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

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:25 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4BC8FA36899bob@216.196.97.136>:

>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.

Wrong again.

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

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:5b22s3t26r3j479759q1ca71ft8td3mong@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:25 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4BC8FA36899bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>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.
>
> Wrong again.
>

You have NEVER provided a link that doesn't point to one of your own posts
concerning extended GSM usage in the US. NEVER.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:53:07 -0700, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<uL6wj.11576$Xo1.2729@fe085.usenetserver.com>:

>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.

Thank you, Mr, Pot.

--
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 Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:10:44 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4DEBC89D495bob@216.196.97.136>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following in
>news:5b22s3t26r3j479759q1ca71ft8td3mong@4ax.com :

>You have NEVER provided a link that doesn't point to one of your own posts
>concerning extended GSM usage in the US. NEVER.

I never said I had. EVER.

I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my twit
filter. It's a difficult honor -- posts have to be pretty much
devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.

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

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:0p22s3tbqdv0kf34efq6qoe99ep8flr5bm@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:10:44 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4DEBC89D495bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:5b22s3t26r3j479759q1ca71ft8td3mong@4ax.com:
>
>>You have NEVER provided a link that doesn't point to one of your own
>>posts concerning extended GSM usage in the US. NEVER.
>
> I never said I had. EVER.

Oh, really? If you hadn't clipped it, you would see your own words betray
you.

>>>>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.
>
> Wrong again.


>
> I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my
> twit filter. It's a difficult honor -- posts have to be pretty much
> devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.
>

I'm pleased to inform you that you just made a liar out of yourself. After
all these years of trying to catch you in one, you walked right into it.

Liar.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> 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.

Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start
moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless by AT&T.
Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result
of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and
eventually moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing
"alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely.

Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular, because
he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and wrote the
charter for is going away, it's as simple as that. It's the same reason
he posts the Cingular charter to the alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even
though it has no relevance, and even though several regular contributors
have requested that he stop.

Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to
his ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you."
His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going
to do anything about. He certainly was free to create a new group when
Cingular changed its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do
so. alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates
peripherally to Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:18:59 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:0p22s3tbqdv0kf34efq6qoe99ep8flr5bm@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:10:44 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
>> <Xns9A4DEBC89D495bob@216.196.97.136>:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>>following in news:5b22s3t26r3j479759q1ca71ft8td3mong@4ax.com:
>>
>>>You have NEVER provided a link that doesn't point to one of your own
>>>posts concerning extended GSM usage in the US. NEVER.
>>
>> I never said I had. EVER.

("circulus in probando")

>Oh, really? If you hadn't clipped it, you would see your own words betray
>you.

You mean like he did here:

http://tinyurl.com/2umk5o

in response to this?

http://tinyurl.com/2w26m7

That is one of his modi operandi and classic JN. He does this EXACTLY
because he knows you caught him!

>I'm pleased to inform you that you just made a liar out of yourself. After
>all these years of trying to catch you in one, you walked right into it.
>
>Liar.

This can be explained by one of John's several character flaws.
Remeber, JN is the same person who stated that Cingular would NEVER be
renamed to AT&T after AT&T bought them!

"JN has only been wrong once in his life. Once he thought he made a
mistake, but he found out actually he was right instead."

At 24 Feb 2008 01:45:59 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start
> moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless
> by AT&T.

Why "was it time?" The .attws group was for the defunct AT&T "Blue" service.
Cingular was the Company that adopted the AT&T name. Based on the past
content in the groups alone "Cingular " is probably the correct group for
the current AT&T service, at least until an AT&T Mobility group is created.

Personally, I don't care which group is "adopted" by the current readers-
I'll go where they take me. But let's face it, unilaterally deciding attws
was now the "correct" group and adding it to every post had nothing to do
with nomenclature, but simply to get under the skin of your nemesis.

As I said, his "stealth" counter-attack was even more wrong, and frankly
counterproductive since anyone not reading his group would never see
further posts in the sub-thread, but I guess it had the advantage of
directing many flames directed toward him in his "territory" and out of the
eye of readers of the other cellular groups.


> Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result
> of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and eventually
> moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing
> "alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely.


But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
Cingular- not the old ATTWS. If people choose to migrate there, fine (and
seemingly many, if not most, have) but that decision doesn't need you or I
"declaring" it to be the correct one.


> Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular,
> because he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and
> wrote the charter for is going away, it's as simple as that.

Probably, but the readers and posters of a.c.c don't really need you to
decide for them that it's dead!

> It's the same reason he posts the Cingular charter to the
>alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even though it has no relevance, and even
> though several regular contributors have requested that he stop.


So? He's doing a petty, childish thing then. That doesn't make his
behavior something to aspire to!


> Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to his
> ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you."

I agree, but history aside, his posts, while unwelcome and not applicable,
are less offensive than the continual "We are reputable sellers of handys"
fraud posts and "How to convert video for your iPhone" spam posts that
appear in the cellular NGs far more frequently, yet no one starts 20-post
flame wars over those.

> His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going to
> do anything about.

While I rarely agree with him, he is correct that the reactions to his
posts are more disruptive than the posts themselves.

We really should all take his recent advice- filter him.

> He certainly was free to create a new group when Cingular changed
> its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do so.

Nor did anyone else.

> alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates peripherally
to
> Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless.

By amazing coincidence it fits "pretty well," but frankly no better or
worse that the Cingular group.

Again, if you and anyone else wants to add the .attws group to .cingular
posts, fine- and if you want to add a footer saying "I THINK the .attws
group is a more appropriate place to discuss the new AT&T, that's fine as
well. But to play netcop and declare "posts regarding AT&T SHOULD be
posted to alt.cellular.attws" is outside your purview.

More importantly, it reduces you to his level, which makes it hard to argue
the moral high ground. ("John, you're an ass because you pull the same
sort of stunts that I do!" is hardly a compelling arguement!) ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:

> But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
> Cingular- not the old ATTWS.

While technically alt.cellular.attws was for AT&T Wireless, no one
proposed a new group when Cingular changed to "Wireless from AT&T," and
their URL became "http://www.wireless.att.com." There is some history
there too, as the old AT&T Wireless _was_ formed by spinning off the
wireless division of AT&T into a separate company, and the current
"Wireless from AT&T" does include the old AT&T Wireless company. A
better explanation is at "http://tinyurl.com/2jmkx8".

There's nothing "official" about "alt.cellular.attws" becoming the group
for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an
existing newsgroup with an appropriate name.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47c2d8a6$0$36404$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
>> Cingular- not the old ATTWS.
>
> While technically alt.cellular.attws was for AT&T Wireless, no one
> proposed a new group when Cingular changed to "Wireless from AT&T," and
> their URL became "http://www.wireless.att.com." There is some history
> there too, as the old AT&T Wireless _was_ formed by spinning off the
> wireless division of AT&T into a separate company, and the current
> "Wireless from AT&T" does include the old AT&T Wireless company. A better
> explanation is at "http://tinyurl.com/2jmkx8".
>
> There's nothing "official" about "alt.cellular.attws" becoming the group
> for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an
> existing newsgroup with an appropriate name.

Logical, perhaps, but not self-evident. Realistically, your saying both are
the wrong group, but .attws is "less wrong!" If you want to search the
"archives" for recent and relevant info on AT&T Mobility, prior to the name
change, Cingular's the group to find it in. The .attws group became a
desolate wasteland for quite awhile.

Again, I'll go where the users go, and that does seem to mostly be .attws,
but we should still keep tabs on the Cingular group. I still monitor the
"Voicestream" group for those who haven't discovered alt.cellular.t-mobile!

In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>
> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
> $39.99...you have to be kidding!

They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of
data.

--
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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>
> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB of
> data.
>

But corporations get unlimited for less than that.

I always thought those sort of plans were just a disingenuous slap in
the face of the average guy so they could claim they have something
besides unlimited. It would be like going into a buffet and being told
that the complete buffet is available for $15 but for those who may not
want that they do offer a "special" rate where you can fill a 3" plate
one time for $9.50 .

It is best to get Sprint for data since they don't have any cap on usage. I
have used both and they perform equally except for the price.


"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62hnfhF23r0reU1@mid.individual.net...
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>>
>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>
> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB
> of
> data.
>
> --
> 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

George wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>>
>>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>>
>>
>> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
>> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for
>> 50MB of
>> data.
>>
>
> But corporations get unlimited for less than that.
>
> I always thought those sort of plans were just a disingenuous slap in
> the face of the average guy so they could claim they have something
> besides unlimited. It would be like going into a buffet and being told
> that the complete buffet is available for $15 but for those who may not
> want that they do offer a "special" rate where you can fill a 3" plate
> one time for $9.50 .

If you are a corporation and if you have several dozen or several
hundred cell phones, you have a great deal of bargaining power!

Jar-Jar Binks wrote :
> It is best to get Sprint for data since they don't have any cap on usage. I
> have used both and they perform equally except for the price.
>
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:62hnfhF23r0reU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>> Verizon's Data service continues to be WAY OVERPRICED! 50MB for
>>> $39.99...you have to be kidding!
>>
>> They have a high quality service [much higher than T-Mobile], established
>> corporate demand, so it seems they can charge this kind of money for 50MB
>> of
>> data.
>>
>> --
>> 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

You forgot to mention forced roaming to Verizon because Verizon's
network is betterthan Sprint.
This reply is not cross posted

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
news:47C43D29.4050508@comcast.net:

> If you are a corporation and if you have several dozen or several
> hundred cell phones, you have a great deal of bargaining power!
>
>

You get an even better deal if you have a plot of pasture they wanna put
a sellphone tower on.....

Larry wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:47C43D29.4050508@comcast.net:
>
>> If you are a corporation and if you have several dozen or several
>> hundred cell phones, you have a great deal of bargaining power!
>>
>>
>
> You get an even better deal if you have a plot of pasture they wanna put
> a sellphone tower on.....

Or put up your own tower and lease it back to the celltelcos...