The new AT&T Wireless

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

> Yeah, webtv isn't a real newsreader. But its all I can afford. My
> only hope is that even though it is a webtv, I can still be a worthy
> poster to this group.
>
> Eric

We all need to stick to the issues at hand, and not attack people
for using Outlook Express or WebTV or Macintosh.

We also need reasoned debates with words like "LIAR" - "BOGUS", and
"PHONEY" left out. if someone says something you are convinced it wrong,
then prove it with an authoritative URL, and not a personal attack or
bad language.

---

› See More: The new AT&T Wireless

In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

> I can't believe where all you guys have taken this thread! I was trying
> to make fun of how ATT or ATTWS would relabel useful technical terms
> with obfuscating marketing terms, and you're off trying to logically
> compare the nonsensical marketing terms, or what's 2G vs 3G, or worse.

Its almost like someone in their marketing department is an EST graduate.

Confuse people by using new terminology.

"Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Eric) wrote:
>
> > Yeah, webtv isn't a real newsreader. But its all I can afford. My
> > only hope is that even though it is a webtv, I can still be a worthy
> > poster to this group.
> >
> > Eric
>
> We all need to stick to the issues at hand, and not attack people
> for using Outlook Express or WebTV or Macintosh.
>
> We also need reasoned debates with words like "LIAR" - "BOGUS", and
> "PHONEY" left out. if someone says something you are convinced it wrong,
> then prove it with an authoritative URL, and not a personal attack or
> bad language.

You should talk Phillipe, about what you've posted over the past 24 hours,
the attacks and the lies you've spread around, and everything else you've
done, since you came on board. There is no reason to use over 100 different
ids to pass your thoughts on here.

It's not our job to prove you wrong Phillipe ... It's your job to prove you
are right ... A simple copy & paste, along with a page reference number from
the 10Q. Why do you keep refusing to do it?

What's more, it was not an attack on Eric. Posts created by WebTV
newsreaders don't render correctly.

You want to make peace here? The first step is yours. Don't do any of the
following any further ...

01) Your preference for lying ...
02) Your misquoting of other posters' messages and your confirmation you do
that.
03) Your attempt to impersonate other posters here.
04) Your unmunging of email addresses so spambots can harvest them.
05) Your attempt to answer prior posts made in one ID with different IDs
06) Your attempt to moderate this group on what can or can't be said, and
then hypocritically post the same words you allegedly abhor.
07) Your failure to answer simple questions asked to clarify your position
here, when the truth comes out.
08) Your manufacturing of false facts and then sidestepping the issue with
false circular reasoning.
09) Your complaints about people insulting you, and you creating insulting
multiple subject threads.
10) Last, but certainly not least, using AT LEAST 105 different IDs here to
avoid kill filters of others.

These aren't comments from a wannabe moderator, only from one who's been
posting here for a long time. You do that, and you might be taken seriously
by yours truly and everyone else. Oh, one more thing ... cut the apologist
crap. None of us are apologists here ...

Bob

Steven J Sobol wrote:

> I had no clue there was a lawsuit.

The lawsuit was over Sprint's supposed claim that their GSM network
would eventually be nationwide. Perhaps Sprint had said that initially
(I don't remember), but then decided to concentrate on a new CDMA
network instead. Some Sprint Spectrum users sued for false claims (or
more legal-sounding nomenclature equivalent), and Sprint lost. So
Sprint said (in essence) "OK, if that's the way you want to play" and
killed the GSM network completely -- they phased everyone off it
within several months (by the end of '99), allowing us to trade in our
GSM phone for a CDMA phone (usually the first Nokia -- forgot the
model -- or the first Denso dualband Touchpoint). IIRC, we were
additionally given something like five bucks worth of airtime credit.
The lawyers OTOH no doubt made the usual killing.



--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.

Donkey Agony <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> within several months (by the end of '99), allowing us to trade in our
> GSM phone for a CDMA phone (usually the first Nokia -- forgot the
> model

2170 most likely

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

[email protected]ants (Nebby) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected]
>
> is busy changing the subject so no one will notice he didnt know the difference
> between AT&T and AT&T Wireless.

[email protected]

is busy changing his alias so no one will notice he's off-topic and
off-point again...

"Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Don't forget "Sprint Spectrum" -- the GSM network for DC, southern
> Maryland, and northern Virginia -- from '95 to '99.
>
> In '99, Sprint "migrated" everyone off the GSM network onto the PCS
> network -- they had to close down the GSM network because of a class
> action lawsuit.

I don't remember anything about a "lawsuit"...

Sprint operated the DC GSM system as a sort of trial balloon to get
their house in order (marketing, billing, etc.) prior to launching
Sprint PCS. They used GSM for the same reason many 800-MHz carriers
went TDMA- they needed a digital system and CDMA wasn't quite ready
yet in 1995!

Sprint continued to operate their GSM system in DC alongside CDMA for
a few years to allow them time to migrate their DC customers to their
CDMA system going up nationwide. An SPCS-employee friend of mine with
them at the time tells me they also didn't mind reaping a little extra
GSM roaming revenue from foreign diplomats in DC. ;-)

> I think it's now owned and operated by T-mobile.

I'm not sure what T-Mo could have bought- SPCS is still using the
towers and bandwidth for their current CDMA network and my buddy told
me they sold the GSM switches and used handsets on the secondary
market for pennies on the dollar.

Todd Allcock wrote:
>> In '99, Sprint "migrated" everyone off the GSM network onto the PCS
>> network -- they had to close down the GSM network because of a class
>> action lawsuit.

> I don't remember anything about a "lawsuit"...

Search Google Groups (you'll get better results if you restrict your
search to the last half of '99). For starters:

http://tinyurl.com/32lgp
http://tinyurl.com/3babw


--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, they do label it that way, as GSM is based upon a form of TDMA and
> > is a newer technology. However, they are both 2G technologies, which
> > was the point [that you so conveniently clipped].
>
> Duh, I started the thread. You went OT (Off Topic) long ago; and as
> often the case injected bad language was injected. Here is the OP in
> case you forgot:
>
>
> ==================
>
> I need someone to explain this to me. AT&T inked a 5 year deal with
> Sprint PCS to use the Sprint Wireless PCS network for new service it
> will be starting up soon. Sort of like Virgin Mobile does. Could be a
> win-win deal.
>
> Then I read this is a "nonexclusive deal" and AT&T is also negotiating
> with Nextel and T-Mobile. I'm not aware of any phones that could do
> CDMA, GSM and IDEN. The only phone planned that does CDMA and GSM is
> designed to roam in Europe on their GSM frequencies, not stateside.
>
> So what might AT&T have up it's sleeve?

I don't think AT&T will seriously consider going with T-Mobile.
T-Mobile is growing too fast to be able to handle it's own customers
plus AT&T's customers. GSM systems are more prone to capacity problems
than CDMA. I doubt they would go with Nextel either. I doubt they
would want to offer two different types of phones & service at the
same time (ie Sprint and Nextel). It would make things to complicated
and confusing. I think they will stay exclusive to Sprint even though
they don't have to be.

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

> I don't think AT&T will seriously consider going with T-Mobile.
> T-Mobile is growing too fast to be able to handle it's own customers
> plus AT&T's customers. GSM systems are more prone to capacity problems
> than CDMA. I doubt they would go with Nextel either. I doubt they
> would want to offer two different types of phones & service at the
> same time (ie Sprint and Nextel). It would make things to complicated
> and confusing. I think they will stay exclusive to Sprint even though
> they don't have to be.

If Bell South buys out AT&T Long Distance, they won't be going with
Sprint.

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> (Bob=A0Smith) wrote:
> <<So why keep harping on that Phillipe? As you have already said, no one
> has posted here that they have lost Vision or been charged extra $$ for
> the occasional use. You want it defined, it is defined. As Rob has said,
> so far we are under the radar per se. >>
>=20
> I believe that it shouldn't be that difficult for Sprint to track data
> usage... all the other providers are able to. Why is it so tough for
> them to give us accuarate data usage readings so that people who have
> questions or concerns can be satisfied? I know that casual users
> shouldn't have a reason for concern about going over the limit, but for
> arguement sake and for piece of mind, it would just be easier if Sprint
> offered this information to those who seek it.
>=20
> Eric
>=20
>=20

We *will* provide it to customers who ask via *2. I'm not sure why=20
it's not on the SPCS web site for you, other than that we ran into a=20
technical issue that could have huge billing ramifications.

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

"Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > I don't remember anything about a "lawsuit"...
>
> Search Google Groups (you'll get better results if you restrict your
> search to the last half of '99).

Thanks! Part of the history I didn't know about.

However, nothing I saw Googling indicated the lawsuits had anything to
do with Sprint "dismantling" GSM because of them. It seemed the
lawsuits simply got Sprint to give the CDMA handsets to GSM customers
for free, rather than the $75 they were charging.

Sprint was getting rid of GSM anyway, and trying to keep Omnipoint out
of the market until the migration was complete, lest some of SPCS'
customers decide to stay GSM. Sprint wanted GSM to go dark in DC,
encouraging all GSM customers to jump to Sprint's CDMA service before
anyone else "resurrected" GSM.

Since you were there, (and I certainly wasn't!) you might remember-
were the GSM handsets unlocked? Could you just get an Omni SIM and
sign up? I suspect Sprint was a little nervous that Nokia 9000 owners
might not be willing to "downgrade" to whatever relatively featureless
Nokia or Qualcom Sprint was giving away at the time!

Thanks for the history lesson!

Todd Allcock wrote:
> Thanks! Part of the history I didn't know about.
>
> However, nothing I saw Googling indicated the lawsuits had anything to
> do with Sprint "dismantling" GSM because of them. It seemed the
> lawsuits simply got Sprint to give the CDMA handsets to GSM customers
> for free, rather than the $75 they were charging.

Well, I wasn't behind the scenes, so I don't know what was really going
on. But from everything I heard, they did not intend to do away with
their GSM network until the lawsuit. Lot of international traffic in
the DC area, so GSM was a good fit here. After Sprint got CDMA
religion, they simply owned two networks in this area. I had two
phones, one for each network (I originally got the SprintPCS phone as a
backup to have for analog roaming in the boonies!). The communications
we got from Sprint about closing down the "Spectrum" network came only
after the lawsuit had been decided against them.

> Sprint was getting rid of GSM anyway, and trying to keep Omnipoint out
> of the market until the migration was complete, lest some of SPCS'
> customers decide to stay GSM. Sprint wanted GSM to go dark in DC,
> encouraging all GSM customers to jump to Sprint's CDMA service before
> anyone else "resurrected" GSM.

After they decided to kill the network, they definitely wanted it to
"stay dark" for a while -- until they had gotten as many people as
possible onto "SprintPCS".

I seem to vaguely recall, though, that they kept it live for some of the
government and diplomatic corps that shuttled back and forth to Europe.

> Since you were there, (and I certainly wasn't!) you might remember-
> were the GSM handsets unlocked?

At least some of them were. Not all of them. (Not sure why this was).
I was ticked off that I had just purchased a $380 Bosch "World Phone" --
my second Spectrum phone -- when just six weeks later I was informed
they were shutting down the GSM network! It was unlocked, though I
bought it from the Sprint store. (I still have it, but I haven't been
to Europe in the last couple of years, so it's just collecting dust
right now.)

Funny thing is, back then ('99) GSM coverage was *quite* a bit better
than CDMA coverage. On a trip to Florida, my GSM phone had a solid
signal almost all the way, while my Qualcomm 2700 (CDMA/analog) could
only do analog roaming except in a few "hot spots" -- mostly big cities.
Same story driving across Tennessee. Times have changed...



--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

> Funny thing is, back then ('99) GSM coverage was *quite* a bit better
> than CDMA coverage. On a trip to Florida, my GSM phone had a solid
> signal almost all the way, while my Qualcomm 2700 (CDMA/analog) could
> only do analog roaming except in a few "hot spots" -- mostly big cities.
> Same story driving across Tennessee. Times have changed...

Try driving from New Orleans to Los Angeles with any of the "national
carriers" and see how much of I-10 has ZERO coverage.

Motorala has a new phone that does CDMA and GSM. Coming out soon


Robert M <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I need someone to explain this to me. AT&T inked a 5 year deal with
> Sprint PCS to use the Sprint Wireless PCS network for new service it
> will be starting up soon. Sort of like Virgin Mobile does. Could be a
> win-win deal.
>
>
> Then I read this is a "nonexclusive deal" and AT&T is also negotiating
> with Nextel and T-Mobile. I'm not aware of any phones that could do
> CDMA, GSM and IDEN. The only phone planned that does CDMA and GSM is
> designed to roam in Europe on their GSM frequencies, not stateside.
>
> So what might AT&T have up it's sleeve?