Sprint's native 3G network coverage.
>>>
>>> I posted a similar thread awhile ago -
>>> but the thread quickly degenerated into a Sprint vs Others discussion
>>> and totally lost sight of the impact of the posted title/topic....
>>
>> As did this one. When you let emotion take the place of facts and logic
>> that's what happens.
>>
>> No one disputes the fact that Sprint's native network has a much smaller
>> coverage area than AT&T or Verizon, but it seems like it's an affront to
>> some people when you point out that the limited Sprint-only coverage on
>> Virgin, for both voice and data, needs to be considered when making a
>> purchasing decision.
>
> The affronts are your repeatedly misstatements, exaggerations,
> suppositions, and made-up "facts".
>

And then there is that pesky map showing Sprints smaller network. Of
course you are omniscient so you know the map is wrong...

On 8/26/2010 3:26 PM, George wrote:

> Its not only Virgin it also affects Sprint customers. My buddy works for
> a company that had ~ 30 Nextel phones. They didn't have coverage in some
> key areas and a few folks liked the PTT. So Sprint offered them a deal
> and sent them a box of PTT phones that use Sprints network. They quickly
> found out how useless that was because a good portion of the locations
> where they use the phones only has 1X. That didn't matter to some
> because they could roam onto VZW but the PTT needs EvDO but won't work
> when roaming.

My wife's company had a similar Nextel issue, but thankfully they dumped
Sprint/Nextel entirely and moved to Verizon. The PTT was actually an
annoyance because they had to turn off the PTT when at a client site
because of privacy laws. Someone in the past at the company had thought
that PTT was a great idea, but in reality it was useless, and it came
with Nextel's abysmal coverage. Since the employees have to travel to
the far reaches of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, where there is no
Nextel, no Sprint, and no T-Mobile, coverage they finally dumped the
Nextel turkey.

On 8/26/2010 3:26 PM, George wrote:

<snip>

> And then there is that pesky map showing Sprints smaller network. Of
> course you are omniscient so you know the map is wrong...

Unfortunately, it seems that many threads get hijacked by the same few
people that believe that they are omniscient, but in reality that are
what we affectionately refer to as "know-it-alls-that-know-nothing."

You need to keep a crib sheet next to your computer so you can translate
their Usenet musings into reality:

"Wrong" = Right.

"Good Scramble" = You clarified your response but I'm too stubborn to
admit that you're right so instead I'll claim that you changed your
position.

"Grow up" = I can't argue with your facts but I can at least attack you.

"Grow up and get a life" = see "Grow up."

"Nonsense" = You present a clear case but I don't like it that you do.

"Complete nonsense" = see "Nonsense."

"Nope" = Yep.

"Not True" = True.

"Rubbish" = You're obviously right, and everyone knows it, but I don't
want to admit it so this is the best I can do.

"Wrong on all counts" = Correct on all counts.

"Straw Man Fallacy" = You’ve described my position accurately, and I’m
embarrassed about it so I’ll pretend I never stated what I actually stated.

“Google is your friend” = I can’t find anything using Google that
supports my position.

"What utter nonsense" = Absolutely true.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:45:44 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My wife's company had a similar Nextel issue, but thankfully they dumped
>Sprint/Nextel entirely and moved to Verizon. The PTT was actually an
>annoyance because they had to turn off the PTT when at a client site
>because of privacy laws. Someone in the past at the company had thought
>that PTT was a great idea, but in reality it was useless, and it came
>with Nextel's abysmal coverage. Since the employees have to travel to
>the far reaches of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, where there is no
>Nextel, no Sprint, and no T-Mobile, coverage they finally dumped the
>Nextel turkey.

Random observation: people can say what they want about you, but I
have to give you credit for possessing an amazing ability to pull
anecdotes seemingly out of thin air as they are needed. Whether it's
your wife's company, colleagues who call you out of the blue to
complain about their wireless service, or other friends, relatives,
and neighbors, there seems to be no end to your ability to cough up
anecdotes to suit the position of the day. Bravo, well done.

--
TD

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:51:17 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/26/2010 3:26 PM, George wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> And then there is that pesky map showing Sprints smaller network. Of
>> course you are omniscient so you know the map is wrong...
>
>Unfortunately, it seems that many threads get hijacked by the same few
>people that believe that they are omniscient, but in reality that are
>what we affectionately refer to as "know-it-alls-that-know-nothing."

You should know.

--
John

"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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:45:44 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/26/2010 3:26 PM, George wrote:
>
>> Its not only Virgin it also affects Sprint customers. My buddy works for
>> a company that had ~ 30 Nextel phones. They didn't have coverage in some
>> key areas and a few folks liked the PTT. So Sprint offered them a deal
>> and sent them a box of PTT phones that use Sprints network. They quickly
>> found out how useless that was because a good portion of the locations
>> where they use the phones only has 1X. That didn't matter to some
>> because they could roam onto VZW but the PTT needs EvDO but won't work
>> when roaming.
>
>My wife's company had a similar Nextel issue, but thankfully they dumped
>Sprint/Nextel entirely and moved to Verizon. The PTT was actually an
>annoyance because they had to turn off the PTT when at a client site
>because of privacy laws. Someone in the past at the company had thought
>that PTT was a great idea, but in reality it was useless, and it came
>with Nextel's abysmal coverage. Since the employees have to travel to
>the far reaches of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, where there is no
>Nextel, no Sprint, and no T-Mobile, coverage they finally dumped the
>Nextel turkey.

Yet another anecdote, followed by supposition and made-up "facts".

--
John

"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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:07:43 -0500, in
<[email protected]>, Terry D
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:45:44 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>My wife's company had a similar Nextel issue, but thankfully they dumped
>>Sprint/Nextel entirely and moved to Verizon. The PTT was actually an
>>annoyance because they had to turn off the PTT when at a client site
>>because of privacy laws. Someone in the past at the company had thought
>>that PTT was a great idea, but in reality it was useless, and it came
>>with Nextel's abysmal coverage. Since the employees have to travel to
>>the far reaches of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, where there is no
>>Nextel, no Sprint, and no T-Mobile, coverage they finally dumped the
>>Nextel turkey.
>
>Random observation: people can say what they want about you, but I
>have to give you credit for possessing an amazing ability to pull
>anecdotes seemingly out of thin air as they are needed. Whether it's
>your wife's company, colleagues who call you out of the blue to
>complain about their wireless service, or other friends, relatives,
>and neighbors, there seems to be no end to your ability to cough up
>anecdotes to suit the position of the day. Bravo, well done.

What it takes is a fertile imagination and a total disregard for truth.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On 8/26/2010 4:07 PM, Terry D wrote:

<snip>

> Random observation: people can say what they want about you, but I
> have to give you credit for possessing an amazing ability to pull
> anecdotes seemingly out of thin air as they are needed.

Thank you. Once you become an expert in a particular field people call
you endlessly for free advice so the anecdotes pile up.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
>
>>Second, PCS 1900
>>MHz (Sprint and T-Mobile) has shorter range and poorer building
>>penetration, so you need far more towers in order to compensate.
>
> Nope, as authoritative citations posted here have proved.
> I guess(tm) those are "inconvenient facts" you simply ignore.
>
>>Again
>>Sprint and T-Mobile were late to the game and got stuck with the less
>>desirable spectrum.
>
> Again, that's beating a very old and long since dead horse.
>
>>I've been to hearings where T-Mobile was trying to get approval of
>>towers and in each case the planning commission and city council raised
>>the question of why Verizon was able to provide coverage without needing
>>to construct towers in the specific area. The T-Mobile spokesperson
>>stated the facts--that the T-Mobile system because of its technology
>>could not cover the area in question from as far a distance as the
>>Verizon system.
>
> Your only "proof" is a vague and meaningless personal anecdote.
> Actually just more supposition and made-up "facts".
>

John,

ZERO "authoritative citations" have EVER been posted here negating the rules of physics.
By you - or anyone else.

YOU have argued (extremely unsuccessfully) in the past concerning your BELIEF that
the physics of wave propagation don't apply when discussing 800Mhz vs 1900Mhz.

Key word above is "belief". It most certainly isn't fact. The rules of physics are (fact).
No matter how much COMPLETE bull **** you spout.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>
> The affronts are your repeatedly misstatements, exaggerations,
> suppositions, and made-up "facts".
> > --

Coming from YOU John, this is classic!!

I can think of FEW (if any) here over the years that have done the above more than you.
(Well maybe one)

On 8/26/2010 4:46 PM, Nessnet wrote:

> YOU have argued (extremely unsuccessfully) in the past concerning your
> BELIEF that
> the physics of wave propagation don't apply when discussing 800Mhz vs
> 1900Mhz.

He almost certainly does not really believe what he writes about 800 Mhz
versus 1900 MHz so it's rather irrelevant. The facts regarding PCS
versus cellular have been cited endlessly over the past decade.

The bottom line is that Sprint and T-Mobile are at a significant
disadvantage in terms of coverage. In suburban areas is very difficult
to add enough towers for good coverage because of the NIMBY issue. In
rural areas where NIMBY is not a problem a PCS carrier needs to install
more cells because of the shorter range of 1900 MHz. In dense urban
areas the concentration of towers is higher than the minimum required
(for complete coverage) in order to increase capacity, but even there
the PCS carriers are at a disadvantage because the higher frequency
signals penetrate walls and floors less well.

The Bay Area is a good place to look at quality of service issue because
the terrain is diverse and because there is mixture of urban, suburban,
and rural areas very close to each other. You can use T-Mobile and
Sprint without a problem in the dense urban cores, but out in the
suburbs and rural areas their quality of service is unacceptable.