On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:17:45 -0400, "J.R.Guthrie"
<jguthrie1@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Why does my Samsung Sprint phone drop from an excellent signal to dropped
>call to Digital Roam and back -- all within, say 15 seconds while sitting on
>my desk at home in "Speaker" mode without anyone touching it or moving in
>the same room?
>
>Is this a phenomena unique to Sprint?
Trust me on this, I had a four month ordeal in which I had
plenty of opportunity to study what was going on. I asked folks here
for help, and although no one could provide any answers, they
thankfully led me in the right direction.
Here's the very abbreviated story:
I cannot guarantee with certainty that your case is exactly
the same as mine, but you can check. Go into your phone's menu to the
advanced settings. You'll see the SID, Channel, and frequency
settings. Your channel setting should be (probably) 625 or 650.
Possibly 600, but whatever it is, it should NOT CHANGE when the phone
is idle. If you see that it is switching erratically, try to get as
high on the tech ladder as you can and explain this (that your phone's
channel is fluctuating on its own when you're not talking on it). They
can fix this at the back end.
I hope that this helps you localize the problem, and I hope
that you can get to someone willing to take responsibility for helping
you. The fix is nothing, but getting someone to agree to affect it
required four months of nearly hour-long conversations every business
day and one Saturday. I won't bore you with the details or how many
useless, foolish things they did rather than actually fix the problem.
The good news is that I pay relatively little for phone
service now.
> David G. Imber wrote:
>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
>> pop popcorn:
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18
>
> It was all a hoax, according to a CNN story.
Yeah, I was under no illusions whatsoever when I posted my
question asking how it was done. And you'll notice that even in the
article above and the one it references in Wired, there's no
explanation. But this puts the important part of the puzzle in place.
When I originally asked what was happening here people just
answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
farce.
The incentive was the company's increased recognition and
presumed profit as a result. At last there appears something
resembling a "reason" for what's seen in those videos (for those who
seemed to have trouble with the definition of that word).
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:33:27 -0400, Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>DTC wrote:
>>
>>> David G. Imber wrote:
>>>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
>>>> pop popcorn:
>>>>
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18
>>>
>>> It was all a hoax, according to a CNN story.
>>
>>Yep...
>>
>>http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008...oth-compa.html
>
> Yeah, I was under no illusions whatsoever when I posted my
> question asking how it was done. And you'll notice that even in the
> article above and the one it references in Wired, there's no
> explanation. But this puts the important part of the puzzle in place.
>
> When I originally asked what was happening here people just
> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
> reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
> actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
> experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
> costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
> incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
> farce.
Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic"
becomes a reasonable assumption. :-)
> The incentive was the company's increased recognition and
> presumed profit as a result. At last there appears something
> resembling a "reason" for what's seen in those videos (for those who
> seemed to have trouble with the definition of that word).
Yep, while I don't approve of their "scare tactic" methodology, I can
understand their motive...
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:37:16 -0400, "J.R.Guthrie"
<jguthrie1@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Thanks! I'll watch for that. I'm on 650 at the moment . . . I'll keep an
>eye on it.
>
>> The good news is that I pay relatively little for phone
>> service now.
>
>And still with Sprint ?? <g>
Yes. You see, I've been with them for nine years, and I had
never before and have never since had a bit of trouble with the
service. I travel around the country for my work and I've never been
disappointed with that aspect of Sprint's operation.
This was my wife's phone, and it went haywire right after the
Sprint-Nextel merger (that's relevant, actually, but I promised I
wouldn't bore you with the copious details). I fought so hard and so
long to make it right because I knew that when the phone was working,
the service was sterling.
As a result of my incredible inconvenience they gave me a
significant rate discount, and that made it harder to abandon them.
My contract is up now, and since there will probably be lots
of changes in the cellular field this year, I may not stay with
Sprint. I'm extremely tired of having to deal with them, even if it's
only about once every two years.
It's true that once you get your service set up and working
the way you want it, it just hums along in most cases without any
further trouble. But if you must deal with customer service you can be
about 100% sure something will go wrong. I recently made an inquiry
about my bill and sure enough, the next month the figures were screwed
up. After just an INQUIRY ABOUT BILLING! Their customer service is
totally hopeless, and I'm just tired of it.
What I went through to get my wife's phone fixed, when I was
able to give them incontrovertible proof that the fault was on their
side and fixable from the main office, was just beyond the pale. But
as I say, when it was fixed, it worked like a hammer, as it always had
before, and now it was cheaper.
That's why (the only reason why) I'm still with Sprint.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:36:53 -0400, Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net>
wrote:
>>
>> When I originally asked what was happening here people just
>> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
>> reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
>> actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
>> experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
>> costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
>> incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
>> farce.
>
>Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic"
>becomes a reasonable assumption. :-)
Well, not exactly. I assumed a hoax from the first, but "movie
magic" costs $$$. All other possibilities, such as a camouflaged
heating surface, etc., were just too difficult a stretch.
What seems reasonable is that someone (a corporation) was
willing to spend the money for a mildly sophisticated video effect
because they believed _they would get it back_. The promise of profit
makes the assumption reasonable.
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:36:53 -0400, Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> When I originally asked what was happening here people just
>>> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
>>> reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
>>> actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
>>> experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
>>> costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
>>> incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
>>> farce.
>>
>>Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic"
>>becomes a reasonable assumption. :-)
>
> Well, not exactly. I assumed a hoax from the first, but "movie
> magic" costs $$$. All other possibilities, such as a camouflaged
> heating surface, etc., were just too difficult a stretch.
With today's methods, CGI just as likely as video editing, so I simply
lumped it all as "movie magic". The exact method is irrelevant.
> What seems reasonable is that someone (a corporation) was
> willing to spend the money for a mildly sophisticated video effect
> because they believed _they would get it back_. The promise of profit
> makes the assumption reasonable.
Of course there was a profit motive...
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
On Jun 3, 12:45*pm, David G. Imber <im...@maniform.com> wrote:
> * * * * In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
> pop popcorn:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18
>
> * * * * You'll also see that there are at least a few other videosof
> the same experiment, with the same result.
>
> * * * * I wasn't able to find any explanation for this on line,
> although I didn't check for long.
>
> * * * * On the face of it, this seems to add weight to the idea that
> cell phones are potentially hazardous to health, but I have never
> found those arguments convincing.
>
> * * * * Anyone? DGI
Its the method that the number of social security recipients will be
trimmed...keep using those free weekend minutes munchkins...JG
Why Does Sprint Splat?
Linear Mode
