Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 66
  1. #31
    sw
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
    all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
    and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
    http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
    ugly SOB has a photo on this link > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
    That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
    blew loads on her face.

    In article <[email protected]>,
    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    > >
    > >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    > >> considered false claims.

    > >
    > >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
    > >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
    > >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
    > >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
    > >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
    > >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
    > >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
    > >and changed his ways.

    >
    > 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
    > whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'




    See More: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service




  2. #32
    sw
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    What the heck you need to dangle navas' gonad everywhere you fart? If
    you prefer to suck navas' cock, please keep it to yourself.

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
    > Is that correct Tommy T?
    >
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
    > >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
    > >>

    > >
    > > You begin to stutter ... that must explain why you can't quit posting the
    > > alt.cellular.cingular charter to the wrong newsgroup [alt.cellular.attws].
    > >
    > > --
    > > Thomas T. Veldhouse
    > > Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    > >
    > >

    >
    >




  3. #33
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
    >> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
    >> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.

    >
    >
    > can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
    > here or elsewhere?


    I have no grudge against any carrier.

    A long time ago (around 1999 or 2000), I signed up for Pacific Bell
    Wireless, then when my wife changed offices, she had no coverage in the
    (her office is at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Silicon
    Valley), and we had no coverage in our house, also in the heart of
    Silicon Valley.

    I wasn't angry, and Cingular (Pacific Bell Wireless morphed into
    Cingular) freely admitted that their coverage was not as good as AT&T
    Wireless or Verizon Wireless, and explained why (hoping that we'd wait
    out their network build-out. When our contracts ended, we changed
    carriers. No hard feelings. I didn't demand that they let me out of my
    contracts, or that they rush out and build more towers.

    As to GSM, the whole reason I went with Cingular in the first place was
    because I wanted GSM due to frequent travels to Taiwan and China, which
    at the time had no CDMA networks. A lot of co-workers also went the
    Cingular route, and ended up with fine service in Asia, but poor service
    in the U.S..

    I now have several GSM phones, and service on an MVNO that uses
    Cingular's network. Coverage is much improved since 2000, but still not
    nearly as good as Verizon coverage. Basically my experience mirrors what
    Consumer Reports, JD Power, Yankee Group, and Bay Area Consumer
    Checkbook all report. Contrast this to what Navas posts, which _never_
    has any references or corroboration. Then decide who to believe.



  4. #34
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    In alt.cellular.cingular Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
    > Is that correct Tommy T?
    >


    It is irrellavent whether Cingular is affiliated with AT&T Wireless or not.
    He is posting a newsgroup charter for one group into a different group.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0





  5. #35
    james g. keegan jr.
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    In article <[email protected]>,
    SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
    > >> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
    > >> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.

    > >
    > >
    > > can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
    > > here or elsewhere?

    >
    > I have no grudge against any carrier.
    >
    > A long time ago (around 1999 or 2000), I signed up for Pacific Bell
    > Wireless, then when my wife changed offices, she had no coverage in the
    > (her office is at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Silicon
    > Valley), and we had no coverage in our house, also in the heart of
    > Silicon Valley.
    >
    > I wasn't angry, and Cingular (Pacific Bell Wireless morphed into
    > Cingular) freely admitted that their coverage was not as good as AT&T
    > Wireless or Verizon Wireless, and explained why (hoping that we'd wait
    > out their network build-out. When our contracts ended, we changed
    > carriers. No hard feelings. I didn't demand that they let me out of my
    > contracts, or that they rush out and build more towers.
    >
    > As to GSM, the whole reason I went with Cingular in the first place was
    > because I wanted GSM due to frequent travels to Taiwan and China, which
    > at the time had no CDMA networks. A lot of co-workers also went the
    > Cingular route, and ended up with fine service in Asia, but poor service
    > in the U.S..
    >
    > I now have several GSM phones, and service on an MVNO that uses
    > Cingular's network. Coverage is much improved since 2000, but still not
    > nearly as good as Verizon coverage. Basically my experience mirrors what
    > Consumer Reports, JD Power, Yankee Group, and Bay Area Consumer
    > Checkbook all report. Contrast this to what Navas posts, which _never_
    > has any references or corroboration. Then decide who to believe.


    i knew who to believe in this case from the beginning. that is why i
    asked john for evidence that i knew would not be forthcoming.

    a man with character would have apologized. has john done that yet?



  6. #36
    james g. keegan jr.
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Bert Hyman <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected] (james g. keegan jr.) wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    > > considered false claims.

    >
    > Generally, they're simply considered unsupported, at least at first.
    >
    > If the claimant refuses to support his assertions, that likely will
    > change.


    i was 99.999999999% certain that john would not support his claim
    when i asked that he do so.

    he has not done so.



  7. #37
    james g. keegan jr.
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    In article <[email protected]>,
    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    > >
    > >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    > >> considered false claims.

    > >
    > >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
    > >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
    > >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
    > >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
    > >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
    > >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
    > >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
    > >and changed his ways.

    >
    > 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
    > whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'


    which is what you did, john, and provided no evidence to support your
    claim.

    worse yet, you lacked the character to withdraw it and apologize.



  8. #38
    james g. keegan jr.
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In alt.cellular.t-mobile james g. keegan jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    > > considered false claims.
    > >

    >
    > They are not considered false, they are considered unsupported.
    >
    > > i expect most readers took your claim as false from the beginning.

    >
    > I doubt that.


    you apparently are new to usenet.

    the claims remain unsupported.



  9. #39
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    james g. keegan jr. wrote:

    > even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    > considered false claims.


    Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
    do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
    someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
    often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
    he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
    community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
    history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
    and changed his ways.




  10. #40
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr Navas
    has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
    points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please specify
    the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)

    "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
    > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
    > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
    > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
    > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
    > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
    > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
    > blew loads on her face.
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >>
    >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    >> >> considered false claims.
    >> >
    >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
    >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
    >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
    >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
    >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
    >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
    >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
    >> >and changed his ways.

    >>
    >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
    >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'






  11. #41
    sw
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
    dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
    informative.

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr Navas
    > has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
    > points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please specify
    > the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
    >
    > "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
    > > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
    > > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
    > > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
    > > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
    > > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
    > > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
    > > blew loads on her face.
    > >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
    > >>
    > >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    > >> >> considered false claims.
    > >> >
    > >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
    > >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
    > >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
    > >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
    > >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
    > >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
    > >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
    > >> >and changed his ways.
    > >>
    > >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
    > >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'




  12. #42
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
    garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
    rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other
    members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start
    posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
    benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
    ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)


    "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
    > dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
    > informative.
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr
    >> Navas
    >> has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
    >> points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please
    >> specify
    >> the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
    >>
    >> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
    >> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
    >> > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
    >> > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
    >> > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
    >> > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
    >> > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
    >> > blew loads on her face.
    >> >
    >> > In article <[email protected]>,
    >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    >> >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >> >>
    >> >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    >> >> >> considered false claims.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot
    >> >> >to
    >> >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
    >> >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
    >> >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think
    >> >> >that
    >> >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
    >> >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of
    >> >> >his
    >> >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his
    >> >> >errors
    >> >> >and changed his ways.
    >> >>
    >> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
    >> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'






  13. #43
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    On 2006-12-07, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:17:59 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >>I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
    >>least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
    >>service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
    >>potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
    >>discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
    >>in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
    >>non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
    >>
    >>It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
    >>network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
    >>Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
    >>especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
    >>than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
    >>Cingular, and far below Verizon.

    >
    > That T-Mobile did so well with less coverage than Cingular, given
    > network sharing agreements, actually shows the survey to be unreliable.


    I don't think so, you should look at the actual results of the survey.
    T-Mobile and Cingular both had problems in the bay area, but different
    problems. T-Mobile's problem was, in fact, its coverage. Cingular's
    coverage wasn't negatively rated, instead its problem was blocked calls,
    i.e. capacity. This is not inconsistent with their sharing a network,
    and actually agrees with my experience (getting a Cingular circuit
    in Los Gatos near the highway during evening rush hour is often hit
    and miss, for example. Making a T-Mobile call at this same location
    used to be hit-and-miss, but that changed when the network changed
    hands).

    Note that in the survey Cingular's most consistent problem just about
    everywhere in the country was blocked calls. The only other carrier of
    the 5 listed to have this problem anywhere was T-Mobile, though less
    frequently. I'm not sure it is a coincidence that the two GSM carriers
    in the survey had this problem while the three CDMA carriers didn't; the
    (perhaps sole) advantage of a CDMA network is that you get more
    capacity from a given amount of deployed RF infrastructure.

    > Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area. T-Mobile
    > isn't bad either. Sprint and Verizon are demonstrably worse in a number
    > of areas, including significant parts of the East Bay.


    ?? T-Mobile had poor coverage in the SF bay area when I was their customer,
    and according to the survey has poor coverage still.

    > 4. CU surveys can't be validly generalized because they are a
    > self-selected sample of a non-representative universe (CR subscribers).
    > (Usenet of course has a similar problem.)


    This is sort of true, though you are over-stating it. The CU survey
    may in fact represent the general case well, this just can't be
    proven statistically because of the non-random participant selection.

    > 5. Results showing T-Mobile with better network performance than
    > Cingular in the West are patently nonsensical, given that Cingular uses
    > the same network as T-Mobile (the old Cingular "orange" network), plus
    > the extensive ATTWS ("blue" network).


    No. They didn't find T-Mobile better than Cingular in the west, and they
    did find that T-Mobile had inferior coverage to Cingular. Cingular had
    other problems.

    > 6. Verizon doesn't have coverage in some of the areas Steven claims;
    > e.g., large sections of Skyline Blvd, and nearby sections of Page Mill
    > Road and Big Basin Way.


    You know, I ride a bicycle up Page Mill road, then north on Skyline
    Blvd, then down La Honda Road, quite frequently when the weather is
    good. I carry both a Cingular and a Verizon phone (I am unfortunately
    inseparably attached to them), and have them both set to beep when their
    service changes. The Cingular phone beeps a fair bit more than the
    Verizon phone does, and does so even though the Cingular phone is
    more prone to lie and say it has service when in fact you can't use it.

    I don't think I disagree with you about Big Basin Way and the west side
    of the hill in general, however. My Verizon phone sometimes sees analog
    stuff over there when neither phone has digital service, but I've seldom
    been able to actually use it to make a call.

    > 8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
    > compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.


    I agree with you about this, though I wouldn't call it "absurd" since
    I understand how one could arrive at this conclusion. I just don't
    think it is correct.

    Dennis Ferguson



  14. #44
    sw
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    And what exactly did you contribute to the group? Mij, you don't even
    know which phone to choose for your Sprint services a few weeks ago. All
    you ever do is proping up navas' gonad. You are the loser that try to
    convince everyone that navas is the creator AKA the god of cingular
    newsgroup and thus he shall have every right to impose his idiotic
    charter on att. Both you and navas are morons. This can be reflected
    from general concensus. Let me make it clear to you, navas does not own
    any group and he often copy and paste without understanding the
    argumentative statement. When he is wrong which is almost weekly, he
    gets away with his idiotic acts because of asshole like you. Frankly,
    you are not very objective just like your other half -> anus navas.


    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
    > garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
    > rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other
    > members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start
    > posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
    > benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
    > ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)
    >
    >
    > "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
    > > dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
    > > informative.
    > >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr
    > >> Navas
    > >> has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
    > >> points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please
    > >> specify
    > >> the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
    > >>
    > >> "sw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]...
    > >> > This piece of **** anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
    > >> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
    > >> > and paste. Take a look at some of the **** that he recommend :
    > >> > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
    > >> > ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
    > >> > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
    > >> > That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
    > >> > blew loads on her face.
    > >> >
    > >> > In article <[email protected]>,
    > >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > >> >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
    > >> >> >> considered false claims.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot
    > >> >> >to
    > >> >> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
    > >> >> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
    > >> >> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think
    > >> >> >that
    > >> >> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
    > >> >> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of
    > >> >> >his
    > >> >> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his
    > >> >> >errors
    > >> >> >and changed his ways.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
    > >> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

    >
    >




  15. #45
    Andy Smallwood
    Guest

    Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

    According to Robert Coe <[email protected]>:
    > I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
    > out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
    > avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
    > drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
    > carriers should emulate.


    Verizon does that also. I asked about their coverage for Indian Lake NY.
    The Verizon rep said that he did not recommend using Verizon there
    (even tho Verizon does have extended analog coverage there).



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast