Cameo wrote on [Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:09:51 -0700]:
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:m7kmo655fmnavc9akuoek2mnovb5gp9p7j@4ax.com...
>> I use GV too for same reasons and love it!
>
> So how did you obtain a GV number?
At 24 Mar 2011 21:23:38 -0500 T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:13:55 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
>
> > Cameo wrote on [Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:09:51 -0700]:
> >> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:m7kmo655fmnavc9akuoek2mnovb5gp9p7j@4ax.com...
> >>> I use GV too for same reasons and love it!
> >>
> >> So how did you obtain a GV number?
> >
> > I got a grand central number, myself....
>
> Good answer, Dumbcluck.
It's actually a very good answer. Grandcentral was the predecessor of
Google Voice. Google bought them a few years ago and rebranded the
service "Google Voice." I got my number from GC as well.
At 23 Mar 2011 10:51:12 -0700 Cameo wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:4d8a1a5f$0$10609
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > Of course AT&T/Cingular was all GSM by that time, and none of their
customer had any coverage at all (unless they were still using a very old
GAIT phone).
>
> Those old brick phones were the GAIT phones?
>
No, GAIT phones were combination GSM/TDMA/Analog cellular phones. The
old "bricks" were the early analog-only handhelds, first introduced back
when portable cellular phones were the old briefcase or bag phones.
(Essentially car-mounted phones shoved in a bag or case with a lead-acid
camcorder battery for power and a rubber whip antenna.)
GAITs looked like the typical handhelds of the day, maybe a wee bit
bulkier- Cingular offered a Nokia (5140?) and a Sony Ericsson, IIRC, and
I believe AT&T Wireless offered a Siemens TDMA/GSM combo handset (but
with no analog fallback, so technically it wasn't a GAIT phone.)
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:13:55 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
> Cameo wrote on [Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:09:51 -0700]:
>> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:m7kmo655fmnavc9akuoek2mnovb5gp9p7j@4ax.com...
>>> I use GV too for same reasons and love it!
>>
>> So how did you obtain a GV number?
>
> I got a grand central number, myself....
On 3/23/2011 9:31 PM, Justin wrote:
> nospam wrote on [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:13:28 -0500]:
>> In article<slrniokgdh.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> most people can call long distance without additional charges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
>>>>> as landlines
>>>>
>>>> mine is.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't
>>
>> really? how is it you know how well my cellphone and landline work,
>> especially when you don't know what handsets i use (more than one) or
>> with which carriers (also more than one). you don't. you're talking out
>> your ***, again.
>
> If you say so...
>
>>>> there are bundled long distance plans for landlines too.
>>>
>>> Then you are paying extra....
>>
>> nope. it's a bundled plan of phone/internet/tv that includes long
>> distance and call waiting, 3-way calling, etc. there's no point in
>> removing any of those features, since the only lower priced option is
>> outside of the bundle and the services would end up costing *more*.
>
> With who? Most triple plays don't have landlines but have VOIP solutions.
My "double-play" combines landline service with DSL. No VOIP. The
provider also offer DirecTV, but not at any discount for bundling, and
DirecTV is much more expensive than Dish network.
SMS wrote on [Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:59:34 -0700]:
> On 3/23/2011 9:31 PM, Justin wrote:
>> nospam wrote on [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:13:28 -0500]:
>>> In article<slrniokgdh.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
>>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> most people can call long distance without additional charges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
>>>>>> as landlines
>>>>>
>>>>> mine is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't
>>>
>>> really? how is it you know how well my cellphone and landline work,
>>> especially when you don't know what handsets i use (more than one) or
>>> with which carriers (also more than one). you don't. you're talking out
>>> your ***, again.
>>
>> If you say so...
>>
>>>>> there are bundled long distance plans for landlines too.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are paying extra....
>>>
>>> nope. it's a bundled plan of phone/internet/tv that includes long
>>> distance and call waiting, 3-way calling, etc. there's no point in
>>> removing any of those features, since the only lower priced option is
>>> outside of the bundle and the services would end up costing *more*.
>>
>> With who? Most triple plays don't have landlines but have VOIP solutions.
>
> My "double-play" combines landline service with DSL. No VOIP. The
> provider also offer DirecTV, but not at any discount for bundling, and
> DirecTV is much more expensive than Dish network.
Then you fall outside of most. Comcast does, U-Verse does. Try calling up
your ISP when your internet is down when you have one of these services...
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:imgt5o$sc$1@dont-email.me...
> It's actually a very good answer. Grandcentral was the predecessor of
> Google Voice. Google bought them a few years ago and rebranded the
> service "Google Voice." I got my number from GC as well.
Great! So Google takes over and the available numbers disappear. Is this
what Google calls progress?
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:imgt5q$sc$2@dont-email.me...
> No, GAIT phones were combination GSM/TDMA/Analog cellular phones. The
> old "bricks" were the early analog-only handhelds, first introduced
> back
> when portable cellular phones were the old briefcase or bag phones.
> (Essentially car-mounted phones shoved in a bag or case with a
> lead-acid
> camcorder battery for power and a rubber whip antenna.)
>
> GAITs looked like the typical handhelds of the day, maybe a wee bit
> bulkier- Cingular offered a Nokia (5140?) and a Sony Ericsson, IIRC,
> and
> I believe AT&T Wireless offered a Siemens TDMA/GSM combo handset (but
> with no analog fallback, so technically it wasn't a GAIT phone.)
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:55:09 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 24 Mar 2011 21:23:38 -0500 T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:13:55 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
>>
>>> Cameo wrote on [Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:09:51 -0700]:
>>>> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:m7kmo655fmnavc9akuoek2mnovb5gp9p7j@4ax.com...
>>>>> I use GV too for same reasons and love it!
>>>>
>>>> So how did you obtain a GV number?
>>>
>>> I got a grand central number, myself....
>>
>> Good answer, Dumbcluck.
>
> It's actually a very good answer.
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> news:imgt5o$sc$1@dont-email.me...
>> It's actually a very good answer. Grandcentral was the predecessor of
>> Google Voice. Google bought them a few years ago and rebranded the
>> service "Google Voice." I got my number from GC as well.
>
> Great! So Google takes over and the available numbers disappear. Is this
> what Google calls progress?
It's free so STFU, you're too late to the game, Loser.
At 25 Mar 2011 00:55:01 -0700 Cameo wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message news:imgt5o
$sc$1@dont-email.me...
> > It's actually a very good answer. Grandcentral was the predecessor of
> > Google Voice. Google bought them a few years ago and rebranded the
> > service "Google Voice." I got my number from GC as well.
>
> Great! So Google takes over and the available numbers disappear. Is
this what Google calls progress?
To be fair, GC didn't have a lot of numbers either- it was in perpetual
beta, and numbers were issued by invitation only. Each GC user could
invite three friends, IIRC.
Google kept the invite strategy at first, then opened it up to anyone
interested, so the available number pool must've gone fast.
Phone numbers aren't free, but GV is, so I suspect Google is limiting
their cost exposure by buying up numbers only when they can get them
cheaply.
"I Poked ****ahontas" <lyarbro@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:imi32m$lk4$1@news.mixmin.net...
> It's free so STFU, you're too late to the game, Loser.
How long has Google had this service? I thought it was a fairly recent
one.
In <imijsa$19a$2@dont-email.me> Todd Allcock <elecconec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>Google kept the invite strategy at first, then opened it up to anyone
>interested, so the available number pool must've gone fast.
>Phone numbers aren't free, but GV is, so I suspect Google is limiting
>their cost exposure by buying up numbers only when they can get them
>cheaply.
The economics are quite tricky. Aside from Google's "let's watch
everything so we can data-mine and sell advertising", there's
also the fees that the telcos pay the "terminating" company
for handling the call.
I have absolutely no idea what's happening in this case...
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Cameo wrote on [Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:30:23 -0700]:
> "I Poked ****ahontas" <lyarbro@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:imi32m$lk4$1@news.mixmin.net...
>> It's free so STFU, you're too late to the game, Loser.
>
> How long has Google had this service? I thought it was a fairly recent
> one.
"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:imikm9$ncj$1@reader1.panix.com...
> The economics are quite tricky. Aside from Google's "let's watch
> everything so we can data-mine and sell advertising", there's
> also the fees that the telcos pay the "terminating" company
> for handling the call.
>
> I have absolutely no idea what's happening in this case...
Without available numbers I don't know how Google can make money with
this to pay back just the GC purchase price, not to mention anything
above that.
Well, Skype has a similar service, too, but that's not free. As I
already use Skype-Out service, I might add that, too, after I figure out
the cost-benefit for my situation.
In article <imk6ro$lbk$1@dont-email.me>, Cameo <cameo@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> Without available numbers I don't know how Google can make money with
> this to pay back just the GC purchase price, not to mention anything
> above that.
google plans to charge for google voice. it was supposed to be this
year, but they extended free to the end of 2011. whether they extend it
again or not is anyone's guess.
> Without available numbers I don't know how Google can make money with
> this to pay back just the GC purchase price, not to mention anything
> above that.
heh you are quite the idiot. what school of cookie economics did you
fail out of?
> Well, Skype has a similar service, too, but that's not free.
not even close; then it's not similar. duh.
> As I already use Skype-Out service, I might add that, too, after I
> figure out the cost-benefit for my situation.
Per Cameo:
>Well, Skype has a similar service, too, but that's not free. As I
>already use Skype-Out service, I might add that, too, after I figure out
>the cost-benefit for my situation.
I was using SkypeOut with my home phone system via a little USB
box and a middleman app called "SkypeMate".
It worked for awhile - although it required a PC tb up and
running - but then got flaky to the point where only about one in
three calls worked. I suspect a change in the SkypeApp that
wasn't matched by a change in SkypeMate.
To make a long story short, I blew eighty bucks on a VOIP
gateway, climbed the learning curve, signed up for a VOIP
provider's services and kept the POTS line for incoming and 911.
Now I don't need a PC tb up and running, I've had zero problems,
and calls are something like 1.2 cents per minute.
Definitely not cost-effective though bc we could make an awful
lot of .02/minute calls for that eighty bucks.... but there's
something to be said for it's being trouble-free and totally
transparent.
--
PeteCresswell
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:43:30 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>To make a long story short, I blew eighty bucks on a VOIP
>gateway, climbed the learning curve, signed up for a VOIP
>provider's services and kept the POTS line for incoming and 911.
>
>Now I don't need a PC tb up and running, I've had zero problems,
>and calls are something like 1.2 cents per minute.
>
>Definitely not cost-effective though bc we could make an awful
>lot of .02/minute calls for that eighty bucks.... but there's
>something to be said for it's being trouble-free and totally
>transparent.
The VoIP service isn't suitable for incoming and 911? I dumped my POTS
line and switched to Vonage in 2005. Both incoming calls and 911 work
fine here.
Paul Miner wrote on [Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:32:57 -0500]:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:43:30 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>To make a long story short, I blew eighty bucks on a VOIP
>>gateway, climbed the learning curve, signed up for a VOIP
>>provider's services and kept the POTS line for incoming and 911.
>>
>>Now I don't need a PC tb up and running, I've had zero problems,
>>and calls are something like 1.2 cents per minute.
>>
>>Definitely not cost-effective though bc we could make an awful
>>lot of .02/minute calls for that eighty bucks.... but there's
>>something to be said for it's being trouble-free and totally
>>transparent.
>
> The VoIP service isn't suitable for incoming and 911? I dumped my POTS
> line and switched to Vonage in 2005. Both incoming calls and 911 work
> fine here.
With both traditional 9-1-1 and E911 service, your call is sent directly to the nearest emergency response center. In addition, with E911 service, your call back number and address are visible to the emergency response center call-taker. With Vonage's 9-1-1 service, your call is sent to a national emergency call center.
Remember that the 9-1-1 dialing service will not function in the event of a power or broadband outag
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>Paul Miner wrote on [Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:32:57 -0500]:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:43:30 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>To make a long story short, I blew eighty bucks on a VOIP
>>>gateway, climbed the learning curve, signed up for a VOIP
>>>provider's services and kept the POTS line for incoming and 911.
>>>
>>>Now I don't need a PC tb up and running, I've had zero problems,
>>>and calls are something like 1.2 cents per minute.
>>>
>>>Definitely not cost-effective though bc we could make an awful
>>>lot of .02/minute calls for that eighty bucks.... but there's
>>>something to be said for it's being trouble-free and totally
>>>transparent.
>>
>> The VoIP service isn't suitable for incoming and 911? I dumped my POTS
>> line and switched to Vonage in 2005. Both incoming calls and 911 work
>> fine here.
>
>From: http://support.vonage.com/doc/en_us/394.xml
>
>With both traditional 9-1-1 and E911 service, your call is sent directly to the nearest emergency response center. In addition, with E911 service, your call back number and address are visible to the emergency response center call-taker. With Vonage's 9-1-1 service, your call is sent to a national emergency call center.
That may be a blanket statement to cover certain areas, but my wife
had an opportunity to call 911 in 2008 and the call was answered by
the emergency call center right here in town. They knew our name and
address automatically.
>Remember that the 9-1-1 dialing service will not function in the event of a power or broadband outag
Of course, but does that happen often enough to be a concern? For me,
I've had one Internet outage (that I know of) in the last 12 years and
that was in 2005. Besides, we have cell phones to help cover the
non-existent gap. Keeping a traditional POTS line would be silly.
Paul Miner wrote on [Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:26:10 -0500]:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Miner wrote on [Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:32:57 -0500]:
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:43:30 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To make a long story short, I blew eighty bucks on a VOIP
>>>>gateway, climbed the learning curve, signed up for a VOIP
>>>>provider's services and kept the POTS line for incoming and 911.
>>>>
>>>>Now I don't need a PC tb up and running, I've had zero problems,
>>>>and calls are something like 1.2 cents per minute.
>>>>
>>>>Definitely not cost-effective though bc we could make an awful
>>>>lot of .02/minute calls for that eighty bucks.... but there's
>>>>something to be said for it's being trouble-free and totally
>>>>transparent.
>>>
>>> The VoIP service isn't suitable for incoming and 911? I dumped my POTS
>>> line and switched to Vonage in 2005. Both incoming calls and 911 work
>>> fine here.
>>
>>From: http://support.vonage.com/doc/en_us/394.xml
>>
>>With both traditional 9-1-1 and E911 service, your call is sent directly to the nearest emergency response center. In addition, with E911 service, your call back number and address are visible to the emergency response center call-taker. With Vonage's 9-1-1 service, your call is sent to a national emergency call center.
>
> That may be a blanket statement to cover certain areas, but my wife
> had an opportunity to call 911 in 2008 and the call was answered by
> the emergency call center right here in town. They knew our name and
> address automatically.
Well, that's what the site says...
>>Remember that the 9-1-1 dialing service will not function in the event of a power or broadband outag
>
> Of course, but does that happen often enough to be a concern? For me,
> I've had one Internet outage (that I know of) in the last 12 years and
> that was in 2005. Besides, we have cell phones to help cover the
> non-existent gap. Keeping a traditional POTS line would be silly.
How often does the Internet go down? At least once every few months for us.
Power goes out for 4 or more hours a couple of times a year.
The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:00:43 -0400]:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>With Vonage's 9-1-1 service, your call is sent to a national emergency call center.
>
> You sure about that? I've had to call before and I was connected
> directly with my county's 911 center.
On 26/03/11 4:26 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> Remember that the 9-1-1 dialing service will not function in the event of a power or broadband outag
>
> Of course, but does that happen often enough to be a concern? For me,
> I've had one Internet outage (that I know of) in the last 12 years and
> that was in 2005. Besides, we have cell phones to help cover the
> non-existent gap. Keeping a traditional POTS line would be silly.
The type of emergency that might cause your power or internet service to
go down might be the same type of emergency that prompts you to call
911. These things go together quite often. E.g. mudslide takes out the
power pole, threatens your home. Flood takes out a road, the power
lines, leaves you stranded. In many cases power lines are down and not
working, phone lines are down but still working. Or the phone lines run
on different poles and the incident that took out the power pole didn't
take out the phone line, etc.
"Justin" wrote in message news:slrniota09.cia.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net...
The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:00:43 -0400]:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>With Vonage's 9-1-1 service, your call is sent to a national emergency call center.
>
> You sure about that? I've had to call before and I was connected
> directly with my county's 911 center.
That's what the website says...
It depends on if your area has E911.
From Vonage's website:
Vonage currently offers Enhanced 911 (E911) in many areas across the country, and we are
continuing the process of a nationwide rollout. With E911 service, Vonage delivers your registered
address and phone number automatically to the proper local emergency call center. Your registered
information appears on the dispatcher's screen automatically at the emergency call center.
If local authorities cannot display your registered information Vonage sends along with your 911
call, your call will be delivered through the traditional 911 network and answered by a trained
dispatcher in your local 911 center. This service is known as basic 911. The dispatcher will not
have your address and may not have your phone number, so be prepared to provide it.
Vonage also provides an additional safety net in case traditional 911 methods fail or are not
available. At Vonage's national 911 emergency response center, trained emergency personnel
are standing by to help you get local help in the event your call cannot be routed via E911 or
traditional 911. Once you reach local emergency services, you may need to give them your address.
To find out if 911 is activated, simply dial 933 from your Vonage phone.
It may take several hours to process your 911 address. In the interim, Vonage will send your
call to our national emergency response center. And because Vonage is mobile, when you move
your device, you must register your new address.
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 02:59:21 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:00:43 -0400]:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>With Vonage's 9-1-1 service, your call is sent to a national emergency call center.
>>
>> You sure about that? I've had to call before and I was connected
>> directly with my county's 911 center.
>
>That's what the website says...
Not really. Read it again: http://www.vonage.com/911/. It appears
to depend on your local 911 call center's capabilities and how you use
Vonage.
"Most of our customers (other than WiFi and Softphone customers) have
access to either basic 911 or Enhanced 911 (E911) service. With E911
service, when you dial 911, your telephone number and registered
address is simultaneously sent to the local emergency center assigned
to your location, and emergency operators have access to the
information they need to send help and call you back if necessary.
Customers in locations where the emergency center is not equipped to
receive your telephone number and address have basic 911. With basic
911, the local emergency operator answering the call will not have
your call back number or your exact location, so you must be prepared
to give them this information. Until you give the operator your phone
number, he/she may not be able to call you back or dispatch help if
the call is not completed or is not forwarded, is dropped or
disconnected, or if you are unable to speak. As additional local
emergency centers become capable of receiving our customers'
information, Vonage will automatically upgrade customers with basic
911 to E911 service. Vonage will not give you notice of the upgrade.
Certain customers do not have access to either basic 911 or E911. If
you don't have access to basic 911 or E911 your 911 call will be sent
to the Vonage national emergency call center. A trained agent at the
emergency call center will ask for the name, telephone number and
location of the customer calling 911, and then contact the local
emergency center for such customer in order to send help. Examples of
situations where 911 calls will be sent to the Vonage national
emergency call center include when there is a problem validating a
customer's address, the customer is identified with an international
location, or the customer is located in an area that is not covered by
the landline 911 network. In addition, if you use a WiFi or SoftPhone,
due to the portable nature of these Devices, your 911 calls will be
routed to the Vonage national emergency call center. Emergency
personnel do not receive your phone number or physical location when
your 911 call is routed to the Vonage national emergency call center."
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:10:42 -0700, jcdill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 26/03/11 4:26 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>> Remember that the 9-1-1 dialing service will not function in the event of a power or broadband outag
>>
>> Of course, but does that happen often enough to be a concern? For me,
>> I've had one Internet outage (that I know of) in the last 12 years and
>> that was in 2005. Besides, we have cell phones to help cover the
>> non-existent gap. Keeping a traditional POTS line would be silly.
>
>The type of emergency that might cause your power or internet service to
>go down might be the same type of emergency that prompts you to call
>911. These things go together quite often. E.g. mudslide takes out the
>power pole, threatens your home. Flood takes out a road, the power
>lines, leaves you stranded. In many cases power lines are down and not
>working, phone lines are down but still working. Or the phone lines run
>on different poles and the incident that took out the power pole didn't
>take out the phone line, etc.
Thanks, but I've heard it all before. If you're concerned, go ahead
and keep a third method of contacting emergency help on hand. For me,
it's not a concern and therefore not necessary.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:25:59 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Newsgroups expanded to include ATT, Sprint and Verizon. This is big news
> for everyone.
>
> In article <Xns9EAE818AEEEEDxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>,
> xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com says...
>
>> > [press release]
>> >
>> > http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...en/ATT-Acquire
>> > -T-Mobile-USA-Deutsche-Telekom
>>
>> As a public service, I'll translate:
>>
>> T-Mobile users = WOW are you going to get SCREWED!
>>
>> AT&T users = We're already screwing you but we'll increase the amount of
>> screwing you're getting.
>>
>> T-Mobile Customer Service People, you'll either be terminated or re-
>> trained to answer, "Tell somone who gives a rat's rear end!" to any
>> question. AT&T Customer Service People already know how to do this.
>
> I can look forward to higher prices and no customer service.
>
> Yay.
>
> Through the years, I've used all of the big guys except AT&T/Cingular/SBC
> and pre-merger AirTouch. There's a reason I stayed away from AT&T. When I
> lived in Ohio, they proved they'd do anything to steal money from the
> consumer. I'm sure y'all have already heard about my little fiasco with
> AT&T DSL.
>
> I've been totally AT&T-free since moving to California; my cell phone
> service has been with VZW/Sprint/T-Mobile (depending on which time period
> you're talking about) and my landline/TV/Internet were with Charter Cable
> for several years, and right now I'm using Verizon FiOS.
>
> Now, this.
>
> Dammit.
>
> The only good thing I can see coming out of this: T-Mo has been rather
> slow to improve their data coverage up here in the desert. AT&T already
> had the dominant GSM network, and they probably already have HSPA+ up
> here.
>
> It may be time to flip to MetroPCS.
Interesting...T-Mobile is still advertising AGAINST AT&T...
Re: T-Mobile selling off to AT&T 
Linear Mode
