How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

SMS wrote:

> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
> or go down, but landlines still work. During the bad hurricane season a
> few years ago, we also saw that a lot of wireless sites had no back-up
> generator, only batteries, so they went down pretty quickly. Cingular
> had 25% of their sites with generators (according to their own press
> release), while Verizon had 80% with back up power (Verizon claims to
> have a generator at every site where they are allowed to have one).
> Cingular's goal is to have enough sites up to provide complete coverage,
> but to sacrifice capacity, "We will sacrifice the capacity piece to try
> to attain blanket coverage as much as possible."

Thinking of this old AUTOVON relay site very near where I lived when I
went to high school:

http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli1.jpg
http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli2.jpg
http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli3.jpg

I had found documentation on one web site showing that a Solar[tm]
backup generator made by International Harvester was ready to kick in at
that site any time power went down. Given that it was a deep rural area,
wind could easily take down a power line and knock power out.

These days VZW maintains a cell site there and has done so since 1999. I
wonder if that Solar generator is still there.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com
mailto:gleepy@gleepy.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen

On 2008-02-23, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Feb 2008 15:16:12 -0500 Carl wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, T-Mobile is a great deal for a lot of peak minutes. Unfortunately
>>>> they have no coverage yet where I live, and poor coverage where I
>>>> usually travel to.
>>>>
>>> If they had better coverage, they wouldn't be only $40! There's a point
>>> there somewhere that some seem to miss. Maybe it's me. Sorry.
>>
>>
>> Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to sleep
>> at night! ;-)
>
> Yes, that's how I am able to sleep.
>
> Seriously though, I have two GSM phones without 800 MHz, my original
> Cingular GSM phone from when Cingular out west was only 1900 MHz, and my
> tri-mode "traveling phone" which is 900/1800/1900. If I put my SIM card
> into one of those phones, which limits me to roaming on the T-Mobile

Why would you be limited to T-Mobile? AT&T has 1900 MHz coverage in the
bay area. I get it when I put my AT&T SIM in a phone which lacks 850 MHz,
though the coverage is abysmal for reasons that aren't clear to me.

> network with SpeakOut (an AT&T MVNO), the loss of coverage is very
> noticeable (starting with no coverage where I live, unless I go outside
> and down the street a bit).

The funny thing is, the last time I tried a SpeakOut SIM in my phone
I couldn't even force it to use T-Mobile's network in the bay area (I
can't force my AT&T SIM to use T-Mobile's network either); I got
registration failures.

If you are evaluating T-Mobile's coverage using a SpeakOut SIM either
you have a much better SpeakOut SIM than I had, or you may be evaluating
AT&T's 1900 MHz service instead. That latter is indeed poor.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2008-02-23, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 23 Feb 2008 10:42:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM
>> testing on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models
>> because I wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.
>
>
> Are you sure SpeakOut still roams on T-Mo in your area? I think the
> network transition is over (or darn near.) The network IDs were recently
> changed, IIRC.
>
>
> Can't you just do a network search and see who comes up? Or does Cingular
> lock that menu out?
>
> (Although last year when I was in the Bay Area a network search on my T-Mo
> phone and SIM showed "Cingular" and "Cingular") ;-)

Last year the MCC-MNC for AT&T and T-Mobile were 310-380 and 310-170,
respectively, which a lot of phones of a certain vintage might call
"Cingular" and "Cingular".

This year they are now 310-410 and 310-260, which most phones will
get right, though with my AT&T SIM in my phone they show up as "AT&T"
and "AT&T". I don't quite know the reason for that, though I assume
it has something to do with AT&T using T-Mobile for roaming in other
parts of the country.

Dennis Ferguson

At 23 Feb 2008 16:25:30 -0600 bruceR wrote:
> I responded to the one year offer but the CS person offered me two
> years so I grabbed it. When the two years is up, I will likely call and
> read them ATT's latest offer and get them to match it. They'll usually
> do it for 6 months at a time.


Which, by then, you'll be elligible for another Comcast promo. Well played!

bruceR wrote:

> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.

2 years is pretty good, around here they only offer 6 months. Still, I
pay less than $99 a month for Dish, plus Sonic.net DSL, plus AT&T POTS,
though that doesn't include unlimited LD or any of the phone features
like 3 way calling, caller ID, etc., that AT&T really gouges you for.
None of the prices are "introductory," I could pay less if I kept
switching DSL providers back and forth.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Feb 2008 16:25:30 -0600 bruceR wrote:
>> I responded to the one year offer but the CS person offered me two
>> years so I grabbed it. When the two years is up, I will likely call and
>> read them ATT's latest offer and get them to match it. They'll usually
>> do it for 6 months at a time.
>
>
> Which, by then, you'll be elligible for another Comcast promo. Well played!
>
>
>
It could be based on market. I know in my area it is next to impossible
to get another promo when a promo has expired.

"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:-9udnbBBuNaH-1zanZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> It could be based on market. I know in my area it is next to impossible to
> get another promo when a promo has expired.

In my market (Denver) the Comcast promo literature just says you can't have
had Comcast in the last 90 days to be eligible for the current offer.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:-9udnbBBuNaH-1zanZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> It could be based on market. I know in my area it is next to
>> impossible to get another promo when a promo has expired.
>
> In my market (Denver) the Comcast promo literature just says you
> can't have had Comcast in the last 90 days to be eligible for the
> current offer.

I've had the same Verizon plan for over 6 years & they throw every new
plan at me several times. At the cost of my plan and my use, I don't
bite, even though the analog section is dying.

Tom J

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:-9udnbBBuNaH-1zanZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> It could be based on market. I know in my area it is next to
>> impossible to get another promo when a promo has expired.
>
> In my market (Denver) the Comcast promo literature just says you can't
> have had Comcast in the last 90 days to be eligible for the current offer.
>
>
Thats what they tell you in PA if you have service and try to get a
promo. Some promos even have a 6 month requirement.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:47bdabbd$0$36387

> It seems that too many consumers look at the "unlimited" part, without
> understanding that $99 is a) not really $99, and b) not such a great deal
> compared to non-unlimited plans,

Non-unlimited? Is that like, limited?