There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list of
eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I find
this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week but none
are covered under insurance ... go figure!
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:25:16 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
in <NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
>purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
>that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list of
>eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I find
>this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week but none
>are covered under insurance ... go figure!
Probably because the actuarial basis isn't there at a sensible price.
Consider getting your own insurance.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
First those insurance phones are bunch of craps. If you loose or damage your
phone you should pay a $50.00 copay, then you get mostly an inferior and
refurbished phones.
Srcond they do not offer insurance on brand new technology phne, because
there are no refurbished phones avilable on the market yet, to replace your
brand new phones.
"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
> There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
> purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
> that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
> of eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I
> find this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week
> but none are covered under insurance ... go figure!
>
First those insurance phones are bunch of craps. If you loose or damage your
phone you should pay a $50.00 copay, then you get mostly an inferior and
refurbished phones.
Srcond they do not offer insurance on brand new technology phne, because
there are no refurbished phones avilable on the market yet, to replace your
brand new phones.
"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
> There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
> purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
> that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
> of eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I
> find this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week
> but none are covered under insurance ... go figure!
>
"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
> There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
> purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
> that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
> of eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I
> find this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week
> but none are covered under insurance ... go figure!
When I bought a RAZR 14 months ago, insurance was not available. Yesterday
the 8525 wasn't available.
I'll add it to my State Farm personal electronics policy but that won't
cover failure.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:20:40 -0600, "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com>
wrote in <0SO7h.83$_n1.32@newsfe04.lga>:
>"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.c om...
>> There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
>> purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
>> that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
>> of eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I
>> find this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week
>> but none are covered under insurance ... go figure!
>
>When I bought a RAZR 14 months ago, insurance was not available. Yesterday
>the 8525 wasn't available.
>
>I'll add it to my State Farm personal electronics policy but that won't
>cover failure.
That's of course what the warranty is for.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
As a general rule Cingular will not insure anything that takes an expansion
memory card.
Fred
"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
> There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
> purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
> that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
> of eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I
> find this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week
> but none are covered under insurance ... go figure!
>
I would like my insurance from my phone carrier ... it seems to make more
sense. I don't think Farm Bureau would insure a damaged or lost phone which
is what the traditional cell phone coverage is for.
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:s4hul2p1eiri7k21a5a84nt6bj2ba3f3pd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:25:16 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
> in <NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>
>>There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
>>purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
>>that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
>>of
>>eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I find
>>this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week but
>>none
>>are covered under insurance ... go figure!
>
> Probably because the actuarial basis isn't there at a sensible price.
> Consider getting your own insurance.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:29:16 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
in <h9CdnaL3k9T6UsLYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>I would like my insurance from my phone carrier ... it seems to make more
>sense.
Not necessarily -- Google "cell-phone-insurance" and read the horror
stories.
>I don't think Farm Bureau would insure a damaged or lost phone which
>is what the traditional cell phone coverage is for.
You might want to check -- my own carrier will insure pretty much
anything.
p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
-- it's confusing. Thanks.
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:s4hul2p1eiri7k21a5a84nt6bj2ba3f3pd@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:25:16 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
>> in <NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>>
>>>There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I just
>>>purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the store
>>>that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
>>>of
>>>eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I find
>>>this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week but
>>>none
>>>are covered under insurance ... go figure!
>>
>> Probably because the actuarial basis isn't there at a sensible price.
>> Consider getting your own insurance.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John ... I always post to the top so in my thoughts YOU are posting wrong.
It doesn't make sense to me to have to go to the bottom of a thread to find
the most recent.
As always I'm sure you have a contradicting opinion as this forum keeps a
want-to-be dictator always looking to spread "the Navas way".
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:e9lvl253540jcl5ipparqvrqb2btdgtnu1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:29:16 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
> in <h9CdnaL3k9T6UsLYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>
>>I would like my insurance from my phone carrier ... it seems to make more
>>sense.
>
> Not necessarily -- Google "cell-phone-insurance" and read the horror
> stories.
>
>>I don't think Farm Bureau would insure a damaged or lost phone which
>>is what the traditional cell phone coverage is for.
>
> You might want to check -- my own carrier will insure pretty much
> anything.
>
> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:s4hul2p1eiri7k21a5a84nt6bj2ba3f3pd@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:25:16 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
>>> in <NOOdnRW3f_fXXsPYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>>>
>>>>There appears to be no phone insurance for PDA's and music phones. I
>>>>just
>>>>purchased a SYNC (Samsung A707) for my daughter and was told in the
>>>>store
>>>>that it wasn't insurance eligible. I went online and looked at the list
>>>>of
>>>>eligible phones and they have excluded all PDA's and music phones. I
>>>>find
>>>>this odd that Cingular just introduced the new 3G phones this week but
>>>>none
>>>>are covered under insurance ... go figure!
>>>
>>> Probably because the actuarial basis isn't there at a sensible price.
>>> Consider getting your own insurance.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:39:26 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
in <dsudncHAz6sYw_3YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>John ... I always post to the top so in my thoughts YOU are posting wrong.
>It doesn't make sense to me to have to go to the bottom of a thread to find
>the most recent.
>
>As always I'm sure you have a contradicting opinion as this forum keeps a
>want-to-be dictator always looking to spread "the Navas way".
Does being rude to someone trying to help come naturally, or do you have
to work at it?
The reasons for bottom posting are explained in Q7 of "Quoting Style in
Newsgroup Postings" <http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>
(published by the news.newusers.questions Moderation Board).
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 03:55:07 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<e9lvl253540jcl5ipparqvrqb2btdgtnu1@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:29:16 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
>in <h9CdnaL3k9T6UsLYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>>I don't think Farm Bureau would insure a damaged or lost phone which
>>is what the traditional cell phone coverage is for.
>
>You might want to check -- my own carrier will insure pretty much
>anything.
To be clear, "carrier" there is a reference to insurance carrier, not
Cingular.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
In article <dsudncHAz6sYw_3YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@insightbb.com> , someone@microsoft.com says...
> John ... I always post to the top so in my thoughts YOU are posting wrong.
> It doesn't make sense to me to have to go to the bottom of a thread to find
> the most recent.
>
Perhaps but bottom posting is more accepted since it allows one to
insert a reply immediately after a quoted comment (without having to
paraphrase the comment in your own answer). And it's much easier to
reply to multiple comments down the thread--it's more like an in-person
conversation. Top posting is frowned upon in every group I frequent and
mixing both types in one thread WILL invariably get you flamed.
As for "going to the bottom of a thread" if posters quote just enough to
indicate what they are replying to (versus the ENTIRE thread) then you
wouldn't have to "go" very far down.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
"Jud Hardcastle" <I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fca3cdaa160574c9899a0@news.dallas.sbcglo bal.net...
> In article <dsudncHAz6sYw_3YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@insightbb.com> ,
> someone@microsoft.com says...
>> John ... I always post to the top so in my thoughts YOU are posting
>> wrong.
>> It doesn't make sense to me to have to go to the bottom of a thread to
>> find
>> the most recent.
>>
> Perhaps but bottom posting is more accepted since it allows one to
> insert a reply immediately after a quoted comment (without having to
> paraphrase the comment in your own answer). And it's much easier to
> reply to multiple comments down the thread--it's more like an in-person
> conversation. Top posting is frowned upon in every group I frequent and
> mixing both types in one thread WILL invariably get you flamed.
>
> As for "going to the bottom of a thread" if posters quote just enough to
> indicate what they are replying to (versus the ENTIRE thread) then you
> wouldn't have to "go" very far down.
> --
> Jud
> Dallas TX USA
"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FcudnS1qdboJWP3YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
> Again ... it's a personal preference.
>
> I'm a top poster.
And some of us in this newsgroup that provide solutions for cellular issues
as a profession, choose not to reply to top posters. It's also a personal
preference.
(Got my 8525 last Friday: the bar is raised for high tech in a package the
size of a deck of cards).
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:59:12 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
in <FcudnS1qdboJWP3YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>Again ... it's a personal preference.
>
>I'm a top poster.
Your choice, but still rude to switch posting styles in mid-thread.
>"Jud Hardcastle" <I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1fca3cdaa160574c9899a0@news.dallas.sbcgl obal.net...
>> In article <dsudncHAz6sYw_3YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@insightbb.com> ,
>> someone@microsoft.com says...
>>> John ... I always post to the top so in my thoughts YOU are posting
>>> wrong.
>>> It doesn't make sense to me to have to go to the bottom of a thread to
>>> find
>>> the most recent.
>>>
>> Perhaps but bottom posting is more accepted since it allows one to
>> insert a reply immediately after a quoted comment (without having to
>> paraphrase the comment in your own answer). And it's much easier to
>> reply to multiple comments down the thread--it's more like an in-person
>> conversation. Top posting is frowned upon in every group I frequent and
>> mixing both types in one thread WILL invariably get you flamed.
>>
>> As for "going to the bottom of a thread" if posters quote just enough to
>> indicate what they are replying to (versus the ENTIRE thread) then you
>> wouldn't have to "go" very far down.
>> --
>> Jud
>> Dallas TX USA
>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
So who cares ?
"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:9ri8h.9$vQ.6@newsfe03.lga...
>
> "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FcudnS1qdboJWP3YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
>> Again ... it's a personal preference.
>>
>> I'm a top poster.
>
> And some of us in this newsgroup that provide solutions for cellular
> issues as a profession, choose not to reply to top posters. It's also a
> personal preference.
>
> (Got my 8525 last Friday: the bar is raised for high tech in a package the
> size of a deck of cards).
>
>
Obviously you are not one of those because you responded.
As I look through the threads today there are other top posters who don't
get berated. It must be my lucky day to attract the experts.
If you don't like top posting then please don't bother responding to my
posts.
"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:9ri8h.9$vQ.6@newsfe03.lga...
>
> "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FcudnS1qdboJWP3YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
>> Again ... it's a personal preference.
>>
>> I'm a top poster.
>
> And some of us in this newsgroup that provide solutions for cellular
> issues as a profession, choose not to reply to top posters. It's also a
> personal preference.
>
> (Got my 8525 last Friday: the bar is raised for high tech in a package the
> size of a deck of cards).
>
>
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:2u14m2t68vdvugcnkqvlid93jr8frl66f9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:59:12 -0500, "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote
> in <FcudnS1qdboJWP3YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@insightbb.com> :
>
>>Again ... it's a personal preference.
>>
>>I'm a top poster.
>
> Your choice, but still rude to switch posting styles in mid-thread.
>
>>"Jud Hardcastle" <I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1fca3cdaa160574c9899a0@news.dallas.sbcg lobal.net...
>>> In article <dsudncHAz6sYw_3YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@insightbb.com> ,
>>> someone@microsoft.com says...
>>>> John ... I always post to the top so in my thoughts YOU are posting
>>>> wrong.
>>>> It doesn't make sense to me to have to go to the bottom of a thread to
>>>> find
>>>> the most recent.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps but bottom posting is more accepted since it allows one to
>>> insert a reply immediately after a quoted comment (without having to
>>> paraphrase the comment in your own answer). And it's much easier to
>>> reply to multiple comments down the thread--it's more like an in-person
>>> conversation. Top posting is frowned upon in every group I frequent and
>>> mixing both types in one thread WILL invariably get you flamed.
>>>
>>> As for "going to the bottom of a thread" if posters quote just enough to
>>> indicate what they are replying to (versus the ENTIRE thread) then you
>>> wouldn't have to "go" very far down.
>>> --
>>> Jud
>>> Dallas TX USA
>>
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Phone insurance 
Linear Mode
