Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).

For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST>

Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
of no coverage.

The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

--
Best regards,
John Navas

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <pt4vs2leubcod0vpkvvf0khd4qkg4m0715@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)
>
> And John Navas never trolls, does he.
>
> Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.

Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!

I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
AMPS coverage, not even including San Benito County. My wife's company
just dumped 200 Nextel accounts and went to Verizon with the V325i, and
one of the reasons was the AMPS coverage (the other was Verizon's GPS
system, which is more accurate than the TDOA system that the U.S. GSM
carriers use, and they needed the increased accuracy (though I don't
like the reason they need it!)).

There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
provided out of the urban core. It was huge sample size, and the results
are indisputable. However I would concede that the socio-economic
make-up of Consumer Reports readers make it more likely that they would
travel to areas outside the urban core. Their readers tend to be higher
income, more highly educated, and more liberal, all of which contributes
to more travel into non-urban areas than lower income, less educated,
and more conservative users. This would translate to higher
dissatisfaction with the carriers that don't provide coverage in these
areas.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:39:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cfd361$0$27239$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <pt4vs2leubcod0vpkvvf0khd4qkg4m0715@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)
>>
>> And John Navas never trolls, does he.
>>
>> Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.
>
>Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
>to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!
>
>I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
>AMPS coverage...

Except they don't exist according to Verizon.

>There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
>margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
>their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
>provided out of the urban core.

No evidence at all of that.

>It was huge sample size, and the results
>are indisputable.

On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
<http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>

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

In article <v8nvs2pj1bbhvnsm60p46baevp0amljbfg@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >It was huge sample size, and the results
> >are indisputable.
>
> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>

don't you wish you hadn't made a fool of yourself again by posting
this?

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:39:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45cfd361$0$27239$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <pt4vs2leubcod0vpkvvf0khd4qkg4m0715@4ax.com>,
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)
>>> And John Navas never trolls, does he.
>>>
>>> Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.
>> Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
>> to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!
>>
>> I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
>> AMPS coverage...
>
> Except they don't exist according to Verizon.
>
>> There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
>> margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
>> their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
>> provided out of the urban core.
>
> No evidence at all of that.
>
>> It was huge sample size, and the results
>> are indisputable.
>
> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>

Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?

It *does* taste burnt!

--
Notan

At 12 Feb 2007 03:27:43 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe.

> And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!

"Favorite coffee" is subjective. "Is my phone able to dial out at this
location?" isn't.

Besides, despite the fact that kajillions of folks like Starbucks, IMHO,
as a coffee drinker far longer than there ever was a Starbucks, Starbucks
coffee doesn't taste like coffee- it tastes like, well, "Starbucks."
There's nothing wrong with that if you like it, of course.

For those of us who enjoy a more traditional, and admittedly more plebian
"cuppa Joe," there are a bunch of coffees I prefer to Starbucks
(including McDonalds!) but the king of coffees remains Dunkin' Donuts, as
any self-respecting "Nor'easter" will attest to!

Notan wrote:

> It *does* taste burnt!

Definitely does taste burnt. I don't go there except when there's
nothing else around. I haven't tried McDonald's coffee in years, it used
to be horrid.

To Starbucks, their regular coffee is not their main business, it's the
espresso drinks, and the sickly sweet cold drinks. I think the reason
for the burnt taste is that it's often old by the time they serve it.

I prefer Peet's Coffee, or my own brewed coffee. Peet's is very
conscientious about not serving coffee that's old. They'll brew it fresh
for you. Once they apologized for me having to wait, and gave me the
coffee free. The coffee from the locally owned coffee place at our
library is also excellent. Our city council meetings have free coffee
from the local place. Free wireless, free coffee, and free entertainment
from the bozos on the city council. It's better than the movies.

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <v8nvs2pj1bbhvnsm60p46baevp0amljbfg@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> It was huge sample size, and the results
>>> are indisputable.
>> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>
>
> don't you wish you hadn't made a fool of yourself again by posting
> this?

LOL, I think a lot of us often wonder why he intentionally makes a fool
out of himself. Lack of self-respect is the best guess.

In article <S8idnQDxVe2OeVLYnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@giganews.com>, Notan wrote:

> Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
> It *does* taste burnt!

....which is the primary reason that I wouldn't drink their coffee for
many years. Obviously, as successful as the chain is, there are a lot
of people who like their beans burnt, but for quite some time, the
only drink I would buy at Starbucks is one that wasn't theirs (Tazo chai
tea latte).

Recently, however, I've relented and started drinking their white
chocolate mocha, which (due to the extra flavoring) isn't half bad.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

DD is right up there (NY), but I actually like the "Green Mountain" at the
gas stations a little better.

As far as Starbucks - ecch. Gives me heartburn - every time. And I drink 6-8
cups of coffee a day. The rugrats behind the counter oughta stop smokin'
that rope too - LOL

Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They served
rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of (expensive imported)
potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...





"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:eqorsd$uju$1@aioe.org...
> At 12 Feb 2007 03:27:43 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>> of a non-representative universe.
>
>> And it just rated McDonalds
>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>
> "Favorite coffee" is subjective. "Is my phone able to dial out at this
> location?" isn't.
>
> Besides, despite the fact that kajillions of folks like Starbucks, IMHO,
> as a coffee drinker far longer than there ever was a Starbucks, Starbucks
> coffee doesn't taste like coffee- it tastes like, well, "Starbucks."
> There's nothing wrong with that if you like it, of course.
>
> For those of us who enjoy a more traditional, and admittedly more plebian
> "cuppa Joe," there are a bunch of coffees I prefer to Starbucks
> (including McDonalds!) but the king of coffees remains Dunkin' Donuts, as
> any self-respecting "Nor'easter" will attest to!
>
>
>

SMS wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>> It *does* taste burnt!
>
> Definitely does taste burnt.

I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought so.

They do have a good coffeemaker descaler product, though.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:25:42 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
>better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
>AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
>
>For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
><http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST>
>
>Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
>get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
>of no coverage.
>
>The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
>few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

As of 02/2007, AMPS coverage is a superset of digital cellular/PCS
coverage. IOW, there are no places that have digital cellular/PCS
voice but no AMPS service.

Sorry, that's just the facts.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:42 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
wrote in <S8idnQDxVe2OeVLYnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@giganews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>
>
>Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
>
>It *does* taste burnt!

Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee?

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

John,

Let me get this right.

You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
As a definitive source of information?

Known for being so highly accurate.............


"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message newst4vs2leubcod0vpkvvf0khd4qkg4m0715@4ax.com...
> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
> better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
> AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
>
> For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST>
>
> Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
> get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
> of no coverage.
>
> The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
> few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas

At 11 Feb 2007 22:55:22 -0800 Ness_net wrote:
> John,
>
> Let me get this right.
>
> You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
> As a definitive source of information?
>
> Known for being so highly accurate.............


To be fair, I find the street-level detail maps of Cingular and T-Mobile
to be highly accurate. Verizon's on-line maps, however, don't have the
detail for me to match service holes in my area with the map, which makes
John's argument suffer based on the map's assertions alone.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message > On the
contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!

And once again CR is right. IMHO, Starbucks does taste burnt and it's not a
very good value for the dollar. Given a choice between the two, I'd take
McDonalds every time for coffee.

Don

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message > For the facts,
see Verizon coverage maps at
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST>

John,
Didn't you read the disclaimer on the site you posted? Viz:
The maps that display within the Coverage Locator Tool are not a guarantee
of coverage and contain areas with no service. The maps rendered show only
approximations (based on our internal data) of where rates and coverage
apply.



Don

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:42 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <S8idnQDxVe2OeVLYnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>>> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>
>> Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
>>
>> It *does* taste burnt!
>
> Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
> all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
> franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee?

"But it's all better" is purely objective.

You'd be more accurate with an "in my opinion" preface.

And, yes, I've tasted McDonald's. Not bad!

Also, IN MY OPINION, 7-11 makes a great cup of coffee.

--
Notan

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:42 -0700, Notan wrote:
>>Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
>>
>>It *does* taste burnt!
>
> Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
> all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
> franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee?

They never made a cup I'd ever call good, but there are thousands of
greasy-spoon diners that do worse, and all the McD coffee I've tasted
has been consistently better than any of the Starbucks I've had.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:50:17 -0500, "Don Udel \(ETC\)"
<donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in <eqprap08gk@enews1.newsguy.com>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message > For the facts,
>see Verizon coverage maps at
>> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST>
>
>Didn't you read the disclaimer on the site you posted? Viz:
>The maps that display within the Coverage Locator Tool are not a guarantee
>of coverage and contain areas with no service. The maps rendered show only
>approximations (based on our internal data) of where rates and coverage
>apply.

That actual coverage can be even worse than what's portrayed on the map
doesn't have any real bearing on basic points illustrated by the map:
* Almost no AMPS-only coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
* No AMPS-only coverage where Steven claims it exists
* Large coverage holes in areas where Steven claims coverage.

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

clifto wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Notan wrote:
>>
>>> It *does* taste burnt!
>> Definitely does taste burnt.
>
> I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought so.
>
> They do have a good coffeemaker descaler product, though.

What's in it? I use vinegar, but it takes like eight runs of fresh water
through the machine afterward to get rid of the vinegar smell.

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> As of 02/2007, AMPS coverage is a superset of digital cellular/PCS
> coverage. IOW, there are no places that have digital cellular/PCS
> voice but no AMPS service.
>
> Sorry, that's just the facts.

I think that is probably where Navas is confused. They will always show
digital, if it exists. However a large number of the digital towers also
have AMPS coverage, which will get you coverage for quite a ways into
the surrounding open space. In fact they have to keeep AMPS on for now,
since the emergency call boxes are still AMPS, despite plans by
CalTrans to change them to CDMA.

Also, Verizon has been reassuring corporate customers with field
operations in the Bay Area that they won't reduce coverage, even when
they are permitted to turn off AMPS. Either all the areas will be
covered by digital, or they'll keep AMPS on until they are.
Unfortunately this policy only applies to roads, not trails!

I have to remember to turn off my phone when hiking in the Santa Cruz
mountains, Mount Tam, and the east bay parks, as it will go to AMPS, and
drain the battery in just a few hours.

What is unclear is if the reason that Verizon consistently is rated by
independent organizations as having far better coverage than Cingular is
due to AMPS or not. Other than stretches of 280 in San Mateo County,
Cingular's GSM coverage has been improving. My benchmark location out in
east Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita Road, finally got a tower a few
months ago, and now has coverage. Cingular issues non-stop press
releases about new towers they're installing, so they definitely are
working on catching up with Verizon in terms of digital coverage.

Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message > On the
> contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>
> And once again CR is right. IMHO, Starbucks does taste burnt and it's not a
> very good value for the dollar. Given a choice between the two, I'd take
> McDonalds every time for coffee.

Besides often sitting too long, Starbucks tends to usually use very dark
roasts for their house coffee. To make it palatable, you have to add
sugar and ½ & ½. The Consumer Reports test was explicitly for black
coffee. Dark roast Starbucks coffee, that's been sitting for even 30
minutes, without sugar and ½ & ½, tastes terrible. At 30 minutes you've
also lost a lot of the health benefits of coffee, since the
anti-oxidants will be gone.

In any case, the coffee article was vastly different than the cellular
article. The coffee test was done by their staff. The cellular survey
was based on nearly 50,000 respondents, which is a extremely large
sample size with an extremely small margin of error, even when you
divide by metro area, and divide again by carrier. Remember, this was
not Consumer Reports asking "which carrier do you think is the best?" it
was a survey of subscriber's experiences. So unless someone believes
that a Verizon subscriber is likely to cut their carrier more slack than
a Cingular subscriber, you can't dispute the results on the basis of who
responded.

The only real fault with the CR survey, and in reality it's a benefit,
is that CR subscribers tend to be higher income individuals, with higher
education levels, and are more liberal. Hence they are much more likely
to travel, and even more likely to travel outside urban areas with their
phones. This gives Verizon an advantage because their network is much
more extensive than any of the other carriers.

A survey of individuals that never leave the urban area might have had
results that were less starkly different.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:48:11 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d08c3c$0$27255$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>In any case, the coffee article was vastly different than the cellular
>article. The coffee test was done by their staff. The cellular survey
>was based on nearly 50,000 respondents, which is a extremely large
>sample size with an extremely small margin of error, even when you
>divide by metro area, and divide again by carrier.

No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
universe of cellular subscribers. In addition, the sample size is
actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
of error.

>The only real fault with the CR survey, and in reality it's a benefit,
>is that CR subscribers tend to be higher income individuals, with higher
>education levels, and are more liberal. Hence they are much more likely
>to travel, and even more likely to travel outside urban areas with their
>phones. This gives Verizon an advantage because their network is much
>more extensive than any of the other carriers.

This is, of course, a wishful claim with no real foundation.

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

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:14:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d08463$0$27249$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> As of 02/2007, AMPS coverage is a superset of digital cellular/PCS
>> coverage. IOW, there are no places that have digital cellular/PCS
>> voice but no AMPS service.
>>
>> Sorry, that's just the facts.
>
>I think that is probably where Navas is confused. They will always show
>digital, if it exists. However a large number of the digital towers also
>have AMPS coverage, which will get you coverage for quite a ways into
>the surrounding open space.

Not according to Verizon.

>In fact they have to keeep AMPS on for now,
>since the emergency call boxes are still AMPS, despite plans by
>CalTrans to change them to CDMA.

AMPS for the public will almost certainly go away rapidly in a year no
matter what CalTrans (actually Caltrans) does.

>Also, Verizon has been reassuring corporate customers with field
>operations in the Bay Area that they won't reduce coverage, even when
>they are permitted to turn off AMPS. Either all the areas will be
>covered by digital, or they'll keep AMPS on until they are.
>Unfortunately this policy only applies to roads, not trails!

This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.

>What is unclear is if the reason that Verizon consistently is rated by
>independent organizations as having far better coverage than Cingular is
>due to AMPS or not. Other than stretches of 280 in San Mateo County,

It's actually good all along that section of 280 _if_ you have a decent
phone. You must still be using a very old phone.

>Cingular's GSM coverage has been improving. My benchmark location out in
>east Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita Road, finally got a tower a few
>months ago, and now has coverage. Cingular issues non-stop press
>releases about new towers they're installing, so they definitely are
>working on catching up with Verizon in terms of digital coverage.

Cingular actually has been well ahead of Verizon in this area for some
time now. I guess the difference has now become so large that you're
finally having to start acknowledging it.

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

In article <-7ydnToCi6DPkk3YnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Let me get this right.
>
> You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
> As a definitive source of information?
>
> Known for being so highly accurate.............
>
Yes, had to laugh at the "official" Cingular coverage map.
Just spent a week in the Sequoia national Forest and up the 178. No
reception anywhere outside of Three Rivers (down near Visalia). Ran into
an ATT truck at Giant Forest who said the only repeaters were down in
Three Rivers, and that the only recpetion one might get is if they can
get a clear shot of the valley below. I tried from many places - never
got a thing.

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

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45d081c8$0$27249
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> What's in it? I use vinegar, but it takes like eight runs of fresh water
> through the machine afterward to get rid of the vinegar smell.
>
>

Sulfamic Acid, H3NSO3. I buy "Kenmore Distiller Cleaner", cat number 42-
34543, from Sears in a 12 oz bottle of crystals. Works great on coffee
pots as well as my water distiller. It simply eats elemental calcium
depots off stainless steel or aluminum. DON'T GET ANY ON YOU or you'll be
sorry!

It's in the family with acids used as sweeteners, as you'll read from the
Wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfamic_acid



Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!

"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1.73@newsfe12.lga:

> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>
>

A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
http://www.chefmavro.com/
Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
Wakiki Beach....(c;

My friend in Atlanta calls Starbucks Fivebucks. We both agree it sucks.

Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!

John Navas wrote:
> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.

Like Extended GSM, huh?

Larry wrote:
> "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1.73@newsfe12.lga:
>
>> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
>> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
>> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>>
>>
>
> A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
> Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
> in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
> http://www.chefmavro.com/
> Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
> Wakiki Beach....(c;

For the bay area, try the coffee from
"http://www.mokshacoffeeroasting.com/index.html"

It's in a couple of stores and cafes, but he mainly does mail order.

One of the biggest problems with Starbucks is that they mainly do very
dark Italian or French roasts, rather than doing a medium roast, where
you taste the coffee rather than "the burned." They've equated "strong"
with "dark." The owner of this company uses Cingular, so John can feel
good about buying this coffee.