> I agree. When text messages were really cheap for pay-as-you-go I'd
> use maybe 20-30 month, mainly for flight updates from airlines. I
> simply switched to receiving a call from the airline instead.
I also used SMS for notifications when texting was cheap. Since I carry
a WinMobile phone with a data plan and use Mail2Web's free push e-mail
service I've switched to push for those types of notifications. They are
virtually as fast and as reliable as SMS, but with no incremental cost to
me.
> I'd love to know who needs 5000 text messages per month, other than
> teenagers sending sweet nothings to their boyfriends/girlfriends.
It's also the 21st century equivalent of passing notes behind the
teacher's back in class!
Always. To those who are polite in turn. While I find your arrogant
posts amusing as literature/entertainment, you are frequently rude and
obnoxious to anyone you dares question your statements. I have never
seen you admit a mistake without a qualification to place the blame
elsewhere. Even now, sure, you've admitted you erred, but only due to
Cingular's "misleading" advertising. That screencap is not "misleading"
if you acually READ it. Yet you gleefully took the time to link it
through a tinypic URL and post it three times as "evidence" that you
were right and everyone else in the thread, who posted the correct
information, was wrong.
Besides, you and I have gone around on this exact same issue before (you
posting irrelevant URLs as "proof" of your position.)
> p.s. Feel free to clarify my posts if you must, but skip the childish
> discourtesy -- it just pollutes the newsgroup and makes you look bad.
Ironically I was attempting to post in your style as a weak attempt at
humor. I'll try again below:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:58:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eu3osv$58n$4@aioe.org>:
>At 24 Mar 2007 16:52:51 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Jeez, Todd, do you EVER bother to be polite?
>
>Always. To those who are polite in turn. While I find your arrogant
>posts amusing as literature/entertainment, you are frequently rude and
>obnoxious to anyone you dares question your statements. I have never
>seen you admit a mistake without a qualification to place the blame
>elsewhere. Even now, sure, you've admitted you erred, but only due to
>Cingular's "misleading" advertising. That screencap is not "misleading"
>if you acually READ it. Yet you gleefully took the time to link it
>through a tinypic URL and post it three times as "evidence" that you
>were right and everyone else in the thread, who posted the correct
>information, was wrong.
We'll just have to disagree.
>Besides, you and I have gone around on this exact same issue before (you
>posting irrelevant URLs as "proof" of your position.)
Yep, just another pointless rotation of the broken record.
>> p.s. Feel free to clarify my posts if you must, but skip the childish
>> discourtesy -- it just pollutes the newsgroup and makes you look bad.
>
>Ironically I was attempting to post in your style as a weak attempt at
>humor. I'll try again below:
>
>Rubbish.
Grow up and stop being so hypocritical. Polluting the newsgroup with
inappropriate ad hominems and related off-topic meta discussions serves
no useful public purpose. Do you crave attention so much? Or do you
just feel that superior?
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 3/24/2007 1:21 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <l3qa03hgk4u9la7fp7poans89jh2qb2pbr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ironically I was attempting to post in your style as a weak attempt at
>>> humor. I'll try again below:
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>> Grow up and stop being so hypocritical. Polluting the newsgroup with
>> inappropriate ad hominems and related off-topic meta discussions serves
>> no useful public purpose. Do you crave attention so much? Or do you
>> just feel that superior?
>
> Ohmigod, I never thought such irony was possible.
>
> Navas, do you have ANY clue what you just wrote? And how utterly and
> absolutely it applies to YOU?
>
> Face it: you got caught (yet again!) being WRONG, and you so cannot
> stand that, you would say and do anything to try to twist it into being
> someone else's fault.
>
A woman carrying twins awoke from an emergency c-section to find that
her brother had named them. Distraught, she asked him what their names
were. "The girl I named Deniece, and the boy I named Denephnew."
He also thought Denial was a river in Egypt.
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
No matter how great and destructive your problems may seem
now, remember, you've probably only seen the tip of them.
Usually navas' brain is completely drained when he uses the word
"childish",or phase "grow up".
In article <elmop-59651B.14211324032007@nntp9.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <l3qa03hgk4u9la7fp7poans89jh2qb2pbr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >Ironically I was attempting to post in your style as a weak attempt at
> > >humor. I'll try again below:
> > >
> > >Rubbish.
> >
> > Grow up and stop being so hypocritical. Polluting the newsgroup with
> > inappropriate ad hominems and related off-topic meta discussions serves
> > no useful public purpose. Do you crave attention so much? Or do you
> > just feel that superior?
>
> Ohmigod, I never thought such irony was possible.
>
> Navas, do you have ANY clue what you just wrote? And how utterly and
> absolutely it applies to YOU?
>
> Face it: you got caught (yet again!) being WRONG, and you so cannot
> stand that, you would say and do anything to try to twist it into being
> someone else's fault.
>
>> Cingular currently has an unlimited texting offer for $10/month.
>>
>
> Which is a rip off. Why spend 10.00 a month when you can talk for free.
> It cost's them less to have you use texting then voice.
Of course you also have to consider the fact that Cingular does _not_
have unlimited texting for $10 per month. Unless it's yet another
service available only to one person in the United States, but it's
probably just another lie.
Not only does Cingular not offer an unlimited texting plan, their rates
for texting, that include texting to non-Cingular customers, are the
highest of any of the four major carriers.
Here are the text messaging rates from the top four carriers:
In Network MTM Out of Network
ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW ATTWS Sprnt T-Mob VZW
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
$5 0/Unlim* 0 0 0 200 300 400 250
$10 Unlim Unlim 0 Unlim 200 Unlim 1000 500
$15 Unlim x x Unlim 400 x Unlim 1500
$20 Unlim x x Unlim 1000 x x 5000
$20 0 x x x 3000 x x x
$25 Unlim x x x 3000 x x x
*Promotional price for unlimited in-network plus 200 out of network is
available in some AT&T Wireless markets.
If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
on Cingular.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46069810$0$27236$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>on Cingular.
Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:t0be035tv6clcaqmvij0odbb69epn86vjj@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <46069810$0$27236$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>>would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>>on Cingular.
>
> Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
> extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
> would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages
>
Yeah- being 4-8 times the price of the competition is nothing to complain
about, is it?
Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:t0be035tv6clcaqmvij0odbb69epn86vjj@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <46069810$0$27236$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>>> would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>>> on Cingular.
>> Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
>> extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
>> would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages
>>
>
> Yeah- being 4-8 times the price of the competition is nothing to complain
> about, is it?
It was my mistake, I didn't see that extra messages were only 3¢ rather
than 10¢ on the higher cost message plans. So it would be
$20+(2000*3¢)=$80, which is only 4x the cost, not 11x). Call the
newspapers, Navas got something correct!
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:46073615$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:t0be035tv6clcaqmvij0odbb69epn86vjj@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <46069810$0$27236$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month,
>>>> it would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon,
>>>> and $225 on Cingular.
>>> Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind
>>> of extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual
>>> cost would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000
>>> Messages
>>>
>>
>> Yeah- being 4-8 times the price of the competition is nothing to
>> complain about, is it?
>
> It was my mistake, I didn't see that extra messages were only 3¢
> rather than 10¢ on the higher cost message plans. So it would be
> $20+(2000*3¢)=$80, which is only 4x the cost, not 11x). Call the
> newspapers, Navas got something correct!
>
>
Don't sweat it, Steve- a simple math error that even when corrected shows
the Cingular pricing structure anything but market-dictated.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:55:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46073615$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:t0be035tv6clcaqmvij0odbb69epn86vjj@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:41:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <46069810$0$27236$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> If you wanted to send 5000 out of network text messages per month, it
>>>> would cost you $10 on Sprint, $15 on T-Mobile, $20 on Verizon, and $225
>>>> on Cingular.
>>> Never miss a chance to bash Cingular, even when it takes this kind of
>>> extreme case? Whatever. You're wrong (yet again). The actual cost
>>> would be $80, not $225. Hint: Messaging Extreme - 3000 Messages
>It was my mistake, I didn't see that extra messages were only 3¢ rather
>than 10¢ on the higher cost message plans. So it would be
>$20+(2000*3¢)=$80, which is only 4x the cost, not 11x). Call the
>newspapers, Navas got something correct!
Such a gracious concession.
--
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
> Don't sweat it, Steve- a simple math error that even when corrected shows
> the Cingular pricing structure anything but market-dictated.
>
> The point is still well proven.
Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000 messages
per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is just as
good as 5000.
I think that they want to prevent mass messaging, though that would be
done via e-mail to the cell phone number, not from a phone, and wouldn't
cost the sender anything.
> Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000 messages
> per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is just as
> good as 5000.
I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)
>
>> Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000 messages
>> per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is just as
>> good as 5000.
>
> I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)
>
Yeah- I was thinking the same thing. I may have to replace my daughter's
phone about every six months at the rate she texts- the keyboard is only
good for a few hundred thousand keystrokes before it fries.
Michael Paris wrote:
>
>> Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000
>> messages per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is
>> just as good as 5000.
>
> I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)
LOL, I do. I told my daughter that she was welcome to use her own money
to buy a fancy phone and pay for the monthly charges. She wisely decided
to stick with the parent provided PagePlus service and basic tri-mode
camera phone. Amusingly, on some school trips and athletic events at
away games, she's one of the few kids with a phone that has coverage, so
her phone gets borrowed a lot. I'll be picking her up from some event
and I have to wait while her teammates use her phone to call their parents.
I told her that she should write a report for the school paper on cell
phone coverage and cost, since so few parents and students are aware of
the low cost providers like PagePlus.
As to texting, her friends send a lot of e-mails, but texting isn't that
popular. The school doesn't allow students to use their phones during
school, only after school, and they have so much homework and so many
extra-curricular activities, that there's not a lot of time after school
for such nonsense either.
Did you see Disney's "High School Musical" movie? There's a good section
about cell phones in there.
In any case, I doubt if even high school and junior high school students
could send 165 text messages per day, but I guess it's possible when
you're sending one message to a bunch of people at once.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:32:24 -0400, "Michael Paris"
<mparis27@comcast.net> wrote in
<DeKdnUs6_OuhH5XbnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>> Well practically speaking, does anyone actually ever send 5000 messages
>> per month? That would be 165 messages per day. Maybe 3000 is just as
>> good as 5000.
>
>I see you don't have High School and Jr. HS students in your family! :-)
I do, and avoided any problems by using MetroPCS. Even so, the number
of text messages per month has been well under 3000.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
If I am reading this correctly, Cingular is actually offering TRUE unlimited
messaging for $19.99. This includes IM, SMS and MMS. I do not see where it
restricts it to Cingular (at&t) phone only. Below is what is says:
Messaging Unlimited
You have the freedom to message any way to any one - text, picture, video
and IM - without worrying what each message costs. That means every message
counts the same. You can send and receive ANY combination of messages. Want
to send all picture messages? No problem. All IMs? Go ahead and chat away -
send and receive messages for less than pennies per day!
"nikkir" <nikkir.44ee00@cellbanter.com> wrote in message
news:nikkir.44ee00@cellbanter.com...
>
> Does cingular offer an unlimited texting plan?
> http://www.rfshieldbox.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
> nikkir
JAW wrote:
> If I am reading this correctly, Cingular is actually offering TRUE unlimited
> messaging for $19.99. This includes IM, SMS and MMS. I do not see where it
> restricts it to Cingular (at&t) phone only. Below is what is says:
AT&T/Cingular basically dropped their pricing significantly.
Not as low as Sprint or T-Mobile, but more in
line with Verizon who offers 5000 messages a month for $20 (which is the
same as unlimited for most users!).
> AT&T/Cingular basically dropped their pricing significantly.
>
> Not as low as Sprint or T-Mobile, but more in line with Verizon who
> offers 5000 messages a month for $20 (which is the same as unlimited
> for most users!).
I'm surprised Verizon doesn't call the 5000 texts plan "unlimited
texting," considering they're the same outfit that calls 5GB of data
"unlimited internet!" ;-)
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 08 May 2007 12:01:45 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> AT&T/Cingular basically dropped their pricing significantly.
>>
>> Not as low as Sprint or T-Mobile, but more in line with Verizon who
>> offers 5000 messages a month for $20 (which is the same as unlimited
>> for most users!).
>
> I'm surprised Verizon doesn't call the 5000 texts plan "unlimited
> texting," considering they're the same outfit that calls 5GB of data
> "unlimited internet!" ;-)
Very funny. 5GB is really nothing close to what a heavy user could use
in a month, but to send 5000 text messages you'd be sending about 170
messages per day.
Re: Unlimited texting 
eKdnUs6
Linear Mode
