Results 16 to 30 of 31
- 07-25-2006, 07:10 PM #16SMSGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgap on market leader Cingular
Scott wrote:
> And yet you are still unable to show verification of this personal opinion.
> Why is that?
My GSM phone is a quad band Motorola phone. The Cingular coverage in the
San Francisco Bay Area improved greatly after the merger, because
Cingular got all that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum and dumped the crappy 1900
Mhz spectrum. But the Cingular coverage still lags Verizon by a lot, as
evidenced by the results of all the independent surveys.
Navas has no verification because there has never been a survey that
showed Cingular to be nearly as good as Verizon.
› See More: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgap on market leader Cingular
- 07-25-2006, 07:38 PM #17SMSGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgap on market leader Cingular
SMS wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> And yet you are still unable to show verification of this personal
>> opinion. Why is that?
>
> My GSM phone is a quad band Motorola phone.
Oops, actually it's a tri-band (850/900/1900 MHz).
- 07-25-2006, 07:47 PM #18SMSGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgap on market leader Cingular
Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Radio Shack actually dumped Verizon due to poor sales performance in
>> 2005,
>
> Incorrect again, Skippy.
What happened with Radio Shack is that Verizon was unwilling to give
Radio Shack the spiffs that Radio Shack demanded. Verizon prefers to
sell as much as possible through their own stores and website, as the
margins are much higher. Verizon knew that the number of customers that
choose wireless service based on the retailer is low enough that they
wouldn't lose all that many new additions if Radio Shack ceased to be a
reseller. Who dumped who? You can say that Radio Shack got a better deal
from Cingular so they kicked Verizon out, or you can say that Verizon
wasn't interested in the Radio Shack business at the terms that Radio
Shack demanded. It's all moot now, but Radio Shack is suffering mightily
from their actions, while Verizon continues to gain market share and
enjoy large margins, while Cingular continues to lose market share and
has much lower margins.
Radio Shack was doing very well with Verizon and apparently believed
that they could continue at the same sales level with Cingular, but make
more money due to the higher spiffs. They were very, very wrong. There
are performance criteria that if not met would allow either party to
terminate the relationship, but Radio Shack is caught between a rock and
a hard place, as Verizon is not going to be interested in going back
into Radio Shack unless Radio Shack settles for much lower spiffs.
Verizon has the upper hand in the negotiations.
Radio Shack managers were complaining about Cingular even back in
January, because sales were so low compared with Verizon. The last two
quarterly reports for Radio Shack show just how correct the managers were.
- 07-26-2006, 04:31 AM #19Guest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgapon market leader Cingular
SMS wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Radio Shack actually dumped Verizon due to poor sales performance in
> >> 2005,
> >
> > Incorrect again, Skippy.
>
> What happened with Radio Shack is that Verizon was unwilling to give
> Radio Shack the spiffs that Radio Shack demanded. Verizon prefers to
> sell as much as possible through their own stores and website, as the
> margins are much higher. Verizon knew that the number of customers that
> choose wireless service based on the retailer is low enough that they
> wouldn't lose all that many new additions if Radio Shack ceased to be a
> reseller. Who dumped who? You can say that Radio Shack got a better deal
> from Cingular so they kicked Verizon out, or you can say that Verizon
> wasn't interested in the Radio Shack business at the terms that Radio
> Shack demanded. It's all moot now, but Radio Shack is suffering mightily
> from their actions, while Verizon continues to gain market share and
> enjoy large margins, while Cingular continues to lose market share and
> has much lower margins.
>
> Radio Shack was doing very well with Verizon and apparently believed
> that they could continue at the same sales level with Cingular, but make
> more money due to the higher spiffs. They were very, very wrong. There
> are performance criteria that if not met would allow either party to
> terminate the relationship, but Radio Shack is caught between a rock and
> a hard place, as Verizon is not going to be interested in going back
> into Radio Shack unless Radio Shack settles for much lower spiffs.
> Verizon has the upper hand in the negotiations.
>
> Radio Shack managers were complaining about Cingular even back in
> January, because sales were so low compared with Verizon. The last two
> quarterly reports for Radio Shack show just how correct the managers were.
Radio Shack is closing something like 471 stores nationwide so are now in even
worse shape.
- 07-26-2006, 06:47 AM #20Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> And yet you are still unable to show verification of this personal opinion.
>> Why is that?
>
> My GSM phone is a quad band Motorola phone. The Cingular coverage in the
> San Francisco Bay Area improved greatly after the merger, because
> Cingular got all that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum and dumped the crappy 1900
> Mhz spectrum. But the Cingular coverage still lags Verizon by a lot, as
> evidenced by the results of all the independent surveys.
>
> Navas has no verification because there has never been a survey that
> showed Cingular to be nearly as good as Verizon.
I don't think there is anything crappy about the PCS band, as you indicate
above. It has benefits and detractors. Higher potential bandwidth, smaller
cells [a detractor in the country but a potentially postive thing in densely
populated areas], reflects differently, etc. It certainly can be more
expensive to deploy a PCS network when less populated areas are to be covered,
because tower distances must be closer together.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-26-2006, 08:46 AM #21John NavasGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:47:23 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>I don't think there is anything crappy about the PCS band, as you indicate
>above. It has benefits and detractors. Higher potential bandwidth, smaller
>cells [a detractor in the country but a potentially postive thing in densely
>populated areas], reflects differently, etc. It certainly can be more
>expensive to deploy a PCS network when less populated areas are to be covered,
>because tower distances must be closer together.
In metro areas there is no significant technology difference between 850
and 1900 bands (due to less than maximum range spacing), and even in
non-metro areas the difference, due to shorter range from lower
permitted maximum power for 1900 MHz, tends to be relatively small:
* Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
* Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.
It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for
1900, and then only when range is limited only by power (not by
terrain).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-26-2006, 08:58 AM #22SMSGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgap on market leader Cingular
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> And yet you are still unable to show verification of this personal opinion.
>>> Why is that?
>> My GSM phone is a quad band Motorola phone. The Cingular coverage in the
>> San Francisco Bay Area improved greatly after the merger, because
>> Cingular got all that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum and dumped the crappy 1900
>> Mhz spectrum. But the Cingular coverage still lags Verizon by a lot, as
>> evidenced by the results of all the independent surveys.
>>
>> Navas has no verification because there has never been a survey that
>> showed Cingular to be nearly as good as Verizon.
>
> I don't think there is anything crappy about the PCS band, as you indicate
> above. It has benefits and detractors. Higher potential bandwidth, smaller
> cells [a detractor in the country but a potentially postive thing in densely
> populated areas],
You can put in more, smaller cells with 800/900 if you want to. The
problem with 1900 in the U.S. is that we have a lot of sparsely
populated areas. 1800 works well in Asia, but 1900 doesn't work well
here, except in densely populated urban areas. This is why Sprint
doesn't even try to expand into less populated areas, it's much cheaper
to pay for roaming.
- 07-26-2006, 09:01 AM #23John NavasGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgap on market leader Cingular
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:31:53 GMT, [email protected]lid wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>Radio Shack is closing something like 471 stores nationwide so are now in even
>worse shape.
Like the switch from Verizon to Cingular, store closings are actually
part of the Radio Shack recovery plan started back in 2005.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-26-2006, 09:30 AM #24John NavasGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:58:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> And yet you are still unable to show verification of this personal opinion.
>>>> Why is that?
>>> My GSM phone is a quad band Motorola phone. The Cingular coverage in the
>>> San Francisco Bay Area improved greatly after the merger, because
>>> Cingular got all that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum and dumped the crappy 1900
>>> Mhz spectrum. But the Cingular coverage still lags Verizon by a lot, as
>>> evidenced by the results of all the independent surveys.
>>>
>>> Navas has no verification because there has never been a survey that
>>> showed Cingular to be nearly as good as Verizon.
>>
>> I don't think there is anything crappy about the PCS band, as you indicate
>> above. It has benefits and detractors. Higher potential bandwidth, smaller
>> cells [a detractor in the country but a potentially postive thing in densely
>> populated areas],
>
>You can put in more, smaller cells with 800/900 if you want to. The
>problem with 1900 in the U.S. is that we have a lot of sparsely
>populated areas. 1800 works well in Asia, but 1900 doesn't work well
>here, except in densely populated urban areas. This is why Sprint
>doesn't even try to expand into less populated areas, it's much cheaper
>to pay for roaming.
Again, in metro areas there is no significant technology difference
between 850 and 1900 bands (due to less than maximum range spacing), and
even in non-metro areas the difference, due to shorter range from lower
permitted maximum power for 1900 MHz, tends to be relatively small:
* Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
* Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.
It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for
1900, and then only when range is limited only by power (not by terrain,
which is more often the case).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-26-2006, 09:58 AM #25John NavasGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:47:56 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>What happened with Radio Shack is that Verizon was unwilling to give
>Radio Shack the spiffs that Radio Shack demanded. Verizon prefers to
>sell as much as possible through their own stores and website, as the
>margins are much higher. Verizon knew that the number of customers that
>choose wireless service based on the retailer is low enough that they
>wouldn't lose all that many new additions if Radio Shack ceased to be a
>reseller. Who dumped who? You can say that Radio Shack got a better deal
>from Cingular so they kicked Verizon out, or you can say that Verizon
>wasn't interested in the Radio Shack business at the terms that Radio
>Shack demanded. It's all moot now, but Radio Shack is suffering mightily
>from their actions, while Verizon continues to gain market share and
>enjoy large margins, while Cingular continues to lose market share and
>has much lower margins.
>
>Radio Shack was doing very well with Verizon and apparently believed
>that they could continue at the same sales level with Cingular, but make
>more money due to the higher spiffs. They were very, very wrong. There
>are performance criteria that if not met would allow either party to
>terminate the relationship, but Radio Shack is caught between a rock and
>a hard place, as Verizon is not going to be interested in going back
>into Radio Shack unless Radio Shack settles for much lower spiffs.
>Verizon has the upper hand in the negotiations.
>
>Radio Shack managers were complaining about Cingular even back in
>January, because sales were so low compared with Verizon. The last two
>quarterly reports for Radio Shack show just how correct the managers were.
Here are the facts, which make it clear that Radio Shack dumped Verizon
based on poor performance and financials, not the other way around,
that Cingular is part of the turnaround plan, and that continued poor
performance is due to problems at Radio Shack, not anything to do with
Cingular:
February 17, 2005
Radio Shack projects 2005 sales growth of 9% to 11% and earnings per
share growth from $2.34 to $2.40.
March 18, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced that its first
quarter 2005 earnings per share estimate will not meet its previously
stated forecast of $0.39 to $0.41. The company believes first quarter
earnings per share are more likely to be $0.30 to $0.34.
In addition, the company said it is unlikely to achieve its
previously stated 2005 full year earnings per share guidance of $2.34
to $2.40. RadioShack expects to update its full year earnings
guidance at its regularly scheduled first quarter earnings release
date, April 19.
"Business trends have underperformed our expectations," said David
Edmondson, president and chief executive officer - elect. "This has
been driven by a recent deceleration in wireless sales in our core
stores and, to a smaller extent, underperformance in our battery
business."
April 19, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced net income of $55
million or $0.34 per diluted share for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 versus net income of $68 million or $0.41 per diluted share for
the quarter ended March 31, 2004.
Total sales in the first quarter of 2005 were up 3% to $1,123
million, compared to total sales of $1,093 million for the previous
year. First quarter 2005 comparable store sales were down 1% versus
the prior year.
"We are disappointed that our business did not perform as we
originally expected during the first quarter. Our profits were lower
due primarily to underperformance in the wireless business within our
core RadioShack stores," said David Edmondson, president and chief
executive officer-elect. "Our non- wireless businesses improved in
first quarter 2005, compared with first quarter 2004. RadioShack
remains a very profitable business overall, but our focus clearly
must be on turning our wireless business around, while continuing to
improve our non-wireless businesses."
RadioShack established fiscal year 2005 diluted earnings per share
guidance of $1.80 to $1.90.
July 19, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced net income of
$52.3 million or $0.33 per diluted share for the quarter ended June
30, 2005 versus net income of $68.3 million or $0.42 per diluted
share for the quarter ended June 30, 2004.
Total sales in the second quarter of 2005 were up 4% to $1,092.2
million, compared to total sales of $1,053.8 million for the previous
year. Second quarter 2005 comparable store sales were down 1% versus
the prior year.
"Our profit decline in the second quarter was driven by lower comp
store sales and more specifically by weakness in our core store
wireless business," said David Edmondson, president and chief
executive officer. ...
Total wireless sales were up 2% due to growth in RadioShack’s kiosk
channel offset by a decline in sales of wireless in its company
stores.
July 31, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced that it has
entered into 10-year and 11-year agreements, respectively, with
Cingular Wireless and Sprint PCS to be the company’s long-term
wireless providers in RadioShack stores nationwide. Cingular and
Sprint have also committed to support RadioShack Corporation’s
strategy of expanding retail distribution outside of the core
RadioShack stores.
RadioShack’s new agreement terms with Cingular and Sprint are
projected to be more financially favorable over the life of the
agreements relative to the financial model under which RadioShack
operates today. The new agreements are expected to provide RadioShack
with more profits in the short- and long-term and significant future
growth opportunities due to entrance into the GSM market, addition of
Nextel products and services (pending their merger with Sprint), and
opportunities for expanded distribution.
October 21, 2005
"We made important progress during the third quarter to better
position ourselves for the holiday selling season and the long term,"
said David Edmondson, president and chief executive officer. "We made
aggressive moves on inventory and finished deploying operating
procedures which will improve the customer experience in our stores.
We also finalized long-term wireless agreements and returned value to
shareholders through an overnight share repurchase transaction which
better positions us as a corporation."
July 7, 2006
RadioShack Corp. Friday named Julian Day as its new chief executive,
hoping his experience with struggling retailers such as Safeway,
Sears and Kmart would help with RadioShack's own revamp.
Day, 54, was CEO of Kmart and a director of Sears Holdings Corp., the
retailer formed when Kmart bought Sears, Roebuck & Co. last year.
He was elected as RadioShack's chairman and chief executive following
a four-month search after David Edmondson, who had misstated his
academic record, resigned on Feb. 20.
Fort Worth, Texas-based RadioShack (Charts) passed over acting CEO
Claire Babrowski. A former long-time McDonald's Corp. executive, she
was president and chief operating officer before taking over as CEO
in February, and had been viewed as a strong internal candidate for
the top post.
"A dramatic change in strategy and culture was needed most at
RadioShack, and we think Mr. Day's appointment could spur just that,"
David Schick, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus, wrote in a note to
clients. "We expect the shares to react favorably."
He raised his rating on the stock to "hold" from "sell."
Day, who was CEO of Kmart when it emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in 2003, arrives at RadioShack as the retailer is closing
hundreds of stores and adding more popular merchandise such as MP3
digital music players in the hope of reversing steep profit declines.
First-quarter earnings dropped 85 percent as the company struggled
with weak sales of mobile phones. Last year, in an effort to revive
sales, RadioShack cut ties with long-time partner Verizon Wireless
and signed a deal to start selling Cingular products on Jan. 1.
But RadioShack had trouble keeping hot Cingular products in stock and
training its staff to sell the new items.
In May, the company said it was making progress with its turnaround,
which includes closing at least 480 stores, but said it would
experience significant costs related to the plan in its second and
third quarters.
...
Wall Street still has some doubts that RadioShack can successfully
turn around its business when it faces intense competition from much
larger rivals Best Buy Co. Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc..
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-26-2006, 10:03 AM #26John NavasGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:10:42 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>... The Cingular coverage in the
>San Francisco Bay Area improved greatly after the merger, because
>Cingular got all that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum and dumped the crappy 1900
>Mhz spectrum.
Cingular still actually uses that 1900 spectrum under a roaming buyback
deal with T-Mobile.
The 1900 spectrum is actually quite good, as evidenced by T-Mobile
coverage.
The combination of 850 and 1900 spectrum gives Cingular the best digital
network coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area.
>But the Cingular coverage still lags Verizon by a lot, as
>evidenced by the results of all the independent surveys.
Surveys actually show very small differences between carriers, even when
inappropriately mixing different technologies together (e.g., D-AMPS and
GSM).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-26-2006, 10:05 AM #27John NavasGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:38:30 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>SMS wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> And yet you are still unable to show verification of this personal
>>> opinion. Why is that?
>>
>> My GSM phone is a quad band Motorola phone.
>
>Oops, actually it's a tri-band (850/900/1900 MHz).
In other words, not one of the better ones. I'd be willing to bet that
it's not ENS-capable with an ENS (64K SIM). You'd probably get better
results with a better phone. Assuming you really want to.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-26-2006, 05:50 PM #28ScottGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Many analysts were actually quite positive.
>
But many more were negative than positive.
- 07-26-2006, 06:00 PM #29SMSGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgapon market leader Cingular
[email protected]lid wrote:
>> Radio Shack managers were complaining about Cingular even back in
>> January, because sales were so low compared with Verizon. The last two
>> quarterly reports for Radio Shack show just how correct the managers were.
>
> Radio Shack is closing something like 471 stores nationwide so are now in even
> worse shape.
Radio Shack became too dependent on wireless sales, and the large
commission they received from the carriers. This sort of thing has
happened in the past with Radio Shack, they got dependent on CB radios,
they got dependent on the Trash-80, etc. You can't build a business
stumbling from one high margin business to the next, because eventually
the high margins go away.
Even so, Radio Shack didn't count on the huge loss in wireless business
that occurred when they switched from Verizon to Cingular. They are
still trying to promote the idea that the reseller is the most important
factor in choosing a wireless carrier, but few people are listening.
When you lose the top-rated carrier in almost every geographic area, and
switch to what is often the worst-rated carriers, you are insane to
believe that you can maintain the same level of sales.
We'll see what happens with Radio Shack and Cingular. There are escape
clauses, but what's the point now? Verizon isn't going to go back into
Radio Shack unless the terms are highly favorable, Radio Shack has no
bargaining power anymore. I don't even think T-Mobile would be
interested in Radio Shack, with all the stores that T-Mobile is opening.
It was a dumb move by Radio Shack, that is putting the future of the
company at risk.
- 08-01-2006, 05:57 PM #30John NavasGuest
Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closesgap on market leader Cingular
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:00:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>> Radio Shack managers were complaining about Cingular even back in
>>> January, because sales were so low compared with Verizon. The last two
>>> quarterly reports for Radio Shack show just how correct the managers were.
>>
>> Radio Shack is closing something like 471 stores nationwide so are now in even
>> worse shape.
>
>Radio Shack became too dependent on wireless sales, and the large
>commission they received from the carriers.
That much is true.
>This sort of thing has
>happened in the past with Radio Shack, they got dependent on CB radios,
>they got dependent on the Trash-80, etc.
Also batteries.
>You can't build a business
>stumbling from one high margin business to the next, because eventually
>the high margins go away.
Yep.
>Even so, Radio Shack didn't count on the huge loss in wireless business
>that occurred when they switched from Verizon to Cingular.
What it actually didn't expect was the way it bungled the transition.
The loss actually started with Verizon.
>They are
>still trying to promote the idea that the reseller is the most important
>factor in choosing a wireless carrier, but few people are listening.
They are actually promoting their wide distribution, but are having a
hard time competing with small kiosks.
>When you lose the top-rated carrier in almost every geographic area, and
>switch to what is often the worst-rated carriers, you are insane to
>believe that you can maintain the same level of sales.
In fact Cingular was part of the turn-around plan after Verizon sales
dropped in 2005.
>We'll see what happens with Radio Shack and Cingular. There are escape
>clauses, but what's the point now? Verizon isn't going to go back into
>Radio Shack unless the terms are highly favorable, Radio Shack has no
>bargaining power anymore. I don't even think T-Mobile would be
>interested in Radio Shack, with all the stores that T-Mobile is opening.
>
>It was a dumb move by Radio Shack, that is putting the future of the
>company at risk.
Actually its only hope of survival. The Verizon deal wasn't working.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
Lifeline cell phone service
in Chit Chat