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

Todd Allcock wrote:


> Sprint beat everyone to it. They offered unlimited voice and data in a few
> "beta" markets late last year for $99, IIRC. It included "Power Vision"
> data only (on-phone data- no tethering.) I suspect they'll just expand
> that plan everywhere to compete.

Sprint could try a desperation move and offer 3G pseudo-unlimited data
and unlimited voice (including unlimited voice roaming to make up for
their limited network). For $80 I'd sign up in a minute if Sprint were
to add coverage to my area.

At 21 Feb 2008 01:06:36 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> > They have a 2G data network.
>
> Exactly. In other words, they don't have a data network.
>
> (I don't consider GPRS to be up to par when ATTWS is already EDGE-ified
> over most of its network and is moving to HDSPA, and when Verizon and
> Sprint offer DSL speeds.)

T-Mo is pretty much "EDGE-ified" across their (native) network as well, but
occasionally it falls down when roaming or in very small markets. (I was
up in the Colorado mountains off route 40 last weekend roaming on "Union
Telephone" which didn't seem to offer either GPRS or EDGE. If the hotel
didn't have free WiFi, I'd probably have had to try CSD as a last resort!)
Supposedly T-Mo's 3G will be up this summer if the Feds ever vacate the
1700 MHz band.

As to the usefulness of EDGE, it depends what you're after, I guess. Is it
sufficient for PC-card use? No, except as a last resort, but for mobile e-
mail and on-phone browser lookups/Google Maps/Windows Live Navigation-type
stuff it's fine, and the price ($6/month) is certainly right.

> Sprint seems to be the best bet for data.

For SERO (free), on-phone ($15) and PC card use ($49 SERO), I'll agree.
For doing a WAP-page 411 lookup on m.411.com? Hell, CSD used to pull that
kind of stuff off fine at 9600-14.4k! (And still can!...)

I've been playing with "1G" again mostly for laughs and nostalgia. PagePlus,
the Verizon MVNO, has free unlimited 14.4kbps Verizon QNC data right now,
probably via a billing system oversight. It's hard to recall these days,
but there was a time when 14.4 was top-of-the-line! I've got an old
Verizon WinMo smartphone I picked up cheap on eBay hooked to PagePlus.
It's my backup phone for when I (very rarely) find myself outside T-Mo's
coverage area. Even with it's lousy 14.4k connection, it automatically
keeps contacts and calendar info synched over-the-air with my "real" T-Mo
Windows Mobile phone via Exchange, and it pulls my IMAP e-mail down hourly.
(The Exchange sync alone is worth it's weight in gold- prior to Page Plus,
I used to use Beyond Wireless TDMA on Cingular as my rural backup, but
still had to lug the T-Mo PDA phone around for access to my
contacts/calendar info that wouldn't sync to an ancient Nokia 5160!)

At 20 Feb 2008 23:27:32 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named,"
> >which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed
> >to include alt.cellular.cingular, a newsgroup for which there is no
> >corresponding carrier, while removing newsgroups that are actually
> >relevant. Pathetic and sad.
>
> Just taking a page out of your book, Steven.
> You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Um, no. Steven ADDED the .attws group to a bunch of threads, but he never
dropped groups already there and forced redirection SOLELY to a group not
in the original conversation like you're attempting now.

IIRC, you condemned Steven for that because it caused disruption of the
group due to fragmented threads, and yet you're doing it yourself... Hmmm...


Hypocrisy, thy name is Nav...

Ah, forget it- too easy!

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:11:42 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fpj4rf$u64$4@aioe.org>:

>As to the usefulness of EDGE, it depends what you're after, I guess. Is it
>sufficient for PC-card use? No, except as a last resort, but for mobile e-
>mail and on-phone browser lookups/Google Maps/Windows Live Navigation-type
>stuff it's fine, and the price ($6/month) is certainly right.

My own take is that EGPRS(EDGE) is quite satisfactory for many things,
including laptop access.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:03:11 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote
in <758rr3936ovgc44ob7ju7qpda776jfibea@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:42:03 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
><bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile
>>gives me great service. More bang for the buck.
>
>They have no coverage here!

It's like a store with a great price that's out of stock.

Go to another store and say, "It's cheaper down the street."

The other store replies, "Our price would be cheaper too
if we didn't have any in stock."

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Where is here????

"Pegleg" <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in message
news:758rr3936ovgc44ob7ju7qpda776jfibea@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:42:03 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
> <bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds.
>>T-Mobile
>>gives me great service. More bang for the buck.
>
> They have no coverage here!

I'm very satisfiied. I pay $39.99 for 1000 minutes & free nights & weekends.
And I get great service too.


"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:8V3vj.12876$pS2.1176@fe101.usenetserver.com.. .
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)
>
>

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Um, no. Steven ADDED the .attws group to a bunch of threads, but he never
> dropped groups already there and forced redirection SOLELY to a group not
> in the original conversation like you're attempting now.

True.

> IIRC, you condemned Steven for that because it caused disruption of the
> group due to fragmented threads, and yet you're doing it yourself... Hmmm...

Yes, copying alt.cellular.attws on follow-ups to posts to
alt.cellular.cingular did cause fragmented threads. However I felt it
was helpful to get threads moved over to the proper newsgroup, and that
it helped speed the transition. A similar thing happened when the
T-Mobile newsgroup took over from the Voicestream newsgroup.

> Hypocrisy, thy name is Nav...
>
> Ah, forget it- too easy!

Argh, don't say the name. It's "he who must not be named."

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)

Perhaps, but apparently not as satisfied as other carrier's users
considering the churn numbers. About 25% of T-Mobile's U.S. retail
subscribers leave each year, compared to about 11% of Verizon's retail
subscribers, and about 14% of AT&T's retail subscribers. At least they
now have less churn than Sprint!

Todd Allcock wrote :
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)

Are you speaking for all 26 million or just yourself?

At 21 Feb 2008 09:58:44 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Perhaps, but apparently not as satisfied as other carrier's users
> considering the churn numbers. About 25% of T-Mobile's U.S.
> retail subscribers leave each year, compared to about 11% of
> Verizon's retail subscribers, and about 14% of AT&T's retail subscribers.
> At least they now have less churn than Sprint!


Yep- T-Mo's churn is still high, but it too is much improved from a few
years ago.

T-Mo's biggest problems right now, IMO, are the lack of 3G, and a crummy
lineup of phone (partially because of the lack of 3G! T-Mo refuses to add
3G phones to it's lineup until they launch 3G, and typically only the low-
end and some mid-tier phones today omit 3G, making T-Mo's selection pretty
ratty looking.)

At 22 Feb 2008 11:42:21 -0800 Pegleg wrote:

> > making T-Mo's selection pretty
> >ratty looking.)
>
> Rattier than Verizon?

Not really, but Verizon has an excuse! As a CDMA carrier, there's less
equipment for them to choose from, since the GSM market (worldwide) is so
much larger. T-Mo has no real excuse for a lousy selection since they can
use "off the shelf" hardware from dozens of manufacturers with little to no
modification.

> My disappointment with VZW (been with them from
> before they were Verizon) is their selection of phones. They have so
> many crap phones and the frequency of new phones leaves much to be
> desired. JMO!

True, but Verizon's handsets have to essentially be designed and built for
them and then specially crippled to their exacting specifications! ;-)
That takes time and effort!

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
<84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:

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

On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
<news:462cc5ff$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>) , and my follow-up
header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
See how easy that was?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl01h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
> <84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:
>
>>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
> <news:462cc5ff$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>) , and my follow-up
> header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
> raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
> See how easy that was?
>

Make the charter next.

> T-Mo's biggest problems right now, IMO, are the lack of 3G, and a
> crummy lineup of phone (partially because of the lack of 3G!

T-Mobile can use most AT&T phones after unlocking.

In article <Xns9A4D90734BD5bob@216.196.97.136>,
The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:

> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
> news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl01h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
> > <84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:
> >
> >>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
> >>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
> >
> > On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> > alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> > follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> > cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> > aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
> > <news:462cc5ff$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>) , and my follow-up
> > header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
> > raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
> > See how easy that was?
> >
>
> Make the charter next.

The incessant charter posting is pure obsessive-compulsive.

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

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl01h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@4ax.com...

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


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

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


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


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

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:53:07 -0700, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<uL6wj.11576$Xo1.2729@fe085.usenetserver.com>:

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

Thank you, Mr, Pot.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Todd Allcock wrote:

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

Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start
moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless by AT&T.
Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result
of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and
eventually moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing
"alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely.

Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular, because
he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and wrote the
charter for is going away, it's as simple as that. It's the same reason
he posts the Cingular charter to the alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even
though it has no relevance, and even though several regular contributors
have requested that he stop.

Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to
his ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you."
His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going
to do anything about. He certainly was free to create a new group when
Cingular changed its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do
so. alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates
peripherally to Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless.

At 24 Feb 2008 01:45:59 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start
> moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless
> by AT&T.

Why "was it time?" The .attws group was for the defunct AT&T "Blue" service.
Cingular was the Company that adopted the AT&T name. Based on the past
content in the groups alone "Cingular " is probably the correct group for
the current AT&T service, at least until an AT&T Mobility group is created.

Personally, I don't care which group is "adopted" by the current readers-
I'll go where they take me. But let's face it, unilaterally deciding attws
was now the "correct" group and adding it to every post had nothing to do
with nomenclature, but simply to get under the skin of your nemesis.

As I said, his "stealth" counter-attack was even more wrong, and frankly
counterproductive since anyone not reading his group would never see
further posts in the sub-thread, but I guess it had the advantage of
directing many flames directed toward him in his "territory" and out of the
eye of readers of the other cellular groups.


> Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result
> of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and eventually
> moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing
> "alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely.


But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
Cingular- not the old ATTWS. If people choose to migrate there, fine (and
seemingly many, if not most, have) but that decision doesn't need you or I
"declaring" it to be the correct one.


> Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular,
> because he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and
> wrote the charter for is going away, it's as simple as that.

Probably, but the readers and posters of a.c.c don't really need you to
decide for them that it's dead!

> It's the same reason he posts the Cingular charter to the
>alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even though it has no relevance, and even
> though several regular contributors have requested that he stop.


So? He's doing a petty, childish thing then. That doesn't make his
behavior something to aspire to!


> Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to his
> ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you."

I agree, but history aside, his posts, while unwelcome and not applicable,
are less offensive than the continual "We are reputable sellers of handys"
fraud posts and "How to convert video for your iPhone" spam posts that
appear in the cellular NGs far more frequently, yet no one starts 20-post
flame wars over those.

> His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going to
> do anything about.

While I rarely agree with him, he is correct that the reactions to his
posts are more disruptive than the posts themselves.

We really should all take his recent advice- filter him.

> He certainly was free to create a new group when Cingular changed
> its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do so.

Nor did anyone else.

> alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates peripherally
to
> Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless.

By amazing coincidence it fits "pretty well," but frankly no better or
worse that the Cingular group.

Again, if you and anyone else wants to add the .attws group to .cingular
posts, fine- and if you want to add a footer saying "I THINK the .attws
group is a more appropriate place to discuss the new AT&T, that's fine as
well. But to play netcop and declare "posts regarding AT&T SHOULD be
posted to alt.cellular.attws" is outside your purview.

More importantly, it reduces you to his level, which makes it hard to argue
the moral high ground. ("John, you're an ass because you pull the same
sort of stunts that I do!" is hardly a compelling arguement!) ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:

> But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
> Cingular- not the old ATTWS.

While technically alt.cellular.attws was for AT&T Wireless, no one
proposed a new group when Cingular changed to "Wireless from AT&T," and
their URL became "http://www.wireless.att.com." There is some history
there too, as the old AT&T Wireless _was_ formed by spinning off the
wireless division of AT&T into a separate company, and the current
"Wireless from AT&T" does include the old AT&T Wireless company. A
better explanation is at "http://tinyurl.com/2jmkx8".

There's nothing "official" about "alt.cellular.attws" becoming the group
for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an
existing newsgroup with an appropriate name.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47c2d8a6$0$36404$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
>> Cingular- not the old ATTWS.
>
> While technically alt.cellular.attws was for AT&T Wireless, no one
> proposed a new group when Cingular changed to "Wireless from AT&T," and
> their URL became "http://www.wireless.att.com." There is some history
> there too, as the old AT&T Wireless _was_ formed by spinning off the
> wireless division of AT&T into a separate company, and the current
> "Wireless from AT&T" does include the old AT&T Wireless company. A better
> explanation is at "http://tinyurl.com/2jmkx8".
>
> There's nothing "official" about "alt.cellular.attws" becoming the group
> for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an
> existing newsgroup with an appropriate name.

Logical, perhaps, but not self-evident. Realistically, your saying both are
the wrong group, but .attws is "less wrong!" If you want to search the
"archives" for recent and relevant info on AT&T Mobility, prior to the name
change, Cingular's the group to find it in. The .attws group became a
desolate wasteland for quite awhile.

Again, I'll go where the users go, and that does seem to mostly be .attws,
but we should still keep tabs on the Cingular group. I still monitor the
"Voicestream" group for those who haven't discovered alt.cellular.t-mobile!

In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>
> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
> $39.99...you have to be kidding!

They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of
data.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>
> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of
> data.
>

But corporations get unlimited for less than that.

I always thought those sort of plans were just a disingenuous slap in
the face of the average guy so they could claim they have something
besides unlimited. It would be like going into a buffet and being told
that the complete buffet is available for $15 but for those who may not
want that they do offer a "special" rate where you can fill a 3" plate
one time for $9.50 .

It is best to get Sprint for data since they don't have any cap on usage. I
have used both and they perform equally except for the price.


"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62hnfhF23r0reU1@mid.individual.net...
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>>
>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>
> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB
> of
> data.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful
> Dead.
> -- Egyptian Book of the Dead

George wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>>
>>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>>
>>
>> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
>> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for
>> 50MB of
>> data.
>>
>
> But corporations get unlimited for less than that.
>
> I always thought those sort of plans were just a disingenuous slap in
> the face of the average guy so they could claim they have something
> besides unlimited. It would be like going into a buffet and being told
> that the complete buffet is available for $15 but for those who may not
> want that they do offer a "special" rate where you can fill a 3" plate
> one time for $9.50 .

If you are a corporation and if you have several dozen or several
hundred cell phones, you have a great deal of bargaining power!

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>
> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of
> data.

"We have all the supply so we can demand whatever the %^&$ we want."

Verizon's date offerings are higher quality than those from Sprint, AT&T
and T-Mobile so they can charge more. Actually AT&T charges about the
same, despite having less 3G coverage, though they have announced an
expansion of 3G that, when complete, will put them about equal to
Verizon in coverage. The problem for Sprint and T-Mobile is that while
they can roam for voice, AT&T and Verizon have thus far not allowed 3G
data roaming. So unless you can live with the coverage limitations of
Sprint and T-Mobile, which will not be solved for a very long time, if
ever, you're stuck with paying for the higher quality product.

People complain about Verizon's prices for voice and for data, but
Verizon still signs up the most new retail contract customers, by a
large margin, every quarter. Obviously a lot of customers are willing to
pay a slightly higher price for the higher quality.

SMS wrote:
> People complain about Verizon's prices for voice and for data, but
> Verizon still signs up the most new retail contract customers, by a
> large margin, every quarter. Obviously a lot of customers are willing to
> pay a slightly higher price for the higher quality.

"Slightly", he says.

--
Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/print/...munist-mentor/

Jar-Jar Binks wrote :
> It is best to get Sprint for data since they don't have any cap on usage. I
> have used both and they perform equally except for the price.
>
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:62hnfhF23r0reU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>>
>> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
>> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB
>> of
>> data.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse
>>
>> In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful
>> Dead.
>> -- Egyptian Book of the Dead

You forgot to mention forced roaming to Verizon because Verizon's
network is betterthan Sprint.
This reply is not cross posted

clifto wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> People complain about Verizon's prices for voice and for data, but
>> Verizon still signs up the most new retail contract customers, by a
>> large margin, every quarter. Obviously a lot of customers are willing to
>> pay a slightly higher price for the higher quality.
>
> "Slightly", he says.

If you compare the plan minutes at different price points, using one of
the comparison engines for wireless, the prices for peak minutes of
voice are very comparable at AT&T, Sprint, & Verizon. T-Mobile gives you
a lot more peak minutes for the price. See
"http://www.myrateplan.com/wireless_plans/". With Sprint you can get
SERO rates which don't show up of course in the plan comparisons.

For unlimited, T-Mobile is cheaper because it includes text messaging,
though the savvy consumer that wanted unlimited would port their number
to PagePlus and get unlimited on the Verizon network for significantly
less, around $75, versus what will be about $115 after taxes and fees on
Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile.

For data, Verizon is comparable to AT&T, even though they have a much
larger 3G network. Sprint is cheaper, if they cover the places you
expect to need 3G.