News: Rumor Sprint to respond to ATT and Verizon unlimted call plans with $60/month plan.

http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh

Love it!!!

Hope it stops them from bleeding customers.

I'd hate to see them go under. We need the competition to keep the business
healthy.

Dean


"Ron" <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com...
> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:07:23 -0500, "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Love it!!!
>
>Hope it stops them from bleeding customers.
>
>I'd hate to see them go under. We need the competition to keep the business
>healthy.
>

Sprint is a dead network. With Verizon moving away from CDMA, Sprint
will be the biggest CDMA player in a small field.

Alltel will probably follow Verizon's lead since they roam on each
other's network. US Cellular will probably go that way too.

That will leave Sprint by themselves.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote
in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:

>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh

The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
The Internet press sinks to new lows.

--
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

Bleeding money instead of customers won't solve the problem.
Sprint is caught is a deadly trap that will be hard for it to escape.


On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:07:23 -0500, "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in
<47bc9696$2$15168$607ed4bc@cv.net>:

>Love it!!!
>
>Hope it stops them from bleeding customers.
>
>I'd hate to see them go under. We need the competition to keep the business
>healthy.
>
>Dean
>
>
>"Ron" <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com.. .
>> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh
>

--
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

"Diamond Dave" <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ccapr3t2b9ambsgado477c7361k0dko0pk@4ax.com...

> Sprint is a dead network. With Verizon moving away from CDMA, Sprint
> will be the biggest CDMA player in a small field.

How is Verizon's upcoming LTE overlay "moving away from CDMA?"

Apes will rise up and rule the Earth before Verizon shuts down the CDMA
network! (And the Apes will likely continue to use CDMA) ;-)

> Alltel will probably follow Verizon's lead since they roam on each
> other's network. US Cellular will probably go that way too.

Seriously, CDMA will hang around post-LTE for a good number of years. Like
GSM, it just plain works, it's already deployed, and little is to be gained
by replacing it anytime soon. Don't read too much into the LTE thing. A
transition to some form of "4G" is inevitable, so why not to one that
interoperates with Verizon's European co-owners? Why intentionally choose
an oddball scheme that locks you out of international roaming revenue?

As an analogy, note that European GSM 3G phones will roam on some decidedly
non-GSM Japanese systems, because they chose the same 3G standard and
frequencies as Europe. This is no different- Verizon had to overlay SOME
sort of 4G data on their network- why not a Euro-compatible one?

> That will leave Sprint by themselves.

That, of course, is if Sprint doesn't wake up, deploy WiMax and "own" mobile
data before Verizon gets LTE deployed in the next couple of years.








--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:ardpr3ptpuf5ltpjusosslac7tg85ep1jo@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
> wrote in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>
>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...ll-plans/2100-
>>1039_3-6231277.html?tag=st_lh
>
> The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
> The Internet press sinks to new lows.
>

Well then, how about the more traditional and generally accepted sources?

http://www.reuters.com/article/coMkt...0080220?rpc=11

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...539DOWJONESDJO
NLINE000781_FORTUNE5.htm

The only thing low around here is your knwoledge of the subject.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:51:28 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4AAB7CE21A7bob@216.196.97.136>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:ardpr3ptpuf5ltpjusosslac7tg85ep1jo@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
>> wrote in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...ll-plans/2100-
>>>1039_3-6231277.html?tag=st_lh
>>
>> The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>> The Internet press sinks to new lows.
>
>Well then, how about the more traditional and generally accepted sources?
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/coMkt...0080220?rpc=11
>
>http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...539DOWJONESDJO
>NLINE000781_FORTUNE5.htm

Same rumors, plus Sprint declines to comment. [yawn]

>The only thing low around here is your knwoledge of the subject.

Do you actually enjoy embarrassing yourself this way?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:28:12 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote
>in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>
>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh
>
>The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>The Internet press sinks to new lows.



No, many stories from respected business analysts are prdicting what
Sprint will do.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:14:56 -0600, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
wrote in <vigpr3lgo0jrh41f3ladoh7khoqd3h64tt@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:28:12 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote
>>in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh
>>
>>The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>>The Internet press sinks to new lows.
>
>No, many stories from respected business analysts are prdicting what
>Sprint will do.

Speculations by a few analysts carefully qualifying what they are saying
with words like "could". [yawn]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:67gpr35ids7k9rdqdd9h5u9knqbf4hgfn7@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:51:28 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4AAB7CE21A7bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:ardpr3ptpuf5ltpjusosslac7tg85ep1jo@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
>>> wrote in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...call-plans/210
>>>>0- 1039_3-6231277.html?tag=st_lh
>>>
>>> The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>>> The Internet press sinks to new lows.
>>
>>Well then, how about the more traditional and generally accepted
>>sources?
>>
>>http://www.reuters.com/article/coMkt...0080220?rpc=11
>>
>>http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...2201539DOWJONE
>>SDJO NLINE000781_FORTUNE5.htm
>
> Same rumors, plus Sprint declines to comment. [yawn]


And why would you expect Sprint to do otherwise?

Of course, your original complaint about the story was that, "The Internet
press sinks to new lows." You can now acknowledge that it is not the
internet press, but every major new organization (add Forbes to the list
above).

I'm sure you are more in the know than they are. After all, you are simply
a pedestrian consumer of the product, with no professional experience in
the field.

I do find it interesting that The lack of comment from a company has
different meanings to you when it serves your silly persoanl agendas.

>
>>The only thing low around here is your knwoledge of the subject.
>
> Do you actually enjoy embarrassing yourself this way?
>

No- I actually enjoy embarrassing myself in other ways. It won't happen
here- your opinion is not important to merit it.

Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:vigpr3lgo0jrh41f3ladoh7khoqd3h64tt@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:28:12 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
>>wrote in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...all-plans/2100
>>>-1039_3-6231277.html?tag=st_lh
>>
>>The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>>The Internet press sinks to new lows.
>
>
>
> No, many stories from respected business analysts are prdicting what
> Sprint will do.
>

Don't you know? John Navas knows better than any analyst around. He is
the most knowledgeable person on the subject.

I can't believe that I was able to write that whole thing without breaking
out into hysterical laughter.

Navas is an idiot.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:28:12 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote
>in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>
>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh
>
>The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>The Internet press sinks to new lows.

Get out of here, John. REUTERS and NEWS.COM are very reputable
sources.

Everything is a rumor until it is officially announced!

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:32:13 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in <vkvpr31lra0m1ldtkdpcvrivle358ar938@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:28:12 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote
>>in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...html?tag=st_lh
>>
>>The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>>The Internet press sinks to new lows.
>
>Get out of here, John.

Sorry, but no. How about you?

>REUTERS and NEWS.COM are very reputable
>sources.

They aren't sources. Don't you know the difference?

>Everything is a rumor until it is officially announced!

Rumors aren't news. They are just rumors.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:dd1qr3te48s9akhlvln8pr59oelejjpe29@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:32:13 -0800, Anon E. Muss
> <anonymous@example.org> wrote in
> <vkvpr31lra0m1ldtkdpcvrivle358ar938@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:28:12 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:27:50 GMT, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
>>>wrote in <183pr3tc1rot111prreobppm1hpk47pl0n@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...call-plans/210
>>>>0-1039_3-6231277.html?tag=st_lh
>>>
>>>The key word there is "rumor"; i.e., not a real news story.
>>>The Internet press sinks to new lows.
>>
>>Get out of here, John.
>
> Sorry, but no. How about you?
>
>>REUTERS and NEWS.COM are very reputable
>>sources.
>
> They aren't sources. Don't you know the difference?
>
>>Everything is a rumor until it is officially announced!
>
> Rumors aren't news. They are just rumors.
>

Then extended GSM in the US is a rumor, not fact as you claim.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:06:30 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4AE0E5A5E50bob@216.196.97.136>:

>Then extended GSM in the US is a rumor, not fact as you claim.

I know it to be a fact. I don't care what you think.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:tv1qr39oildlip8teqik7smj3b3noektrq@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:06:30 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4AE0E5A5E50bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>Then extended GSM in the US is a rumor, not fact as you claim.
>
> I know it to be a fact. I don't care what you think.
>

Ah, but now you aren't playing by your own rules again.

A rumor is just that. Until it is news, it is simply a rumor.

Don't move the goalpost to suit your needs. Although I am seeing that
pattern quite frequently from you lately. Admonishing and belittling
others for displaying the same behavior you do.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:02:29 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:32:13 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in <vkvpr31lra0m1ldtkdpcvrivle358ar938@4ax.com>:

[snip]

>>REUTERS and NEWS.COM are very reputable
>>sources.
>
>They aren't sources. Don't you know the difference?

Sure they are. A source, per Webster's dictionary, is "one that
supplies information" and they are supplying information, even if it
is second-hand.

>>Everything is a rumor until it is officially announced!
>
>Rumors aren't news. They are just rumors.

Rumors most definitely can be newsworthy and therefore news regardless
of your handwaving and denying it's not.

Next thing you are gonna do is say there was no lunar eclipse tonite.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:33:45 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in <1k6qr3pdv1jsds3aepqmiooqos2g7png2q@4ax.com>:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:02:29 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:32:13 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>>wrote in <vkvpr31lra0m1ldtkdpcvrivle358ar938@4ax.com>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>REUTERS and NEWS.COM are very reputable
>>>sources.
>>
>>They aren't sources. Don't you know the difference?
>
>Sure they are. A source, per Webster's dictionary, is "one that
>supplies information" and they are supplying information, even if it
>is second-hand.

Nope. There are reporting speculation. The sources are the analysts.

>>>Everything is a rumor until it is officially announced!
>>
>>Rumors aren't news. They are just rumors.
>
>Rumors most definitely can be newsworthy and therefore news regardless
>of your handwaving and denying it's not.

Rumors aren't news no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

>Next thing you are gonna do is say there was no lunar eclipse tonite.

Nope. That was real news, albeit not terribly surprising.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:02:45 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:33:45 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in <1k6qr3pdv1jsds3aepqmiooqos2g7png2q@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:02:29 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:32:13 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>>>wrote in <vkvpr31lra0m1ldtkdpcvrivle358ar938@4ax.com>:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>REUTERS and NEWS.COM are very reputable
>>>>sources.
>>>
>>>They aren't sources. Don't you know the difference?
>>
>>Sure they are. A source, per Webster's dictionary, is "one that
>>supplies information" and they are supplying information, even if it
>>is second-hand.
>
>Nope. There are reporting speculation. The sources are the analysts.

So they *weren't* sources before ("They aren't sources"), now they are
("The sources are the analysts").

Your words speak for themselves.

>Rumors aren't news no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

I'm sure none of these are news either:

http://tinyurl.com/352l3p
http://tinyurl.com/3yrvja

And I'm sure when CNN/FoxNews was reporting speculation about the US
invading Iraq that wasn't news or newsworthy either.

Go back to the Twilight Zone, John.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:40:12 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in <tc6rr3lgoqc9275qs9b5sq491bj4d8uoi4@4ax.com>:

>[SNIP]

Since you just rehashed what you've written before,
I have nothing more to add.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:d7epr3ts4ljqiehuui6pe1n1dc5g2r8ulr@4ax.com:

>
> Bleeding money instead of customers won't solve the problem.
> Sprint is caught is a deadly trap that will be hard for it to escape.
>
>


Cite, John? Or is this more of your uniformed personal opinion? Most
analysts are saying that Sprint is the best positioned of the carriers to
pull something like this off.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...539DOWJONESDJO
NLINE000781_FORTUNE5.htm

"Given the network investment, Sprint could run an unlimited plan without
too much of an increase in expenses for a while and gradually ramp up
investments before traffic gets congested."



See, John- that's how you back up a claim. Try it sometime.