Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Again - Read alt.cellular.sprintpcs. Or look at all the folks
> making a good living selling repeaters for folks with 1900 Mhz phones.

There have been plenty of complaints here about Sprint. Most of them have
NOT been about coverage. Please tell me to go read alt.cellular.sprintpcs so
I can laugh at you -- as you know, I've read and posted here for years.

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

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-07, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly
> at alt.cellular.sprintpcs.

The problem with your premise is that you know (well before the trial period
ends) whether the coverage will be good enough, and if you don't cancel before
the end of the trial period, how is that the carrier's fault? (SPCS or
any other carrier)

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

At 08 May 2008 02:28:36 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> > Perhaps... or it could be Verizon's and AT&T's 15 year head start?
>
> Good point. Let's look at the facts.


In THIS thread? Why start now? ;-)

> Verizon. Formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Verizon Wireless
> included those properties plus the properties of Vodafone AirTouch
> Cellular and PrimeCo (A 1900MHz carrier, Phillippe, FYI).

Funny you mentioned the 1900MHz bit. I was going to throw Consumer
Reports' cellular survey back at Steven Scharf in my last post but forgot
to get around to it- despite his "Verizon-dominates-independent-surveys" as
"proof" 1900 MHz is inferior to 800MHz, CR's survey ranked Verizon as best
in
the Miami market (like in many cities) in the No Signal, and Dropped Calls
categories as well as overall score. The "punchline" of course, is that
Verizon is a 1900MHz-only carrier in Miami. AT&T owns both 800MHz licenses
there. (T-Mobile often came in second to Verizon many markets in the CR
survey, above AT&T, despite AT&T being 800 and T-Mobile 1900. Maybe
Verizon is just a little better at building out a network than the others,
and it has nothing to do with frequency? Or maybe an even simpler
explanation is the "can you hear me
now" brainwashing is market independent?)


> Sprint's network, much newer than the incumbents, had coverage at my house
> along Lake Erie in a neighborhood no one else covered until a year after I
> moved there, and Verizon's coverage in Ashtabula was horrible where
> Sprint's was very good. Ashtabula is about an hour east of Cleveland;
> smallish town, but not middle-of-nowhere small.

Bah! Anecdotal! ;-)

> > Why hasn't the free market done it's job?
>
> Well, that's the thing, the free market IS doing its job.
>
> I believe that was your point.


Guilty as charged!

On Thu, 8 May 2008 02:20:17 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
>On 2008-05-07, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't speak for them, all I know is the complaints I see regularly
>> at alt.cellular.sprintpcs.
>
>The problem with your premise is that you know (well before the trial period
>ends) whether the coverage will be good enough, and if you don't cancel before
>the end of the trial period, how is that the carrier's fault? (SPCS or
>any other carrier)

Because all too often as time changes and Tower broadcasting is
tweaked or as a phone ages, areas that did receive coverage
or coverage indoors indoors change.

It also happens that people move or change jobs, and THEN find that
coverage elsewhere discribed as everywhere ISN'T.

On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:19:34 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:


>Funny you mentioned the 1900MHz bit. I was going to throw Consumer
>Reports' cellular survey back at Steven Scharf in my last post but forgot
>to get around to it- despite his "Verizon-dominates-independent-surveys"

Consumer Reports did mention how Sprint was WORST for dropped calls.

On Thu, 8 May 2008 02:29:22 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
>On 2008-05-07, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> The 1900 Mhz phones have also spawned a thriving industry of cellular
>> repeaters for folks to use at their home or office.
>
>Really. Point me to a company that sells repeaters or antennas for 1900MHz
>handsets, that DOESN'T also sell devices for use with 800MHz handsets.


Point to one of those companies that doesnt sell FAR MORE for 1900
Mhz.

On Thu, 8 May 2008 02:17:39 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
>On 2008-05-07, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> "Discover too late?" You mean people don't try their phone at home or work
>> during the 14-30 day trial period?
>
>That would make sense, but you have to understand you're talking to a liar
>and troll. Troll because, although he sometimes does post the truth, more
>often he posts half-truths in an attempt to make SPCS look bad. Liar because
>he repeatedly said a couple years ago that he was never going to post in the
>SPCS newsgroup again.


Don't like the message, INSULT the messanger.
It's not trolling to post the truth.

THE TRUTH:

Sprint for many years in a row now has rated WORST by

Consumer Reports

J.D. Power

The Yankee Group.

when they do unbiased scientific studies of consumer preferences.

SPRINTPCS is BAD, And it's Churn, and loss of customers deomstrates
that. Now its trying to get some customers by being the lowest price
provider.

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...own-churn.aspx

The Minnesota AG sued Sprint, saying:
“In some cases, Sprint extended the contract when customers called
to complain or to get new batteries or small repairs for the phone,”

http://www.wirelessforums.org/alt-ce...ons-29588.html

Things are so bad for Sprint that its been in the news this week
that its in discussions to sell itself.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technol..._with_tmobile/

And of course with have the title of this thread with Qwest adandoning
Sprint.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=207501987

And of course the stock market fully reflects Sprint's woes,
with its stock crashing in the last year from 23 to under 6, and now a
"dead cat" bounce to 9. Spint keeps changing CEOs in hpes
of making Wall Street happy, but in the long run, its numbers, not
personalities that count.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=S&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

So Todd show your childishness by insulting me, but the FACTs support
what I say.

On 2008-05-08, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 08 May 2008 02:28:36 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:
>> Verizon. Formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Verizon Wireless
>> included those properties plus the properties of Vodafone AirTouch
>> Cellular and PrimeCo (A 1900MHz carrier, Phillippe, FYI).
>
> Funny you mentioned the 1900MHz bit. I was going to throw Consumer
> Reports' cellular survey back at Steven Scharf in my last post but forgot
> to get around to it- despite his "Verizon-dominates-independent-surveys" as
> "proof" 1900 MHz is inferior to 800MHz, CR's survey ranked Verizon as best
> in
> the Miami market (like in many cities) in the No Signal, and Dropped Calls
> categories as well as overall score. The "punchline" of course, is that
> Verizon is a 1900MHz-only carrier in Miami. AT&T owns both 800MHz licenses
> there. (T-Mobile often came in second to Verizon many markets in the CR
> survey, above AT&T, despite AT&T being 800 and T-Mobile 1900. Maybe
> Verizon is just a little better at building out a network than the others,
> and it has nothing to do with frequency? Or maybe an even simpler
> explanation is the "can you hear me
> now" brainwashing is market independent?)

Yes, that's correct. In fact the Consumer Reports survey covers
three markets where Verizon is a 1900 MHz carrier: Miami, Tampa
and Dallas. Verizon's coverage is rated no worse there than anywhere
else in the country. And a couple of the very worst coverage scores in
that survey are for AT&T in Washington, DC and Boston, where AT&T is a
cellular operator.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2008-05-08, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>Really. Point me to a company that sells repeaters or antennas for 1900MHz
>>handsets, that DOESN'T also sell devices for use with 800MHz handsets.
>
> Point to one of those companies that doesnt sell FAR MORE for 1900
> Mhz.

The burden of proof is on you, since you're making the claim.. Show me
some numbers.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them.

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

On 2008-05-08, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Don't like the message, INSULT the messanger.
> It's not trolling to post the truth.

Except you didn't. We weren't talking about CS, we were talking about
coverage.

> So Todd show your childishness by insulting me, but the FACTs support
> what I say.

You were talking about coverage. What you just posted isn't directly related
to coverage. And the fact is you ARE a liar. You have repeatedly, over the
course of at least a year or two, posted here after insisting that you never
would again. (Please trot out your tired response to this. I'm kinda expecting
it)

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