Signal coverage--truth in advertising

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:37:45 -0400, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>
>> 1. Unlike Verizon and Sprint and Cingular they don't give you free
>> mobile to mobile so you can call people free that you don't know and
>> won't be calling. And they charge lots less. It was a good tradeoff
>> for us.
>
>It depends on the plan, you can get unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes.
I didn't know that. They give you so many anytime minutes I hardly
think I will need any extras.

---

› See More: Signal coverage--truth in advertising

> (of course, in asking that question, I'm assuming you're heterosexual)

Sadly, i think the answer would be the same for either way... LoL

Ive had t-mobile for a year and a half. It is extremely rare for me to drop
any call. Coverage is rock solid everywhere i go. (Illinois, wisconsin,
indiana, florida, and a few other places.) If i don't have t-mobile signal,
i can usually roam for free on another network.

"daniel cairns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
> they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
> metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
> down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
> the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
> awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
> have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
> Queen on the television solving all those problems with family members
> talking to each other I notice they don't even mention how great or even
> mediocre the coverage is. But they girl is beautiful so that is what
> really matters.
> Thanks for listening,
> Daniel Cairns

John Navas wrote:
>
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:38:28 -0000,
> [email protected] (Jim Seymour) wrote:
>
> >In article <sVeHe.6694$p%[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> PBS has already gone to way of commercial TV -- the difference now is only a
> >> matter of degree, and the gap is closing.
> >
> >As long as it doesn't close to "five minutes of commercials every
> >seven minutes." I wouldn't mind commercials so much if it weren't
> >for the frequency and duration. PBS does retain one advantage: Good
> >programming. Commercial broadcast TV never was much good--but now
> >it's utter crap.
>
> There's lots of good stuff on commercial TV if you take the time to seek it
> out; e.g., West Wing, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, The
> Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Over There, ...

Scrubs?

Holy ****, John. Have you lost it? <g>

Notan

Notan wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:38:28 -0000,
>> [email protected] (Jim Seymour) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <sVeHe.6694$p%[email protected]>,
>>> John Navas <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> PBS has already gone to way of commercial TV -- the difference now is only a
>>>> matter of degree, and the gap is closing.
>>>
>>> As long as it doesn't close to "five minutes of commercials every
>>> seven minutes." I wouldn't mind commercials so much if it weren't
>>> for the frequency and duration. PBS does retain one advantage: Good
>>> programming. Commercial broadcast TV never was much good--but now
>>> it's utter crap.
>>
>> There's lots of good stuff on commercial TV if you take the time to seek it
>> out; e.g., West Wing, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, The
>> Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Over There, ...
>
> Scrubs?
>
> Holy ****, John. Have you lost it? <g>
>
> Notan

I happen to like that show, also Desperate Housewives.
A current favorite is House.

--
John Richards

John Richards wrote:

> I happen to like that show, also Desperate Housewives.
> A current favorite is House.

Yup, on Tuesday's I'm paying Rupert Murdoch's yacht payment... House on
Fox at 9pm, Rescue Me on F/X at 10pm. Compelling TV, with some really
screwed-up characters.

**SJ "Can't wait for the new season of nip/tuck, either" S

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:55:56 -0700, Steve
Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>**SJ "Can't wait for the new season of nip/tuck, either" S

Yep!

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>radio service sold to consumers.
>
> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples?

220-222 MHz.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>
>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples?
>
>220-222 MHz.

How is that relevant to cellular?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples?
>>
>>220-222 MHz.
>
> How is that relevant to cellular?

It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.

Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:

"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
the Commission.**Cellular*airwaves*belong*to*the*PUBLIC*and*are*used*under*
license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
license for the PUBLIC good.**Those*licenses*could*be*pulled*away*and*the*
systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:46:14 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
>> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples?
>>>
>>>220-222 MHz.
>>
>> How is that relevant to cellular?
>
>It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
>besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.
>
>Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:
>
>"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
>services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
>the Commission.**Cellular*airwaves*belong*to*the*PUBLIC*and*are*used*under*
>license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
>license for the PUBLIC good.**Those*licenses*could*be*pulled*away*and*the*
>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.

I fail to see how 220-222 MHz has any relevance.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:46:14 -0500,
> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
>>> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples?
>>>>
>>>>220-222 MHz.
>>>
>>> How is that relevant to cellular?
>>
>>It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
>>besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.
>>
>>Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:
>>
>>"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
>>services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
>>the Commission.**Cellular*airwaves*belong*to*the*PUBLIC*and*are*used*under*
>>license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
>>license for the PUBLIC good.**Those*licenses*could*be*pulled*away*and*the*
>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.
>
> I fail to see how 220-222 MHz has any relevance.

"Those*licenses*could*be*pulled*away*and*the*systems darkened by FCC
enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
enforcement actios.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:41:35 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:46:14 -0500,
>> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
>>>> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples?
>>>>>
>>>>>220-222 MHz.
>>>>
>>>> How is that relevant to cellular?
>>>
>>>It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
>>>besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.
>>>
>>>Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:
>>>
>>>"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
>>>services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
>>>the Commission.**Cellular*airwaves*belong*to*the*PUBLIC*and*are*used*under*
>>>license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
>>>license for the PUBLIC good.**Those*licenses*could*be*pulled*away*and*the*
>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.
>>
>> I fail to see how 220-222 MHz has any relevance.
>
>"Those*licenses*could*be*pulled*away*and*the*systems darkened by FCC
>enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
>consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>enforcement actios.

1. Not a valid analogy.

2. Not a chance in hell of that happening in cellular in any event.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:12:37 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>"Those*licenses*could*be*pulled*away*and*the*systems darkened by FCC
>>enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
>>consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>>enforcement actios.
>
>1. Not a valid analogy.
>
>2. Not a chance in hell of that happening in cellular in any event.

As soon as they get everyone off 800 analog it WILL happen. The FCC
can't wait to auction those off.

"[email protected]" wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:12:37 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>"Those licenses could be pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
> >>enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
> >>consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
> >>enforcement actios.
> >
> >1. Not a valid analogy.
> >
> >2. Not a chance in hell of that happening in cellular in any event.
>
> As soon as they get everyone off 800 analog it WILL happen. The FCC
> can't wait to auction those off.

¿¿??

The FCC won't be auctioning off the analog channels, the carriers who run
analog will have that spectrum to use for their digital offerings.

TH