"Ron" <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:3uprn4p62g3u4gtbp4g00ss06fofau5ii3@4ax.com...
>
> Will the last Sprint employee turn off the lights, please.
>
> Today Sprint announces 8,000 job cuts
>
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090126/bs_nm/us_sprint
I've heard that Sprint is steadfastly committed to staying in business until
you personally admit that they are the best wireless provider in the
industry, and sign up for a new two-year contract.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:11:20 -0700, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>"Ron" <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:3uprn4p62g3u4gtbp4g00ss06fofau5ii3@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Will the last Sprint employee turn off the lights, please.
>>
>> Today Sprint announces 8,000 job cuts
>>
>> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090126/bs_nm/us_sprint
>
>I've heard that Sprint is steadfastly committed to staying in business until
>you personally admit that they are the best wireless provider in the
>industry, and sign up for a new two-year contract.
>
>
Not while they're stuck with 1900 MHz which guarantees poorer coverage
and building penetration, not to mention overheating short lived hand
sets. Then there's the issue of strickly enforced handle time limits
on their CSRs
with ensures rotten Customer Service, as every annual survey rates
them worst.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:41:13 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>On 2009-01-26, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> Will the last Sprint employee turn off the lights, please.
>
>While this is a shame, I'd point out that even Microsoft is laying off
>employees right now; the economy has tanked.
>
Well thank Bush for the latter, and look that as a percentage of
extant employees, Sprint slashing is far more severe.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:17:25 -0800, DevilsPGD
<DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>In message <slrngns4ek.ne5.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
><sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Any reason why you felt you needed to xpost to ATTWS, troll?
>
>Attention whoring?
S Sobol just doesnt like the truth posted.
Anything that happens in the cellular industry of this magnitude
affects us all.
14% of their entire staff to be promoted to the street.
In message <0cdsn4ljaod6jd2p3fper8igfqa4boeg9n@4ax.com> Ron
<ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:17:25 -0800, DevilsPGD
><DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>In message <slrngns4ek.ne5.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
>><sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>Any reason why you felt you needed to xpost to ATTWS, troll?
>>
>>Attention whoring?
>
>
>S Sobol just doesnt like the truth posted.
>
>Anything that happens in the cellular industry of this magnitude
>affects us all.
>
>14% of their entire staff to be promoted to the street.
On 2009-01-26, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:17:25 -0800, DevilsPGD
><DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>In message <slrngns4ek.ne5.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
>><sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>Any reason why you felt you needed to xpost to ATTWS, troll?
>>
>>Attention whoring?
>
>
> S Sobol just doesnt like the truth posted.
>
> Anything that happens in the cellular industry of this magnitude
> affects us all.
Right, that's why you lied in a post this afternoon, a post made to the
Verizon and Cingular newsgroups, that I "suggested" you post in those
newsgroups in addition to sprint/attws. The only place this was on-topic was
in the Sprint newsgroup, and the only reason you posted to all those groups
was to show how clever you were in predicting Sprint's demise.
As I mentioned, even Microsoft is laying off people.
And I would have no problem with the original post, worded exactly the
same way, if anyone else posted it. I'm just tired of *your* idiocy and
dishonesty. Don't pretend you had some righteous reason to post here.
(Shall I list some of your lies? You keep on harping on one "lie" of mine
from several years ago... Do you really want to get me started?)
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
Microsoft's new marketing slogan for Windows is "Life Without Walls."
But if you have no walls, how can you have windows?
Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:j28sn45ee9koq7jcgumnnspbqa6bveecv6@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:11:20 -0700, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ron" <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>news:3uprn4p62g3u4gtbp4g00ss06fofau5ii3@4ax.com. ..
>>>
>>> Will the last Sprint employee turn off the lights, please.
>>>
>>> Today Sprint announces 8,000 job cuts
>>>
>>> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090126/bs_nm/us_sprint
>>
>>I've heard that Sprint is steadfastly committed to staying in business
>>until you personally admit that they are the best wireless provider in
>>the industry, and sign up for a new two-year contract.
>>
>>
>
> Not while they're stuck with 1900 MHz which guarantees poorer coverage
> and building penetration, not to mention overheating short lived hand
> sets. Then there's the issue of strickly enforced handle time limits
> on their CSRs
> with ensures rotten Customer Service, as every annual survey rates
> them worst.
>
Oh, look.....the idiot troll is repeating his rantings from 5 years ago.
They are all still just as baseless as they were back then.
But thanks for the memories, Phillipe. I forgot just how much of a moron
youtruly are.
Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:0cdsn4ljaod6jd2p3fper8igfqa4boeg9n@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:17:25 -0800, DevilsPGD
> <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>In message <slrngns4ek.ne5.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
>><sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>Any reason why you felt you needed to xpost to ATTWS, troll?
>>
>>Attention whoring?
>
>
> S Sobol just doesnt like the truth posted.
>
> Anything that happens in the cellular industry of this magnitude
> affects us all.
>
> 14% of their entire staff to be promoted to the street.
>
And you still didn't answer the question, moron. Why the xpost to ATTWS?
> Not while they're stuck with 1900 MHz which guarantees poorer coverage
> and building penetration,
The problem is that to get around the 1900 MHz limitation means
installing far more towers. Besides the obvious expense, there are
suburban areas where there are not sufficient commercial locations
(where towers are allowed) to cover adjacent large residential areas.
This is the problem where I live. One proposal (coming up for discussion
tonight actually) is to put towers into local parks. This is highly
unlikely to be permitted. The result is that Sprint and T-Mobile
coverage is very poor.
On 2009-01-27, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>
>> Not while they're stuck with 1900 MHz which guarantees poorer coverage
>> and building penetration,
>
> The problem is that to get around the 1900 MHz limitation means
> installing far more towers.
I agree that this is a problem, but... let me give you a few examples.
** For a long time, Sprint was the only carrier with coverage in Mentor-
on-the-Lake, Ohio, a bedroom community and former resort town in Lake County.
My Verizon phone had major problems acquiring a signal. Family members' ATT
phones had the same trouble. Verizon finally added capacity in that area
after I moved in... and sent a letter to the regional corporate office
suggesting that they lease space on the tower Sprint owns just outside M-O-L.
** Inexplicably, Verizon had crappy coverage in Ashtabula, right on the
OH/PA line. Ashtabula's a small town, but not tiny. On the few occasions when
I could convince my Verizon phone to latch onto the Sprint signal there, I was
fine. Don't know about ATT.
** When I lived on the edge of town in Apple Valley, California, we were just
past the edge of Verizon coverage, but there was a Sprint tower right near
the house.
** Cleveland was one of the last markets T-Mobile entered in this country,
but their launch was impressive. Not only did they have COVERAGE at my
parents' house in rural Geauga County, ten miles from anywhere, they were
offering LOCAL PHONE NUMBERS there.
So, yes, 1900MHz can be a liability, but it doesn't necessarily have to
be. Oddly enough, in the M-O-L example as well as the Apple Valley example,
a 1900MHz carrier was the ONLY carrier that covered the neighborhoods in
question.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
Microsoft's new marketing slogan for Windows is "Life Without Walls."
But if you have no walls, how can you have windows?
You'll keep braggin' and draggin' on how many sellphone companies get
swallowed up or simply bankrupt....well.....until that FIRST monopoly
sellphone bill arrives from MEGAPLUS, the ONLY carrier in the country,
that's $129/mo + $2.50/minute + 2.50/Megabyte to your iPHone.
If you think that's ********, you need to look back at the bad-old-days
when all Carphones came from AT&T, the CLEC.
Been there, paid that.....no thanks. Once the competition's gone, the
prices will skyrocket and the service will be in the *******....as you have
nowhere else to go.
You won't use your iPhone....You'll have to RENT theirs, the only ones
allowed on the system....
Verizon may swallow them all before it's over.....
Larry <noone@home.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:Xns9BA0914B9961Bnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13:
> Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in
> news:3uprn4p62g3u4gtbp4g00ss06fofau5ii3@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> Will the last Sprint employee turn off the lights, please.
>>
>> Today Sprint announces 8,000 job cuts
>>
>> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090126/bs_nm/us_sprint
>>
>
> You'll keep braggin' and draggin' on how many sellphone companies get
> swallowed up or simply bankrupt....well.....until that FIRST monopoly
> sellphone bill arrives from MEGAPLUS, the ONLY carrier in the country,
> that's $129/mo + $2.50/minute + 2.50/Megabyte to your iPHone.
>
> If you think that's ********, you need to look back at the
> bad-old-days when all Carphones came from AT&T, the CLEC.
>
> Been there, paid that.....no thanks. Once the competition's gone, the
> prices will skyrocket and the service will be in the *******....as you
> have nowhere else to go.
>
> You won't use your iPhone....You'll have to RENT theirs, the only ones
> allowed on the system....
>
>
>
> Verizon may swallow them all before it's over.....
>
>
DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:luhsn49ht3316g5rgabn236be0kemodd09@4ax.com:
>>Anything that happens in the cellular industry of this magnitude
>>affects us all.
>>
>>14% of their entire staff to be promoted to the street.
>
> How does this affect my AT&T service?
>
If you don't think the number of competitors affects your ATT service,
especially its PRICE, you are living in a true vacuum.....
Let one or two companies swallow them all and take all the frequencies and
watch what you'll be forced to pay.....or be off the air.
In message <Xns9BA0920265271noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
<noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>news:luhsn49ht3316g5rgabn236be0kemodd09@4ax.com :
>
>>>Anything that happens in the cellular industry of this magnitude
>>>affects us all.
>>>
>>>14% of their entire staff to be promoted to the street.
>>
>> How does this affect my AT&T service?
>>
>
>If you don't think the number of competitors affects your ATT service,
>especially its PRICE, you are living in a true vacuum.....
So what is the difference in the number of competitors three weeks
before this announcement and today?
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrngnumb6.pb.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
>
> On 2009-01-27, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>>> Not while they're stuck with 1900 MHz which guarantees poorer coverage
>>> and building penetration,
>>
>> The problem is that to get around the 1900 MHz limitation means
>> installing far more towers.
>
> I agree that this is a problem, but... let me give you a few examples.
>
> ** For a long time, Sprint was the only carrier with coverage in Mentor-
> on-the-Lake, Ohio, a bedroom community and former resort town in Lake
> County.
> My Verizon phone had major problems acquiring a signal. Family members'
> ATT
> phones had the same trouble. Verizon finally added capacity in that area
> after I moved in... and sent a letter to the regional corporate office
> suggesting that they lease space on the tower Sprint owns just outside
> M-O-L.
>
> ** Inexplicably, Verizon had crappy coverage in Ashtabula, right on the
> OH/PA line. Ashtabula's a small town, but not tiny. On the few occasions
> when
> I could convince my Verizon phone to latch onto the Sprint signal there, I
> was
> fine. Don't know about ATT.
>
> ** When I lived on the edge of town in Apple Valley, California, we were
> just
> past the edge of Verizon coverage, but there was a Sprint tower right near
> the house.
>
> ** Cleveland was one of the last markets T-Mobile entered in this country,
> but their launch was impressive. Not only did they have COVERAGE at my
> parents' house in rural Geauga County, ten miles from anywhere, they were
> offering LOCAL PHONE NUMBERS there.
>
> So, yes, 1900MHz can be a liability, but it doesn't necessarily have to
> be. Oddly enough, in the M-O-L example as well as the Apple Valley
> example,
> a 1900MHz carrier was the ONLY carrier that covered the neighborhoods in
> question.
While we're piling on the anecdotes, when I moved to my 20-year-old
subdivision in southwest Denver six years ago, neither 800MHz carrier
(Verizon and AT&T) had a useable signal here. Ironically both 1900MHz
carriers did (T-Mo and Sprint.) Most of my neighbors used Sprint or Qwest
(a Sprint MVNO at the time, who has recently switched to reselling Verizon.)
In the time I've lived here, both Verizon and AT&T have since added
coverage.
SMS wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>
>> Not while they're stuck with 1900 MHz which guarantees poorer coverage
>> and building penetration,
>
> The problem is that to get around the 1900 MHz limitation means
> installing far more towers. Besides the obvious expense, there are
> suburban areas where there are not sufficient commercial locations
> (where towers are allowed) to cover adjacent large residential areas.
> This is the problem where I live. One proposal (coming up for discussion
> tonight actually) is to put towers into local parks. This is highly
> unlikely to be permitted. The result is that Sprint and T-Mobile
> coverage is very poor.
Yet another anecdote about coverage:
Here in Northern RURAL central MO, coverage is poor for almost all
carriers EXCEPT the local can-and-string phone company. Sprint's
coverage is spotty but usable, just as is U. S. Cellular. (Verizon
isn't even in the running.) AT&T is better, but get this: a neighbor
subscribed to AT&T family plan, 4 phones for members his family, a
couple of them located 15 miles or so West of our location. After a few
months, AT&T called my neighbor and told him he was costing them too
much money: seems they have no local tower, but lease usage of a tower
near us, and THAT is the tower his phone uses. So, they terminated his
contract--no early termination fee.
So, guess I have to hang in there with my spotty Sprint coverage. At
least, they haven't threatened to cancel me.
--
Thieves get rich and saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot.
Sprint continues to circle the drain. 
Linear Mode
