Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
So you were stating fact in your original post? I'll try to remember
that next time you state that analog TV is networked like wi-fi and could
easily be changed to offer nationwide internet with little change or
expense.
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it
> and weep!
There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
buying one...
Except for one problem.
Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
"work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
like a champ.
Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
NETWORK that works.
"David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDC3D14CCD6spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.9 9.130...
>
> There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
> surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
> and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
> would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
> also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
> buying one...
>
> Except for one problem.
>
> Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
> pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
> "work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
> area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
> network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
> phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
> quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
> to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
> Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
> with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
> they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
> like a champ.
>
> Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
> award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
>
> So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
> and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
> up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
> NETWORK that works.
>
"David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDC3D14CCD6spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.9 9.130...
> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
> news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
>
>> In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
>> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> So you were stating fact in your original post? I'll try to remember
> that next time you state that analog TV is networked like wi-fi and could
> easily be changed to offer nationwide internet with little change or
> expense.
>
>> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it
>> and weep!
>
> There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
> surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
> and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
> would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
> also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
> buying one...
>
> Except for one problem.
>
> Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
> pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
> "work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
> area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
> network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
> phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
> quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
> to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
> Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
> with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
> they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
> like a champ.
>
> Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
> award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
>
> So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
> and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
> up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
> NETWORK that works.
>
Verizon turned it down. Where I live, Both AT&T and Verizon have good
signal. Then a few miles down the road one has crap signal and another few
miles away the other is better.
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:rks0j.319$AR7.283@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Verizon turned it down. Where I live, Both AT&T and Verizon have good
> signal. Then a few miles down the road one has crap signal and another
> few miles away the other is better.
It didn't surprise me in the least that Verizon turned them down. Verizon
is such a control freak over its hardware, just like Apple, that them doing
a phone together would be like the proverbial unstopable force hitting the
immovable object. Contract negotiations would be like during the Korean
war where it was a major deal just to decide on the size and shape of the
table to be used for peace talks :-)
Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Linear Mode
