Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 246
  1. #61
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:50:53
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now,
    >just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate
    >and unbiased.


    Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others.

    >What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay
    >Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or
    >AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often
    >not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage,
    >Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin.


    Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



    See More: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon,2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular




  2. #62
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    Michael Wise wrote:

    > The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in
    > the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled
    > them before being absorbed into the VZW morph.


    The Blue Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS network was indeed very, very good.
    The reason that Cingular coverage, even with the combined Blue and
    Orange networks is now so much worse than Verizon, is because there are
    almost no phones that can access the AMPs part of the Blue network. This
    may not be an issue in some parts of the country, but in the San
    Francisco Bay Area, there are many isolated and remote areas where the
    only coverage is still AMPS. And most subscribers to a carrier never
    really understood that their phone was switching to the old analog
    network, they just knew that their phone worked. I go hiking a great
    deal, and in the Santa Cruz mountains, the East Bay Hills, and Marin
    county, there is often ONLY AMPS coverage, no GSM, no TDMA, no CDMA.

    There are vast areas of the U.S. (i.e. much of Alaska) that are covered
    only by AMPS (and that will continue to be covered only by AMPS into the
    foreseeable future due to sparse population and the expense of
    installing digital service which requires many more towers than AMPS)).

    It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were
    popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and
    smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog.
    Nokia used to offer an "analog sleeve" for some of their GSM phones, but
    it wasn't a popular product, and was never offered in the Cingular areas
    where Cingular lacked an AMPS network.

    Ironically, the evolution of the B side cellular network began with
    Pacific Bell's PacTel Cellular in 1984. Then Pacific Bell sold the B
    side network to AirTouch, then Vodafone bought AirTouch, then Cellular
    One was a brand from AT&T and Vodafone AirTouch until Vodafone AirTouch
    dropped out to become part of the newly formed Verizon Wireless on the A
    side. Verizon was comprised of Vodafone AirTouch, Bell Atlantic, and
    GTE. The Pacific Bell re-entered the cellular business with their 1900
    Mhz GSM offering.

    I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't
    care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or
    T-Mobile are probably just fine.



  3. #63
    Michael Wise
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    In article <[email protected]>,
    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:50:53
    > -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now,
    > >just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate
    > >and unbiased.

    >
    > Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others.
    >
    > >What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay
    > >Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or
    > >AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often
    > >not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage,
    > >Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin.

    >
    > Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.



    No they don't.


    --Mike



  4. #64
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    Michael Wise wrote:

    > No they don't.
    >
    > --Mike


    Mike, why do you even respond?

    "You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up the
    facts." Eric Hauser, former press Secretary to Bill Bradley



  5. #65
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:06:54
    > -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
    >>spectrum more efficiently.

    >
    > Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM
    > are
    > roughly the same.


    Shown with what? Your unprofessional, uncontrolled basic user "tests" that
    fall far short of even the most basic industry test? Your opinion as
    nothing more than a common user does not substitute for real numbers.

    >
    >>This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In
    >>the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with
    >>far, far better coverage, and coverage in many parts of the Bay Area
    >>where the other carriers have no coverage at all.

    >
    > Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a
    > rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
    >


    Quit whining.





  6. #66
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on 7 Dec 2005
    > 05:20:11 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
    >>isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
    >>I suspect many others are having a different user experience.

    >
    > I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't
    > stay in one little spot -- just the opposite.


    And others have poor coverage- what's your point?

    >
    >>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
    >>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
    >>one doesn't count. ; - )

    >
    > Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is
    > to
    > infer it.


    As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience.
    This would disqualify you as one who can infer.

    >Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
    > coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange
    > SIMs
    > (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
    > SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best
    > coverage
    > currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which
    > is
    > assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:


    They most certainly accurately reflect the current state of affoairs- that's
    why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story of
    how not to merge in the cellular industry.

    >
    > Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular)
    > networks
    > here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single
    > network
    > coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
    > One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
    > Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available.
    > In
    > fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM
    > coverage is
    > much better than Verizon.
    >
    > --

    That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was
    opinion. No facts- no analysis.

    You'll have to do better than that.





  7. #67
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:50:53
    > -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now,
    >>just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate
    >>and unbiased.

    >
    > Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others.


    True, but statements made in the articles accompanying the last three
    cellular surveys show an alarming lack of knowledge in cellular technology
    and business practices. They don't do cellular very well.

    >
    >>What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay
    >>Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or
    >>AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often
    >>not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage,
    >>Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin.

    >
    > Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
    >


    You have no proof, do you?





  8. #68
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:54:09
    > -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Mike T. wrote:
    >>
    >>> and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is better.

    >>
    >>The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of 50,000 people.
    >>It's not hype. It's reality.

    >
    > It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much better.
    >

    Powers is going to say the same thing- you read it here first.





  9. #69
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:34:01
    > -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Michael Wise wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yes, the rest of us who motor about the Bay Area as well as the subset
    >>> of the 50,000 people surveyed will just have to agree to disagree with
    >>> one or two people here.

    >>
    >>LOL. It's SOP for Navas to make up the stories about Cingular. Nothing
    >>ever changes.

    >
    > Pot ... kettle ... black.
    >
    > --

    John...Navas...moron.





  10. #70
    Michael Wise
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    In article <[email protected]>,
    SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Michael Wise wrote:
    >
    > > The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in
    > > the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled
    > > them before being absorbed into the VZW morph.

    >
    > The Blue Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS network was indeed very, very good.
    > The reason that Cingular coverage, even with the combined Blue and
    > Orange networks is now so much worse than Verizon, is because there are
    > almost no phones that can access the AMPs part of the Blue network. This
    > may not be an issue in some parts of the country, but in the San
    > Francisco Bay Area, there are many isolated and remote areas where the
    > only coverage is still AMPS. And most subscribers to a carrier never
    > really understood that their phone was switching to the old analog
    > network, they just knew that their phone worked. I go hiking a great
    > deal, and in the Santa Cruz mountains, the East Bay Hills, and Marin
    > county, there is often ONLY AMPS coverage, no GSM, no TDMA, no CDMA.


    I'm very well aware of the reason why. I'm just stating the obvious:
    that Cingular's Bay Area foot print is vastly inferior to VXZ's
    CDMA/AMPS one.


    > There are vast areas of the U.S. (i.e. much of Alaska) that are covered
    > only by AMPS (and that will continue to be covered only by AMPS into the
    > foreseeable future due to sparse population and the expense of
    > installing digital service which requires many more towers than AMPS)).



    Preaching to the choir.

    >
    > It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were
    > popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and
    > smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog.


    That and the fact that its cheaper for carriers to be things like "Pure
    Digital"...which is nothing more than marketing spin to make their
    primarily digital only service sound more attractive when it is in fact
    inferior...at least as far as coverage goes.



    > Ironically, the evolution of the B side cellular network began with
    > Pacific Bell's PacTel Cellular in 1984. Then Pacific Bell sold the B
    > side network to AirTouch, then Vodafone bought AirTouch, then Cellular
    > One was a brand from AT&T and Vodafone AirTouch until Vodafone AirTouch
    > dropped out to become part of the newly formed Verizon Wireless on the A
    > side. Verizon was comprised of Vodafone AirTouch, Bell Atlantic, and
    > GTE. The Pacific Bell re-entered the cellular business with their 1900
    > Mhz GSM offering.


    That's not exactly what happened in all markets.

    in the SF Bay Area, C1 was THE A side carrier and GTE wireless was the B
    side one.

    On the East Coast, Bell Atlantic Mobile (BAM) was the B side carrier. A
    series or mergers with BAM, AirTouch, Vodaphone, and GTE Wireless (all B
    side CDMA...except for Vodaphone, which was E. Coast GSM) produced
    Verizon (from "veritas"). Because AirTouch held stake in the Bay Area A
    side carrier, C1/ATTWS Bay Area, they (Verizon) were forced to divest
    that interest in C1 due to their B side representation. At that point C1
    Bay Area became part of ATTWS (ATTWS had already consolidated A side
    TDMA on the E. Coast).


    C1 Bay Area was never an ATTWS brand...although ATT were investors along
    with AirTouch.


    > I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't
    > care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or
    > T-Mobile are probably just fine.



    Precisely. I personally would not even consider having a phone not
    capable of AMPS and a provider not offering AMPS. There's just too many
    places with no digital signal (whether it be TDMA, CDMA, GSM or PCS
    [CDMA]).


    --Mike



  11. #71
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:50:50
    -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on 7 Dec 2005
    >> 05:20:11 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
    >>>isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
    >>>I suspect many others are having a different user experience.

    >>
    >> I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't
    >> stay in one little spot -- just the opposite.

    >
    >And others have poor coverage- what's your point?


    Just what I wrote, no more and no less. What part of that don't you
    understand?

    >>>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
    >>>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
    >>>one doesn't count. ; - )

    >>
    >> Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is
    >> to
    >> infer it.

    >
    >As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience.
    >This would disqualify you as one who can infer.


    We'll just have to agree to disagree (as usual).

    >> Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
    >> coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange
    >> SIMs
    >> (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
    >> SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best
    >> coverage
    >> currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which
    >> is
    >> assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:

    >
    >They most certainly accurately reflect the current state of affoairs- that's
    >why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story of
    >how not to merge in the cellular industry.


    Nonsense.

    >> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular)
    >> networks
    >> here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single
    >> network
    >> coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
    >> One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
    >> Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available.
    >> In
    >> fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM
    >> coverage is
    >> much better than Verizon.


    >That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was
    >opinion. No facts- no analysis.
    >
    >You'll have to do better than that.


    I did.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  12. #72
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:47:30 -0700,
    "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news[email protected]...
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:06:54
    >> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
    >>>spectrum more efficiently.

    >>
    >> Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM
    >> are
    >> roughly the same.

    >
    >Shown with what? ...


    Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  13. #73
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular


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

    >
    >>>>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
    >>>>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
    >>>>one doesn't count. ; - )
    >>>
    >>> Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do
    >>> is
    >>> to
    >>> infer it.

    >>
    >>As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience.
    >>This would disqualify you as one who can infer.

    >
    > We'll just have to agree to disagree (as usual).


    No we don't- you just need to provide some independent data to support your
    opinions. Problem is, you won't find any.

    >
    >>> Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
    >>> coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange
    >>> SIMs
    >>> (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with
    >>> blue
    >>> SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best
    >>> coverage
    >>> currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices,
    >>> which
    >>> is
    >>> assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:

    >>
    >>They most certainly accurately reflect the current state of affoairs-
    >>that's
    >>why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story
    >>of
    >>how not to merge in the cellular industry.

    >
    > Nonsense.


    Not nonsense at all- they alienated almost half of their new subscriber base
    by charging additional unnecessary fees to have full network functionality
    and coverage available to them. Their customer satisfaction numbers have
    plummeted and their net adds pale in comparison to the competition. I
    haven't looked at churn numbers, but I would expect to see the highest in
    the industry.

    Even with two different paltforms to service, I'd be willing to be that the
    new Sprint has very few (if any) of these growing pains and shows a much
    better pattern of customer satisfaction and synergy at the same point in
    their merger. They are already showing much stronger finanacials.

    >
    >>> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular)
    >>> networks
    >>> here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single
    >>> network
    >>> coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by
    >>> Cellular
    >>> One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to
    >>> PacBell).
    >>> Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available.
    >>> In
    >>> fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM
    >>> coverage is
    >>> much better than Verizon.

    >
    >>That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was
    >>opinion. No facts- no analysis.
    >>
    >>You'll have to do better than that.

    >
    > I did.


    Where? In another newsgroup? You sure didn't do it here.





  14. #74
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Wed, 7 Dec 2005
    > 17:47:30 -0700,
    > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005
    >>> 19:06:54
    >>> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
    >>>>spectrum more efficiently.
    >>>
    >>> Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and
    >>> GSM
    >>> are
    >>> roughly the same.

    >>
    >>Shown with what? ...

    >
    > Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about.
    >


    Your own little user tests are far from authoritative.





  15. #75
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:39:42
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Michael Wise wrote:
    >
    >> No they don't.


    >Mike, why do you even respond?


    Probably because he's more mature than you are.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

    "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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast