Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other
members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start
posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)


"sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
> dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
> informative.
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr
>> Navas
>> has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
>> points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please
>> specify
>> the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
>>
>> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
>> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
>> > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
>> > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
>> > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
>> > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
>> > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
>> > blew loads on her face.
>> >
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>> >>
>> >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
>> >> >> considered false claims.
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot
>> >> >to
>> >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
>> >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
>> >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think
>> >> >that
>> >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
>> >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of
>> >> >his
>> >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his
>> >> >errors
>> >> >and changed his ways.
>> >>
>> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

---

› See More: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

On 2006-12-07, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:17:59 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
>>least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
>>service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
>>potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
>>discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
>>in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
>>non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
>>
>>It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
>>network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
>>Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
>>especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
>>than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
>>Cingular, and far below Verizon.
>
> That T-Mobile did so well with less coverage than Cingular, given
> network sharing agreements, actually shows the survey to be unreliable.

I don't think so, you should look at the actual results of the survey.
T-Mobile and Cingular both had problems in the bay area, but different
problems. T-Mobile's problem was, in fact, its coverage. Cingular's
coverage wasn't negatively rated, instead its problem was blocked calls,
i.e. capacity. This is not inconsistent with their sharing a network,
and actually agrees with my experience (getting a Cingular circuit
in Los Gatos near the highway during evening rush hour is often hit
and miss, for example. Making a T-Mobile call at this same location
used to be hit-and-miss, but that changed when the network changed
hands).

Note that in the survey Cingular's most consistent problem just about
everywhere in the country was blocked calls. The only other carrier of
the 5 listed to have this problem anywhere was T-Mobile, though less
frequently. I'm not sure it is a coincidence that the two GSM carriers
in the survey had this problem while the three CDMA carriers didn't; the
(perhaps sole) advantage of a CDMA network is that you get more
capacity from a given amount of deployed RF infrastructure.

> Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area. T-Mobile
> isn't bad either. Sprint and Verizon are demonstrably worse in a number
> of areas, including significant parts of the East Bay.

?? T-Mobile had poor coverage in the SF bay area when I was their customer,
and according to the survey has poor coverage still.

> 4. CU surveys can't be validly generalized because they are a
> self-selected sample of a non-representative universe (CR subscribers).
> (Usenet of course has a similar problem.)

This is sort of true, though you are over-stating it. The CU survey
may in fact represent the general case well, this just can't be
proven statistically because of the non-random participant selection.

> 5. Results showing T-Mobile with better network performance than
> Cingular in the West are patently nonsensical, given that Cingular uses
> the same network as T-Mobile (the old Cingular "orange" network), plus
> the extensive ATTWS ("blue" network).

No. They didn't find T-Mobile better than Cingular in the west, and they
did find that T-Mobile had inferior coverage to Cingular. Cingular had
other problems.

> 6. Verizon doesn't have coverage in some of the areas Steven claims;
> e.g., large sections of Skyline Blvd, and nearby sections of Page Mill
> Road and Big Basin Way.

You know, I ride a bicycle up Page Mill road, then north on Skyline
Blvd, then down La Honda Road, quite frequently when the weather is
good. I carry both a Cingular and a Verizon phone (I am unfortunately
inseparably attached to them), and have them both set to beep when their
service changes. The Cingular phone beeps a fair bit more than the
Verizon phone does, and does so even though the Cingular phone is
more prone to lie and say it has service when in fact you can't use it.

I don't think I disagree with you about Big Basin Way and the west side
of the hill in general, however. My Verizon phone sometimes sees analog
stuff over there when neither phone has digital service, but I've seldom
been able to actually use it to make a call.

> 8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
> compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.

I agree with you about this, though I wouldn't call it "absurd" since
I understand how one could arrive at this conclusion. I just don't
think it is correct.

Dennis Ferguson

And what exactly did you contribute to the group? Mij, you don't even
know which phone to choose for your Sprint services a few weeks ago. All
you ever do is proping up navas' gonad. You are the loser that try to
convince everyone that navas is the creator AKA the god of cingular
newsgroup and thus he shall have every right to impose his idiotic
charter on att. Both you and navas are morons. This can be reflected
from general concensus. Let me make it clear to you, navas does not own
any group and he often copy and paste without understanding the
argumentative statement. When he is wrong which is almost weekly, he
gets away with his idiotic acts because of asshole like you. Frankly,
you are not very objective just like your other half -> anus navas.


In article <[email protected]>,
"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
> garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
> rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other
> members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start
> posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
> benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
> ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)
>
>
> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
> > dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
> > informative.
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr
> >> Navas
> >> has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
> >> points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please
> >> specify
> >> the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
> >>
> >> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
> >> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
> >> > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
> >> > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
> >> > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
> >> > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
> >> > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
> >> > blew loads on her face.
> >> >
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> >> >> >> considered false claims.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
> >> >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
> >> >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think
> >> >> >that
> >> >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
> >> >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of
> >> >> >his
> >> >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his
> >> >> >errors
> >> >> >and changed his ways.
> >> >>
> >> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> >> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>
>

According to Robert Coe <[email protected]>:
> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
> carriers should emulate.

Verizon does that also. I asked about their coverage for Indian Lake NY.
The Verizon rep said that he did not recommend using Verizon there
(even tho Verizon does have extended analog coverage there).

Andy Smallwood wrote:
> According to Robert Coe <[email protected]>:
>> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
>> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
>> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
>> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
>> carriers should emulate.
>
> Verizon does that also. I asked about their coverage for Indian Lake NY.
> The Verizon rep said that he did not recommend using Verizon there
> (even tho Verizon does have extended analog coverage there).

I think that the difference is that T-Mobile does this even in urban
areas. For example, a friend of mine lives in the Willow Glen area of
San Jose, which is not far from downtown San Jose. He was going to sign
his wife and himself up for T-Mobile, moving from Sprint. He went to the
Cupertino T-Mobile store on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road to
sign up. The salesperson checked coverage at his house and found that
there was poor coverage in that neighborhood (this is a neighborhood
that would NEVER allow a tower outside of the core commercial district
on Lincoln Avenue). So the salesperson told him not to get T-Mobile.

I don't believe that any other carrier would have even bothered to
check, believing that all of San Jose has good coverage. A colleague had
Sprint for seven years with no coverage at her home in Cupertino, and
finally switched to Cingular which did have coverage. Of course when she
bought the Sprint service, at Radio Shack, the last thing that the sales
person would have done would be to check coverage, if they even could do
it back then.

Have you ever considered obtaining some remedial education? You writing
style is equivalent to the writing style of a below-average fifth grader.
You are also overly obsessed with gonads and other body parts and should
probably seek a psychiatrist. Please get some meds soon as you really need
some help. Be sure to tell your doctor about your gonad obsession and your
writing style. :-)


"sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And what exactly did you contribute to the group? Mij, you don't even
> know which phone to choose for your Sprint services a few weeks ago. All
> you ever do is proping up navas' gonad. You are the loser that try to
> convince everyone that navas is the creator AKA the god of cingular
> newsgroup and thus he shall have every right to impose his idiotic
> charter on att. Both you and navas are morons. This can be reflected
> from general concensus. Let me make it clear to you, navas does not own
> any group and he often copy and paste without understanding the
> argumentative statement. When he is wrong which is almost weekly, he
> gets away with his idiotic acts because of asshole like you. Frankly,
> you are not very objective just like your other half -> anus navas.
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
>> garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
>> rather than posting technical information that may be informative to
>> other
>> members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and
>> start
>> posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
>> benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
>> ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)
>>
>>
>> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
>> > dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
>> > informative.
>> >
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr
>> >> Navas
>> >> has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW
>> >> should
>> >> points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please
>> >> specify
>> >> the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
>> >>
>> >> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from
>> >> > cingular
>> >> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to
>> >> > copy
>> >> > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
>> >> > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also,
>> >> > this
>> >> > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
>> >> > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
>> >> > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
>> >> > blew loads on her face.
>> >> >
>> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
>> >> >> >> considered false claims.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a
>> >> >> >lot
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted
>> >> >> >by
>> >> >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they
>> >> >> >are
>> >> >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I
>> >> >> >think
>> >> >> >that
>> >> >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the
>> >> >> >Usenet
>> >> >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because
>> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >his
>> >> >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his
>> >> >> >errors
>> >> >> >and changed his ways.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>> >> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>>
>>

Mij,

I have yet to see much of anything substantive from Navas myself.

To a noob, he (may) sound authoritative, but to anyone that actually
knows about RF, cellular and such, Navas' posts are filled with BS,
misinformation and extremely biased opinion - very little, if any facts.

And then there is the always snotty dismissal of any info that doesn't
agree with HIS (Cingular lockstep) opinion.

There are a few here that have actually WORKED in cellular and actually
know what they are talking about.

Navas certainly isn't one of them!


"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the garbage that you post. You devote your entire
> life to dissing Mr Navas rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other members of these
> newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start posting useful information so that other members of this
> newsgroup can benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular, ATTWS, and GSM than you will
> ever know. :-)
>
>
>

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

>> 8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
>> compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.
>
> I agree with you about this, though I wouldn't call it "absurd" since
> I understand how one could arrive at this conclusion. I just don't
> think it is correct.
>

4X to 5X may be a bit high, but the FACT that 1900Mhz DOES need a higher density
of sites over 800Mhz is simple and irrefutable physics.

This has been covered extensively here before and out in the real world, it is proven
to be the case, time and time again.

In Seattle a few years back, Motorola built a 1900Mhz system for GTE. But, it was designed
by a bunch of 800Mhz guys (alot of them came from the iDEN build). It ended up performing
very badly, because the site density wasn't sufficient to provide an adequate level of service.
(It was sold to Cingular and was their Seattle system until the AT&T merger, BTW)
And... it sucked!!

Then we have AT&T's 1900Mhz roll-out. Initially, another VERY poorly performing service in many
markets until additional sites were built to accommodate 1900Mhz's propagation characteristics.

I can cite case after case... but again it is a FACT 1900Mhz takes more sites, PERIOD.

Mij Asswipe,

Is attacking my writing style the best you can come up with? Let see,
you posted the following crap on Dec 3:

Ann Coulter is one of my favorite authors. More folks should become
acquainted with her writing.

On Dec 5, you posted another crap:

John,

Thanks for posting the charter of this group. It is really too bad that
some of the folks here do not understand the charter and don't realize
that you are the leader of both of these groups. In my opinion, when
these folks start contributing as much to this group as you have
contributed, then they can complain. Until then they should just keep
their mouths shut and let you lead the group.

Maybe you need to check into some mental health facility? Both you and
navas are living in denial.



article <[email protected]>,
"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Have you ever considered obtaining some remedial education? You writing
> style is equivalent to the writing style of a below-average fifth grader.
> You are also overly obsessed with gonads and other body parts and should
> probably seek a psychiatrist. Please get some meds soon as you really need
> some help. Be sure to tell your doctor about your gonad obsession and your
> writing style. :-)
>
>
> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > And what exactly did you contribute to the group? Mij, you don't even
> > know which phone to choose for your Sprint services a few weeks ago. All
> > you ever do is proping up navas' gonad. You are the loser that try to
> > convince everyone that navas is the creator AKA the god of cingular
> > newsgroup and thus he shall have every right to impose his idiotic
> > charter on att. Both you and navas are morons. This can be reflected
> > from general concensus. Let me make it clear to you, navas does not own
> > any group and he often copy and paste without understanding the
> > argumentative statement. When he is wrong which is almost weekly, he
> > gets away with his idiotic acts because of asshole like you. Frankly,
> > you are not very objective just like your other half -> anus navas.
> >
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
> >> garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
> >> rather than posting technical information that may be informative to
> >> other
> >> members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and
> >> start
> >> posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
> >> benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
> >> ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
> >> > dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
> >> > informative.
> >> >
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr
> >> >> Navas
> >> >> has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW
> >> >> should
> >> >> points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please
> >> >> specify
> >> >> the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from
> >> >> > cingular
> >> >> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to
> >> >> > copy
> >> >> > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
> >> >> > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also,
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
> >> >> > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
> >> >> > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
> >> >> > blew loads on her face.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> >> >> >> >> considered false claims.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a
> >> >> >> >lot
> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted
> >> >> >> >by
> >> >> >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they
> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I
> >> >> >> >think
> >> >> >> >that
> >> >> >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the
> >> >> >> >Usenet
> >> >> >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because
> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >his
> >> >> >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his
> >> >> >> >errors
> >> >> >> >and changed his ways.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> >> >> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
> >>
> >>
>
>

Your obsessive preoccupation with genitalia and bodily
functions tends to discredit anything you post.

--
John Richards


"sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
> dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
> informative.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Even if it is cut and paste,

you might want to google "top posting."

Ness net wrote:
> "Dennis Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>> 8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
>>> compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.
>> I agree with you about this, though I wouldn't call it "absurd" since
>> I understand how one could arrive at this conclusion. I just don't
>> think it is correct.
>>
>
> 4X to 5X may be a bit high, but the FACT that 1900Mhz DOES need a higher density
> of sites over 800Mhz is simple and irrefutable physics.

It's about 2X the distance for 800 MHz versus 1900 MHz, for the same
technology. If you're covering a linear space, such as a freeway, then
you can get by with 2x the number of towers. But if you're considering
the number of towers per square miles then 4x is about right.

x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x 19 x 19 x
x x 8 x x x x x x x
x x x x x x 19 x 19 x
x x x x x x x x x x

Also remember than CDMA has greater range than GSM, no matter what the
frequency is, and that AMPS has even greater range.

> This has been covered extensively here before and out in the real world, it is proven
> to be the case, time and time again.

I don't think that anyone denies that 1900 MHz takes more towers, the
debate is over how many more it takes. In urban areas there are usually
more towers anyway, to increase capacity and break areas down into
smaller cells. It's in the suburbs and rural areas where you get the
biggest advantage from 800 MHz.

> In Seattle a few years back, Motorola built a 1900Mhz system for GTE. But, it was designed
> by a bunch of 800Mhz guys (alot of them came from the iDEN build). It ended up performing
> very badly, because the site density wasn't sufficient to provide an adequate level of service.
> (It was sold to Cingular and was their Seattle system until the AT&T merger, BTW)
> And... it sucked!!

This is similar to what happened with Cingular in California when they
started with their 1900 MHz system. T-Mobile is still struggling with
the old Cingular 1900 MHz network, fighting to install towers in areas
where residents don't want them.

> Then we have AT&T's 1900Mhz roll-out. Initially, another VERY poorly performing service in many
> markets until additional sites were built to accommodate 1900Mhz's propagation characteristics.

That was a very weird thing that AT&T Wireless did, and it led to the
problems that caused them to be acquired by Cingular.

That is very true. SW should seek psychological help for his Gonad
obsession. He also has an obsession with Mr Navas and stalks him here on
Usenet. Maybe if he could get a copy of his hero's autograph, he would go
away.

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Your obsessive preoccupation with genitalia and bodily functions tends to
> discredit anything you post.
>
> --
> John Richards
>
>
> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
>> dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
>> informative.
>

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

> > Then we have AT&T's 1900Mhz roll-out. Initially, another VERY poorly
> > performing service in many
> > markets until additional sites were built to accommodate 1900Mhz's
> > propagation characteristics.
>
> That was a very weird thing that AT&T Wireless did, and it led to the
> problems that caused them to be acquired by Cingular.

Their totally bolixing up the switch from TDMA to GSM, their totally
bolixing up the switch to a new COmputer System, and their worst rated
Customer Service and highest Churn rate had something to do with it.
AT&T Wireless every quarter was reporting a net loss of customers at the
time they put themselves up for sale; and their stock was at half of its
IPO price.

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs james g. keegan jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> you apparently are new to usenet.
>

Hardly.

> the claims remain unsupported.

That is EXACTLY what I just said. YOU said they were false by default, which
I completely disagree with.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0