Sprint Nextel Merger: Employee Benefits and Bashing the Messenger

D.J. Osborn wrote:

> Yu *still* haven't told us *exactly* what's wrong with his statement. You
> can't--because it's generally accurate.

Well, I'm sorry I could only pull two examples off the top of my head. There
are several more.



--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

---

› See More: Sprint Nextel Merger: Employee Benefits and Bashing the Messenger

D.J. Osborn wrote:
> Please tell us *exactly* what's wrong with the statement. I believe it's
> generally accurate.

How do you expect anyone to tell you *exactly* what is wrong with that
statement when not even you can exactly quantify it, and the best you
can do is say it's "generally" accurate?

The problem with your statement is that it quantifies nothing, except
your own opinion. There are no hard facts to verify it with.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
>
> > Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways.
>
> That's a crass over-generalization.


Not really, have a look at the coverage maps. All you see in most of the
country is just a narrow ribbon overlaying the interstate highways.


>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
[email protected]
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

George wrote:

>>George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sprints coverage is basically a spiders web along the highways.
>>
>>That's a crass over-generalization.
>
> Not really, have a look at the coverage maps. All you see in most of the
> country is just a narrow ribbon overlaying the interstate highways.

Which is partially accurate. OTOH, Sprint has outstanding coverage along the
lake in Lake County, Ohio, and the Lake County (Mentor, Ohio) store didn't even
show coverage there when I lived in the area and set up service back in 2000.
And they SHOULD show the lakefront as covered, since I lived in Mentor on the
Lake and had a Sprint-owned cell tower sitting two minutes from my house, and
no more than a quarter-mile south of the lake.

And I had solid coverage in Ashtabula County, Ohio, way off the freeway.

So, I'd argue that you are correct in MANY cases, but not in ALL cases as
evidenced by the situation I just described.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote:

> D.J. Osborn wrote:
>
> > Yu *still* haven't told us *exactly* what's wrong with his statement.
You
> > can't--because it's generally accurate.
>
> Well, I'm sorry I could only pull two examples off the top of my head.
There
> are several more.


Even if you do have "several more," it *still* doesn't change the fact that
his statement is substantially accurate.

--
D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Joseph in Seattle replied to this comment about Sprint's coverage maps
from a.c.sprintpcs's favorite resident troll...

>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:57:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas.
>>
>>I hope you're not implying that there's *any* carrier that covers the
>>whole US. Doesn't exist and probably never will since there are parts
>>of the US that are almost uninhabited so it'd be a waste of any
>>company's money to try and provide service there.
>
> But look at a Cingular map or a Verizon map and compare with the Sprint
> map. Sprint is a spiders web.

Sprint has coverage, and for that matter Cingular has coverage, in whole CHUNKS
of the country where Verizon does not. Try the Pacific Northwest -- much of
Oregon -- or Oklahoma/New Mexico/Arkansas. Granted, Verizon coverage is solid
back East. Out here, not so much.

Hey, Dan Albrich in Oregon. Has your Verizon coverage gotten any better lately?

And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on arguing
that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to bashing
your favorite former cellular carrier (Sprint), you conveniently ignore that
fact. Now you accept the maps as gospel! AMEN, brother!

Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to
a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:57:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas.
>>
>>I hope you're not implying that there's *any* carrier that covers the
>>whole US. Doesn't exist and probably never will since there are parts
>>of the US that are almost uninhabited so it'd be a waste of any
>>company's money to try and provide service there.
>
>
> But look at a Cingular map or a Verizon map and compare with the Sprint
> map. Sprint is a spiders web.

Whoops, my bad, I included New Mexico in the list of states that don't have
much Verizon coverage - that's wrong. Albuquerque and most of the rest of
western NM are covered; eastern NM is not covered well if at all.

I see that Louisiana has almost no native Verizon coverage too... and half of
Alabama. What was that about no coverage from *Sprint* on the I-10 between
Mobile and Los Angeles? You don't get much coverage from the carrier
advertising the largest nationwide network, either. (I mean Verizon. Cingular
didn't start advertising the largest network until just a couple weeks ago.)

Touche, Jack. Cingular probably has good coverage in that region as the ILECs
serving it are SBC and BellSouth. I'm betting no one else has any decent amount
of coverage.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on arguing
>>that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to
>>bashing
>>your favorite former cellular carrier (Sprint), you conveniently ignore that
>>fact. Now you accept the maps as gospel! AMEN, brother!
>
>
> The maps show how much of a spider web Sprint coverage is, they dont
> show the holes in coverage in metropolitan areas.
>
> And calling me names doesn't make Sprint coverage any better, it just
> shows your immaturity.

Hm, we no longer have alt.cellular.verizon or alt.cellular.sprintpcs in the
newsgroup list? What are you trying to hide? (re-added)

You're still a hypocrite. You're the one that keeps on saying coverage maps
can't be trusted. I made a point, and you conveniently ignored it.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

In article <41c0aa83$0$188
[email protected]>, Thomas T.=20
[email protected] says...
> Yes, he is the same troll. He probably sensed a new opportunity with
> the recent changes in the mobile phone industry enough to create
> material to easily troll with.
>=20
Whatever he sensed, I notice he's gone deathly silent on=20
his own "subject" since I pointed out Sprint PCS'=20
profitability last quarter. And their growing user base.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
**A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.**
-Thomas Paine. The Rights of Man. 1792-

Is there a reliable, third party, frequently updated, source that
reports the relative market share, market share rate of change, etc. of
the 4/5 major carriers?

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Joseph in Seattle replied to this comment about Sprint's coverage maps
> from a.c.sprintpcs's favorite resident troll...
>
> >>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:57:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas.
> >>
> >>I hope you're not implying that there's *any* carrier that covers the
> >>whole US. Doesn't exist and probably never will since there are parts
> >>of the US that are almost uninhabited so it'd be a waste of any
> >>company's money to try and provide service there.
> >
> > But look at a Cingular map or a Verizon map and compare with the Sprint
> > map. Sprint is a spiders web.
>
> Sprint has coverage, and for that matter Cingular has coverage, in whole
CHUNKS
> of the country where Verizon does not. Try the Pacific Northwest -- much
of
> Oregon -- or Oklahoma/New Mexico/Arkansas. Granted, Verizon coverage is
solid
> back East. Out here, not so much.

You keep ignoring the VZW partners, and the fact that in most cases they can
be accessed for absolutely no additional cost on a VZW AC plan.

> Hey, Dan Albrich in Oregon. Has your Verizon coverage gotten any better
lately?
>
> And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on
arguing
> that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to
bashing
> your favorite former cellular carrier (Sprint), you conveniently ignore
that
> fact. Now you accept the maps as gospel! AMEN, brother!

You keep ignoring his point.

> Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to
> a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him.

So what?
--
D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Joseph in Seattle replied to this comment about Sprint's coverage maps
> from a.c.sprintpcs's favorite resident troll...
>
> >>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:57:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Look at the map. Its a spiders web between the Metro areas.
> >>
> >>I hope you're not implying that there's *any* carrier that covers the
> >>whole US. Doesn't exist and probably never will since there are parts
> >>of the US that are almost uninhabited so it'd be a waste of any
> >>company's money to try and provide service there.
> >
> > But look at a Cingular map or a Verizon map and compare with the Sprint
> > map. Sprint is a spiders web.
>
> Sprint has coverage, and for that matter Cingular has coverage, in whole
CHUNKS
> of the country where Verizon does not. Try the Pacific Northwest -- much
of
> Oregon -- or Oklahoma/New Mexico/Arkansas. Granted, Verizon coverage is
solid
> back East. Out here, not so much.

You keep ignoring the VZW partners, and the fact that in most cases they can
be accessed for absolutely no additional cost on a VZW AC plan.

> Hey, Dan Albrich in Oregon. Has your Verizon coverage gotten any better
lately?
>
> And you, "Jack," my dear hypocrite, are the SAME person that keeps on
arguing
> that cellular coverage maps aren't accurate. However, when it comes to
bashing
> your favorite former cellular carrier (Sprint), you conveniently ignore
that
> fact. Now you accept the maps as gospel! AMEN, brother!

You keep ignoring his point.

> Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to
> a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him.

So what?
--
D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Scott Stephenson wrote:

> And pointing out something like serves what purpose? Sounds like an
> immature attempt to cause trouble.

I already answered that. The move was an extremely difficult one to make and
necessitated by economic factors - as in, there's more work out here than there
is back there. In addition, my wife and her entire family are from the High
Desert area. And it took me a lot longer than it should have to update the
website. I do love Ohio, espeically Northeast Ohio, especially, ESPECIALLY the
corner of Lake County where I used to live.

But all that's been explained, and I already apologized for taking way too long
to update the site.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

D.J. Osborn wrote:

> You keep ignoring the VZW partners, and the fact that in most cases they can
> be accessed for absolutely no additional cost on a VZW AC plan.

Of course I keep ignoring the VZW partners, BECAUSE THEY'RE IRRELEVANT.

For $5 additional on top of the monthly price of any PCS Free and Clear, or
Fair and Flexible plan, both of which allow for no roaming charges only on
Sprint's network, you can take advantage of the "America" add-on option which
allows you to roam anywhere Sprint has a roaming agreement in the USA without
paying those additional charges. It's similar to the difference between
America's Choice and the true VZW no-roaming-anywhere-in-the-US plans, National
Single-Rate and North America's Choice. The only big difference is that Sprint
only allows you to use 50% of your minutes in any given month off their
network. On the other hand, if you use that many minutes roaming, either (a)
you need more minutes or (b) you need to find a carrier that services the areas
you visit, natively.

The "largest nationwide network" spiel Verizon likes to talk about is a crock.
A large portion of it isn't theirs.

>>Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added - please don't flame "Jack" for posting to
>>a.c.spcs in this thread; it's me that added the group, not him.
>
> So what?

"Jack" (under a different pseudonym) stated he was leaving a.c.spcs very
publically, about the same time he left Sprint for Cingular. I just wanted to
clarify that he wasn't coming back on his own. Irrelevant, really, for anyone
reading this thread outside the SPCS newsgroup.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

O/Siris wrote:
> In article <41c0aa83$0$188
> [email protected]>, Thomas T.
> [email protected] says...
>
>>Yes, he is the same troll. He probably sensed a new opportunity with
>>the recent changes in the mobile phone industry enough to create
>>material to easily troll with.
>>
>
> Whatever he sensed, I notice he's gone deathly silent on
> his own "subject" since I pointed out Sprint PCS'
> profitability last quarter. And their growing user base.

And he refuses to post ANYTHING to alt.cellular.sprintpcs in this thread.



--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.