Sprint selling Motorola Phones again.... FINALLY

[email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Don't you find it interesting that a "Sprint tech" is posting metrics
> for a phone that Sprint hasn't sold in 2 years? Not to mention that
> the reported metrics got "pulled" just as this thread started? BTW If
> this chart really did exist, it would not likly be legal to disclose.


Blah, blah, blah.
The Motorolas haven't been sold in 2 years but what does that have to
do with anything? People still use them and so they are still tracked
on Sprint system. The graph does exsist and you know it. I sent one of
them to you by e-mail Ron and you even replied to me with a "thanks".
The one that got pulled was the one that showed the 3 year averages
for the phones. I have the one that showed the stats for a week from
last December which is very similar to the 3 year averages. Many
people on sprintusers.com saw it as it was posted there for a while. I
might be able to get a copy of that one as well. I'll ask around. If
anyone else wants to see the smaple from December send me a private
e-mail and ask for it.

---

› See More: Sprint selling Motorola Phones again.... FINALLY

Larry,

Either you are on drugs or lying through your teeth, I never got a
chart from you and I didn't reply with thanks.

However thank you for this post, it answers my lingering doubt about
the legitimacy of your claim (i.e. not at all)

BTW tell you what next time a Sanyo phone is at my house I'll take a
digital photo, it will show 0 bars or out of service on the Sanyo but
maybe 3 down to 2 bars on the Motorola sitting next to it. Yes I know
the bars aren't an apples to apples measurement but OOS on a Sanyo and
3 bars on a Moto in the my home service area is better data than any
chart (you likely) made up. BTW If that chart has been around for
years how come the domain it was posted on is only a month or two old?



[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Don't you find it interesting that a "Sprint tech" is posting metrics
> > for a phone that Sprint hasn't sold in 2 years? Not to mention that
> > the reported metrics got "pulled" just as this thread started? BTW If
> > this chart really did exist, it would not likly be legal to disclose.
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
> The Motorolas haven't been sold in 2 years but what does that have to
> do with anything? People still use them and so they are still tracked
> on Sprint system. The graph does exsist and you know it. I sent one of
> them to you by e-mail Ron and you even replied to me with a "thanks".
> The one that got pulled was the one that showed the 3 year averages
> for the phones. I have the one that showed the stats for a week from
> last December which is very similar to the 3 year averages. Many
> people on sprintusers.com saw it as it was posted there for a while. I
> might be able to get a copy of that one as well. I'll ask around. If
> anyone else wants to see the smaple from December send me a private
> e-mail and ask for it.

[email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Larry,
>
> Either you are on drugs or lying through your teeth, I never got a
> chart from you and I didn't reply with thanks.
>
> However thank you for this post, it answers my lingering doubt about
> the legitimacy of your claim (i.e. not at all)
>
> BTW tell you what next time a Sanyo phone is at my house I'll take a
> digital photo, it will show 0 bars or out of service on the Sanyo but
> maybe 3 down to 2 bars on the Motorola sitting next to it. Yes I know
> the bars aren't an apples to apples measurement but OOS on a Sanyo and
> 3 bars on a Moto in the my home service area is better data than any
> chart (you likely) made up. BTW If that chart has been around for
> years how come the domain it was posted on is only a month or two old?


So that wasn't you who e-mailed me and asked to see the chart right
after I offered to send it to you? Ok maybe it was somebody else (who
tried to pass themselves off as you) just so they could get the chart
from me. I might have been fooled. But the offer still stands if you
want to see the chart. I will gladly send it to you for the asking.
The chart hasn't been around for years. It was just recently made
using compiled data collected from Sprint's dropped call records over
the past 3 years. The person who made the chart works in the Network
Operations Center in Minnesota. Apparently he had to pull off the info
because Sprint found out about it and that kind of info is proprietary
and not supposed to be shared with the public. I believe you have had
sucess with Motorola but that is just your experience and doesn't
represent the industry as a whole. I agree that Motorolas are good at
finding a weak Sprint signal but at the same time they do drop the
most calls by far. Ihave heard possible reasons as to why this is. One
is because of the chip they use and the other is because of a conflict
with certain network equipment in certain markets. The only other
brand that's almost as bad as the Motorolas are LG. The original
Nokias were also horrible and many have attributed that to the chip
they used. But the new Nokias have greatly improved and are running
neck and neck with the Sanyos. Samsungs are also improving. I know I
said I was done with this thread but somehow I got drawn back in. This
time I'm pretty sure I'm done once again.

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Lines: 20
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:28:37 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.32.49.237
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1081376917 66.32.49.237 (Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:28:37 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:28:37 PDT
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.sprintpcs:138045

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Ron) wrote:


>
> I'll make you a bet that when Moto phones are back in the Sprint
> retail stores you will see that change.... fast.
>
> I suspect that many users do not have my particular issue, of living
> in weak coverage areas, and have been fortunate enough to have other
> sprint users come over with new (supposedly superior) phones.
>
> I'd bet if it were you, that you too would be more interested.
>
> What I find amusing is the lack of interest in real dialogue. Is the
> purpose of this group to promote a single brand of phone?

I think you've hit the nail on the head with some of these folks you've
been talking to. They have this quaint notion this newsgroup is supposed
to be a cheerleading group for Sprint and whatever Sprint wants to sell.

Larry

I am sure you are smart enough to know this but I will remind you

1) Just because some anonymous person post company confidential
information on a web site do not believe it is legitimate. I can post
a chart that shows what ever I want about what ever vendor I like.
For all you know it is the Sanyo market rep in the USA.

2) I agree with you, because of my experience and side-by-side
testing, that the Moto phones pull in signals in weak areas better
than Sanyo and others. I can't understand 100% more dropped calls
since I rarely get them on my phone or have others who I am speaking
with drop (anymore) unless they are in a cellular "dry spot".

3) Ask your pal in the Minn NOC why there are so many Sprint guys at
the Sprint Technology Integration Lab in Kansas that bought Moto V60
from other vendors then programmed onto Sprint network (over the last
2 years). I don't know any guys in the MN center so for all I know
they might be carrying Moto phones there too. BTW I begged for them
to get me a Moto phone too but got turned down.

4) Lastly and most important in the next 30 days we will all get a
chance to compare for ourselves when the Moto phones are again being
sold through regular channels. Of course you won't believe it but my
source, that is hand on at Sprint, told me the Moto phones had a
leadership position for RF performance. I am sure there are those
that have not touched one in 5 years that will disagree.



[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Larry,
> >
> > Either you are on drugs or lying through your teeth, I never got a
> > chart from you and I didn't reply with thanks.
> >
> > However thank you for this post, it answers my lingering doubt about
> > the legitimacy of your claim (i.e. not at all)
> >
> > BTW tell you what next time a Sanyo phone is at my house I'll take a
> > digital photo, it will show 0 bars or out of service on the Sanyo but
> > maybe 3 down to 2 bars on the Motorola sitting next to it. Yes I know
> > the bars aren't an apples to apples measurement but OOS on a Sanyo and
> > 3 bars on a Moto in the my home service area is better data than any
> > chart (you likely) made up. BTW If that chart has been around for
> > years how come the domain it was posted on is only a month or two old?
>
>
> So that wasn't you who e-mailed me and asked to see the chart right
> after I offered to send it to you? Ok maybe it was somebody else (who
> tried to pass themselves off as you) just so they could get the chart
> from me. I might have been fooled. But the offer still stands if you
> want to see the chart. I will gladly send it to you for the asking.
> The chart hasn't been around for years. It was just recently made
> using compiled data collected from Sprint's dropped call records over
> the past 3 years. The person who made the chart works in the Network
> Operations Center in Minnesota. Apparently he had to pull off the info
> because Sprint found out about it and that kind of info is proprietary
> and not supposed to be shared with the public. I believe you have had
> sucess with Motorola but that is just your experience and doesn't
> represent the industry as a whole. I agree that Motorolas are good at
> finding a weak Sprint signal but at the same time they do drop the
> most calls by far. Ihave heard possible reasons as to why this is. One
> is because of the chip they use and the other is because of a conflict
> with certain network equipment in certain markets. The only other
> brand that's almost as bad as the Motorolas are LG. The original
> Nokias were also horrible and many have attributed that to the chip
> they used. But the new Nokias have greatly improved and are running
> neck and neck with the Sanyos. Samsungs are also improving. I know I
> said I was done with this thread but somehow I got drawn back in. This
> time I'm pretty sure I'm done once again.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Ron) wrote:

> Larry
>
> I am sure you are smart enough to know this but I will remind you
>
> 1) Just because some anonymous person post company confidential
> information on a web site do not believe it is legitimate. I can post
> a chart that shows what ever I want about what ever vendor I like.
> For all you know it is the Sanyo market rep in the USA.
>
> 2) I agree with you, because of my experience and side-by-side
> testing, that the Moto phones pull in signals in weak areas better
> than Sanyo and others. I can't understand 100% more dropped calls
> since I rarely get them on my phone or have others who I am speaking
> with drop (anymore) unless they are in a cellular "dry spot".
>
> 3) Ask your pal in the Minn NOC why there are so many Sprint guys at
> the Sprint Technology Integration Lab in Kansas that bought Moto V60
> from other vendors then programmed onto Sprint network (over the last
> 2 years). I don't know any guys in the MN center so for all I know
> they might be carrying Moto phones there too. BTW I begged for them
> to get me a Moto phone too but got turned down.
>
> 4) Lastly and most important in the next 30 days we will all get a
> chance to compare for ourselves when the Moto phones are again being
> sold through regular channels. Of course you won't believe it but my
> source, that is hand on at Sprint, told me the Moto phones had a
> leadership position for RF performance. I am sure there are those
> that have not touched one in 5 years that will disagree.
>
>

Agreed. We see that again and again from SprintPCS employees selective
disclosure of information, and then the fall back to "Sorry I can;t
release confidencial information", when they just had.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry
>
> I am sure you are smart enough to know this but I will remind you

Ron, do you see a pattern in this newsgroup? You are the ONLY one interested
in any possible Motos offered to SPCS customers. The rest of us could care
less, because of all the prior snafus that Motos have had in the system.

Bob

Bob

I'll make you a bet that when Moto phones are back in the Sprint
retail stores you will see that change.... fast.

I suspect that many users do not have my particular issue, of living
in weak coverage areas, and have been fortunate enough to have other
sprint users come over with new (supposedly superior) phones.

I'd bet if it were you, that you too would be more interested.

What I find amusing is the lack of interest in real dialogue. Is the
purpose of this group to promote a single brand of phone?


"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Larry
> >
> > I am sure you are smart enough to know this but I will remind you
>
> Ron, do you see a pattern in this newsgroup? You are the ONLY one interested
> in any possible Motos offered to SPCS customers. The rest of us could care
> less, because of all the prior snafus that Motos have had in the system.
>
> Bob

[email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Larry
>
> I am sure you are smart enough to know this but I will remind you
>
> 1) Just because some anonymous person post company confidential
> information on a web site do not believe it is legitimate. I can post
> a chart that shows what ever I want about what ever vendor I like.
> For all you know it is the Sanyo market rep in the USA.
>
> 2) I agree with you, because of my experience and side-by-side
> testing, that the Moto phones pull in signals in weak areas better
> than Sanyo and others. I can't understand 100% more dropped calls
> since I rarely get them on my phone or have others who I am speaking
> with drop (anymore) unless they are in a cellular "dry spot".
>
> 3) Ask your pal in the Minn NOC why there are so many Sprint guys at
> the Sprint Technology Integration Lab in Kansas that bought Moto V60
> from other vendors then programmed onto Sprint network (over the last
> 2 years). I don't know any guys in the MN center so for all I know
> they might be carrying Moto phones there too. BTW I begged for them
> to get me a Moto phone too but got turned down.
>
> 4) Lastly and most important in the next 30 days we will all get a
> chance to compare for ourselves when the Moto phones are again being
> sold through regular channels. Of course you won't believe it but my
> source, that is hand on at Sprint, told me the Moto phones had a
> leadership position for RF performance. I am sure there are those
> that have not touched one in 5 years that will disagree.



Ron,

I'm sure that CDMA Sprint Motorolas are the best phones ever made.
They never drop calls, have the best signal and have always worked
great on Sprint's network. They have never had conflicts with certain
types of network equipment and have never had software flaws that
caused poor signal. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they
are talking about. Any Sprint employee who says they are/were bad
phones is absolutely wrong and must be a Sanyo rep in disguise. Many
of the Sprint guys in Kansas use Motorolas and love them. Any official
Sprint stats and comparisons have to be wrong and made up and must
have been created by someone who hates Motorola. The ESN/brand
performance chart made by the Sprint switch tech was completly bogus.
All of that info you claim is correct is correct because you say it's
true. Anything I say is totally false and I don't know what I'm
talking about. Mostly everyone in this newsgroup loved their Motorolas
and I'm in the minority of people who thought they were terrible. Plus
you have Phillipe on your side so that's the clincher. Are you
satisfied now?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote:

> Any official
> Sprint stats and comparisons have ...

and the URL to them is......

Bob

You are demonstrating the level of misinformation in this group.

The reason Sprint stopped selling Motorola is not even close what you
you are sying happened. I suspect it is also the reason they didn't
sell any expensive phone (i.e .Nokia) then either. Recall when Moto
and Nokia went away and it was LG and other low cost phones?

Recall Sprint Vision? The first fallout was around custom software
(the guys in the Sprint labs that use non-sprint moto phones have
send/end reversed and other oddities, but the RF is great)

Then when the S/W was available Sprint didn't want to sell an
expensive Moto phone (the v60 was expensive then) to high end users
when they where planning for Sprint Vision. They knew if anyone
dropped $300 for a Moto (or Nokia) a year or so before 1X then they
would not likely dump that phone to get 1X when it was available.

Last Christmas Sprint was supposed to pick up the 720 but they could
not get the price margin they needed. Well they can when selling
through Mercedes and Jag but then they are getting $600 for the phone.
Meanwhile the story line in the sales offices is Moto doesn't perform
but LG does (I laughed my way out of the Sprint store). What are the
marketing guys going to tell sales teams? We don't carry the V60
because we can't get the margins or we don't want a high end phone
because of the upcoming 1X rollout?

From what I heard the new moto phone again has a leadership position
for RF and I expect will be very popular among all those that have
been convinced that it is junk by those with no hands on.

BTW I travel all over the country (world really) my phone works great
in the lower 48, SW Canada & Caribbean where Sprint has coverage. The
only place I could get a signal was outlying parts of Oregon along the
coast. I even tested a call from the NW suburbs of Chicago to both
north side of downtown and sough side (of downtown). Except one small
spot by NW highway & 52 I never lost the call. That is why I found it
so weird that people in this group used to thrash Sprint Chicago
coverage, I go to Chicgo every few months and never have or had a
problem. I just assumed it was guys like you Bob with Sanyo phones
that couldn't get a signal :-)



"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<xf%[email protected]>...
> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bob
> >
> > I'll make you a bet that when Moto phones are back in the Sprint
> > retail stores you will see that change.... fast.
> >
> > I suspect that many users do not have my particular issue, of living
> > in weak coverage areas, and have been fortunate enough to have other
> > sprint users come over with new (supposedly superior) phones.
> >
> > I'd bet if it were you, that you too would be more interested.
> >
> > What I find amusing is the lack of interest in real dialogue. Is the
> > purpose of this group to promote a single brand of phone?
>
> Absolutely not. Every model is discussed here, if only when new users post
> here with questions. The reason why Motos are not talked about much here is
> that they earned a very bad rep, in certain parts of the country ... with
> coverage problems. SPCS recognized this as they didn't pursue Moto for newer
> and more modern handsets.
>
> Everyone here who is still on this board from the old days, who had Motos,
> have dumped them for other models. Consider yourself lucky with your model
> and the area that you use the handset.
>
> Bob

Larry

No, I would say that Moto has had and still has world class RF. They
have also made some huge mistakes i.e. S/W bugs but those can be and
have been corrected. They even had a significant design issue with the
recently replaced 720 that impacted battery life that was fixed by the
new 730.

End of the day Moto is a great phone and it takes all the abuse I give
it (which is plenty) but yes they have had there warts. But the great
RF is why the top end providers sell them and why Sprint is going with
Moto again. That might also be why (I was told over 100) people spend
a lot of $$ (tri-bands v60s from Alltel I think) and effort to get
Moto V60s activated for their personal phones when they where not
available via normal retail channels.

Also I do tend not to believe when anonymous people post what would be
company confidential metrics that would be very hard for a person that
stupid to have access to in the first place. I could make up any
chart I wanted, say I am the head tech for Sprint and post data saying
anything that fits my agenda. Also the ESN to manufacture info is not
in the NOC it would require access to billing data.






[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Larry
> >
> > I am sure you are smart enough to know this but I will remind you
> >
> > 1) Just because some anonymous person post company confidential
> > information on a web site do not believe it is legitimate. I can post
> > a chart that shows what ever I want about what ever vendor I like.
> > For all you know it is the Sanyo market rep in the USA.
> >
> > 2) I agree with you, because of my experience and side-by-side
> > testing, that the Moto phones pull in signals in weak areas better
> > than Sanyo and others. I can't understand 100% more dropped calls
> > since I rarely get them on my phone or have others who I am speaking
> > with drop (anymore) unless they are in a cellular "dry spot".
> >
> > 3) Ask your pal in the Minn NOC why there are so many Sprint guys at
> > the Sprint Technology Integration Lab in Kansas that bought Moto V60
> > from other vendors then programmed onto Sprint network (over the last
> > 2 years). I don't know any guys in the MN center so for all I know
> > they might be carrying Moto phones there too. BTW I begged for them
> > to get me a Moto phone too but got turned down.
> >
> > 4) Lastly and most important in the next 30 days we will all get a
> > chance to compare for ourselves when the Moto phones are again being
> > sold through regular channels. Of course you won't believe it but my
> > source, that is hand on at Sprint, told me the Moto phones had a
> > leadership position for RF performance. I am sure there are those
> > that have not touched one in 5 years that will disagree.
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> I'm sure that CDMA Sprint Motorolas are the best phones ever made.
> They never drop calls, have the best signal and have always worked
> great on Sprint's network. They have never had conflicts with certain
> types of network equipment and have never had software flaws that
> caused poor signal. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they
> are talking about. Any Sprint employee who says they are/were bad
> phones is absolutely wrong and must be a Sanyo rep in disguise. Many
> of the Sprint guys in Kansas use Motorolas and love them. Any official
> Sprint stats and comparisons have to be wrong and made up and must
> have been created by someone who hates Motorola. The ESN/brand
> performance chart made by the Sprint switch tech was completly bogus.
> All of that info you claim is correct is correct because you say it's
> true. Anything I say is totally false and I don't know what I'm
> talking about. Mostly everyone in this newsgroup loved their Motorolas
> and I'm in the minority of people who thought they were terrible. Plus
> you have Phillipe on your side so that's the clincher. Are you
> satisfied now?

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob
>
> You are demonstrating the level of misinformation in this group.

Uhhh, no ... I'm not. I've been on this newsgroup since 98, and before SPCS
started selling Motos.
>
> The reason Sprint stopped selling Motorola is not even close what you
> you are sying happened. I suspect it is also the reason they didn't
> sell any expensive phone (i.e .Nokia) then either. Recall when Moto
> and Nokia went away and it was LG and other low cost phones?

You suspect? No, I remember that both manufacturers sold phones with their
own designed CDMA chip, where in every other phone sold through SPCS had a
Qualcomm CDMA chip. Both Nokia & Motorola phones had problems with the
system at that time.
>
> Recall Sprint Vision? The first fallout was around custom software
> (the guys in the Sprint labs that use non-sprint moto phones have
> send/end reversed and other oddities, but the RF is great)

Sure I remember that. I also remember comments where we had more complaints
from Moto and Nokia users back then.
>
> Then when the S/W was available Sprint didn't want to sell an
> expensive Moto phone (the v60 was expensive then) to high end users
> when they where planning for Sprint Vision. They knew if anyone
> dropped $300 for a Moto (or Nokia) a year or so before 1X then they
> would not likely dump that phone to get 1X when it was available.

SPCS has offered lines high priced phones for a long time. They offered $400
phones, like the Uproar, and other models way back then.

> Last Christmas Sprint was supposed to pick up the 720 but they could
> not get the price margin they needed. Well they can when selling
> through Mercedes and Jag but then they are getting $600 for the phone.
> Meanwhile the story line in the sales offices is Moto doesn't perform
> but LG does (I laughed my way out of the Sprint store). What are the
> marketing guys going to tell sales teams? We don't carry the V60
> because we can't get the margins or we don't want a high end phone
> because of the upcoming 1X rollout?
>
> From what I heard the new moto phone again has a leadership position
> for RF and I expect will be very popular among all those that have
> been convinced that it is junk by those with no hands on.
>
> BTW I travel all over the country (world really) my phone works great
> in the lower 48, SW Canada & Caribbean where Sprint has coverage. The
> only place I could get a signal was outlying parts of Oregon along the
> coast. I even tested a call from the NW suburbs of Chicago to both
> north side of downtown and sough side (of downtown). Except one small
> spot by NW highway & 52 I never lost the call. That is why I found it
> so weird that people in this group used to thrash Sprint Chicago
> coverage, I go to Chicgo every few months and never have or had a
> problem. I just assumed it was guys like you Bob with Sanyo phones
> that couldn't get a signal :-)

No matter what you say, there were problems previously. Personally I don't
give two hoots whether Motos are brought back or not. You can have the last
word on this, if you want, but I'm no longer interested in conversing with
you on this issue.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Agreed. We see that again and again from SprintPCS employees selective=20
> disclosure of information, and then the fall back to "Sorry I can;t=20
> release confidencial information", when they just had.
>=20

What a wonderfully and typically useless non sequitur from you.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote:
>=20
> > Any official
> > Sprint stats and comparisons have ...
>=20
> and the URL to them is......
>=20

The same one that shows SPCS promising to release the Kyocera 7135

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them