Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting2/21/08

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:23:27 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4A9D3C67718noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:8j2pr3dpcpm1kmahvnq33e5k89nks4g2hp@4ax.com :
>
>> http://www.geekz1.com/images/news/SonyEricssonGC82.jpg
>
>Why does it say EDGE, not Extended GSM?

Because EGPRS (EDGE) is the highest class of data service it supports.
Like all EGPRS devices it's also fully compatible with GPRS and GSM,
including Extended Range GSM.

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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:56:44 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47bc935a$0$36379$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd H. wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
>>> <84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped
>>>> over the headline:
>>> Thanks for the insult.
>>
>> It wasn't meant as an insult, but rather criticism of criticism.
>>
>> Why be a pain in the ass over a cite when a) you rarely give them
>> yourself, and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?"
>
>For such a widely publicized and current news item I didn't see the need
>to include a link, but "he who must not be named" isn't happy unless he
>has something to complain about. Yet he rarely includes any citations on
>anything he posts because when you make up stuff out of thin air it's
>tough to find any citations to back you up.

That would be you, Steven, as your own admission (lame excuse) makes
clear.

--
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 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:30:47 -0500, John Thompson
<jthompson@youcant.mail.com> wrote in
<jthompson-2F8D25.15304720022008@nntp4.usenetserver.com>:

>In article <8j2pr3dpcpm1kmahvnq33e5k89nks4g2hp@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >While we're on the subject, can you provide references to extended GSM
>> >that you were harping about?
>>
>> Been there; done that. "Google is your friend."
>
>Hmmmm.....no, you didn't.

Hmmmm.....yes I did.

>Can you provide those references?

"Google is your friend."

Ancient discussion that I have no interest in wasting more time on.

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

I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile
gives me great service. More bang for the buck.

"Pegleg" <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in message
news:0b4nr3pdai3d5s2fvunf20l9uhmb1taaid@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>
> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!

At 20 Feb 2008 06:56:03 -0800 SMS wrote:

> T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they
> don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about
> their network being overwhelmed.


They have a 2G data network.


> Sprint is now the only carrier without an unlimited plan. If they reall
>y want to trump the competition then they could offer a true unlimited
> voice _and_ data plan. Unlikely since the reason AT&T and Verizon
> have capped their data plans is because the 3G networks don't have
> sufficient capacity for such plans. At $60/month for true unlimited data,
> a lot of DSL users might be tempted to use 3G as their primary Internet
connection.
Sprint beat everyone to it. They offered unlimited voice and data in a few
"beta" markets late last year for $99, IIRC. It included "Power Vision"
data only (on-phone data- no tethering.) I suspect they'll just expand
that plan everywhere to compete.

At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>
> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!


The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
satisfied! ;-)

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-02-21, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>> T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they
>> don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about
>> their network being overwhelmed.
>
>
> They have a 2G data network.

Exactly. In other words, they don't have a data network.

(I don't consider GPRS to be up to par when ATTWS is already EDGE-ified
over most of its network and is moving to HDSPA, and when Verizon and
Sprint offer DSL speeds.)

Sprint seems to be the best bet for data.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Todd Allcock wrote:


> Sprint beat everyone to it. They offered unlimited voice and data in a few
> "beta" markets late last year for $99, IIRC. It included "Power Vision"
> data only (on-phone data- no tethering.) I suspect they'll just expand
> that plan everywhere to compete.

Sprint could try a desperation move and offer 3G pseudo-unlimited data
and unlimited voice (including unlimited voice roaming to make up for
their limited network). For $80 I'd sign up in a minute if Sprint were
to add coverage to my area.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:53ppr35meo4vo796fl25j2tnoggpc4l4ln@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> <slrnfrpjkj.v9j.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>:
>
>>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
>>On 2008-02-21, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they
>>>> don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about
>>>> their network being overwhelmed.
>>>
>>>
>>> They have a 2G data network.
>>
>>Exactly. In other words, they don't have a data network.
>>
>>(I don't consider GPRS to be up to par when ATTWS is already EDGE-ified
>>over most of its network and is moving to HDSPA, and when Verizon and
>>Sprint offer DSL speeds.)
>>
>>Sprint seems to be the best bet for data.
>
> You've obviously not used it.
>

I have- it blows AT&T away. So does Verizon.

Alt.cellular.sprintpcs added back into the list of groups, thank you.

On 2008-02-21, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>(I don't consider GPRS to be up to par when ATTWS is already EDGE-ified
>>over most of its network and is moving to HDSPA, and when Verizon and
>>Sprint offer DSL speeds.)
>>
>>Sprint seems to be the best bet for data.
>
> You've obviously not used it.

Au contraire, M'sieu Navas, I used to be a Sprint customer, and I did
use their data services. Worked great. I didn't leave for technical reasons.
I left because post-merger, their customer service sucked ass.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

At 20 Feb 2008 19:54:21 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Google shows nothing that you posted that pointed to references.
>
> Care to share that again, John?


The last time he posted "evidence" of Extended GSM, it was a link to the
Google Groups archive of his original claim!

Occam's razor would suggest a passing cruise ship as a more likely source
of his signal than an as of yet unannounced, and troublesome technology
(the idea of reducing tower capacity by half just so passing yachtsmen 40
miles offshore can make calls is a stretch of logic.)

AT&T's own on-line coverage maps seem to agree with the standard GSM range
limit. If you find an area seemingly served by non-overlapping towers (the
Florida Everglades are ideal for this) the coverage pattern seems to adhere
to the ~20 mile limit.

Even more interesting, everything I've read about Extended Range GSM in the
VERY few places where deployed indicates that GPRS/EDGE data is generally
disabled on ER towers, due to the fact that ER doubles the number of
timeslots needed, making any claim of using "Extended GSM" with a data-only
card even more dubious!

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:07:03 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fpj7v5$72k$1@aioe.org>:

>At 20 Feb 2008 19:54:21 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Google shows nothing that you posted that pointed to references.
>>
>> Care to share that again, John?
>
>The last time he posted "evidence" of Extended GSM, it was a link to the
>Google Groups archive of his original claim!
>
>Occam's razor would suggest a passing cruise ship as a more likely source

You obviously don't know the area. There are no "passing cruise ships"
with open microcells.

>of his signal than an as of yet unannounced, and troublesome technology
>(the idea of reducing tower capacity by half just so passing yachtsmen 40
>miles offshore can make calls is a stretch of logic.)

Actually makes a good deal of sense. Offshore coverage by AT&T Wireless
along the California coast is quite good. On a recent delivery to
Mexico I had coverage most of the way even when well offshore.

>Even more interesting, everything I've read about Extended Range GSM in the
>VERY few places where deployed indicates that GPRS/EDGE data is generally
>disabled on ER towers, due to the fact that ER doubles the number of
>timeslots needed, making any claim of using "Extended GSM" with a data-only
>card even more dubious!

You obviously don't know the card either.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:11:42 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fpj4rf$u64$4@aioe.org>:
>
>> As to the usefulness of EDGE, it depends what you're after, I guess. Is it
>> sufficient for PC-card use? No, except as a last resort, but for mobile e-
>> mail and on-phone browser lookups/Google Maps/Windows Live Navigation-type
>> stuff it's fine, and the price ($6/month) is certainly right.
>
> My own take is that EGPRS(EDGE) is quite satisfactory for many things,
> including laptop access.

Obviously you don't use Sprint's data card on Rev A, it is far superior
to any EDGE aircard, much better than a tethered EDGE phone like you
use.

But then "quite satisfactory" may be so, if your a non-professional
hobbyist.

At 21 Feb 2008 12:00:36 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >Occam's razor would suggest a passing cruise ship as a more likely source
>
> You obviously don't know the area. There are no "passing cruise ships"
> with open microcells.

No, I don't know the area. And IIRC, you didn't offer up the GPS
coordinates when asked (but admittedly that thread was a long time ago-
perhaps you did and I've forgotten.)


> >of his signal than an as of yet unannounced, and troublesome technology
> >(the idea of reducing tower capacity by half just so passing yachtsmen 40
> >miles offshore can make calls is a stretch of logic.)
>
> Actually makes a good deal of sense. Offshore coverage by AT&T Wireless
> along the California coast is quite good.

But GSM can already cover up to 20 miles or so offshore without resorting
to any capacity-reducing tricks, so why does it "make sense" to use ER-GSM?
Are you suggesting that there's actually enough voice and data traffic in
the strip of ocean between 20 and 40 miles from shore to justify cutting
the capacity of all towers up and down the California coast in half, and
locking out GPRS use on those towers?

> On a recent delivery to
> Mexico I had coverage most of the way even when well offshore.

More than 20 miles?

> >Even more interesting, everything I've read about Extended Range GSM in
the
> >VERY few places where deployed indicates that GPRS/EDGE data is generally
> >disabled on ER towers, due to the fact that ER doubles the number of
> >timeslots needed, making any claim of using "Extended GSM" with a data-
> > only card even more dubious!
>
> You obviously don't know the card either.

What's to know? It's a GSM/GPRS/EDGE data-card. What's the big secret?
Were you using CSD? Again, IIRC the original thread, you were data-logging
and transmitting GPS data over cellular when this miracle happened, not
making a voice call with a headset. Unless you've really planned for all
disaster contingencies, most of us don't bother defining CSD fallback DUN
connections in our laptops!

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:37:24 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fpk2bn$q4q$2@aioe.org>:

>At 21 Feb 2008 12:00:36 +0000 John Navas wrote:

>> You obviously don't know the area. There are no "passing cruise ships"
>> with open microcells.
>
>No, I don't know the area. And IIRC, you didn't offer up the GPS
>coordinates when asked (but admittedly that thread was a long time ago-
>perhaps you did and I've forgotten.)

Actually I did.

>> Actually makes a good deal of sense. Offshore coverage by AT&T Wireless
>> along the California coast is quite good.
>
>But GSM can already cover up to 20 miles or so offshore without resorting
>to any capacity-reducing tricks, so why does it "make sense" to use ER-GSM?
> Are you suggesting that there's actually enough voice and data traffic in
>the strip of ocean between 20 and 40 miles from shore to justify cutting
>the capacity of all towers up and down the California coast in half, and
>locking out GPRS use on those towers?

That's not necessary. Only a small part of a tower need be configured
for Extended Range.

>> On a recent delivery to
>> Mexico I had coverage most of the way even when well offshore.
>
>More than 20 miles?

I'm pretty sure I was, although I wasn't keeping accurate records so
can't say for sure. (I was doing client work. A different crew member
was doing the navigation.)

>> You obviously don't know the card either.
>
>What's to know? It's a GSM/GPRS/EDGE data-card. What's the big secret?

No big secret. You're just making assumptions, and trying to challenge
me with those assumptions. Instead, learn what the card can do. Learn
about Extended Range GSM. Maybe even check the GSM signal in those same
areas.

As I've already said, I'm not going to waste much more time on this, in
part because it's all been thoroughly hashed out before, in part because
nothing is going to change any minds, making the exercise pointless.

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

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:03:11 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote
in <758rr3936ovgc44ob7ju7qpda776jfibea@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:42:03 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
><bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile
>>gives me great service. More bang for the buck.
>
>They have no coverage here!

It's like a store with a great price that's out of stock.

Go to another store and say, "It's cheaper down the street."

The other store replies, "Our price would be cheaper too
if we didn't have any in stock."

--
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

Where is here????

"Pegleg" <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in message
news:758rr3936ovgc44ob7ju7qpda776jfibea@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:42:03 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
> <bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds.
>>T-Mobile
>>gives me great service. More bang for the buck.
>
> They have no coverage here!

I'm very satisfiied. I pay $39.99 for 1000 minutes & free nights & weekends.
And I get great service too.


"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:8V3vj.12876$pS2.1176@fe101.usenetserver.com.. .
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)
>
>

On Feb 19, 9:39 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800, Pegleg <Peg...@usnavyret.mil> wrote
> in <0b4nr3pdai3d5s2fvunf20l9uhmb1ta...@4ax.com>:
>
> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>
> >But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
> Depends on where you are. There are many places where T-Mobile service
> is good.
>
> --
> 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

Which is no where at all!! LOL

Todd Allcock wrote :
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)

Are you speaking for all 26 million or just yourself?

John Navas wrote:
> As I've already said, I'm not going to waste much more time on this, in
> part because it's all been thoroughly hashed out before, in part because

Translation: You offered no citable evidence. Citing your own web pages
or saying n engineer friend of yours said it was possible is not hard
evidence...merely anecdotal evidence, something which you deride other
people for offering such evidence.

> nothing is going to change any minds, making the exercise pointless.

Translation: You backed yourself into a corner and can't get out.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:53ppr35meo4vo796fl25j2tnoggpc4l4ln@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> <slrnfrpjkj.v9j.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>:
>
>>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
>>On 2008-02-21, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> T-Mobile offers unlimited "voice and messaging" not data. Since they
>>>> don't have a data network in the U.S., they don't have to worry about
>>>> their network being overwhelmed.
>>>
>>>
>>> They have a 2G data network.
>>
>>Exactly. In other words, they don't have a data network.
>>
>>(I don't consider GPRS to be up to par when ATTWS is already EDGE-ified
>>over most of its network and is moving to HDSPA, and when Verizon and
>>Sprint offer DSL speeds.)
>>
>>Sprint seems to be the best bet for data.
>
> You've obviously not used it.
>

I've used it- it blows AT&T. As does Verizon's data network.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:36nor39bh5l4r4ahh2nvo877v889u1rmor@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:46:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47bc58c6$0$36374$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>4phun wrote:
>>> T-Mobile Offers Unlimited Plan, Too
>>> Phone Scoop posted Today, 4:35 PM by Eric M. Zeman
>>>
>>> Today T-Mobile also announced that it will offer subscribers an
>>> unlimited plan for $99 per month. T-Mobile's offering is the only plan
>>> announced today that includes both voice and messaging services at the
>>> $99 price point. The new plan will be available beginning February
>>> 21.
>>>
>>> from T-Mobile
>>>
>>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>>Analysts say Sprint will offer unlimited voice and messaging for between
>>$60 and $80 in the next few weeks.
>
> Citation? Oh wait ... you almost never have any ... you mostly just
> make stuff up.
>
>>If Sprint went one further, and
>>offered unlimited voice and (relatively) unlimited 3G data for $100,
>>that would really shake things up. What does Sprint have to lose at this
>>point?
>
> It's ass. That would make no sense at all.
>

Why not?

And you using the word "ass" is ironic on many different levels.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:ui0pr31cjamk4bmqnuunrbjnbo9rqghda9@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:33:13 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47bc71b5$0$36410$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Todd H. wrote:
>>
>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've
>>> tripped over the headline:
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...call-plans/210
>>> 0-1039_3-6231277.html?tag=nefd.top
>>
>>Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
>>"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
>>
>>It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
>>citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
>>never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
>>providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
>>others make.
>
> Total nonsense.
>
>>He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated
>>requests.
>
> Actually several of them.
>

None that have pointed outside of a usenet newsgroup.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:4qdpr3h4lshvp3mflm83924c9v518ctb6d@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:25:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47bc9a2b$0$36401$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named,"
>>which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed
>>to include alt.cellular.cingular, a newsgroup for which there is no
>>corresponding carrier, while removing newsgroups that are actually
>>relevant. Pathetic and sad.
>
> Just taking a page out of your book, Steven.
> You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
>

Wow- that was mature. It showed a lot of civility as well.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:ui0pr31cjamk4bmqnuunrbjnbo9rqghda9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:33:13 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47bc71b5$0$36410$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Todd H. wrote:
>>
>>> As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped
>>> over the headline:
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected-...l?tag=nefd.top
>>
>>Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
>>"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
>>
>>It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
>>citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
>>never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
>>providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
>>others make.
>
> Total nonsense.

** Classic Navas response**
>
>>He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated requests.
>
> Actually several of them.

**Nope John, not a single one**
>
>>He's never provided a citation disputing the accuracy of the network
>>quality surveys, despite repeated requests.
>
> Actually several of them.

**Nope John, not a single one**
>
>>He's never provided a citation disputing the USA Today story that Apple
>>approached Verizon with the iPhone prior to going to Cingular/AT&T,
>>despite repeated requests.
>
> There's no need to refute spin solely from Verizon.
> The other companies don't comment.
>
>>He complains that people treat him badly, but if he would change his
>>behavior he would be forgiven and perhaps he could make some useful
>>contributions.
>
> Total nonsense.

** Classic Navas response**
>
> --
> 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 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
<84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:

>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)

On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
<news:462cc5ff$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>) , and my follow-up
header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
See how easy that was?

--
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:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl01h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
> <84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:
>
>>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
> <news:462cc5ff$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>) , and my follow-up
> header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
> raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
> See how easy that was?
>

Make the charter next.

In article <Xns9A4D90734BD5bob@216.196.97.136>,
The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:

> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
> news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl01h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
> > <84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:
> >
> >>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
> >>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
> >
> > On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> > alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> > follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> > cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> > aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
> > <news:462cc5ff$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>) , and my follow-up
> > header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
> > raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
> > See how easy that was?
> >
>
> Make the charter next.

The incessant charter posting is pure obsessive-compulsive.

Multiple header posting to a particular topic should be let alone, but
knowing the poster (sorry John) probably along the same lines.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl01h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@4ax.com...

>>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)
>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert"


While both of your actions were childish and wrong, at least Steven just
added alt.cellular.attws to the newsgroups list- he didn't set a follow-up
designed to divert responses ONLY to his NG of choice.

You attempted to hijack all responses to you to alt.cellular.cingular and
alt.cellular.cingular alone. For a guy who claims to desire civility, you
seem to have absolutely no problem emulating behavior you condemn in others.


> my follow-up header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader


So are your posts. I find your postings occasionally informative and
entertaining, but your personal S/N ratio is taking a pretty steep dive
lately.