Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting2/21/08

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:11:42 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fpj4rf$u64$4@aioe.org>:

>As to the usefulness of EDGE, it depends what you're after, I guess. Is it
>sufficient for PC-card use? No, except as a last resort, but for mobile e-
>mail and on-phone browser lookups/Google Maps/Windows Live Navigation-type
>stuff it's fine, and the price ($6/month) is certainly right.

My own take is that EGPRS(EDGE) is quite satisfactory for many things,
including laptop access.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"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 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:42:03 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
<bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:

>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile
>gives me great service. More bang for the buck.

They have no coverage here!

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:03:11 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote
in <758rr3936ovgc44ob7ju7qpda776jfibea@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:42:03 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
><bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds. T-Mobile
>>gives me great service. More bang for the buck.
>
>They have no coverage here!

It's like a store with a great price that's out of stock.

Go to another store and say, "It's cheaper down the street."

The other store replies, "Our price would be cheaper too
if we didn't have any in stock."

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"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

Where is here????

"Pegleg" <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in message
news:758rr3936ovgc44ob7ju7qpda776jfibea@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:42:03 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
> <bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I left Verizon three years ago for T-Mobile & I've saved hundreds.
>>T-Mobile
>>gives me great service. More bang for the buck.
>
> They have no coverage here!

I'm very satisfiied. I pay $39.99 for 1000 minutes & free nights & weekends.
And I get great service too.


"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:8V3vj.12876$pS2.1176@fe101.usenetserver.com.. .
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)
>
>

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Um, no. Steven ADDED the .attws group to a bunch of threads, but he never
> dropped groups already there and forced redirection SOLELY to a group not
> in the original conversation like you're attempting now.

True.

> IIRC, you condemned Steven for that because it caused disruption of the
> group due to fragmented threads, and yet you're doing it yourself... Hmmm...

Yes, copying alt.cellular.attws on follow-ups to posts to
alt.cellular.cingular did cause fragmented threads. However I felt it
was helpful to get threads moved over to the proper newsgroup, and that
it helped speed the transition. A similar thing happened when the
T-Mobile newsgroup took over from the Voicestream newsgroup.

> Hypocrisy, thy name is Nav...
>
> Ah, forget it- too easy!

Argh, don't say the name. It's "he who must not be named."

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)

Perhaps, but apparently not as satisfied as other carrier's users
considering the churn numbers. About 25% of T-Mobile's U.S. retail
subscribers leave each year, compared to about 11% of Verizon's retail
subscribers, and about 14% of AT&T's retail subscribers. At least they
now have less churn than Sprint!

Todd Allcock wrote :
> At 19 Feb 2008 18:33:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The GSM deal is better than Verizon's.
>>
>> But T-Mobile's service sucks big time!
>
>
> The 26 million of us using it (at about 60% of Verizon's pricing!) seem
> satisfied! ;-)

Are you speaking for all 26 million or just yourself?

At 21 Feb 2008 09:58:44 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Perhaps, but apparently not as satisfied as other carrier's users
> considering the churn numbers. About 25% of T-Mobile's U.S.
> retail subscribers leave each year, compared to about 11% of
> Verizon's retail subscribers, and about 14% of AT&T's retail subscribers.
> At least they now have less churn than Sprint!


Yep- T-Mo's churn is still high, but it too is much improved from a few
years ago.

T-Mo's biggest problems right now, IMO, are the lack of 3G, and a crummy
lineup of phone (partially because of the lack of 3G! T-Mo refuses to add
3G phones to it's lineup until they launch 3G, and typically only the low-
end and some mid-tier phones today omit 3G, making T-Mo's selection pretty
ratty looking.)

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:36:59 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> making T-Mo's selection pretty
>ratty looking.)

Rattier than Verizon? My disappointment with VZW (been with them from
before they were Verizon) is their selection of phones. They have so
many crap phones and the frequency of new phones leaves much to be
desired. JMO!