Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting2/21/08

At 21 Feb 2008 12:00:36 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >Occam's razor would suggest a passing cruise ship as a more likely source
>
> You obviously don't know the area. There are no "passing cruise ships"
> with open microcells.

No, I don't know the area. And IIRC, you didn't offer up the GPS
coordinates when asked (but admittedly that thread was a long time ago-
perhaps you did and I've forgotten.)


> >of his signal than an as of yet unannounced, and troublesome technology
> >(the idea of reducing tower capacity by half just so passing yachtsmen 40
> >miles offshore can make calls is a stretch of logic.)
>
> Actually makes a good deal of sense. Offshore coverage by AT&T Wireless
> along the California coast is quite good.

But GSM can already cover up to 20 miles or so offshore without resorting
to any capacity-reducing tricks, so why does it "make sense" to use ER-GSM?
Are you suggesting that there's actually enough voice and data traffic in
the strip of ocean between 20 and 40 miles from shore to justify cutting
the capacity of all towers up and down the California coast in half, and
locking out GPRS use on those towers?

> On a recent delivery to
> Mexico I had coverage most of the way even when well offshore.

More than 20 miles?

> >Even more interesting, everything I've read about Extended Range GSM in
the
> >VERY few places where deployed indicates that GPRS/EDGE data is generally
> >disabled on ER towers, due to the fact that ER doubles the number of
> >timeslots needed, making any claim of using "Extended GSM" with a data-
> > only card even more dubious!
>
> You obviously don't know the card either.

What's to know? It's a GSM/GPRS/EDGE data-card. What's the big secret?
Were you using CSD? Again, IIRC the original thread, you were data-logging
and transmitting GPS data over cellular when this miracle happened, not
making a voice call with a headset. Unless you've really planned for all
disaster contingencies, most of us don't bother defining CSD fallback DUN
connections in our laptops!

---

› See More: Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting2/21/08

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:37:24 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 21 Feb 2008 12:00:36 +0000 John Navas wrote:

>> You obviously don't know the area. There are no "passing cruise ships"
>> with open microcells.
>
>No, I don't know the area. And IIRC, you didn't offer up the GPS
>coordinates when asked (but admittedly that thread was a long time ago-
>perhaps you did and I've forgotten.)

Actually I did.

>> Actually makes a good deal of sense. Offshore coverage by AT&T Wireless
>> along the California coast is quite good.
>
>But GSM can already cover up to 20 miles or so offshore without resorting
>to any capacity-reducing tricks, so why does it "make sense" to use ER-GSM?
> Are you suggesting that there's actually enough voice and data traffic in
>the strip of ocean between 20 and 40 miles from shore to justify cutting
>the capacity of all towers up and down the California coast in half, and
>locking out GPRS use on those towers?

That's not necessary. Only a small part of a tower need be configured
for Extended Range.

>> On a recent delivery to
>> Mexico I had coverage most of the way even when well offshore.
>
>More than 20 miles?

I'm pretty sure I was, although I wasn't keeping accurate records so
can't say for sure. (I was doing client work. A different crew member
was doing the navigation.)

>> You obviously don't know the card either.
>
>What's to know? It's a GSM/GPRS/EDGE data-card. What's the big secret?

No big secret. You're just making assumptions, and trying to challenge
me with those assumptions. Instead, learn what the card can do. Learn
about Extended Range GSM. Maybe even check the GSM signal in those same
areas.

As I've already said, I'm not going to waste much more time on this, in
part because it's all been thoroughly hashed out before, in part because
nothing is going to change any minds, making the exercise pointless.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> As I've already said, I'm not going to waste much more time on this, in
> part because it's all been thoroughly hashed out before, in part because

Translation: You offered no citable evidence. Citing your own web pages
or saying n engineer friend of yours said it was possible is not hard
evidence...merely anecdotal evidence, something which you deride other
people for offering such evidence.

> nothing is going to change any minds, making the exercise pointless.

Translation: You backed yourself into a corner and can't get out.

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

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:46:50 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>4phun wrote:
>>> T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too
>>> Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman
>>>
>>> Today T-Mobile also announced that it will offer subscribers an
>>> unlimited plan for $99 per month. T-Mobile's offering is the only plan
>>> announced today that includes both voice and messaging services at the
>>> $99 price point. The new plan will be available beginning February
>>> 21.
>>>
>>> from T-Mobile
>>>
>>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>>Analysts say Sprint will offer unlimited voice and messaging for between
>>$60 and $80 in the next few weeks.
>
> Citation? Oh wait ... you almost never have any ... you mostly just
> make stuff up.
>
>>If Sprint went one further, and
>>offered unlimited voice and (relatively) unlimited 3G data for $100,
>>that would really shake things up. What does Sprint have to lose at this
>>point?
>
> It's ass. That would make no sense at all.
>

Why not?

And you using the word "ass" is ironic on many different levels.

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

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:33:13 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Todd H. wrote:
>>
>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've
>>> tripped over the headline:
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...call-plans/210
>>> 0-1039_3-6231277.html?tag=nefd.top
>>
>>Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
>>"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
>>
>>It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
>>citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
>>never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
>>providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
>>others make.
>
> Total nonsense.
>
>>He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated
>>requests.
>
> Actually several of them.
>

None that have pointed outside of a usenet newsgroup.

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

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:25:50 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named,"
>>which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed
>>to include alt.cellular.cingular, a newsgroup for which there is no
>>corresponding carrier, while removing newsgroups that are actually
>>relevant. Pathetic and sad.
>
> Just taking a page out of your book, Steven.
> You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
>

Wow- that was mature. It showed a lot of civility as well.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:33:13 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Todd H. wrote:
>>
>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped
>>> over the headline:
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...l?tag=nefd.top
>>
>>Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
>>"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
>>
>>It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
>>citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
>>never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
>>providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
>>others make.
>
> Total nonsense.

** Classic Navas response**
>
>>He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated requests.
>
> Actually several of them.

**Nope John, not a single one**
>
>>He's never provided a citation disputing the accuracy of the network
>>quality surveys, despite repeated requests.
>
> Actually several of them.

**Nope John, not a single one**
>
>>He's never provided a citation disputing the USA Today story that Apple
>>approached Verizon with the iPhone prior to going to Cingular/AT&T,
>>despite repeated requests.
>
> There's no need to refute spin solely from Verizon.
> The other companies don't comment.
>
>>He complains that people treat him badly, but if he would change his
>>behavior he would be forgiven and perhaps he could make some useful
>>contributions.
>
> Total nonsense.

** Classic Navas response**
>
> --
> 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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)

On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
<news:[email protected]>), and my follow-up
header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
See how easy that was?

--
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 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
> <news:[email protected]>), and my follow-up
> header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
> raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
> See how easy that was?
>

Make the charter next.

In article <[email protected]>,
The Bob <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
> >>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
> >
> > On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> > alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> > follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> > cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> > aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
> > <news:[email protected]>), and my follow-up
> > header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
> > raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
> > See how easy that was?
> >
>
> Make the charter next.

The incessant charter posting is pure obsessive-compulsive.

Multiple header posting to a particular topic should be let alone, but
knowing the poster (sorry John) probably along the same lines.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert"


While both of your actions were childish and wrong, at least Steven just
added alt.cellular.attws to the newsgroups list- he didn't set a follow-up
designed to divert responses ONLY to his NG of choice.

You attempted to hijack all responses to you to alt.cellular.cingular and
alt.cellular.cingular alone. For a guy who claims to desire civility, you
seem to have absolutely no problem emulating behavior you condemn in others.


> my follow-up header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader


So are your posts. I find your postings occasionally informative and
entertaining, but your personal S/N ratio is taking a pretty steep dive
lately.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:25 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:33:13 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Todd H. wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've
>>>> tripped over the headline:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...call-plans/210
>>>> 0-1039_3-6231277.html?tag=nefd.top
>>>
>>>Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
>>>"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
>>>
>>>It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
>>>citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
>>>never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
>>>providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
>>>others make.
>>
>> Total nonsense.
>>
>>>He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated
>>>requests.
>>
>> Actually several of them.
>
>None that have pointed outside of a usenet newsgroup.

Wrong again.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

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

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:25 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>>in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:33:13 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>Todd H. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've
>>>>> tripped over the headline:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...call-plans/210
>>>>> 0-1039_3-6231277.html?tag=nefd.top
>>>>
>>>>Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
>>>>"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
>>>>
>>>>It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
>>>>citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
>>>>never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
>>>>providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
>>>>others make.
>>>
>>> Total nonsense.
>>>
>>>>He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated
>>>>requests.
>>>
>>> Actually several of them.
>>
>>None that have pointed outside of a usenet newsgroup.
>
> Wrong again.
>

You have NEVER provided a link that doesn't point to one of your own posts
concerning extended GSM usage in the US. NEVER.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:53:07 -0700, "Todd Allcock"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>So are your posts. I find your postings occasionally informative and
>entertaining, but your personal S/N ratio is taking a pretty steep dive
>lately.

Thank you, Mr, Pot.

--
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

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:10:44 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

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

>You have NEVER provided a link that doesn't point to one of your own posts
>concerning extended GSM usage in the US. NEVER.

I never said I had. EVER.

I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my twit
filter. It's a difficult honor -- posts have to be pretty much
devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>