Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > Australian Networks > aus.comms.mobile
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 09:55 AM
Alan Parkington
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Phones have come a long way

From
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/det...y=news%20extra

UNDERSTANDABLE concern by rural folk over coverage of Telstra's Next G
network rather begs the question of how we managed only 20 years ago when
mobile technology in Australia was extremely limited and costly.

Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
unreasonably expensive, the cost today of buying and operating mobile
telephones is significantly less than in 1981, when a car-based phone cost
almost $5000. Connection cost a further $350 with the annual access charge
$800. Coverage was initially only in Melbourne, then Sydney.

The first hand-held mobiles, generally known as bricks, became available in
1987 and cost $4250. By about 1993, only about 4 per cent of Australians
owned one.

The digital network grew rapidly, with about one million subscribers by
1995. Then there were about 1.6 million on the analogue network.

In September, 1999, Telstra launched its CDMA network and by the end of that
year the analog network was effectively closed.

By February, 2001, with about 10.7 million, there were more mobile
telephones in Australia than fixed-line phones. The growth has continued,
with the Australian Communications and Media Authority reporting last week
that there are more mobile phone services in Australian than people.

With such growth, there is a general expectation that mobile telephone
coverage is a right, regardless of isolation. Though this is impractical, or
at least uneconomic, politicians are conscious of this demand. Hence the
pressure on Telstra to improve its Next G coverage before closing the CDMA
network, which it did last Monday.

Australia's telecommunications have come a long way in 40 years. Then, you
could not dial Queanbeyan direct from Canberra. The farm on which I grew up
was served by a manual telephone exchange. There was something quaint about
a service that opened at 9am, closed for lunch and dinner, and finished at
9pm.

Today's obsession over privacy would outlaw the potential for intrusion by
operators of such exchanges. After a misadventure at school, I was hauled
off to hospital by ambulance and my parents were advised by a long-distance
telephone call. Though they had not spoken with any neighbours, they were
stopped by one as they drove out.

"How's the boy?" the concerned neighbour asked. The exchange operators, a
friendly local couple, ensured the community was kept informed of such
details.

After the couple died, the 20 or so farms in the valley had the local
exchange replaced by party lines with connections made by an operator in the
nearest town about 40km away.

The party line system had four or five telephones on the same circuit. Only
one call could be made at a time and any of those parties could, and
sometimes did, listen to another's conversation. The only benefit was that
calls could be made at no charge to others on the party line.

The trick with a party line was to know when an incoming call was for you.
Our number was 3W. So the operator selected the correct circuit, then
delivered one short and two long rings, the Morse code for W. Other letters
that could be used were; d, g, k, o, r, s and u, all requiring only three
rings.

The replacement of the party line in the early 1970s with an automatic
telephone from which most of Australia could be called directly was a major
step. Though the area now has mobile coverage, it is at best sporadic, with
best results from hill tops.


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:22 AM
Polly the Parrot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:55:04 GMT "Alan Parkington"
<patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:

> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
> unreasonably expensive,


I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 11:08 AM
Alan Parkington
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:20080505202252.525349b0@linux-k6os.site...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:55:04 GMT "Alan Parkington"
> <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
>> unreasonably expensive,

>
> I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!


Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to pay a
fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy junk..


Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 11:18 AM
Kwyjibo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Alan Parkington" <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
news:RUBTj.7803$ko5.7664@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:20080505202252.525349b0@linux-k6os.site...
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:55:04 GMT "Alan Parkington"
>> <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
>>> unreasonably expensive,

>>
>> I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!

>
> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra


Lie. You don't get the best coverage with Telstrta and their pricing is not
even close to being the best.

> so you have to expect to pay a fraction more


"Unreasonably expensive" does not equate to "a fraction more" you useless
cunt.

--
Kwyj.



Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 02:22 PM
Polly the Parrot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:08:33 GMT "Alan Parkington"
<patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:

> >
> >> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
> >> unreasonably expensive,

> >
> > I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!

>
> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to
> pay a fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy
> junk..
>



The word, Parky, is "unreasonable". Did you miss that bit?

U N R E A S O N A B L E !

Moron.

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 12:15 AM
Paul Day
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:08:33 in aus.comms.mobile Alan Parkington may have written:
> >> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
> >> unreasonably expensive,

> >
> > I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!

>
> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to pay a
> fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy junk..


No, you pay an unreasonably expensive amount more, not a fraction.
Clearly stated in the article you recited like a parrot.

PD

--
Paul Day

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 01:57 AM
will_s
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Alan Parkington" <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
news:YPATj.7779$ko5.6735@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> From
> http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/det...y=news%20extra
>
> UNDERSTANDABLE concern by rural folk over coverage of Telstra's Next G
> network rather begs the question of how we managed only 20 years ago when
> mobile technology in Australia was extremely limited and costly.
>
> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
> unreasonably expensive, the cost today of buying and operating mobile
> telephones is significantly less than in 1981, when a car-based phone cost
> almost $5000. Connection cost a further $350 with the annual access charge
> $800. Coverage was initially only in Melbourne, then Sydney.
>
> The first hand-held mobiles, generally known as bricks, became available
> in 1987 and cost $4250. By about 1993, only about 4 per cent of
> Australians owned one.
>
> The digital network grew rapidly, with about one million subscribers by
> 1995. Then there were about 1.6 million on the analogue network.
>
> In September, 1999, Telstra launched its CDMA network and by the end of
> that year the analog network was effectively closed.
>
> By February, 2001, with about 10.7 million, there were more mobile
> telephones in Australia than fixed-line phones. The growth has continued,
> with the Australian Communications and Media Authority reporting last week
> that there are more mobile phone services in Australian than people.
>
> With such growth, there is a general expectation that mobile telephone
> coverage is a right, regardless of isolation. Though this is impractical,
> or at least uneconomic, politicians are conscious of this demand. Hence
> the pressure on Telstra to improve its Next G coverage before closing the
> CDMA network, which it did last Monday.
>
> Australia's telecommunications have come a long way in 40 years. Then, you
> could not dial Queanbeyan direct from Canberra. The farm on which I grew
> up was served by a manual telephone exchange. There was something quaint
> about a service that opened at 9am, closed for lunch and dinner, and
> finished at 9pm.
>
> Today's obsession over privacy would outlaw the potential for intrusion by
> operators of such exchanges. After a misadventure at school, I was hauled
> off to hospital by ambulance and my parents were advised by a
> long-distance telephone call. Though they had not spoken with any
> neighbours, they were stopped by one as they drove out.
>
> "How's the boy?" the concerned neighbour asked. The exchange operators, a
> friendly local couple, ensured the community was kept informed of such
> details.
>
> After the couple died, the 20 or so farms in the valley had the local
> exchange replaced by party lines with connections made by an operator in
> the nearest town about 40km away.
>
> The party line system had four or five telephones on the same circuit.
> Only one call could be made at a time and any of those parties could, and
> sometimes did, listen to another's conversation. The only benefit was that
> calls could be made at no charge to others on the party line.
>
> The trick with a party line was to know when an incoming call was for you.
> Our number was 3W. So the operator selected the correct circuit, then
> delivered one short and two long rings, the Morse code for W. Other
> letters that could be used were; d, g, k, o, r, s and u, all requiring
> only three rings.
>
> The replacement of the party line in the early 1970s with an automatic
> telephone from which most of Australia could be called directly was a
> major step. Though the area now has mobile coverage, it is at best
> sporadic, with best results from hill tops.


I was surprised by the lack of coverage ie from Batemans Bay to Canberra on
the weekend. One bike went down and no coverage for mobiles to ring an
ambulance or contact the other riders.


Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 03:07 AM
John Henderson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

will_s wrote:

> I was surprised by the lack of coverage ie from Batemans Bay
> to Canberra on the weekend. One bike went down and no coverage
> for mobiles to ring an ambulance or contact the other riders.


That brings up an important point for making emergency calls
from 3G-capable phones where there's no 2G coverage.

With existing 2100 MHz 3G networks, Telstra NextG on 850 MHz,
and Optus about to roll out its 900 MHz 3G network, 3G phones
sold in Australia should cover at least these 3 bands. If the
phone doesn't cover the only band in operation in a particular
area, the phone won't be able to carry the call. Emergency
calls to 112 or 000 will otherwise use any carrier available.

John

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 05:12 AM
Alan Parkington
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1210032903.715117@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:08:33 in aus.comms.mobile Alan Parkington may have
> written:
>> >> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
>> >> unreasonably expensive,
>> >
>> > I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!

>>
>> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to pay a
>> fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy junk..

>
> No, you pay an unreasonably expensive amount more, not a fraction.
> Clearly stated in the article you recited like a parrot.
>


Actually the article claimed Australian costs were 'high'.. not specifically
Telstra's.


Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 08:09 AM
Paul Day
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

On Tue, 06 May 2008 15:12:49 in aus.comms.mobile Alan Parkington may have written:
> >> >> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
> >> >> unreasonably expensive,
> >> >
> >> > I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!
> >>
> >> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to pay a
> >> fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy junk..

> >
> > No, you pay an unreasonably expensive amount more, not a fraction.
> > Clearly stated in the article you recited like a parrot.
> >

>
> Actually the article claimed Australian costs were 'high'.. not specifically
> Telstra's.


Can't even read what he's written...

Alan, your article is quoted at the top of this post. Just in case you
can't spot it, I'll paste it again: "Though by world standards
Australia's mobile telephone services are unreasonably expensive,"

Note the words "unreasonably expensive" and the common knowledge that
Telstra leads the way in expensive mobile phone service charges in the
Australian market.

PD

--
Paul Day

Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 02:13 PM
Alan Parkington
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1210061375.484162@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 15:12:49 in aus.comms.mobile Alan Parkington may have
> written:
>> >> >> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
>> >> >> unreasonably expensive,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!
>> >>
>> >> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to
>> >> pay a
>> >> fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy junk..
>> >
>> > No, you pay an unreasonably expensive amount more, not a fraction.
>> > Clearly stated in the article you recited like a parrot.
>> >

>>
>> Actually the article claimed Australian costs were 'high'.. not
>> specifically
>> Telstra's.

>
> Can't even read what he's written...
>
> Alan, your article is quoted at the top of this post. Just in case you
> can't spot it, I'll paste it again: "Though by world standards
> Australia's mobile telephone services are unreasonably expensive,"
>
> Note the words "unreasonably expensive" and the common knowledge that
> Telstra leads the way in expensive mobile phone service charges in the
> Australian market.
>
> PD
>


Listen Dummy.. the article only says that charges could be considered
expensive, not that they necessarily are expensive. Also it does not mention
Telstra as being expensice either.


Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 02:20 PM
Kwyjibo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Alan Parkington" <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
news:GIZTj.8163$ko5.4692@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1210061375.484162@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 15:12:49 in aus.comms.mobile Alan Parkington may have
>> written:
>>> >> >> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services
>>> >> >> are
>>> >> >> unreasonably expensive,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!
>>> >>
>>> >> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to
>>> >> pay a
>>> >> fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy junk..
>>> >
>>> > No, you pay an unreasonably expensive amount more, not a fraction.
>>> > Clearly stated in the article you recited like a parrot.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Actually the article claimed Australian costs were 'high'.. not
>>> specifically
>>> Telstra's.

>>
>> Can't even read what he's written...
>>
>> Alan, your article is quoted at the top of this post. Just in case you
>> can't spot it, I'll paste it again: "Though by world standards
>> Australia's mobile telephone services are unreasonably expensive,"
>>
>> Note the words "unreasonably expensive" and the common knowledge that
>> Telstra leads the way in expensive mobile phone service charges in the
>> Australian market.
>>
>> PD
>>

>
> Listen Dummy..


Hehe. Obviously been to the Telstra 'Customer Service' school.....

> the article only says that charges could be considered expensive, not that
> they necessarily are expensive.


Wrong. It says "Australia's mobile telephone services *ARE* unreasonably
expensive"

> Also it does not mention Telstra as being expensice either.


It doesn't need to. As Telstra are the dearest mobile carrier in the
country, it goes without saying that if Australia's mobile phone services
are expensive, Telstra *must* be unreasonably expensive.

--
Kwyj.



Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 03:08 PM
Polly the Parrot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:13:58 GMT "Alan Parkington"
<patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:

> Listen Dummy.. the article only says that charges could be considered
> expensive, not that they necessarily are expensive. Also it does not
> mention Telstra as being expensice either.



But Tel$tra is expensive, Parky!

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 06:40 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

Alan Poxington <wanker@iarseaustralia.com.au> wrote
> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote
>> Alan Poxington <wanker@iarseaustralia.com.au> wrote
>>> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote
>>>> Alan Poxington <wanker@iarseaustralia.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Polly the Parrot <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote
>>>>>> Alan Poxington <wanker@iarseaustralia.com.au> wrote


>>>>>>> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are unreasonably expensive,


>>>>>> I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!


>>>>> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra so you have to expect to pay a
>>>>> fraction more than the cheap overseas Singaporean and pommy junk..


>>>> No, you pay an unreasonably expensive amount more, not a fraction.
>>>> Clearly stated in the article you recited like a parrot.


>>> Actually the article claimed Australian costs were 'high'.. not specifically Telstra's.


Pity Telstra dominates the expensive end of Aust mobile services, fuckwit.

>> Can't even read what he's written...


>> Alan, your article is quoted at the top of this post. Just in case
>> you can't spot it, I'll paste it again: "Though by world standards
>> Australia's mobile telephone services are unreasonably expensive,"


>> Note the words "unreasonably expensive" and the common knowledge that Telstra leads the way in expensive mobile phone
>> service charges in the Australian market.


> Listen Dummy.. the article only says that charges could be considered expensive, not that they necessarily are
> expensive.


Bare faced lie. Read the quote right at the top, fuckwit.

> Also it does not mention Telstra as being expensice either.


Doesnt need to when it dominates Aust mobile services, fuckwit.



Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 11:04 PM
Alan Parkington
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:f7ydncEUarCO9L3VnZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>
> As Telstra are the dearest mobile carrier in the country,



Actually Dodo's data charges are higher. Current discussion here on
whirlpool

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...s.cfm?t=971100


Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2008, 06:03 AM
Michael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:LJWdnUw7t9-5cIPVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>
> "Alan Parkington" <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
> news:RUBTj.7803$ko5.7664@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:20080505202252.525349b0@linux-k6os.site...
>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:55:04 GMT "Alan Parkington"
>>> <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
>>>> unreasonably expensive,
>>>
>>> I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!

>>
>> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra

>
> Lie. You don't get the best coverage with Telstrta


Of course you do.

>and their pricing is not even close to being the best.


Since when does Telstra compete on price? Or need to



Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2008, 07:54 AM
mathewm@sNOSPAMdf.lonestar.org
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

Michael wrote:
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:LJWdnUw7t9-5cIPVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>> "Alan Parkington" <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:RUBTj.7803$ko5.7664@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20080505202252.525349b0@linux-k6os.site...
>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:55:04 GMT "Alan Parkington"
>>>> <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
>>>>> unreasonably expensive,
>>>> I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!
>>> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra

>> Lie. You don't get the best coverage with Telstrta

>
> Of course you do.


How do you define "best?" Best is highly subjective in this context.

As a customer, I couldn't care less whether my phone will work in, say,
Bourke, because I will never go there.

I'm only concerned about it working where I need it to (i.e. places I
will go.) In my case, that would mean Optus GSM900 is the best.

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2008, 08:25 AM
Paul Day
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

On Wed, 07 May 2008 00:13:58 in aus.comms Alan Parkington may have written:
> Listen Dummy.. the article only says that charges could be considered
> expensive, not that they necessarily are expensive. Also it does not mention
> Telstra as being expensice either.


That's a nice spade you've got there Alan. Be careful not get
blisters digging like this though.

PD

--
Paul Day

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2008, 08:57 AM
Kwyjibo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way


"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5DbUj.8351$ko5.2040@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:LJWdnUw7t9-5cIPVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Alan Parkington" <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:RUBTj.7803$ko5.7664@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20080505202252.525349b0@linux-k6os.site...
>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:55:04 GMT "Alan Parkington"
>>>> <patriot@iheartaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Though by world standards Australia's mobile telephone services are
>>>>> unreasonably expensive,
>>>>
>>>> I am surprised that you would allow us to see that, Parky bot!
>>>
>>> Not at alll. you get the best with Telstra

>>
>> Lie. You don't get the best coverage with Telstrta

>
> Of course you do.


Wrong. Try GlobalStar. Shits all over Telstra.

>
>>and their pricing is not even close to being the best.

>
> Since when does Telstra compete on price? Or need to


Parky-bot was claiming Telstra were 'the best'. I've already shown they
aren't the best in terms of coverage. Everyone knows they aren't the best in
terms of customer service. The only thing left is price, and they clearly
aren't the best on that either.

--
Kwyj.



Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2008, 09:26 AM
Michael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Phones have come a long way

>> Since when does Telstra compete on price? Or need to
>
> Parky-bot was claiming Telstra were 'the best'. I've already shown they
> aren't the best in terms of coverage. Everyone knows they aren't the best
> in


Only one network can be "the best"

They may not be the best for you, but overall, they are the best. Like it or
lump it.

And yes, they are the best in customer service.




Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boycott Nebraska (Until Rapists Are Brought To Justice) Frankenstein's Monster \(Heroin Kids\) alt.cellular.nextel 0 02-03-2008 11:10 PM
Contracts. Why? LHA alt.cellular.verizon 84 01-15-2008 06:49 PM
Contracts. Why? LHA alt.cellular.sprintpcs 90 01-15-2008 06:49 PM
VOIP Phones for Businesses and now Consumers, digiphone.co.uk website reviews uk.telecom.voip 1 04-06-2007 12:43 AM
Motorola cell phones FAQ John Navas alt.cellular.cingular 4 03-24-2007 10:41 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43