SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" -shares plunged 25.2 percent

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-01-21, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> Is that a recent development?

I don't know, but I've been with T-Mobile since 2005. Back then, at least
3 or 4 of their GSM handsets were quad-band, and I believe they have more
than that in their lineup now.

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

On 2008-01-21, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:15:21 GMT, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>: On 2008-01-20, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>: > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest
>: > of the GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones
>: > that handle all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.
>:
>: By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract
>: on their web site support all four bands.
>
> Is that a recent development? The last Usenet discussion I recall seeing on
> the subject implied that there were only a few quad models available and that
> many users were distressed to learn that their US GSM phones wouldn't work
> internationally. But I have to admit that as a Verizon customer I haven't paid
> a lot of attention to the subject lately.

Recent as in a few years, I guess. A few years ago you had to buy a
fairly high end phone, like a Motorola V3, to get all four GSM bands.
Now a Motorola V3 (in several colors) is among the phones they'll give
you for free with a new account. I think it has got to the point now
where there's little to be saved by leaving any of the GSM bands out.

Of course roaming in a couple of Asian countries, and taking advantage
of some of the better European phone service deals, requires a phone
with a UMTS band which is supported by only one or two (very expensive)
phones available from any US carrier, so there are still topics for
travellers to moan about.

Dennis Ferguson

In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.

Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
down.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:
> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
> down.

More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
date was over early in the evening.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:35:04 -0800, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
<reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com>:

>In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>
>Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone?

Yes.

>Most
>reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>down.

That's all from one story based on spin from Verizon.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>
> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
> down.
>
> --
> --Tim Smith

John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.

Verizon turned the iPhone down first.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>> the U.S. market.
>>
>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>> down.

>John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>
>Verizon turned the iPhone down first.

Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In news:fl4ap3l2kjvue6megaoes32qaalo827u6v@4ax.com,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>>> the U.S. market.
>>>
>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>>> down.
>
>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>>
>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
>
> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.


There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
iPhone deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
says?

OR do we just take your word for this.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:25:20 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
wrote in <7Cblj.5677$HL1.1580@newsfe21.lga>:

>In news:fl4ap3l2kjvue6megaoes32qaalo827u6v@4ax.com,
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
>> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>> <zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>> news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>>>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>>>> the U.S. market.
>>>>
>>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>>>> down.
>>
>>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>>>
>>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
>>
>> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
>> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.
>
>There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
>iPhone deal.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

It's the same old same old story based entirely on Verizon spin.

>Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>says?

Can you direct us to any independent credible confirmation of the
Verizon claim?

>OR do we just take your word for this.

Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth
is flat, that's OK with me too.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In news:svhap31ssuifed5pv5n4p4hbsmfcg3u5m5@4ax.com,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:25:20 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
> wrote in <7Cblj.5677$HL1.1580@newsfe21.lga>:
>
>> In news:fl4ap3l2kjvue6megaoes32qaalo827u6v@4ax.com,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
>>> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>>> <zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>>>>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>>>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player
>>>>>> in the U.S. market.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>>>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>>>>> down.
>>>
>>>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
>>>
>>> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
>>> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.
>>
>> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected
>> Apple iPhone deal.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
> It's the same old same old story based entirely on Verizon spin.
>
>> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>> says?
>
> Can you direct us to any independent credible confirmation of the
> Verizon claim?
>
>> OR do we just take your word for this.
>
> Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth
> is flat, that's OK with me too.

I guess we can take that to mean you have posted wishfull thinking and an
unsupported claim. :D