Sprint is the best. I have been with them for three years now and the
coverage and romaing are excellent.
<Andrew267@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:455d8574-decb-485f-9e6e-ced0cdc3f060@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Accept my Coupon for a FREE Palm Centro, and make the switch too
> Sprint.
>
> http://veriuni.5gbfree.com/freecell.pdf
>
No. They're fine. I pay a nominal $30/month for two phones, a single
bill combined now with the landline phone, and a 100 minutes/month
which is all my wife and I need. Service has always got better over
the years and now it's excellent coverage.
--
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat." --Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News
interview, March 30, 2003
Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org> amazed us all with the following in
news:co1vq3pit1k7cravb9kffcnp3rnvlr5qqm@4ax.com:
>
>
The only AMPS towers they would use would be from other carriers in a
roaming agreement. The intelligent thought process is that carriers are
not going to shut off AMPS if they have no coverage to replace it with.
That would result in a loss of business that most of those roaming partners
could afford.
In message <Xns9A40ABE679ECAbob@216.196.97.136> Bob <nospam@bob.com>
wrote:
>The only AMPS towers they would use would be from other carriers in a
>roaming agreement. The intelligent thought process is that carriers are
>not going to shut off AMPS if they have no coverage to replace it with.
>That would result in a loss of business that most of those roaming partners
>could afford.
My understanding (Although I may be wrong) is that leaving AMPS up in
areas without digital coverage isn't "intelligent thought process", but
rather, "FCC mandate"
<Andrew267@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:455d8574-decb-485f-9e6e-ced0cdc3f060@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Accept my Coupon for a FREE Palm Centro, and make the switch too
> Sprint.
>
> http://veriuni.5gbfree.com/freecell.pdf
>
Before you buy from this schmuck and you deicded you really want Sprint,
google for a sprint email address and then google and get a Sero plan.
"Michael N. Paris" <mparis27@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eI2dnX7wAY_hUjLanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> <Andrew267@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:455d8574-decb-485f-9e6e-ced0cdc3f060@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> Accept my Coupon for a FREE Palm Centro, and make the switch too
>> Sprint.
>>
>> http://veriuni.5gbfree.com/freecell.pdf
>>
>
> Before you buy from this schmuck and you deicded you really want Sprint,
> google for a sprint email address and then google and get a Sero plan.
That is very good advice. Don't buy from the Schmuck that is spamming
usenet.
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:53:57 -0600, Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
>The only AMPS towers they would use would be from other carriers in a
>roaming agreement. The intelligent thought process is that carriers are
>not going to shut off AMPS if they have no coverage to replace it with.
>That would result in a loss of business that most of those roaming partners
>could afford.
They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
these zones they are getting no service.
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:53:57 -0600, Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
>
> >The only AMPS towers they would use would be from other carriers in a
> >roaming agreement. The intelligent thought process is that carriers are
> >not going to shut off AMPS if they have no coverage to replace it with.
> >That would result in a loss of business that most of those roaming partners
> >could afford.
>
> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
> these zones they are getting no service.
Or the craptacular digital service that assaults my ears when I call
friends with Sprint here in Chicagoland. Data rate seems to suck
donkey as well for the Sprint folk, even right near the airport.
> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
> these zones they are getting no service.
What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
no digital service.
Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
coverage, plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).
It costs $2.35/month to keep a PagePlus account active, but if you do
travel off the beaten path it's well worth it to have the coverage that
you can only get with CDMA and AMPS. It really expands your options for
your "regular" phone and "regular" carrier, when you have a back-up
CDMA/AMPS phone.
There's an even cheaper back-up option if you just want a phone that can
make outgoing calls.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47b07834$0$36365$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
>> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
>> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
>> these zones they are getting no service.
>
>What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>no digital service.
"Many" users = tiny fraction of users
>Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
>are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
>coverage,
In fact most have announced that they will be shutting down AMPS
rapidly.
>plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
>areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).
Simply not true.
--
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
CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
CDMA is superior.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:t001r3tgivhcijceort5teggcvcgl3pd8a@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47b07834$0$36365$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>>
>>> They have already been losing a lot of business from fewer and fewer
>>> handsets including AMPS 850. Most of the newer Sprint ones,
>>> especially the nicer ones, are CDMA 850/1900 only, so when people hit
>>> these zones they are getting no service.
>>
>>What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>>tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>>no digital service.
>
> "Many" users = tiny fraction of users
>
>>Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
>>are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
>>coverage,
>
> In fact most have announced that they will be shutting down AMPS
> rapidly.
>
>>plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
>>areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).
>
> Simply not true.
>
> --
> 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
Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
> CDMA is superior.
This is correct. For rural areas, you really want to have a CDMA phone,
at least as backup, with or without AMPS. I've been to many rural places
where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage. This occurs for two
reasons.
First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
because it requires less cells to cover the same area.
Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.
In these parks and open spaces there is often CDMA coverage but no GSM
coverage, and often AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage at
all. This is one of the reasons why you see the tremendous differences
in the ratings of carriers by subscribers in all the surveys of this
area, especially in terms of "no service." In the San Francisco Bay
Area, Verizon is far better in terms of coverage, and I suppose that a
Sprint phone forced to roam on Verizon would be equally good if all of
Verizon is included but few Sprint customers are aware of how to do this.
AT&T has an extensive AMPS network that will be turned off next week,
and it's going to result in a lot more "no service" for Verizon and
Sprint customers, but since AT&T hasn't sold AMPS capable handsets for
quite a while, and has very few remaining TDMA/AMPS customers, its own
GSM customers will see no decrease in coverage.
There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47b0b81a$0$36375$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
>> CDMA is superior.
>
>This is correct.
Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
and GSM.
>I've been to many rural places
>where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage.
I've likewise been to many rural places where there is GSM coverage but
no CDMA2000 coverage.
>This occurs for two
>reasons.
This occurs for one reason: all carriers have coverage holes.
>Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
>great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
>allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
>and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.
Simply not true, given a reasonably current handset. You're probably
still using an ancient handset.
>There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
>but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.
Proof? But as usual, there are zero links in your post -- you just make
up whatever you need to fit your agenda.
--
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:r3e1r316r726rcdsdo6r0b66crolcbmjel@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47b0b81a$0$36375$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this
>>> reason CDMA is superior.
>>
>>This is correct.
>
> Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
> and GSM.
>
>>I've been to many rural places
>>where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage.
>
> I've likewise been to many rural places where there is GSM coverage
> but no CDMA2000 coverage.
>
>
>>This occurs for two
>>reasons.
>
> This occurs for one reason: all carriers have coverage holes.
>
>>Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are
>>a great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at
>>all allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these
>>areas, and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same
>>location.
>
> Simply not true, given a reasonably current handset. You're probably
> still using an ancient handset.
>
>>There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range
>>GSM" but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.
>
> Proof? But as usual, there are zero links in your post -- you just
> make up whatever you need to fit your agenda.
>
Civility, John? You can't expect anybody else to exhibit it towards you if
you can't practice it yourself.
> Civility, John? You can't expect anybody else to exhibit it towards you if
> you can't practice it yourself.
Plus he is well aware of all the citations regarding coverage, as I've
provided them repeatedly, as recently as last week. He just doesn't like
the citations because they prove that he's incorrect, so he goes
non-linear if the cites aren't repeated with every single post.
And of course he's the one person in the whole U.S. that insists that
extended range GSM exists, even though he's never provided (as usual) a
single citation that any carrier has deployed it. It's always the same
with Navas, he cites himself as evidence for what he writes because of
course there can't possible be any independent corroboration of the
stuff he makes up.
In article <47b0b81a$0$36375$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
> This is correct. For rural areas, you really want to have a CDMA phone,
> at least as backup, with or without AMPS. I've been to many rural places
> where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage. This occurs for two
> reasons.
>
> First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
> affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
> because it requires less cells to cover the same area.
"MOST?" Too broad. AFAIK with one exception all the rural TDMA/AMPS
carriers in Texas went/are going GSM--that exception being a carrier in
west Texas who had CDMA in other states--and that carrier is supporting
*BOTH* the last time I checked. Outside of that area and away from the
medium (20k) towns CDMA simply doesn't exist--often despite the fact
that the Verizon and Sprint maps show digital coverage. The maps may
reflect "licenced"--far cry from physically being there.
>
> AT&T has an extensive AMPS network that will be turned off next week,
> and it's going to result in a lot more "no service" for Verizon and
> Sprint customers, but since AT&T hasn't sold AMPS capable handsets for
> quite a while, and has very few remaining TDMA/AMPS customers, its own
> GSM customers will see no decrease in coverage.
>
Right, which is why AT&T can tell the news media that they have only a
handful of AMPS users "on their system". AT&T users 1) don't have AMPS
on their phones except for the few GAIT holdouts like me who 2) don't
use AMPS *on* AT&T systems because they've all got GSM also. The news
article one of the local papers printed this last week about the AMPS
sunset just spouted AT&T PR and was completely clueless AT&T failed to
mention either the number of non-AT&T AMPS users roaming on AT&T AMPS OR
the number of GAIT users roaming on non-AT&T systems.
So far I haven't received *any* notice from AT&T about my GAIT plan or
phone needing to change so I'm HOPING that means they haven't any plans
on changing the GAIT accounts to block roaming on other carriers' AMPS
and TDMA. I may have to run out to one of the non-GSM areas just to see
what happens--before I really need it.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <47b0b81a$0$36375$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>> This is correct. For rural areas, you really want to have a CDMA phone,
>> at least as backup, with or without AMPS. I've been to many rural places
>> where there is CDMA coverage but no GSM coverage. This occurs for two
>> reasons.
>>
>> First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
>> affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
>> because it requires less cells to cover the same area.
>
> "MOST?" Too broad. AFAIK with one exception all the rural TDMA/AMPS
> carriers in Texas went/are going GSM--that exception being a carrier in
> west Texas who had CDMA in other states--and that carrier is supporting
Were those rural carriers AT&T Wireless affiliates?
If you look at all the surveys, they always make a point of stressing
that CDMA has better rural coverage. However it probably varies by area.
If both of the original carriers in an area (A and B side) went to GSM,
then it's likely that the rural carriers would have followed, and I know
that's the case in Texas.
But you're right, "most" was too broad. I stand corrected.
> Right, which is why AT&T can tell the news media that they have only a
> handful of AMPS users "on their system".
The FCC probably doesn't require a carrier to keep AMPS in place if the
users of the AMPS network aren't their own customers. This is a loophole
in their policy.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:23:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47b0f44e$0$36373$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>If you look at all the surveys, they always make a point of stressing
>that CDMA has better rural coverage. ...
Actually they don't. (No citations as usual of course.)
>The FCC probably doesn't require a carrier to keep AMPS in place if the
>users of the AMPS network aren't their own customers. This is a loophole
>in their policy.
The FCC is actually allowing any carrier to turn off analog with at most
a simple certification:
This is satisfied simply by converting all towers from analog to
digital.
Notwithstanding your many attempts to claim otherwise, AMPS is about to
sunset and get turned off.
--
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 Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:05:48 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:33:36 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in <47b07834$0$36365$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
[snip]
>>What many users that travel to rural areas are doing is activating a
>>tri-mode phone on PagePlus, and using it for those times when there is
>>no digital service.
>
>"Many" users = tiny fraction of users
You are correct here, John. The tech-saavy users who understand the
significance of having a handset that supports AMPS is definitely a
miniscule fraction of the majority of cellphone users.
>>Even after February 18th, most of the smaller rural CDMA/AMPS carriers
>>are keeping AMPS operational in those areas where there is no digital
>>coverage,
>
>In fact most have announced that they will be shutting down AMPS
>rapidly.
Source that "most" and not just "some" are doing this?
>>plus CDMA also has better digital coverage than GSM in most
>>areas of the country (just look at the January 2008 Consumer Reports).
>
>Simply not true.
They are about even nowadays. Someplaces CDMA edges out GSM, other
places the opposite.
Besides the future is LTE which is CDMA "done right".
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:18:17 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>The FCC is actually allowing any carrier to turn off analog with at most
>a simple certification:
>
>This is satisfied simply by converting all towers from analog to
>digital.
>
><http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_cellular_coverage_certificatio n&id=cellular>
Simply NOT true. And I quote from the above URI:
"licensees could file a certification stating that the discontinuance
of analog service will not result in any loss of wireless coverage
throughout an affected CGSA. See FCC 07-103"
In other words, they can't shut off an AMPS tower unless that area
that was covered by this AMPS tower is now covered by digital towerS.
In the middle of LA, they can do this because these areas are
adequately covered by digital. In remote locations, they probably
can't do this because shutting an AMPS tower down and coverting it to
digital may result in places where you used to get an AMPS signal but
can't get a digital signal because the new digital tower doesn't have
the range of the old AMPS one.
On 2008-02-12, Anon E Muss <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:18:17 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>The FCC is actually allowing any carrier to turn off analog with at most
>>a simple certification:
>>
>>This is satisfied simply by converting all towers from analog to
>>digital.
>>
>><http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_cellular_coverage_certificatio n&id=cellular>
>
> Simply NOT true. And I quote from the above URI:
>
> "licensees could file a certification stating that the discontinuance
> of analog service will not result in any loss of wireless coverage
> throughout an affected CGSA. See FCC 07-103"
>
> In other words, they can't shut off an AMPS tower unless that area
> that was covered by this AMPS tower is now covered by digital towerS.
Actually those words don't have anything to do with whether they
can shut off AMPS or not.
Right now all wireless carriers are required to file with the FCC
an estimate of their actual coverage by listing, among other things,
the height, location and power output of each tower. Since the
digital services run at lower power than AMPS does turning AMPS
off would, according to the current rules, require making a revised
CGSA even if the lower power digital coverage still matches the old
AMPS coverage.
To avoid this paperwork, the FCC allowed the alternative above. If
the licensee files a certification that turning off AMPS hasn't
changed the actual coverage they don't have to go to the trouble
of making a revised CGSA. If turning off AMPS does change actual
coverage, on the other hand, they need to make the CGSA changes.
This has nothing to do with whether AMPS can be turned off or not,
all this is about is what paperwork has to be done when they turn
it off. After February 18 all cellular operators are allowed
to turn off AMPS anywhere and everywhere they want; if doing this
changes their coverage, however, they'll have more paperwork to
do.
In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:14 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47b0b81a$0$36375$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>> CDMA required less cell sites to cover the same area and for this reason
>>> CDMA is superior.
>>
>>This is correct.
>
> Actually incorrect. Real world range is roughly the same for CDMA2000
> and GSM.
>
There are plenty of CDMA2000 "boomer" towers out there in rural areas that
cover far more area than GSM towers do. AT&T [and roaming partners including
T-Mobile] have made up some of this gap by simply deploying more antennas].
> I've likewise been to many rural places where there is GSM coverage but
> no CDMA2000 coverage.
>
That is a stupid argument to be made on both sides. Of course there will be
cases for each technology where the other is not available. This is not a
technology limitation in most places but a logistical one.
>
>
>>Second, in urban areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a
>>great many parks and open space areas where there are no cells at all
>>allowed. Any coverage comes from cells on the periphery of these areas,
>>and a CDMA site will reach further than GSM site in the same location.
>
> Simply not true, given a reasonably current handset. You're probably
> still using an ancient handset.
>
CDMA will utilitze multipath MUCH better than GSM (which I believe is actually
affected negatively by this). Since moutains and buildings are two major
causes of multipath, it seems that CDMA get a natural advantage with all else
being equal [i.e. same towers, frequencies, power and positioning].
>>There have been proposals by GSM carriers to deploy "extended range GSM"
>>but it hasn't been used in the U.S. yet.
>
> Proof? But as usual, there are zero links in your post -- you just make
> up whatever you need to fit your agenda.
>
John ... you are the ONLY one who has claimed extended GSM coverage in the US
.... and that was some lonely location out in the ocean.
--
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
In article <47b0f44e$0$36373$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
> >>
> >> First, in rural areas, most of the smaller carriers that were not AT&T
> >> affiliates back in the TDMA days chose to move to CDMA rather than GSM
> >> because it requires less cells to cover the same area.
> >
> > "MOST?" Too broad. AFAIK with one exception all the rural TDMA/AMPS
> > carriers in Texas went/are going GSM--that exception being a carrier in
> > west Texas who had CDMA in other states--and that carrier is supporting
>
> Were those rural carriers AT&T Wireless affiliates?
No. Only relation to AT&T ex-Cingular are the roaming agreements. But
with AT&T in the big cities, medium towns and along major routes they
really have a huge influence on the smaller carriers. Especially if the
carrier is keeping the option open of selling out to AT&T in the future.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
In article <0vg2r39fshpbaqrkfc18512tgtd481f4nr@4ax.com>, spamfilter1
@navasgroup.com says...
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> >The range of an AMPS tower is far greater than a digital tower,
>
> Simply not true. Comparable handsets have comparable range.
>
>
Not sure there *IS* a "comparable" handset when it comes to AMPS versus
digital. Don't most AMPS handsets, even the small ones, have a higher
maximum power output in analog mode than they do in digital? Not the
full 3watts of a bag phone but quite a bit higher than in digital? Also,
the TOWER may be able to boost AMPS on it's end far beyond what it can
boost TDMA or GSM. I know in the *real world* I can still take you to
numerous places in TX where my current 6340i looses digital a good 10
miles before it looses AMPS. Or to areas where I've got an AMPS-only
signal standing on the ground but a digital signal when I run up the
amplified 20' external antenna on the RV.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> Sprint is the best. I have been with them for three years now and the
> coverage and romaing are excellent.
Will probably go back to Sprint for several reason. The straw that
broke the camel's back was the deductible for replacing my phone
after one of my dogs played with it. Last time I had to replace
the phone was about 8 months after I got it, the USB port failed.
The replacement cost was something like $20 or so, I think that was
mostly overnight shipping. Now they want FIFTY dollars. I wonder
if the insurance policy has changed. If it has, I ought to ask for
a refund for all last two years or so.
Tired of AT&T / Cingular Wireless? 
Linear Mode
