Mandatory phone upgrade?

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 17:33:05 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I'll assume that your removal of my other points indicates that you are
>>...
>
> How childish. Assume whatever you want -- you do that no matter what
> the facts -- I couldn't care less. I usually just ignore you, because
> you rarely say anything substantive, and because you do such a good job
> of discrediting yourself, but I reserve the right to jump in from time
> to time when you actually have something substantive and misleading to
> say, like commenting on a very, very bad B movie.
>


Oh, but not true, little grasshopper- many of my posts have substance. You
choose to shy away from them because they run counter to your personal
agenda and provide enough data to prove their validity. The rest of my
posts are typically pointing out the huge holes in your fautly logic and
inexperienced opinions.

I can't help it if the truth hurts you, Johnny.

---

› See More: Mandatory phone upgrade?

Ernie Klein wrote:

> A lot depends on where you are and what your need is. I have friends
> who do off road dirt biking on forest service roads and trails around
> Eagle Lake and Holster Hills for example. Both areas have excellent
> AMPS service and zero GSM service. They always carry an AMPS phone for
> emergency use as GSM is useless once you leave the beaten path.

Eagle Lake actually has good CDMA coverage. If you mean Hollister Hills,
there is also CDMA coverage down there. I know that when I go past
there, on the way to the Pinnacles, there is CDMA coverage well past
Hollister, but no GSM. Closer to the Pinnacles there is only AMPS, and
only AMPS in the park, except at the peaks you can get some digital
sometimes, from Soledad.

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:44:07 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> not everything on the map is GSM (far from it).
>
> Actually it is:

The Cingular map shows GSM coverage in BFE Montana, but only a AMPS bag
phone worked last December.

So, actually you are wrong (as usual). And no, it wasn't a billing
error or whatever other reason you can dream up.

Scott wrote:
> Oh, but not true, little grasshopper- many of my posts have substance. You
> choose to shy away from them because they run counter to your personal
> agenda and provide enough data to prove their validity. The rest of my
> posts are typically pointing out the huge holes in your fautly logic and
> inexperienced opinions.
>
> I can't help it if the truth hurts you, Johnny.

It is my imagination or does Navas actually choose to ignore real
challenges and pretend the question wasn't asked of him.

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

>
> It is my imagination or does Navas actually choose to ignore real
> challenges and pretend the question wasn't asked of him.

Not your imagination at all- he is incapable of dealing with them, as proven
by his posting histroy.

After reading all the discussions and arguments, I have come to the
conclusion I better keep my 6340i gate phone forever. I wanted to get a
phone with a better display, but not at the cost of degraded service. Thanks
for your interest. However, I really didn't mean to start any arguments.
Charles Ranheim

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:37:28 GMT, "cranheim"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I thought I heard on the news that some cingular phones will have to be
>>upgraded. Does anyone know which phones are becoming obsolete? I have a
>>Nokia 6340i Gait phone that handles GSM and TDMA. I would get a straight
>>GSM phone if it gave me the same coverage as I now have with the gait
>>phone.
>>Also, I may not be able to get the same cost plan if I go GSM alone. Any
>>thoughts about this? Charles Ranheim
>
> Your 6340i does not have to be upgraded -- it provides full GSM
> coverage, in the USA and in other countries.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

The fact still remains that many rural areas are not covered by PCS,
and both cellular carriers are CDMA (Verizon and Alltell for instance).
Look at northern Ohio. I have relatives in Ohio who would not even
consider a GSM phone because of the poor coverage. southwestern
Wisconsin, and southwestern Michigan are other areas that once you get
off the highway you don't get a signal. If Cingular and T-Mobile could
convince Alltel or Verizon to put some GSM up for them on their rural
cellular band (like Western Wireless did), it might help. I think for
competitive reasons they won't. So Cingular in those areas will have
to underbid the CDMA carriers, just like T-Mobile.

[email protected] wrote:
> The fact still remains that many rural areas are not covered by PCS,
> and both cellular carriers are CDMA (Verizon and Alltell for instance).
> Look at northern Ohio. I have relatives in Ohio who would not even
> consider a GSM phone because of the poor coverage. southwestern
> Wisconsin, and southwestern Michigan are other areas that once you get
> off the highway you don't get a signal. If Cingular and T-Mobile could
> convince Alltel or Verizon to put some GSM up for them on their rural
> cellular band (like Western Wireless did), it might help. I think for
> competitive reasons they won't. So Cingular in those areas will have
> to underbid the CDMA carriers, just like T-Mobile.

T-Mobile doesn't lie about their coverage, they freely admit that their
value proposition is big buckets of peak minutes at each price point.
But Cingular isn't going to lower prices for areas where coverage is PCS
only, and hence not as good as where they have cellular coverage, and to
be fair, Verizon isn't going to do that either. The difference is that
Verizon's PCS-only areas have better coverage than Cingular's PCS-only
areas.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:56:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> The fact still remains that many rural areas are not covered by PCS,
>> and both cellular carriers are CDMA (Verizon and Alltell for instance).
>> Look at northern Ohio. I have relatives in Ohio who would not even
>> consider a GSM phone because of the poor coverage. southwestern
>> Wisconsin, and southwestern Michigan are other areas that once you get
>> off the highway you don't get a signal. If Cingular and T-Mobile could
>> convince Alltel or Verizon to put some GSM up for them on their rural
>> cellular band (like Western Wireless did), it might help. I think for
>> competitive reasons they won't. So Cingular in those areas will have
>> to underbid the CDMA carriers, just like T-Mobile.
>
>T-Mobile doesn't lie about their coverage, they freely admit that their
>value proposition is big buckets of peak minutes at each price point.
>But Cingular isn't going to lower prices for areas where coverage is PCS
>only, and hence not as good as where they have cellular coverage, and to
>be fair, Verizon isn't going to do that either. The difference is that
>Verizon's PCS-only areas have better coverage than Cingular's PCS-only
>areas.

Overall, Cingular PCS coverage is as good or better than Verizon PCS
coverage.

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

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:56:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> The fact still remains that many rural areas are not covered by PCS,
>> and both cellular carriers are CDMA (Verizon and Alltell for instance).
>> Look at northern Ohio. I have relatives in Ohio who would not even
>> consider a GSM phone because of the poor coverage. southwestern
>> Wisconsin, and southwestern Michigan are other areas that once you get
>> off the highway you don't get a signal. If Cingular and T-Mobile could
>> convince Alltel or Verizon to put some GSM up for them on their rural
>> cellular band (like Western Wireless did), it might help. I think for
>> competitive reasons they won't. So Cingular in those areas will have
>> to underbid the CDMA carriers, just like T-Mobile.
>
>T-Mobile doesn't lie about their coverage, they freely admit that their
>value proposition is big buckets of peak minutes at each price point.

That's not how T-Mobile markets its service.

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:56:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> The fact still remains that many rural areas are not covered by PCS,
>>> and both cellular carriers are CDMA (Verizon and Alltell for instance).
>>> Look at northern Ohio. I have relatives in Ohio who would not even
>>> consider a GSM phone because of the poor coverage. southwestern
>>> Wisconsin, and southwestern Michigan are other areas that once you get
>>> off the highway you don't get a signal. If Cingular and T-Mobile could
>>> convince Alltel or Verizon to put some GSM up for them on their rural
>>> cellular band (like Western Wireless did), it might help. I think for
>>> competitive reasons they won't. So Cingular in those areas will have
>>> to underbid the CDMA carriers, just like T-Mobile.
>>
>>T-Mobile doesn't lie about their coverage, they freely admit that their
>>value proposition is big buckets of peak minutes at each price point.
>>But Cingular isn't going to lower prices for areas where coverage is PCS
>>only, and hence not as good as where they have cellular coverage, and to
>>be fair, Verizon isn't going to do that either. The difference is that
>>Verizon's PCS-only areas have better coverage than Cingular's PCS-only
>>areas.
>
> Overall, Cingular PCS coverage is as good or better than Verizon PCS
> coverage.
>

Can you support such a claim? You spew out unsubstantiated claims habitually
these days.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:05:45 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>> Overall, Cingular PCS coverage is as good or better than Verizon PCS
>> coverage.
>
>Can you support such a claim?

I'm basing that on my own experience, and that of colleagues. I know of
no direct public source of that information -- do you?

And why not ask the same question of Steven Scharf, who made the
opposite unsupported claim? Or do you only question things you don't
like?

>You spew out unsubstantiated claims habitually
>these days.

I actually post more references here than most, not to mention the
wealth of references I've put into the Cingular FAQ.

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Can you support such a claim? You spew out unsubstantiated claims habitually
> these days.

The advantage Verizon has with their PCS-only areas, is that they are
relatively flat, and densely populated. For example, South Florida where
the A & B 800 MHz spectrum is now all owned by Cingular, is PCS only for
Verizon, but coverage is still excellent because of the topography.

John Navas wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:56:03 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> The fact still remains that many rural areas are not covered by PCS,
> >> and both cellular carriers are CDMA (Verizon and Alltell for instance).
> >> Look at northern Ohio. I have relatives in Ohio who would not even
> >> consider a GSM phone because of the poor coverage. southwestern
> >> Wisconsin, and southwestern Michigan are other areas that once you get
> >> off the highway you don't get a signal. If Cingular and T-Mobile could
> >> convince Alltel or Verizon to put some GSM up for them on their rural
> >> cellular band (like Western Wireless did), it might help. I think for
> >> competitive reasons they won't. So Cingular in those areas will have
> >> to underbid the CDMA carriers, just like T-Mobile.
> >
> >T-Mobile doesn't lie about their coverage, they freely admit that their
> >value proposition is big buckets of peak minutes at each price point.
>
> That's not how T-Mobile markets its service.

It's something about 'whenever minutes', which emphasizes a no peak time
charge type plan.
Nothing about coverage, but then I don't pay too much attention to the
ad's details when Catharine Zeta-Jones is talking.

:¬þ

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be Light."
And there was still nothing, but you could see it.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Nothing about coverage, but then I don't pay too much attention to the
> ad's details when Catharine Zeta-Jones is talking.
>

Wait a minute- you mean her lips move in those commercials??