Tired of AT&T / Cingular Wireless?

Accept my Coupon for a FREE Palm Centro, and make the switch too
Sprint.

http://veriuni.5gbfree.com/freecell.pdf

---

› See More: Tired of AT&T / Cingular Wireless?

Sprint is the best. I have been with them for three years now and the
coverage and romaing are excellent.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:455d8574-decb-485f-9e6e-ced0cdc3f060@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Accept my Coupon for a FREE Palm Centro, and make the switch too
> Sprint.
>
> http://veriuni.5gbfree.com/freecell.pdf
>

No. They're fine. I pay a nominal $30/month for two phones, a single
bill combined now with the landline phone, and a 100 minutes/month
which is all my wife and I need. Service has always got better over
the years and now it's excellent coverage.
--
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat." --Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News
interview, March 30, 2003

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:47:20 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sprint is the best. I have been with them for three years now and the
>coverage and romaing are excellent.

Watch for that to take a crap once/if AMPS towers start getting turned
off.

In message <[email protected]> Bob <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The only AMPS towers they would use would be from other carriers in a
>roaming agreement. The intelligent thought process is that carriers are
>not going to shut off AMPS if they have no coverage to replace it with.
>That would result in a loss of business that most of those roaming partners
>could afford.

My understanding (Although I may be wrong) is that leaving AMPS up in
areas without digital coverage isn't "intelligent thought process", but
rather, "FCC mandate"

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:455d8574-decb-485f-9e6e-ced0cdc3f060@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Accept my Coupon for a FREE Palm Centro, and make the switch too
> Sprint.
>
> http://veriuni.5gbfree.com/freecell.pdf
>

Before you buy from this schmuck and you deicded you really want Sprint,
google for a sprint email address and then google and get a Sero plan.

"Michael N. Paris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:455d8574-decb-485f-9e6e-ced0cdc3f060@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> Accept my Coupon for a FREE Palm Centro, and make the switch too
>> Sprint.
>>
>> http://veriuni.5gbfree.com/freecell.pdf
>>
>
> Before you buy from this schmuck and you deicded you really want Sprint,
> google for a sprint email address and then google and get a Sero plan.

That is very good advice. Don't buy from the Schmuck that is spamming
usenet.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:53:57 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:

>The only AMPS towers they would use would be from other carriers in a
>roaming agreement. The intelligent thought process is that carriers are
>not going to shut off AMPS if they have no coverage to replace it with.
>That would result in a loss of business that most of those roaming partners
>could afford.

They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
these zones they are getting no service.

Anon E. Muss <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:53:57 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The only AMPS towers they would use would be from other carriers in a
> >roaming agreement. The intelligent thought process is that carriers are
> >not going to shut off AMPS if they have no coverage to replace it with.
> >That would result in a loss of business that most of those roaming partners
> >could afford.
>
> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
> these zones they are getting no service.

Or the craptacular digital service that assaults my ears when I call
friends with Sprint here in Chicagoland. Data rate seems to suck
donkey as well for the Sprint folk, even right near the airport.

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
> these zones they are getting no service.

What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
no digital service.

Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
coverage, plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).

It costs $2.35/month to keep a PagePlus account active, but if you do
travel off the beaten path it's well worth it to have the coverage that
you can only get with CDMA and AMPS. It really expands your options for
your "regular" phone and "regular" carrier, when you have a back-up
CDMA/AMPS phone.

There's an even cheaper back-up option if you just want a phone that can
make outgoing calls.

See "http://prepaiduswireless.com".

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
>> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
>> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
>> these zones they are getting no service.
>
>What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>no digital service.

"Many" users = tiny fraction of users

>Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
>are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
>coverage,

In fact most have announced that they will be shutting down AMPS
rapidly.

>plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
>areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).

Simply not true.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"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

CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
CDMA is superior.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>>
>>> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
>>> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
>>> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
>>> these zones they are getting no service.
>>
>>What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>>tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>>no digital service.
>
> "Many" users = tiny fraction of users
>
>>Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
>>are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
>>coverage,
>
> In fact most have announced that they will be shutting down AMPS
> rapidly.
>
>>plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
>>areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).
>
> Simply not true.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
>
> "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

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
> CDMA is superior.

This is correct. For rural areas, you really want to have a CDMA phone,
at least as backup, with or without AMPS. I've been to many rural places
where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage. This occurs for two
reasons.

First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
because it requires less cells to cover the same area.

Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.

In these parks and open spaces there is often CDMA coverage but no GSM
coverage, and often AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage at
all. This is one of the reasons why you see the tremendous differences
in the ratings of carriers by subscribers in all the surveys of this
area, especially in terms of "no service." In the San Francisco Bay
Area, Verizon is far better in terms of coverage, and I suppose that a
Sprint phone forced to roam on Verizon would be equally good if all of
Verizon is included but few Sprint customers are aware of how to do this.

AT&T has an extensive AMPS network that will be turned off next week,
and it's going to result in a lot more "no service" for Verizon and
Sprint customers, but since AT&T hasn't sold AMPS capable handsets for
quite a while, and has very few remaining TDMA/AMPS customers, its own
GSM customers will see no decrease in coverage.

There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
>> CDMA is superior.
>
>This is correct.

Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
and GSM.

>I've been to many rural places
>where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage.

I've likewise been to many rural places where there is GSM coverage but
no CDMA2000 coverage.


>This occurs for two
>reasons.

This occurs for one reason: all carriers have coverage holes.

>Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
>great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
>allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
>and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.

Simply not true, given a reasonably current handset. You're probably
still using an ancient handset.

>There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
>but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.

Proof? But as usual, there are zero links in your post -- you just make
up whatever you need to fit your agenda.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"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

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this
>>> reason CDMA is superior.
>>
>>This is correct.
>
> Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
> and GSM.
>
>>I've been to many rural places
>>where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage.
>
> I've likewise been to many rural places where there is GSM coverage
> but no CDMA2000 coverage.
>
>
>>This occurs for two
>>reasons.
>
> This occurs for one reason: all carriers have coverage holes.
>
>>Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are
>>a great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at
>>all allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these
>>areas, and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same
>>location.
>
> Simply not true, given a reasonably current handset. You're probably
> still using an ancient handset.
>
>>There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range
>>GSM" but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.
>
> Proof? But as usual, there are zero links in your post -- you just
> make up whatever you need to fit your agenda.
>

Civility, John? You can't expect anybody else to exhibit it towards you if
you can't practice it yourself.