Re: Virgin Mobile to Begin Offering $40 Unlimited Prepaid 3G BroadbandService Tomorrow

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:01:21 -0700, in
<4c868c07$0$1665$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 9/7/2010 10:29 AM, Seth wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> When I first went with T-Mobile I knew the coverage in the northeast
>> where I live was less than the other providers (I was switching from
>> VZW) and I was OK with that. It did, at the time I signed on, work in
>> the specific locations that were important to me.
>>
>> It wasn't until those areas started to disappear that I found it
>> unacceptable.
>
>I know that somewhere in the contract is legalese that states that
>coverage can change for whatever reason, but when they remove so much
>coverage, as T-Mobile did, ...

Wrong again(tm): No proof of that, just your unsubstantiated claim.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

On 9/7/2010 12:53 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<i65fc9$e0o$2@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
>
>> T-Mobile has been six months away from a shutdown/sale
>> for, oh, five years now. Take a look at the wikipedia
>> entry for "Friedman Unit".
>
>
> To me, part of the problem seems to have been T-Mo's late entrance to
> the game.

No one forced the PCS carriers to enter wireless business. Despite
Sprint and T-Mobile slowly losing market share over time, the business
could still very profitable for them. They are reducing expenses by
closing a lot of their stores (it seems insane the number of wireless
stores with large stores in expensive shopping centers).

There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum and
expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming will
not be an issue. The fact that it's prohibitively expensive to do so is
not the fault of the FCC.

> You're dealing with AT&T and Verizon here... two huge carriers with tons
> of existing, built-out infrastructure. In Cleveland, Verizon borg'd
> AirTouch Cellular, and later they bought Alltel; Alltel's Cleveland
> market used to be GTE Mobilnet. My first cell phones in the mid-90's
> were GTE phones, and they had pretty extensive coverage.

When these smaller carriers sell themselves, no doubt they are looking
for the best deal. T-Mobile could have tried to buy AT&T Wireless,
Sprint could have tried to buy Alltel. The fact that they either didn't
have the money, or weren't interested, has nothing to do with antitrust.

It's hard to complain about AT&T and Verizon now reaping the benefits of
spending billions to build their network infrastructure over several
decades. I'm not surprised that AT&T no longer wants to enable
T-Mobile's coverage by selling roaming. I am surprised that Verizon
still sells so much coverage to Sprint. Maybe Verizon has determined
that helping Sprint hurts AT&T more than it hurts themselves.

In article <4c86a38f$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:


> There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum and
> expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming will
> not be an issue. The fact that it's prohibitively expensive to do so is
> not the fault of the FCC.
>
The extent that FCC artificially screwed up the supply of spectrum, I
would have to disagree with you. A lot of this is related to bad
management of the spectrum by multiple FCCs.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:41:44 -0700, in
<4c86a38f$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum and
>expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming will
>not be an issue. ...


>It's hard to complain about AT&T and Verizon now reaping the benefits of
>spending billions to build their network infrastructure over several
>decades. I'm not surprised that AT&T no longer wants to enable
>T-Mobile's coverage by selling roaming. ...

Wrong again(tm):
No actual evidence of that, just your unsubstantiated claim.

--
John

"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 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:14:04 -0400, in
<FfqdnX_ASJGANhvRnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com> , Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <4c86a38f$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum and
>> expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming will
>> not be an issue. The fact that it's prohibitively expensive to do so is
>> not the fault of the FCC.
>>
> The extent that FCC artificially screwed up the supply of spectrum, I
>would have to disagree with you. A lot of this is related to bad
>management of the spectrum by multiple FCCs.

What "bad management"? The FCC is forced to steer a difficult course
through limited waters charted by Congress and mined by huge companies,
and has done a pretty good job under the circumstances IMHO. Any blame
belongs to Congress, and ultimately with us as voters.

--
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

On 9/7/2010 3:53 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<i65fc9$e0o$2@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
>
>> T-Mobile has been six months away from a shutdown/sale
>> for, oh, five years now. Take a look at the wikipedia
>> entry for "Friedman Unit".
>
>
> To me, part of the problem seems to have been T-Mo's late entrance to
> the game.
>
> You're dealing with AT&T and Verizon here... two huge carriers with tons
> of existing, built-out infrastructure. In Cleveland, Verizon borg'd
> AirTouch Cellular, and later they bought Alltel; Alltel's Cleveland
> market used to be GTE Mobilnet. My first cell phones in the mid-90's
> were GTE phones, and they had pretty extensive coverage.
>
> It's a similar situation with AT&T out there.
>
> T-Mo had to buy spectrum in 2007 before they could even start rolling
> out 3G...
>
>
It isn't nearly that simple. The older carriers had to add tons of
infrastructure (easily quadruple) to support the move to pure handheld
phones. Meanwhile carriers such as tmobile didn't like to open their
wallets. I could understand that with the original underfunded Omnipoint
(I just had a flashback to their CEO being interviewed on a financial
program basically begging for someone to buy them out because they were
out of money). tmobile native voice coverage in my market is
significantly less than than VZW & AT&T and it was only because they
were watching while the others were doing.

Seth wrote:

> The issue is

The issue is that you are wasting your time. John Navas will NEVER
admit he was wrong. You are trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes
your time, and only annoys the pig (and the others still following the
thread). The longer you engage with him the greater the likelihood that
you will end up in killfiles from people who are tired of these endless
arguments.

Carry on...

jc

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:44:18 -0700, in
<i66bnr$gql$1@news.eternal-september.org>, jcdill
<jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>Seth wrote:
>
>> The issue is
>
>The issue is that you are wasting your time. John Navas will NEVER
>admit he was wrong. ...

Not when I'm not wrong, but I do when I am wrong; e.g.,
<news:dq2a86davj8maesqcjrsv2iqpfj7flk8e8@4ax.com >

Apology accepted.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On 9/7/2010 2:14 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article<4c86a38f$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum and
>> expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming will
>> not be an issue. The fact that it's prohibitively expensive to do so is
>> not the fault of the FCC.
>>
> The extent that FCC artificially screwed up the supply of spectrum, I
> would have to disagree with you. A lot of this is related to bad
> management of the spectrum by multiple FCCs.

There was only so much 800 MHz spectrum available. The FCC made more
spectrum available, but it was at the much less desirable 1900 MHz. The
latecomers got what was left. Tough break.

Not sure the FCC could have managed this much better. There isn't any
more spectrum being made, they have to take it away from someone else.

On 9/7/2010 2:43 PM, George wrote:

> It isn't nearly that simple. The older carriers had to add tons of
> infrastructure (easily quadruple) to support the move to pure handheld
> phones. Meanwhile carriers such as tmobile didn't like to open their
> wallets. I could understand that with the original underfunded Omnipoint
> (I just had a flashback to their CEO being interviewed on a financial
> program basically begging for someone to buy them out because they were
> out of money). tmobile native voice coverage in my market is
> significantly less than than VZW & AT&T and it was only because they
> were watching while the others were doing.

The latecomers faced three problems, which is why Sprint and T-Mobile's
native coverage is so poor compared to Verizon and AT&T. First, they
were underfunded. Second, they were stuck with the much less desirable
PCS band. Third, by the time they came along cities were regulating the
placement of towers much more strictly so they had problems putting up
enough towers, yet they needed far more towers than 800 MHz carriers.

There's a guy in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Los
Altos (a well off suburb) that's turned his front yard into an antenna
farm. If it were within the city limits he'd have to abide by the city's
regulations on residential antennas, but since he's in the county he's
been able to do what he wants. He's making more than $50K a year in
lease payments.

"http://www.mercurynews.com/patty-fisher/ci_16000935?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1"

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:41:44 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>I am surprised that Verizon
>still sells so much coverage to Sprint. Maybe Verizon has determined
>that helping Sprint hurts AT&T more than it hurts themselves.

Verizon isn't "helping" Sprint. It's a business arrangement. Both
sides are helping each other.

--
Paul Miner

In article <4c86a38f$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
> On 9/7/2010 12:53 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> > In article<i65fc9$e0o$2@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
> >
> >> T-Mobile has been six months away from a shutdown/sale
> >> for, oh, five years now. Take a look at the wikipedia
> >> entry for "Friedman Unit".
> >
> >
> > To me, part of the problem seems to have been T-Mo's late entrance to
> > the game.
>
> No one forced the PCS carriers to enter wireless business. Despite
> Sprint and T-Mobile slowly losing market share over time, the business
> could still very profitable for them. They are reducing expenses by
> closing a lot of their stores (it seems insane the number of wireless
> stores with large stores in expensive shopping centers).


That's a bit of a red herring. The mall kiosks I see are resellers, not
company-owned retail outlets.

>
> There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum and
> expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming will
> not be an issue. The fact that it's prohibitively expensive to do so is
> not the fault of the FCC.


I didn't claim antitrust.


> When these smaller carriers sell themselves, no doubt they are looking
> for the best deal. T-Mobile could have tried to buy AT&T Wireless,
> Sprint could have tried to buy Alltel. The fact that they either didn't
> have the money, or weren't interested, has nothing to do with antitrust.

I didn't claim antitrust. I am arguing there are other factors causing
problems for the small guys.




--
Steve Sobol, Apple Valley, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c868c07$0$1665$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> On 9/7/2010 10:29 AM, Seth wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> When I first went with T-Mobile I knew the coverage in the northeast
>> where I live was less than the other providers (I was switching from
>> VZW) and I was OK with that. It did, at the time I signed on, work in
>> the specific locations that were important to me.
>>
>> It wasn't until those areas started to disappear that I found it
>> unacceptable.
>
> I know that somewhere in the contract is legalese that states that
> coverage can change for whatever reason, but when they remove so much
> coverage, as T-Mobile did, that really should not be acceptable and they
> should be required to be pro-active in offering to allow subscribers out
> of their contracts. They did allow a lot of subscribers out without ETFs,
> but those subscribers had to push for it.

And push I did. It took multiple calls to the loyalty department, 2 service
tickets and 1 email to the CEO (someone read it, don't know who).

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:te6d865i4cvchu4od0rpm8jo654vbnj1l6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:01:21 -0700, in
> <4c868c07$0$1665$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/7/2010 10:29 AM, Seth wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> When I first went with T-Mobile I knew the coverage in the northeast
>>> where I live was less than the other providers (I was switching from
>>> VZW) and I was OK with that. It did, at the time I signed on, work in
>>> the specific locations that were important to me.
>>>
>>> It wasn't until those areas started to disappear that I found it
>>> unacceptable.
>>
>>I know that somewhere in the contract is legalese that states that
>>coverage can change for whatever reason, but when they remove so much
>>coverage, as T-Mobile did, ...
>
> Wrong again(tm): No proof of that, just your unsubstantiated claim.

It IS in my contract. And my counter argument to them was regardless of
what is in the word of the contract, it didn't meet the spirit of it.

"jcdill" <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i66bnr$gql$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Seth wrote:
>
>> The issue is
>
> The issue is that you are wasting your time. John Navas will NEVER admit
> he was wrong. You are trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your
> time, and only annoys the pig (and the others still following the thread).
> The longer you engage with him the greater the likelihood that you will
> end up in killfiles from people who are tired of these endless arguments.

Agreed. I'm done with him.

On 9/7/2010 6:13 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<4c86a38f$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>>
>> On 9/7/2010 12:53 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
>>> In article<i65fc9$e0o$2@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>> T-Mobile has been six months away from a shutdown/sale
>>>> for, oh, five years now. Take a look at the wikipedia
>>>> entry for "Friedman Unit".
>>>
>>>
>>> To me, part of the problem seems to have been T-Mo's late entrance to
>>> the game.
>>
>> No one forced the PCS carriers to enter wireless business. Despite
>> Sprint and T-Mobile slowly losing market share over time, the business
>> could still very profitable for them. They are reducing expenses by
>> closing a lot of their stores (it seems insane the number of wireless
>> stores with large stores in expensive shopping centers).
>
>
> That's a bit of a red herring. The mall kiosks I see are resellers, not
> company-owned retail outlets.

In the smaller malls that's true, but in the two mega-malls in our area
there are company-owned kiosks as well.


>>
>> There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum and
>> expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming will
>> not be an issue. The fact that it's prohibitively expensive to do so is
>> not the fault of the FCC.
>
>
> I didn't claim antitrust.

That was what someone change the subject line to.

On 9/7/2010 6:20 PM, Seth wrote:

<snip>

> And push I did. It took multiple calls to the loyalty department, 2
> service tickets and 1 email to the CEO (someone read it, don't know who).

Good for you for not giving up. The on-line forums are full of similar
stories of having to push hard to get out of the contract after losing
roaming coverage.

At 07 Sep 2010 13:41:44 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 9/7/2010 12:53 PM, Steve Sobol wrot

> > To me, part of the problem seems to have been T-Mo's late entrance to
> > the game.
>
> No one forced the PCS carriers to enter wireless business. Despite
> Sprint and T-Mobile slowly losing market share over time, the business
> could still very profitable for them. They are reducing expenses by
> closing a lot of their stores (it seems insane the number of wireless
> stores with large stores in expensive shopping centers).


To be fair, however, the game has changed since the smaller players
entered the business. Back then, their were spectrum caps of
30MHz, so you knew your piddly 15MHz PCS license would at worst be only
half of what the incumbents had, and, that the seven licenses (two 800MHz
cellular, five 1900MHz PCS) meant there was room for seven players.

When the Feds stopped forcing divestiture after mergers, allowing
carriers to double up, then triple up, on spectrum and even own both
800MHz licenses in some markets, cellular became a game where the big got
bigger, and the small stayed small.

I'm not a fan of government intervention into a free market, but cellular
isn't a free market- spectrum is limited, and too much is in the hands of
too few.


> There's no antitrust going on here. T-Mobile is free to buy spectrum
> and expand their network's native footprint so the loss of AT&T roaming
> will not be an issue. The fact that it's prohibitively expensive to do
> so is not the fault of the FCC.


It is partially- it's not like T-Mo (or even Verizon) can go out and buy
another 30MHz in NY , LA or SF- it's all taken. And because spectrum
caps were loosened, most has been taken by the duopoly operators.


> > You're dealing with AT&T and Verizon here... two huge carriers with
tons
> > of existing, built-out infrastructure. In Cleveland, Verizon borg'd
> > AirTouch Cellular, and later they bought Alltel; Alltel's Cleveland
> > market used to be GTE Mobilnet. My first cell phones in the mid-90's
> > were GTE phones, and they had pretty extensive coverage.
>
> When these smaller carriers sell themselves, no doubt they are looking
> for the best deal. T-Mobile could have tried to buy AT&T Wireless,
> Sprint could have tried to buy Alltel. The fact that they either didn't
> have the money, or weren't interested, has nothing to do with antitrust.


True, but if the FCC had limited spectrum like they used to, Verizon and
"new AT&T" would've been forced to divest a lot more of their redundant
spectrum after their buyouts of Alltel and (old) ATTWS (respectively,)
which would've passed that spectrum down to tier-2 carriers like T-Mo and
Sprint, or even tier-3 like MetroPCS or Cricket. Four more evenly
matched competitors are better for consumers than two kings and a few
pawns.


> It's hard to complain about AT&T and Verizon now reaping the benefits
> of spending billions to build their network infrastructure over several
> decades.


Agreed, but then again, they've been paid for it many times over,
especially in the days when they reaped the benefits of being half of a
duopoly when only two licenses were available.


> I'm not surprised that AT&T no longer wants to enable T-
> Mobile's coverage by selling roaming.


Nor am I- but it is a consequence of the Feds willy-nilly approving every
merger and buyout that crosses their desks. There was a reason the
available spectrum was carved into seven licenses to begin with, and it
wasn't to sell one guy four, and the other guy three.


> I am surprised that Verizon still
> sells so much coverage to Sprint. Maybe Verizon has determined that
> helping Sprint hurts AT&T more than it hurts themselves.


Perhaps, or it just might be Sprint negotiated long-term contracts way
back when. If you'll remember, at one time Sprint had more available
spectrum than anyone- when Sprint launched, they had 1900MHz licenses for
a large portion of the country, and what is now Verizon was still a
fragmented group of regional carriers. Sprint was an ideal roaming
partner- you got access to major metro areas across the country with one
roaming deal- rather than negotiating with several regional Baby Bells.
In return, Sprint got coverage in the sticks without having to build a
tower more than 10 miles from a highway.

Sure, Verizon doesn't need Sprint today, but GTE, Bell Atlantic,
Airtouch, Cellular One, et al, did at one time. It was better for
consumers when carriers were regional, and they relied on each other to
build a complete map. The current system, where the 800 lb. gorillas let
mom-n-pop carriers exist only as long as they're needed, is far too
fragile.

On 9/7/2010 6:20 PM, Seth wrote:
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:te6d865i4cvchu4od0rpm8jo654vbnj1l6@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:01:21 -0700, in
>> <4c868c07$0$1665$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2010 10:29 AM, Seth wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> When I first went with T-Mobile I knew the coverage in the northeast
>>>> where I live was less than the other providers (I was switching from
>>>> VZW) and I was OK with that. It did, at the time I signed on, work in
>>>> the specific locations that were important to me.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't until those areas started to disappear that I found it
>>>> unacceptable.
>>>
>>> I know that somewhere in the contract is legalese that states that
>>> coverage can change for whatever reason, but when they remove so much
>>> coverage, as T-Mobile did, ...
>>
>> Wrong again(tm): No proof of that, just your unsubstantiated claim.
>
> It IS in my contract. And my counter argument to them was regardless of
> what is in the word of the contract, it didn't meet the spirit of it.

JWOC®, because besides not meeting the spirit of the contract, it
probably did actually violate it. It's one thing when a carrier
re-orients a tower resulting in lost coverage for some areas and
increased coverage for other areas, or a lease for a tower isn't renewed
and a small amount of coverage is lost, etc. It's another thing entirely
when they market the service based on coverage maps that they publish,
then they intentionally remove very large areas of that coverage.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news6uc869eb91dlor6o5lmqqbpf2o0ks19io@4ax.com:

> The issue is power and antenna, not technology -- see the info I just
> (re)posted on digital bag phones.
>
>

Sure wish we could get together for a little horserace on an old Mom and
Pop AMPS carrier out in the desert. I still have a "few" Batwing
Motorola flipphones with 300mw transmitters and a real antenna.....(c;

As none of the new phones has AMPS on it, I'm not sure how you're gonna
use one of these little shitphones on an AMPS system....???

I just looked. I got 4 new batteries for the Startac, too!

20 miles from a 500' AMPS tower is pretty hard to beat!

Those little phones can't make it outa the neighborhood without a real
antenna driven by a REAL power amp!

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:nptc86ptnkfp4m7gf5lalu69emc5e4evkn@4ax.com:

> For the record, here (again) is a digital (GSM) bag phone with the same
> extended coverage as an AMPS bag phone, the Motorola M900:
> <http://www.motorola.com/mdirect/manuals/M900-UserManual.pdf>
> There's also a CDMA version, the M800.
>
>

Ever look inside? I did just before carrying the CDMA one back to Alltel
after I got mine. There's a 150mw Motorola CDMA board in the handset with
its little ****** PC board antenna. The whole rest if it is FAKE except
for the battery!

I returned mine after a week. It range was SMALLER than my V60i!

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4c866d93$0$1635
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> John's wrong of course, but it's not _just_ about the money. Continuing
> the use of the spectrally inefficient AMPS network in urban areas that
> had capacity issues was not practical.
>

What's really too bad is we can't put a new AMPS network with REAL
transmitters feeding REAL antennas on 150-160 Mhz, where the business band
radios USED to operate, before Motorola and the FCC lawyers drove them all
off the band to buy crap trunk radios from Motorola with the FCC's help.

That band is as dead as a nail in Charleston, SC, 10 Mhz worth of BUILDING
PENETRATING VHF to put narrowband FM AMPS on with 12.5Khz channel spacing.

Man what a phone system that would be....There'd never be a dead zone, even
in the city canyons!

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:FfqdnX_ASJGANhvRnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.co m:

> The extent that FCC artificially screwed up the supply of spectrum, I
> would have to disagree with you. A lot of this is related to bad
> management of the spectrum by multiple FCCs.
>
>

I think FCC bureaucrats were bribed to keep their regulatory hands off
cellular. Otherwise we'd have had a STANDARD digital modulation scheme,
not the hodge-podge of "keep 'em from churning" nonsense America has
become, now. The country needs a standard for cellular EXACTLY like it
has a STANDARD for digital TV, against the wishes of the TV broadcasters
and their lobby, NAB. If CBS had its way its special, proprietary TV
receivers wouldn't receive ABC/FOX/NBC at all....like BetaMax and VHF,
Windows and OSX, Android and iPhone. Every time this corporate crap
happens the consumers are the ones who get screwed, locked down with
hardware and no place to go....but to the company "store".

I made the mistake of buying a Smart car. Yes, I admit it. It was a
gross error even if it was a helluva great price. Today, my proprietary
Mercedes/Maybach/Smart dealer quoted me $546.41 for the 2 year or 20K
"service", which amounts to an oil change, cabin and engine air filters,
brake fluid change (how stupid!) and grease the doors...plus "checking"
to see if this or that works so they can sell me MORE service if they
find anything at MY EXPENSE! I'm forced to go to the robber barons with
my MiniMaybach because THEY are the ONLY ones with the proprietary
COMPUTER to reset the car's computer, a proprietary beast, of course,
that will hound you to death until you ante up! $546.41 is serious money
in my household, unlike the Maybach lawyers on the barrier mansions.
Smart shoots itself in the foot if they think I'm going to buy another
one.

It's the same business plan as the non-standard sellphones all hobbled up
with proprietary "firmware" that shuts down anything they think they can
resell to you for more money.

I'm seriously considering listing it even though it's a helluva nice tiny
car to drive and a real head turner at every corner. Saving money with
the tiny Smart car is a joke! Any money you save at 44 mpg is EASILY
sucked up by the Maybach Service Consultants.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DED190CA75E6noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>
> I made the mistake of buying a Smart car. Yes, I admit it. It was a
> gross error even if it was a helluva great price. Today, my proprietary
> Mercedes/Maybach/Smart dealer quoted me $546.41 for the 2 year or 20K
> "service", which amounts to an oil change, cabin and engine air filters,
> brake fluid change (how stupid!) and grease the doors...plus "checking"
> to see if this or that works so they can sell me MORE service if they
> find anything at MY EXPENSE! I'm forced to go to the robber barons with
> my MiniMaybach because THEY are the ONLY ones with the proprietary
> COMPUTER to reset the car's computer, a proprietary beast, of course,
> that will hound you to death until you ante up! $546.41 is serious money
> in my household, unlike the Maybach lawyers on the barrier mansions.
> Smart shoots itself in the foot if they think I'm going to buy another
> one.

http://www.evilution.co.uk/index.php?id=458

On 9/7/2010 9:20 PM, Seth wrote:
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:te6d865i4cvchu4od0rpm8jo654vbnj1l6@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:01:21 -0700, in
>> <4c868c07$0$1665$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2010 10:29 AM, Seth wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> When I first went with T-Mobile I knew the coverage in the northeast
>>>> where I live was less than the other providers (I was switching from
>>>> VZW) and I was OK with that. It did, at the time I signed on, work in
>>>> the specific locations that were important to me.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't until those areas started to disappear that I found it
>>>> unacceptable.
>>>
>>> I know that somewhere in the contract is legalese that states that
>>> coverage can change for whatever reason, but when they remove so much
>>> coverage, as T-Mobile did, ...
>>
>> Wrong again(tm): No proof of that, just your unsubstantiated claim.
>
> It IS in my contract. And my counter argument to them was regardless of
> what is in the word of the contract, it didn't meet the spirit of it.
>
>
>
Yes, "substantial change" is often a basis to break a contract. Anyone
with real world experience knows that.

On 9/7/2010 11:08 PM, Larry wrote:
> John Navas<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:nptc86ptnkfp4m7gf5lalu69emc5e4evkn@4ax.com:
>
>> For the record, here (again) is a digital (GSM) bag phone with the same
>> extended coverage as an AMPS bag phone, the Motorola M900:
>> <http://www.motorola.com/mdirect/manuals/M900-UserManual.pdf>
>> There's also a CDMA version, the M800.
>>
>>
>
> Ever look inside? I did just before carrying the CDMA one back to Alltel
> after I got mine. There's a 150mw Motorola CDMA board in the handset with
> its little ****** PC board antenna. The whole rest if it is FAKE except
> for the battery!
>
> I returned mine after a week. It range was SMALLER than my V60i!

JWOC®, but it should have been the same or greater range with a good
external antenna.

The M800 and M900 are basically a marketing gimmick. "Bag phone" implies
that they are higher power. But one advantage is that you can use an
external antenna, and most handheld phones no longer have that
capability. The older CDMA and GSM Motorola phones could use the
Motorola Professional Hands Free Car Kit and would connect to an
external antenna when you placed the phone in the cradle (AKA "Hang Up
Cup").

Actually the bag phones are very slightly higher power than the two
Motorola handhelds I compared them against, but nothing like a 3W AMPS
phone.

You didn't have to look inside to know that M800 and M900 have nothing
in common with an AMPS bag phone, you just had to use the FCC ID and
search the FCC database (and convert from dBm to watts).


CDMA Comparison
---------------
The CDMA M800 bag phone has a maximum transmit power of 610 mW
AMPS/320mW CDMA. FCC ID: IHDT56CW1

My V325i CDMA/AMPS phone (Verizon account) has a maximum transmit power
of 603mW AMPS/316mW CDMA.

The M800 is about 1% greater power.


GSM Comparison
--------------
The GSM M900 bag phone has a maximum transmit power of 2W for 850 MHz,
and 1.04W for 1900 MHz. FCC ID: IHDT56FV2

My V195 GSM phone (T-Mobile prepaid account) has a maximum power output
of 1.8W for 850/900 and 1 watt for 1800/1900.

The M900 is about 10% greater power at 850MHz, about 4% greater at 1900 MHz.

On 9/8/2010 5:13 AM, George wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, "substantial change" is often a basis to break a contract. Anyone
> with real world experience knows that.

JWOC®, but T-Mobile allowing subscribers out of their contracts with no
ETFs also has a self-interest angle. Quietly waiving the ETF is better
than what would happen should some law firm get wind of what happened
and decide to start a class action lawsuit. Even just the publicity of
such a thing would be devastating.

"Seth" <sethNOSPAM@NOSPAMclcpro.com> wrote in
news:i67qag$ug3$1@news.eternal-september.org:

>
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DED190CA75E6noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>
>> I made the mistake of buying a Smart car. Yes, I admit it. It was a
>> gross error even if it was a helluva great price. Today, my
>> proprietary Mercedes/Maybach/Smart dealer quoted me $546.41 for the 2
>> year or 20K "service", which amounts to an oil change, cabin and
>> engine air filters, brake fluid change (how stupid!) and grease the
>> doors...plus "checking" to see if this or that works so they can sell
>> me MORE service if they find anything at MY EXPENSE! I'm forced to
>> go to the robber barons with my MiniMaybach because THEY are the ONLY
>> ones with the proprietary COMPUTER to reset the car's computer, a
>> proprietary beast, of course, that will hound you to death until you
>> ante up! $546.41 is serious money in my household, unlike the
>> Maybach lawyers on the barrier mansions. Smart shoots itself in the
>> foot if they think I'm going to buy another one.
>
> http://www.evilution.co.uk/index.php?id=458
>
>
>
>

AS reported by many users, these methods don't work on American Smart
451s, including mine. There's also an issue with the plastic shifter
needing lubrication and evilution shows how to get the shift knob off and
the little yellow lever inside the console to release the park lock after
taking out a rubber plug. None of those are in any American Smart from
Penske, either. I suspect this has something to do with the American
import market, specifically Roger Penske. Many things are different on
American Smarts he imports than, say, a Canadian import or one from
Europe. There is no locking collar under the shift knob on an American
451 to get the knob off and lube the plastics. I have all the evilution
website service stuff downloaded to the network drives, but many of them
are different from our Smarts. Great resource, though!

By the way, Mitsubishi, who makes the engine/queer tranny, says there's
no reason to use the most expensive synthetic lube oil on their engine.
The technology of the Mitsubishi engine in the Smart is the same as their
own branded motors....as I also expected....another dealer profit
booster.

Damn them.

At 08 Sep 2010 07:54:00 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 9/8/2010 5:13 AM, George wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yes, "substantial change" is often a basis to break a contract. Anyone
> > with real world experience knows that.
>
> JWOC®, but T-Mobile allowing subscribers out of their contracts with no
> ETFs also has a self-interest angle. Quietly waiving the ETF is better
> than what would happen should some law firm get wind of what happened
> and decide to start a class action lawsuit. Even just the publicity of
> such a thing would be devastating.


True, but you're still working under the assumption that vast swaths of
roaming was turned off. There was very little AT&T roaming to begin with.

I don't doubt a few particular areas have lost some coverage, and users
who live in those regions should be handled appropriately, but I'd argue
that I, living in Denver, should not get a free pass out of my contract
if half a county in, say, upstate New York, no longer has coverage,
unless perhaps I can demonstrate I used my phone there regularly, or at
least sporadically, in the past.


I've been in the Bay Area at least twice since becoming a T-Mo subacriber
nine years ago, and do not recall ever roaming off the T-Mo/Cingular
shared network (310-170, IIRC. My old T-Mo MDA allowed me to define my
own network names for any network code, so I used to call 170 "T-Mobile
West.")

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DED75FAC1DA7noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
> "Seth" <sethNOSPAM@NOSPAMclcpro.com> wrote in
> news:i67qag$ug3$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9DED190CA75E6noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>>
>>> I made the mistake of buying a Smart car. Yes, I admit it. It was a
>>> gross error even if it was a helluva great price. Today, my
>>> proprietary Mercedes/Maybach/Smart dealer quoted me $546.41 for the 2
>>> year or 20K "service", which amounts to an oil change, cabin and
>>> engine air filters, brake fluid change (how stupid!) and grease the
>>> doors...plus "checking" to see if this or that works so they can sell
>>> me MORE service if they find anything at MY EXPENSE! I'm forced to
>>> go to the robber barons with my MiniMaybach because THEY are the ONLY
>>> ones with the proprietary COMPUTER to reset the car's computer, a
>>> proprietary beast, of course, that will hound you to death until you
>>> ante up! $546.41 is serious money in my household, unlike the
>>> Maybach lawyers on the barrier mansions. Smart shoots itself in the
>>> foot if they think I'm going to buy another one.
>>
>> http://www.evilution.co.uk/index.php?id=458
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> AS reported by many users, these methods don't work on American Smart
> 451s, including mine. There's also an issue with the plastic shifter
> needing lubrication and evilution shows how to get the shift knob off and
> the little yellow lever inside the console to release the park lock after
> taking out a rubber plug. None of those are in any American Smart from
> Penske, either. I suspect this has something to do with the American
> import market, specifically Roger Penske. Many things are different on
> American Smarts he imports than, say, a Canadian import or one from
> Europe. There is no locking collar under the shift knob on an American
> 451 to get the knob off and lube the plastics. I have all the evilution
> website service stuff downloaded to the network drives, but many of them
> are different from our Smarts. Great resource, though!
>
> By the way, Mitsubishi, who makes the engine/queer tranny, says there's
> no reason to use the most expensive synthetic lube oil on their engine.
> The technology of the Mitsubishi engine in the Smart is the same as their
> own branded motors....as I also expected....another dealer profit
> booster.
>
> Damn them.

I'll have to pass this info on to my co-worker who recently got a Smart to
replace his Prius that was coming into some big money repairs.