Sprint selling Motorola Phones again.... FINALLY

Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> Who other than Sprint even carries Sanyo? They are not offered by
> Alltel, Cingular or Verizon?

No. Sanyo has an exclusive contract with Sprint. You will NOT see anyone else
carrying Sanyo phones. Kinda like you won't see Panasonic phones anywhere
other than AT&T, although I don't know if AT&T has an exclusive contract with
Panasonic.

--
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

---

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

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Who other than Sprint even carries Sanyo? They are not offered by
> > Alltel, Cingular or Verizon?
>
> No. Sanyo has an exclusive contract with Sprint. You will NOT see anyone
else
> carrying Sanyo phones. Kinda like you won't see Panasonic phones anywhere
> other than AT&T, although I don't know if AT&T has an exclusive contract
with
> Panasonic.

They may have an exclusive just for the USA. I've seen Panasonic phones for
sales on foreign cell provider sites.

Bob

[email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Larry
>
> Actually what is "absolutely ridiculous" is your statement that is
> based on what? That you owned one Motorola phone? How many years ago?
>
> Just curious why is, do you think, that the #1 provider (Verizon)
> doesn't sell any Sanyo phones but will promote Motorola in their ful
> page ads? One would think if your claim was true they would immediatly
> stop selling Motorola since users drop providers when they their
> service isn't up to par?
>
> BTW If you go to Jag, BMW, or Mercedes and ask for the Telematics
> package take a guess what phone they are going to install? Hint first
> letter starts with an "M". Amazing that the top tier provider
> (Verizon) and the top end automakers all insist on pushing a product
> you claim to be substandard yet do not offer any Sanyo products which
> you claim to be superior?
>
> Ron


Ron,

What does this have to do with Verizon? We're talking about Sprint
here. Motorola phones do not perform well on SPRINT. I have no facts
or opinions about Verizon and how their phones and brands perform.

In article <[email protected]>, ronf957
@hotmail.com says...
> Also, the technicains don;t
> have access to cross-reference the ESN to the model. That would
> require someone in the Network operation center (NOC) and billing
> access.
>=20

No, actually, it doesn't. There's a provisioning status utility we=20
use to see if service orders have been completed to setup, change, or=20
even remove, service. And that utility can let you see ESn and phone=20
model, one to look up the other.

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

Steve

Interesting that Santo only make Sprint phones. I guess that would
explain why Sprint loves to push them (profit margins). That was one
of the reasons that Sprint did not carry Moto

I agree that not every Moto phone is "perfect" and yes the 720 was an
example. My statment was that I was getting service on Sprint in weak
coverage areas when Sanyo and Samsung do not. This has been my
experience for several years doing side-by-side tests (easy to do
since I lived in 2 weak coverage areas near Phoenix and my wife's
uncle lives in one in Seattle).

That experience was consistant with 2 StarTacs and my current
Timeport. In addition I use 1000 to 2000 per month and drop the phone
a lot (I have built a few house while carrying my Motorola phones).
So I work my phones and the Moto phones have been great. A vision
phone like my sister-in-laws doesn't mean much to me if I can't get
service.

I'll post here again in a few week and let you know if the new Moto
phone continues to kick butt (over Sanyo and Samsung).

BTW An insteresting side-note. The newsgroups also reports Sprint in
Chicago was horrible. I go to Chicago a lot (I grew up there). I can
leave Woodfield and drive downtown and not lose a call. I had great
service there on my Moto phone. Maybe it was all the newer Sanyo
phones on the Sprint network?



Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Larry
> >
> > Actually what is "absolutely ridiculous" is your statement that is
> > based on what? That you owned one Motorola phone? How many years ago?
> >
> > Just curious why is, do you think, that the #1 provider (Verizon)
> > doesn't sell any Sanyo phones but will promote Motorola in their ful
> > page ads?
>
> That's easy. Sanyo has an exclusive contract to manufacture phones for Sprint.
>
> It's not the same situation.
>
> > BTW If you go to Jag, BMW, or Mercedes and ask for the Telematics
> > package take a guess what phone they are going to install? Hint first
> > letter starts with an "M". Amazing that the top tier provider
> > (Verizon) and the top end automakers all insist on pushing a product
> > you claim to be substandard yet do not offer any Sanyo products which
> > you claim to be superior?
>
> Ron, I am a customer of both Sprint and Verizon and I can tell you that
> certain Verizon handsets made by Motorola were absolute crap. The biggest
> debacle was the Verizon T720. Check Google Groups for reports of problems
> with the T720 (in alt.cellular.verizon).
>
> Motorola is no longer *always* synonymous with quality, and in fact, I refuse
> to buy their phones. They're not worth the premium price you will generally
> pay to use them. This is not to say that all of their stuff is junk, but I've
> seen enough problems that I won't buy Moto handsets.

Larry

You made statment that sanyo outperforms Moto by 100%.

I find it odd that per you, these horrible, phones are offered by the
premier providers. BTW You can by Moto V-Phones for Sprint with your
new Mercedes.

Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, etc... all use the same infrastructire
vendors (Motorola, Lucent and Nortel) so I have a hard time
understanding why you claim Sprint is so unusual, (other than the
frequency). That coupled with the fact that I have done side by sides
in 3 different weak coverage areas (2 near Phx and 1 near Seattle) and
my StarTac and now Timeport have consistanly gotten a signal when the
current Sanyo and Samsung do not.

I would love a Vison phone, but unitl Sprint sells one that works in
my nieghborhood, and I know the Sanyo does not, I will be making calls
on my non-Vision Motorola phone. The alternative is getting a Sanyo
or Samsung to pictures and store them on flash till I get a signal and
can send them.

Ron

[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Larry
> >
> > Actually what is "absolutely ridiculous" is your statement that is
> > based on what? That you owned one Motorola phone? How many years ago?
> >
> > Just curious why is, do you think, that the #1 provider (Verizon)
> > doesn't sell any Sanyo phones but will promote Motorola in their ful
> > page ads? One would think if your claim was true they would immediatly
> > stop selling Motorola since users drop providers when they their
> > service isn't up to par?
> >
> > BTW If you go to Jag, BMW, or Mercedes and ask for the Telematics
> > package take a guess what phone they are going to install? Hint first
> > letter starts with an "M". Amazing that the top tier provider
> > (Verizon) and the top end automakers all insist on pushing a product
> > you claim to be substandard yet do not offer any Sanyo products which
> > you claim to be superior?
> >
> > Ron
>
>
> Ron,
>
> What does this have to do with Verizon? We're talking about Sprint
> here. Motorola phones do not perform well on SPRINT. I have no facts
> or opinions about Verizon and how their phones and brands perform.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve
>
> Interesting that Santo only make Sprint phones. I guess that would
> explain why Sprint loves to push them (profit margins). That was one
> of the reasons that Sprint did not carry Moto

No, SPCS dropped Moto, as Moto used their own chip, instead of a Qualcomm
chip, and the Moto phones had problems all across the system.

>
> I agree that not every Moto phone is "perfect" and yes the 720 was an
> example. My statment was that I was getting service on Sprint in weak
> coverage areas when Sanyo and Samsung do not. This has been my
> experience for several years doing side-by-side tests (easy to do
> since I lived in 2 weak coverage areas near Phoenix and my wife's
> uncle lives in one in Seattle).
>
> That experience was consistant with 2 StarTacs and my current
> Timeport. In addition I use 1000 to 2000 per month and drop the phone
> a lot (I have built a few house while carrying my Motorola phones).
> So I work my phones and the Moto phones have been great. A vision
> phone like my sister-in-laws doesn't mean much to me if I can't get
> service.
>
> I'll post here again in a few week and let you know if the new Moto
> phone continues to kick butt (over Sanyo and Samsung).
>
> BTW An insteresting side-note. The newsgroups also reports Sprint in
> Chicago was horrible. I go to Chicago a lot (I grew up there). I can
> leave Woodfield and drive downtown and not lose a call. I had great
> service there on my Moto phone. Maybe it was all the newer Sanyo
> phones on the Sprint network?

What newsgroup? This one? We haven't had much, if any complaints about the
Chicago area, like there were 3 or more years ago ...

Bob

Ron <[email protected]> wrote:

> BTW An insteresting side-note. The newsgroups also reports Sprint in
> Chicago was horrible. I go to Chicago a lot (I grew up there). I can
> leave Woodfield and drive downtown and not lose a call. I had great
> service there on my Moto phone. Maybe it was all the newer Sanyo
> phones on the Sprint network?

Maybe that, maybe Sprint finally fixed their problems; maybe both.

--
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] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Larry
>
> You made statment that sanyo outperforms Moto by 100%.
>
> I find it odd that per you, these horrible, phones are offered by the
> premier providers. BTW You can by Moto V-Phones for Sprint with your
> new Mercedes.
>
> Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, etc... all use the same infrastructire
> vendors (Motorola, Lucent and Nortel) so I have a hard time
> understanding why you claim Sprint is so unusual, (other than the
> frequency). That coupled with the fact that I have done side by sides
> in 3 different weak coverage areas (2 near Phx and 1 near Seattle) and
> my StarTac and now Timeport have consistanly gotten a signal when the
> current Sanyo and Samsung do not.
>
> I would love a Vison phone, but unitl Sprint sells one that works in
> my nieghborhood, and I know the Sanyo does not, I will be making calls
> on my non-Vision Motorola phone. The alternative is getting a Sanyo
> or Samsung to pictures and store them on flash till I get a signal and
> can send them.
>
> Ron


Yes I did make that statement and I stand by it. I saw the statistics
right from Sprint's own internal sources. I even showed the chart to
you.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? You are not correct about
the carriers using all the same equipment. They don't. It can also
vary by market. Some markets might be more Motorola friendly than
others. I don't know for sure. For one thing Verizon offers different
model phones than Sprint and for the most part uses a different
frequency on their network (800 mhz as opposed to 1900 mhz). The
phones also have different software for each carrier. I'm not saying
they're that far off but at the same time they are different. Anyway
I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this because it's
not worth it. So you can get you last word in and think you're right
but that doesn't make it true.

Ron spare us from your BS infatuation about the Motorolas piece of
crap.

Save yourself grief an buy a damn Sanyo...........best in signal &
reception hands down.




On 26 Mar 2004 11:10:43 -0800, [email protected] (Ron) wrote:

>Larry
>
>I don't beleive it. I recall the guy in the Sprint Store telling me
>the 2 best phone ever on Sprint where the Motorola TimePort Series and
>one other (can't recall).
>
>Where is this chart and who made it? Since Sprint hasn'r sold
>Motorola for over 2 years I am having a hrd time believing it. Also,
>consider the #1 rank provider (Verizon) pushes Motorola. The V60,
>then the 720/730. If the phone didn't satisfy they wouldn't be
>promoting them.
>
>Ron
>
>[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> > Apparently Sprint PCs and Motorola have resolved their pricing issues
>> > and Sprint will again be selling Motorola phones. The Motorola V60v
>> > will be available shortly (per the internal Sprint web site). The
>> > higher end (new blue tooth phone please) will be available in 4Q, for
>> > Christmas I guess.
>> >
>> > Just in the nick of time for me, my heavily used TimePort is getting
>> > worn. Being in a weak service area the only Sprint phone that gets a
>> > signal where we live are the Motorola phones. I get "average" service
>> > on Sprint's network with Motorola but friends that visit get "no
>> > service" or "next to no service" on the Sprint network using Samsung,
>> > Sanyo and I think Nokia too.
>> >
>> > Hopefully the newer Motorola phones will provide the same signal
>> > quality as the older models did.
>>
>> Motorola phones on Sprint have consistently ranked at the bottom for
>> signal holding ability and drop more calls than other brands. I just
>> viewed a graph (based on brand and ESN prefix #) that shows Motorolas
>> are by far the worst Sprint phones. Sanyo is tops and Nokia is second.

Larry Thomas wrote:


>>>I just
>>>viewed a graph (based on brand and ESN prefix #) that shows Motorolas
>>>are by far the worst Sprint phones.
>>
>>In terms of what? Dropped calls, signal clarity, sound quality?
>
>
> Dropped calls.

So where's the graph? let's see it.

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

Joe

Again I did a side by side with Motorola and 2 different Sanyo phones,
there was a third but might have been a Nokia or Samsung (don't
recall).

Same carrier (Sprint) same places (my house in Pinnacle Peak
--Scottsdale AZ-- and my wife's uncle near Portland OR). I get
service on Sprint and other with non-Moto phones didn't.

My sister-in-law and Brother-in-law stay with use frequently; they
turn off their phones when they come over since they can't get a
signal. I have had a StarTac and now a timeport and both get "decent"
service. My uncle and his wife can't use their phones at home either.
IF it make you feel better I used to live in Circle C Ranch (Tempe
AZ), and my Moto phone hardly got a signal. Of course neither did
anyone else (even Verizon)

When the new Motorola phone comes out I'll test it again. I use my
phone hard so the one that works the best I'll keep. Your opinion
doesn't mean a lot when I can do side by side comparisons and the Moto
has been (to date) the clear winner.


Hey but call Jag, Mercedes and BMW and tell them to dump the Sprint
Moto phones and go with Sanyo. Sprint has been selling Moto to the
high end car companies for a few years. I am Mercedes picked the Moto
V60 because they want to put a peice of junk in a 60K to 120K car and
piss off their high end customers.




Joe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Ron spare us from your BS infatuation about the Motorolas piece of
> crap.
>
> Save yourself grief an buy a damn Sanyo...........best in signal &
> reception hands down.
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Mar 2004 11:10:43 -0800, [email protected] (Ron) wrote:
>
> >Larry
> >
> >I don't beleive it. I recall the guy in the Sprint Store telling me
> >the 2 best phone ever on Sprint where the Motorola TimePort Series and
> >one other (can't recall).
> >
> >Where is this chart and who made it? Since Sprint hasn'r sold
> >Motorola for over 2 years I am having a hrd time believing it. Also,
> >consider the #1 rank provider (Verizon) pushes Motorola. The V60,
> >then the 720/730. If the phone didn't satisfy they wouldn't be
> >promoting them.
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Ron) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> > Apparently Sprint PCs and Motorola have resolved their pricing issues
> >> > and Sprint will again be selling Motorola phones. The Motorola V60v
> >> > will be available shortly (per the internal Sprint web site). The
> >> > higher end (new blue tooth phone please) will be available in 4Q, for
> >> > Christmas I guess.
> >> >
> >> > Just in the nick of time for me, my heavily used TimePort is getting
> >> > worn. Being in a weak service area the only Sprint phone that gets a
> >> > signal where we live are the Motorola phones. I get "average" service
> >> > on Sprint's network with Motorola but friends that visit get "no
> >> > service" or "next to no service" on the Sprint network using Samsung,
> >> > Sanyo and I think Nokia too.
> >> >
> >> > Hopefully the newer Motorola phones will provide the same signal
> >> > quality as the older models did.
> >>
> >> Motorola phones on Sprint have consistently ranked at the bottom for
> >> signal holding ability and drop more calls than other brands. I just
> >> viewed a graph (based on brand and ESN prefix #) that shows Motorolas
> >> are by far the worst Sprint phones. Sanyo is tops and Nokia is second.

Joe

Interesting reply.

I have side-by-side tested my Moto Timeport against my brother and
sister in-laws Sanyo phone at my house in North Scottsdale AZ
(Pinnacle Peak), it is a weak coverage area for Sprint. They get
nothing or close to nothing, I have usable but not great service.
When they stay for the weekend they just turn off their Sanyo phones.

At the Aunt/Uncle's near Portland OR, same thing. He lives in a weak
coverage area. Their non-Moto Sprint phones are not usable (sample of
4 phones, the same 2 Sanyos and 2 Nokia or Samsung, can't recall). I
get marginal service on my Timeport.

When we lived in Circle G Ranched in South Tempe, I got horrible
Sprint service but so did everyone else. BTW It was a bad coverage
area for all carriers (inc Verizon). What I need someone to explain
is how is it the 3nd and 4rd most expsenive nieghborhoods have
terrible coverage?

Why do you think that telematics system on the Sprint network that
installed into high end cars (i.e. Jag, BMW, Mercedes) use the
Moto-V60s? Think Mercedes is going to put in a junk phone, and piss of
custoners, when the Sanyo is cheaper and according to you better?

BTW except for dropped calls I can rarely tell if some one is calling
from a cell so what sort of voice quality issues are you referring
too?

Side note, when I stopped at the Sprint Kiosk at Best Buy today and
asked about the date they would be for sale the sprint guy told me he
wanted one too.

When the Moto V60 is out I'll test again, if it outperforms Sanyo then
I'll get one else I stick with my TimePort a phone without a camera is
better than a phone that does not get signal where you need it most.

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.



Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Larry Thomas wrote:
>
>
> >>>I just
> >>>viewed a graph (based on brand and ESN prefix #) that shows Motorolas
> >>>are by far the worst Sprint phones.
> >>
> >>In terms of what? Dropped calls, signal clarity, sound quality?
> >
> >
> > Dropped calls.
>
> So where's the graph? let's see it.

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

> 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.

SprintPCS employees posting here are very duplicitous about such things.
They freely post inside information when they can pat them selves on the
back for doing so; and just as often screeam "It's confidential, I can't
say a word" when that suits them.