1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

What do you think? Cingular CAN win

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Matapalo, Dec 2, 2003.

  1. In alt.cellular.verizon Shizz In It <no_spam@int-spam-mierda.com> wrote:
    > When I went to change my plan with AT&T, they automatically STRIPPED all my
    > promotional extras (unlimited nights, weekends, mobile-mobile, etc.).
    >
    > Let's face it, your reasoning is logical but this board is literally
    > inundated with angry, unhappy wireless users.


    Well, those people should switch. The Verizon newsgroup has its share of
    people who aren't happy, but I think most of the regulars here are pretty
    satisfied with their service. Can't speak for AT&T. I never personally used
    AT&T. And I won't give money to SBC so there is not a chance in hell I will
    ever carry a Cingular phone.

    > As consumers we are stuck with a six company monopoly. Yes "monopoly."


    Not. Look up the definition of the term "monopoly."

    > I watched AT&T's undergound fiber optic installers get within 100 feet of my
    > house where it abruptly STOPPED and didn't get an inch closer for the next
    > four years until COMCAST bought them out.


    OK, ATTBI/Comcast/Mediaone/etc. are incompetent. They're cable companies;
    what do you expect? I don't know what your point is here, as cable has nothing
    to do with cellular.

    > infrastructure, stop spending, layoff thousands of workers, cut back on
    > customer service, etc. STOP SPENDING because you know you are going to sell
    > the business. Sell the business. You know the story.


    Yeah, Cablevision did the same thing in Cleveland before selling to Adelphia.
    It sucks. Again, what do you expect to prove by citing this? That AT&T sucks?
    Ok, are you still with AT&T? If so, why?

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net



    › See More: What do you think? Cingular CAN win
  2. FIGMO

    FIGMO Guest

    Sobol:

    RULE OF HOLES
    "When you find yourself in one, stop digging."


    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:GuCdnaPCuL-w3Uqi4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    > In alt.cellular.verizon Shizz In It <no_spam@int-spam-mierda.com> wrote:
    > > When I went to change my plan with AT&T, they automatically STRIPPED all

    my
    > > promotional extras (unlimited nights, weekends, mobile-mobile, etc.).
    > >
    > > Let's face it, your reasoning is logical but this board is literally
    > > inundated with angry, unhappy wireless users.

    >
    > Well, those people should switch. The Verizon newsgroup has its share of
    > people who aren't happy, but I think most of the regulars here are pretty
    > satisfied with their service. Can't speak for AT&T. I never personally

    used
    > AT&T. And I won't give money to SBC so there is not a chance in hell I

    will
    > ever carry a Cingular phone.
    >
    > > As consumers we are stuck with a six company monopoly. Yes "monopoly."

    >
    > Not. Look up the definition of the term "monopoly."
    >
    > > I watched AT&T's undergound fiber optic installers get within 100 feet

    of my
    > > house where it abruptly STOPPED and didn't get an inch closer for the

    next
    > > four years until COMCAST bought them out.

    >
    > OK, ATTBI/Comcast/Mediaone/etc. are incompetent. They're cable companies;
    > what do you expect? I don't know what your point is here, as cable has

    nothing
    > to do with cellular.
    >
    > > infrastructure, stop spending, layoff thousands of workers, cut back on
    > > customer service, etc. STOP SPENDING because you know you are going to

    sell
    > > the business. Sell the business. You know the story.

    >
    > Yeah, Cablevision did the same thing in Cleveland before selling to

    Adelphia.
    > It sucks. Again, what do you expect to prove by citing this? That AT&T

    sucks?
    > Ok, are you still with AT&T? If so, why?
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    > 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    > Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    > 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  3. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:vJFBb.8920$rP6.7094@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    <snip>
    > You're free with wireless to change to a higher monthly plan.
    > With the wireless carrier, they're nice enough to sell you one
    > minute at a time, albeit at a very high rate.
    >

    I think that's his point: The per-minute overage charges are
    *insanely* high. I can use a calling card and make one call
    per month for one minute each and pay 3.5 cents per minute.
    Is 40 cents or more really the best that wireless carriers can
    do and still make a profit? Where are they buying their long
    distance service? Are they that inefficient? Or are they just
    trying to force people to upgrade to higher-priced plans that
    they don't need 99 percent of the time.
  4. FIGMO

    FIGMO Guest

    EXACTLY!

    "L David Matheny" <ldmnews1@netassoc.net> wrote in message
    news:br7hrq$81js$1@ID-66888.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message

    news:vJFBb.8920$rP6.7094@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > <snip>
    > > You're free with wireless to change to a higher monthly plan.
    > > With the wireless carrier, they're nice enough to sell you one
    > > minute at a time, albeit at a very high rate.
    > >

    > I think that's his point: The per-minute overage charges are
    > *insanely* high. I can use a calling card and make one call
    > per month for one minute each and pay 3.5 cents per minute.
    > Is 40 cents or more really the best that wireless carriers can
    > do and still make a profit? Where are they buying their long
    > distance service? Are they that inefficient? Or are they just
    > trying to force people to upgrade to higher-priced plans that
    > they don't need 99 percent of the time.
    >
    >
  5. In alt.cellular.verizon FIGMO <interpretthis03@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Sobol:
    >
    > RULE OF HOLES
    > "When you find yourself in one, stop digging."


    Whatever.

    I still want to know what cable has to do with cellular. Oh! Wait! It doesn't!

    If AT&T sucks, AT&T sucks. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying Shizz-for-
    brains isn't doing a good job arguing his case. But after seeing some of his
    posts in other newsgroups, I can't say I'm surprised.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  6. Justin

    Justin Guest

    Steven J Sobol wrote on [Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:32:35 -0600]:
    > In alt.cellular.verizon FIGMO <interpretthis03@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> Sobol:
    >>
    >> RULE OF HOLES
    >> "When you find yourself in one, stop digging."

    >
    > Whatever.
    >
    > I still want to know what cable has to do with cellular. Oh! Wait! It doesn't!


    It's simple, he wasn't talking about cable and cellular being related.
    He was saying that it's SOP for AT&T companies to buy, build up as much
    as they can afford and then sell off at a profit. Not caring what sort
    of service they provide.
  7. In article <slrnbtemqk.ii.nospam@jbell.dns2go.com>,
    Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

    > It's simple, he wasn't talking about cable and cellular being related.


    The management at both cut corners on customer service and think of
    users as merely a piece of cash-flow. If you require support, that costs
    too much, and they'd just as soon lose you.
  8. In article <br7hrq$81js$1@ID-66888.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    "L David Matheny" <ldmnews1@netassoc.net> wrote:

    > I think that's his point: The per-minute overage charges are
    > *insanely* high. I can use a calling card and make one call
    > per month for one minute each and pay 3.5 cents per minute.
    > Is 40 cents or more really the best that wireless carriers can
    > do and still make a profit? Where are they buying their long
    > distance service? Are they that inefficient? Or are they just
    > trying to force people to upgrade to higher-priced plans that
    > they don't need 99 percent of the time.


    They need to make the money someplace that consumers don't focus on at
    first. Monthly Plan rates and phone costs are obvious.
  9. FIGMO

    FIGMO Guest

    SOBOL:

    Apparently Justin and Matthew (see thread) get it. My little children get
    it. My cognitively challenged wife gets it.

    By the way Steve, is the whole world aligned against you in a "confederacy
    of dunces?"


    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:vdqdnYF19touxUqiRVn-vw@lmi.net...
    > In alt.cellular.verizon FIGMO <interpretthis03@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > Sobol:
    > >
    > > RULE OF HOLES
    > > "When you find yourself in one, stop digging."

    >
    > Whatever.
    >
    > I still want to know what cable has to do with cellular. Oh! Wait! It

    doesn't!
    >
    > If AT&T sucks, AT&T sucks. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying

    Shizz-for-
    > brains isn't doing a good job arguing his case. But after seeing some of

    his
    > posts in other newsgroups, I can't say I'm surprised.
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    > 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    > Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    > 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  10. Aboutdakota

    Aboutdakota Guest

    Shizz In It wrote:
    > When I went to change my plan with AT&T, they automatically STRIPPED all my
    > promotional extras (unlimited nights, weekends, mobile-mobile, etc.).
    >
    > Let's face it, your reasoning is logical but this board is literally
    > inundated with angry, unhappy wireless users.
    >
    > I have been a power user at each of the carriers with the exception of
    > Cingular.
    >
    > As consumers we are stuck with a six company monopoly. Yes "monopoly." If
    > you want to fly from Salt Lake City to Atlanta you can choose any airline
    > you want as long as it is Delta. Delta is the dominant player in those hub
    > cities and they offer the best routes and schedules, not necessarily the
    > best service or prices.


    If you think it's bad where you are, try North Dakota. You can fly
    anywhere you want from the 4 airports in the state, but you must fly
    NorthWest from your respective airport, and you MUST fly to Minneapolis
    and make connections from there.

    > Same with cell carriers.
    >
    > And which cellular carrier you choose is governed by similar market specific
    > constraints. For example, is your Verizon city really a PrimeCo merger
    > network using the fabled 1900 Mhz band?
    >
    > Sprint PCS - cute phones, slick TV commercials with that smug, laconic,
    > unctuous, middle-aged white guy in the trench coat - but their coverage
    > sucks.
    >
    > Nextel - for construction workers only no matter how many TV ads they put
    > out showing Wall Street execs using the "walkie talkie" feature.
    >
    > Talk about bad phone etiquette! Even as an innocent bystander I can never
    > get accustomed to the CRACK, BEEP, STATIC, "Alpha Tango Bravo this is
    > whiskey zulu eight-niner. Do you read me? OVER!" CRACK, BEEP, STATIC.
    >
    > CRACK, BEEP, STATIC, "Whiskey zulu eight-niner this is alpha tango bravo. We
    > read you. OVER." CRACK, BEEP, STATIC.
    >
    > CRACK, BEEP, STATIC, "Alpha Tango Bravo this is whiskey zulu eight-niner.
    > CHECK YOUR FIRE! ADJUST FIRE RIGHT FIVE ZERO ZERO CLICKS, FIRE FOR EFFECT!
    > Over and OUT!" CRACK, BEEP, STATIC.
    >
    > Jesus, it's a telephone conversation and not a night-time forward
    > reconnaissance patrol in Quang Tri calling in an artillery strike.
    >
    > Verizon - arguably the best network and coverage (CDMA) in the U.S. albeit a
    > "quilt" or "tapestry" of seemingly mismatched fabrics (PrimeCo). Although
    > I've had good response times on the phone with their Customer Service, it's
    > like throwing darts concerning results. If you miss on the first shot, hang
    > up and call again. You might get someone who doesn't suffer from some
    > debilitating, congenital neurological defect.
    >
    > AT&T - Without a doubt the most abhorrent, unconscionable customer service
    > in the industry. I called them one day and asked what my usage was in order
    > to see if my rate plan was appropriate. Suddenly that information is no
    > longer available on their CS software and they referred me to their web site
    > and said, "You can only get it on the site now." Well, I tried the site for
    > over a month and the data wasn't accessible and I kept getting error
    > messages. The authorized and official AT&T Retail store couldn't tell me my
    > usage either. Well, surprise! My usage was suddenly viewable on the web
    > site the day after my billing statement.
    >
    > Their GSM network "will be" vastly superior to their once much vaunted
    > "digital" (TDMA) bomb (remember that one! LOL!) once they get their GSM
    > network built out. But like their much fabled cable television and
    > broadband division that tanked and was sold off, I see a similar fate
    > because some fucking genius in their strategic marketing division seems to
    > believe you can monopolize and force customers to accept an inferior or
    > inadequate product as well as dubious business practices.
    >
    > Case law:
    >
    > I watched AT&T's undergound fiber optic installers get within 100 feet of my
    > house where it abruptly STOPPED and didn't get an inch closer for the next
    > four years until COMCAST bought them out. Then it was a matter of months
    > before my house got broadband and digital cable (of course I sold my house
    > that month and moved out of state)! Why? Acquisition debt! Greedy and
    > stupid AT&T wanted to own and control (monopolize) that industry too. Their
    > plan? Acquisitions and debt financing! Buy up all the competition, heap
    > the debt on the shareholders, run out of cash, stop building the network or
    > infrastructure, stop spending, layoff thousands of workers, cut back on
    > customer service, etc. STOP SPENDING because you know you are going to sell
    > the business. Sell the business. You know the story.
    >
    > And AT&T's web site in an ABOMINATION. Who in God's name authorized that
    > abortion? It's slow. Navigation? It's like trying to track electrical
    > neural impulses in the basal ganglia using only the naked eye.
    >
    > But what, there's more! I got stuck with the Sony t68 for $249 when it
    > first came out. It's been replaced three times and AT&T quietly pulled it
    > from their line. The phone is infamous for its defects. AT&T won't back up
    > the phone and Sony will only keep replacing it with other defective t68
    > phones.
    >
    > T-Mobile - How do you say "Deutsche Telekom" in English? How do you say
    > "Voice Stream Sucks?" Catherine Zeta Jones, hot as she is, isn't enough to
    > carry the day. This carrier is a pig with lipstick.
    >
    > Cingular - I like their plans and "no contract" attitude. Cute logo too.
    >
    > I give up! They all suck.
    >
    > As far as I am concerned, they've been doing all the screwing with predatory
    > marketing practices and non-existent customer service. Like all
    > short-sighted sellers, once they have you under contract they don't see any
    > need to spend any money to keep you happy.
    >
    > By the way, I'm not giving them one cent for ringtones anymore. Instead,
    > I'll send them myself at http://www.itsmycellphone.com


    Yeah, it must be tough to actually have a choice between the crappy
    carriers, instead of the "take it or leave it" in rural areas.

    ==AD
  11. In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
    > It's simple, he wasn't talking about cable and cellular being related.
    > He was saying that it's SOP for AT&T companies to buy, build up as much
    > as they can afford and then sell off at a profit. Not caring what sort
    > of service they provide.


    OK, I can agree with that. I'm still not sure how relevant it is.

    AT&T, in past years, won JD Power customer service awards for wireless service
    - in fact, in '02 they won the top spot in both my hometown (Cleveland) and
    my new home (Southern California). Verizon and AT&T split kudos across the
    top 25 markets.

    I think that even as an outsider, it's obvious that AT&T probably isn't going
    to do anywhere near that well this year. :) I just don't necessarily think it
    is related to wanting to "build up as much as they can afford and then sell
    off." I believe further that AT&T ended up selling to Comcast simply because
    they realized they were losing money because they didn't know what the hell
    they were doing. I am not sure the original plan was just to invest and then
    sell.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  12. In alt.cellular.verizon Matthew Lindeen <mlindeen@kryogenics.com> wrote:
    > In article <slrnbtemqk.ii.nospam@jbell.dns2go.com>,
    > Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
    >
    >> It's simple, he wasn't talking about cable and cellular being related.

    >
    > The management at both cut corners on customer service and think of
    > users as merely a piece of cash-flow. If you require support, that costs
    > too much, and they'd just as soon lose you.


    Red herring; cable companies have really never had decent support staffs in
    the first place. :)

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  13. In alt.cellular.verizon FIGMO <interpretthis03@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > SOBOL:


    Yes, FigNewton?

    > Apparently Justin and Matthew (see thread) get it. My little children get
    > it. My cognitively challenged wife gets it.


    See my reply to Justin. (Just posted a minute ago, may not have gotten
    to your news server yet) I understood the point. I even agree with it.
    But it's still irrelevant.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  14. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:16:15 -0500, "Shizz In It"
    <no_spam@int-spam-mierda.com> wrote:

    >I give up! They all suck.


    Your solution should be to use a tin can and a string. You know the
    coverage.

    >As far as I am concerned, they've been doing all the screwing with predatory
    >marketing practices and non-existent customer service. Like all
    >short-sighted sellers, once they have you under contract they don't see any
    >need to spend any money to keep you happy.


    It sounds like you could never be happy so why not just resign
    yourself that nothing any carrier does can satisfy you. Just give up.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
  15. "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:8vmdnfLgMNg28kqiRVn-vA@lmi.net...
    >
    > Red herring; cable companies have really never had decent support staffs

    in
    > the first place. :)


    Actually, the Time Warner/Brighthouse folks in Tampa have been
    surprisingly good. They were initially reluctant to rewire, but I got them
    to do it and it worked.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
  16. "L David Matheny" <ldmnews1@netassoc.net> wrote in message news:<br7hrq$81js$1@ID-66888.news.uni-berlin.de>...

    > I think that's his point: The per-minute overage charges are
    > *insanely* high. I can use a calling card and make one call
    > per month for one minute each and pay 3.5 cents per minute.
    > Is 40 cents or more really the best that wireless carriers can
    > do and still make a profit? Where are they buying their long
    > distance service? Are they that inefficient? Or are they just
    > trying to force people to upgrade to higher-priced plans that
    > they don't need 99 percent of the time.


    Your last statement is the partially correct one, though I'd dispute
    the 99% figure. After a few months of usage you pretty much know the
    most cost efficient plan for yourself, and can switch to that plan.
    The carriers do some serious statistical analysis to determine the
    most profitable way to structure calling plans. Making the most profit
    is their mission, though of course they have to sustain this profit
    over time so they can't really do stuff that increases churn too much.
    They want people to sign up for the more expensive calling plans. The
    way they do it is by charging a lot if you go over your minutes on the
    cheaper calling plans.
  17. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    "Shizz In It" <no_spam@int-spam-mierda.com> wrote in message
    news:mIGBb.2730$Y83.112@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

    > I have been a power user at each of the carriers with the exception of
    > Cingular.
    >
    > As consumers we are stuck with a six company monopoly. Yes "monopoly."



    How can you support that position- the carriers have differentiated
    themselves pretty well, IMHO, and competition has spurred low prices on
    equipment and rates. Compare wireless today to "cellular" before the 5 PCS
    licenses were added. A "good" high volume rate plan back then was what, 500
    minutes for $100/month? No included roaming, no LD?

    > If
    > you want to fly from Salt Lake City to Atlanta you can choose any airline
    > you want as long as it is Delta. Delta is the dominant player in those

    hub
    > cities and they offer the best routes and schedules, not necessarily the
    > best service or prices.
    >
    > Same with cell carriers.


    Bad analogy. There is no comparative hub system in cellular, although some
    carriers, like airlines, offer better service in some areas than others, and
    have no service in some areas. Blame the Feds, I guess! They (correctly,
    IMHO) assumed that back in the A/B license days it would be better for
    consumers to prevent national cellular duopolies.

    > And which cellular carrier you choose is governed by similar market

    specific
    > constraints. For example, is your Verizon city really a PrimeCo merger
    > network using the fabled 1900 Mhz band?


    If it is then you have two strong 800MHz carriers to choose from in addition
    to them. What's your point?

    > Sprint PCS - cute phones, slick TV commercials with that smug, laconic,
    > unctuous, middle-aged white guy in the trench coat - but their coverage
    > sucks.


    Maybe for you, but it depends on where you live. Wireless isn't consistant
    nationwide. You need to find out who works well where YOU work live and
    play. These pointless threads about how much carrier X, Y, or Z "sucks" or
    is "the best" don't mean anything when a guy in East Undershirt, Florida
    reads how much so-and-so sucks in West Overshirt, North Dakota.

    > Nextel - for construction workers only no matter how many TV ads they put
    > out showing Wall Street execs using the "walkie talkie" feature.


    I see lots of families using them. Personally it has no charm for me, but
    it's useful to some.

    > Talk about bad phone etiquette! Even as an innocent bystander I can never
    > get accustomed to the CRACK, BEEP, STATIC, "Alpha Tango Bravo this is
    > whiskey zulu eight-niner. Do you read me? OVER!"


    Etiquette is a user responsibility, not a carriers. I've seen less
    obnoxious Nextel users talk in (fairly) normal tones on those things. I've
    seen obnoxious twits screaming at their full duplex phones too.


    > Verizon - arguably the best network and coverage (CDMA) in the U.S. albeit

    a
    > "quilt" or "tapestry" of seemingly mismatched fabrics (PrimeCo).


    This isn't Canada or Europe. There is no national license to operate
    wireless. EVERY "nationwide" provider is a tapestry of smaller
    acquisitions, roaming agreements and partners. Why single out Verizon?

    > Although
    > I've had good response times on the phone with their Customer Service,

    it's
    > like throwing darts concerning results. If you miss on the first shot,

    hang
    > up and call again. You might get someone who doesn't suffer from some
    > debilitating, congenital neurological defect.


    What carrier is different in that respect?

    > AT&T - Without a doubt the most abhorrent, unconscionable customer service
    > in the industry.


    I don't use AT&T, but when I was shopping carriers I found their CS to be
    very helpful and knowledgable. Unfortunately for them, the knowledgable
    answers they gave me about data and roaming convinced me to avoid them.

    > Their GSM network "will be" vastly superior to their once much vaunted
    > "digital" (TDMA) bomb (remember that one! LOL!)


    Huh? AT&T TDMA spawned "One-Rate", which was the first no roam anywhere
    plan ever offered. Like AT&T or not, you can thank them for everyone elses
    no-roam plans. Without AT&T forcing the others to compete, we'd all still
    be avoiding using our phones on vacation to this day!

    > And AT&T's web site in an ABOMINATION. Who in God's name authorized that
    > abortion? It's slow. Navigation? It's like trying to track electrical
    > neural impulses in the basal ganglia using only the naked eye.


    I forgot that every company in the country was now obligated to provide us
    with streamlined websites giving access to every bit of data in their
    possession just because you like using the internet!


    > T-Mobile - How do you say "Deutsche Telekom" in English? How do you say
    > "Voice Stream Sucks?" Catherine Zeta Jones, hot as she is, isn't enough

    to
    > carry the day. This carrier is a pig with lipstick.


    Nice rant. Got any specifics to back it up? You spewed venom about AT&T
    for 5 paragraphs. T-Mo is a "specialty" carrier, IMHO. They offer
    metro-only coverage for cheeeeeeep. They are sort of what Sprint set out to
    be upon their launch before Sprint thought that they could hang on Verizon's
    roaming coat-tails and pretend they were "nationwide". T-mo proudly
    displays their hit and miss map and say "here's a zillion minutes you can
    use but only in this red ink stain! And get cheap/free data too!" I've
    found their coverage in the two areas I've lived with them (Kansas City and
    Denver) to be very good, and I can use them in most metros I travel to. I
    also keep a cheap $3/month prepaid phone to fill in the gaps if I travel in
    the sticks by car.

    So what's YOUR problem with T-mo? First you rant about "monopolies" then
    sh*t on the carrier who tries a different tact. No fake "nationwide"
    coverage by roaming on mom-n-pop carriers, no confusing "on-net" and
    "off-net" nationwide plans, etc. Simple and straightforward: cheap plans,
    lackluster coverage, and very fast and responsive customer service. Their
    ONLY weakness, IMHO, is coverage, so if you can live with that, they're a
    great wireless company.

    > Cingular - I like their plans and "no contract" attitude. Cute logo too.


    Yet on the next line you say "they all suck"- yet you admit you've never had
    Cingular.

    Cingular is probably my favorite carrier, but alas they aren't in Denver, so
    I had to ditch them when I moved from KC. My hope is that the
    Cngular-buys-AT&T rumors come to fruition. This will get us as close to a
    true Nationwide carrier as we've ever been, but I suspect at that point
    they'll develop the Verizon-style "we're so big we don't need YOU" hubris
    that annoys me about them.

    There's certainly something to be said for the old cliche "we're number two,
    so we try harder."

    > I give up! They all suck.


    Or maybe your expectations are a wee bit high? You sound like you want a
    cordless phone with a 3000 mile range tied to your landline.

    > As far as I am concerned, they've been doing all the screwing with

    predatory
    > marketing practices and non-existent customer service. Like all
    > short-sighted sellers, once they have you under contract they don't see

    any
    > need to spend any money to keep you happy.


    I disagree. Cingular (and formerly SBMS) took very good care of me for
    eight years, both in and out of contract. I often got the "service with a
    snarl" routine, but if I remained polite yet persistant I generally got what
    I believed was a fair shake from them.

    > By the way, I'm not giving them one cent for ringtones anymore. Instead,
    > I'll send them myself at http://www.itsmycellphone.com


    Good for you. Has anyone over 30 actually bought a ringtone, or even gives
    a rat's hindquarters about them?

    Let's just say cost and selection of ringtones rank about 131st and 132nd on
    my Top 100 considerations of what makes a good cell carrier.
  18. FIGMO

    FIGMO Guest

    TODD "ALLCOCK?" LOL! GOT THAT RIGHT!

    "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:3e03ceb90781f3b751d0104131acf838@news.teranews.com...
    >
    > "Shizz In It" <no_spam@int-spam-mierda.com> wrote in message
    > news:mIGBb.2730$Y83.112@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > > I have been a power user at each of the carriers with the exception of
    > > Cingular.
    > >
    > > As consumers we are stuck with a six company monopoly. Yes "monopoly."

    >
    >
    > How can you support that position- the carriers have differentiated
    > themselves pretty well, IMHO,



    HOW DO YOU SUPPORT YOUR "POSITION" WHICH YOU REFER TO AS AN "OPINION?
    (IMHO)"

    and competition has spurred low prices on
    > equipment and rates. Compare wireless today to "cellular" before the 5

    PCS
    > licenses were added. A "good" high volume rate plan back then was what,

    500
    > minutes for $100/month? No included roaming, no LD?




    I REMEMBER AT&T OFFERED UNLIMITED EVERYTHING FOR A FLAT RATE OF $0.10/MINUTE
    BACK IN ABOUT 1997. YOUR JOURNEY BACK IN TIME MIGHT AS WELL REFER TO THE
    MODEL T!

    >
    > > If
    > > you want to fly from Salt Lake City to Atlanta you can choose any

    airline
    > > you want as long as it is Delta. Delta is the dominant player in those

    > hub
    > > cities and they offer the best routes and schedules, not necessarily the
    > > best service or prices.
    > >
    > > Same with cell carriers.

    >
    > Bad analogy. There is no comparative hub system in cellular, although

    some
    > carriers, like airlines, offer better service in some areas than others,

    and
    > have no service in some areas. Blame the Feds, I guess! They (correctly,
    > IMHO) assumed that back in the A/B license days it would be better for
    > consumers to prevent national cellular duopolies.
    >


    GREAT ANALOGY ACTUALLY. BLAME THE FEDS? GET REAL HOSER.

    > > And which cellular carrier you choose is governed by similar market

    > specific
    > > constraints. For example, is your Verizon city really a PrimeCo merger
    > > network using the fabled 1900 Mhz band?

    >
    > If it is then you have two strong 800MHz carriers to choose from in

    addition
    > to them. What's your point?



    >
    > > Sprint PCS - cute phones, slick TV commercials with that smug, laconic,
    > > unctuous, middle-aged white guy in the trench coat - but their coverage
    > > sucks.

    >
    > Maybe for you, but it depends on where you live. Wireless isn't

    consistant
    > nationwide. You need to find out who works well where YOU work live and
    > play. These pointless threads about how much carrier X, Y, or Z "sucks"

    or
    > is "the best" don't mean anything when a guy in East Undershirt, Florida
    > reads how much so-and-so sucks in West Overshirt, North Dakota.
    >
    > > Nextel - for construction workers only no matter how many TV ads they

    put
    > > out showing Wall Street execs using the "walkie talkie" feature.

    >
    > I see lots of families using them. Personally it has no charm for me, but
    > it's useful to some.
    >
    > > Talk about bad phone etiquette! Even as an innocent bystander I can

    never
    > > get accustomed to the CRACK, BEEP, STATIC, "Alpha Tango Bravo this is
    > > whiskey zulu eight-niner. Do you read me? OVER!"

    >
    > Etiquette is a user responsibility, not a carriers. I've seen less
    > obnoxious Nextel users talk in (fairly) normal tones on those things.

    I've
    > seen obnoxious twits screaming at their full duplex phones too.
    >



    I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ETIQUETTE. I NEVER MENTIONED ETIQUETTE. YOU DID.
    BUT MISSING THE POINT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOUR POST (and I suspect your life)
    IS ALL ABOUT.

    >
    > > Verizon - arguably the best network and coverage (CDMA) in the U.S.

    albeit
    > a
    > > "quilt" or "tapestry" of seemingly mismatched fabrics (PrimeCo).

    >
    > This isn't Canada or Europe. There is no national license to operate
    > wireless. EVERY "nationwide" provider is a tapestry of smaller
    > acquisitions, roaming agreements and partners. Why single out Verizon?
    >


    WHY? I CAN SINGLE THEM OUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A CUSTOMER OF THEIRS. I
    HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. AND I DIDN'T "SINGLE" THEM OUT JAG-OFF. MY
    VIPUTERATIVE, MY INVECTIVE, MY VITRIOL STRUCK AT THE HEART OF AT&T. YOU
    HAVE A CONVENIENT NEGLECT FOR FACTS NOT TO MENTION A MARKED INABILITY TO BE
    OBJECTIVE.

    > > Although
    > > I've had good response times on the phone with their Customer Service,

    > it's
    > > like throwing darts concerning results. If you miss on the first shot,

    > hang
    > > up and call again. You might get someone who doesn't suffer from some
    > > debilitating, congenital neurological defect.

    >
    > What carrier is different in that respect?
    >
    > > AT&T - Without a doubt the most abhorrent, unconscionable customer

    service
    > > in the industry.

    >
    > I don't use AT&T, but when I was shopping carriers I found their CS to be
    > very helpful and knowledgable. Unfortunately for them, the knowledgable
    > answers they gave me about data and roaming convinced me to avoid them.
    >
    > > Their GSM network "will be" vastly superior to their once much vaunted
    > > "digital" (TDMA) bomb (remember that one! LOL!)

    >
    > Huh? AT&T TDMA spawned "One-Rate", which was the first no roam anywhere
    > plan ever offered. Like AT&T or not, you can thank them for everyone

    elses
    > no-roam plans. Without AT&T forcing the others to compete, we'd all still
    > be avoiding using our phones on vacation to this day!
    >




    > > And AT&T's web site in an ABOMINATION. Who in God's name authorized

    that
    > > abortion? It's slow. Navigation? It's like trying to track electrical
    > > neural impulses in the basal ganglia using only the naked eye.

    >
    > I forgot that every company in the country was now obligated to provide us
    > with streamlined websites giving access to every bit of data in their
    > possession just because you like using the internet!



    WOW! YOUR SHORT MEMORY IS NO LONGER IS DISPUTE. LOOKS LIKE I DIDN'T
    "SINGLE OUT VERIZON" AFTER ALL, DWEEB.

    >
    >
    > > T-Mobile - How do you say "Deutsche Telekom" in English? How do you say
    > > "Voice Stream Sucks?" Catherine Zeta Jones, hot as she is, isn't enough

    > to
    > > carry the day. This carrier is a pig with lipstick.

    >
    > Nice rant. Got any specifics to back it up?


    NO MORE OR LESS THAN YOU, FAG.

    You spewed venom about AT&T
    > for 5 paragraphs. T-Mo is a "specialty" carrier, IMHO.


    YOU ARE ABOUT AS "HUMBLE" AS CHARLES BARKLEY.

    They offer
    > metro-only coverage for cheeeeeeep. They are sort of what Sprint set out

    to
    > be upon their launch before Sprint thought that they could hang on

    Verizon's
    > roaming coat-tails and pretend they were "nationwide". T-mo proudly
    > displays their hit and miss map and say "here's a zillion minutes you can
    > use but only in this red ink stain! And get cheap/free data too!" I've
    > found their coverage in the two areas I've lived with them (Kansas City

    and
    > Denver) to be very good, and I can use them in most metros I travel to. I
    > also keep a cheap $3/month prepaid phone to fill in the gaps if I travel

    in
    > the sticks by car.
    >
    > So what's YOUR problem with T-mo? First you rant about "monopolies" then
    > sh*t on the carrier who tries a different tact. No fake "nationwide"
    > coverage by roaming on mom-n-pop carriers, no confusing "on-net" and
    > "off-net" nationwide plans, etc. Simple and straightforward: cheap plans,
    > lackluster coverage, and very fast and responsive customer service. Their
    > ONLY weakness, IMHO, is coverage, so if you can live with that, they're a
    > great wireless company.
    >
    > > Cingular - I like their plans and "no contract" attitude. Cute logo

    too.
    >
    > Yet on the next line you say "they all suck"- yet you admit you've never

    had
    > Cingular.
    >


    "THEY" MEANING ALL THE ONES I HAVE USED. I DIDN'T CITE CINGULAR, JAG-OFF.

    > Cingular is probably my favorite carrier, but alas they aren't in Denver,

    so
    > I had to ditch them when I moved from KC. My hope is that the
    > Cngular-buys-AT&T rumors come to fruition. This will get us as close to a
    > true Nationwide carrier as we've ever been, but I suspect at that point
    > they'll develop the Verizon-style "we're so big we don't need YOU" hubris
    > that annoys me about them.
    >
    > There's certainly something to be said for the old cliche "we're number

    two,
    > so we try harder."
    >
    > > I give up! They all suck.

    >
    > Or maybe your expectations are a wee bit high? You sound like you want a
    > cordless phone with a 3000 mile range tied to your landline.
    >
    > > As far as I am concerned, they've been doing all the screwing with

    > predatory
    > > marketing practices and non-existent customer service. Like all
    > > short-sighted sellers, once they have you under contract they don't see

    > any
    > > need to spend any money to keep you happy.

    >
    > I disagree. Cingular (and formerly SBMS) took very good care of me for
    > eight years, both in and out of contract. I often got the "service with a
    > snarl" routine, but if I remained polite yet persistant I generally got

    what
    > I believed was a fair shake from them.
    >


    GOOD, WHY DON'T YOU TWO GET MARRIED?

    > > By the way, I'm not giving them one cent for ringtones anymore.

    Instead,
    > > I'll send them myself at http://www.itsmycellphone.com

    >
    > Good for you. Has anyone over 30 actually bought a ringtone, or even

    gives
    > a rat's hindquarters about them?
    >


    ONCE AGAIN, YOU'VE PROVEN YOUR OVERWHELMING STUPIDITY AND UNASSUMING,
    IMBECILE LIKE NAIVETE!

    THE MONEY MARKET NOWADAYS IS 18 - 24 YEAR OLDS!


    > Let's just say cost and selection of ringtones rank about 131st and 132nd

    on
    > my Top 100 considerations of what makes a good cell carrier.


    I WOULDN'T TRY TO APPEASE, MOLLIFY, PLACATE, OR INGRATIATE A VERITABLE DUNCE
    SUCH AS YOURSELF. YOU'RE MOST LIKELY CHAINED TO SOME CUBICLE SOMEHWERE,
    FETTERING AWAY THE HOURS FILLING OUT PAPERWORK AND BEING SUBORDINATE AND
    OBSEQUIOUS LIKE ALL WORMS.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  19. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    "FIGMO" <interpretthis03@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:YB3Cb.152$z24.131@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > TODD "ALLCOCK?" LOL! GOT THAT RIGHT!


    At least it's my real name, as well as my only "handle". Should I call you
    Shizz, or Fig, or what?

    > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:3e03ceb90781f3b751d0104131acf838@news.teranews.com...
    > >
    > > "Shizz In It" <no_spam@int-spam-mierda.com> wrote in message
    > > news:mIGBb.2730$Y83.112@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
    > >
    > > > I have been a power user at each of the carriers with the exception of
    > > > Cingular.
    > > >
    > > > As consumers we are stuck with a six company monopoly. Yes

    "monopoly."
    > >
    > >
    > > How can you support that position- the carriers have differentiated
    > > themselves pretty well, IMHO,

    >
    >
    > HOW DO YOU SUPPORT YOUR "POSITION" WHICH YOU REFER TO AS AN "OPINION?
    > (IMHO)"


    Well, for starters, I identified my opinion as an opinion- I'm not
    pretending it's fact, like some do.

    My point was that the carriers try to differentiate themselves with
    different promos, gimmicks and marketing (i.e. Verizon pushes coverage,
    Cingular has rollover, etc.)

    > and competition has spurred low prices on
    > > equipment and rates. Compare wireless today to "cellular" before the 5

    > PCS
    > > licenses were added. A "good" high volume rate plan back then was what,

    > 500
    > > minutes for $100/month? No included roaming, no LD?

    >
    >
    >
    > I REMEMBER AT&T OFFERED UNLIMITED EVERYTHING FOR A FLAT RATE OF

    $0.10/MINUTE
    > BACK IN ABOUT 1997. YOUR JOURNEY BACK IN TIME MIGHT AS WELL REFER TO THE
    > MODEL T!


    No, it makes the point that the VALUE of wireless today is greater than
    ever- not something a "monopoly" would be giving us.


    > >
    > > Bad analogy. There is no comparative hub system in cellular, although

    > some
    > > carriers, like airlines, offer better service in some areas than others,

    > and
    > > have no service in some areas. Blame the Feds, I guess! They

    (correctly,
    > > IMHO) assumed that back in the A/B license days it would be better for
    > > consumers to prevent national cellular duopolies.
    > >

    >
    > GREAT ANALOGY ACTUALLY. BLAME THE FEDS? GET REAL HOSER.


    Caps lock stuck?

    The Feds stuck us with the RSA/MSA rules which made it tough for a
    "national" carrier to exist until the PCS spectrum was added. That's my
    only point.

    You whine a lot about "all the carriers" but the only axe you seem to have
    to grind is with AT&T.

    > > > Talk about bad phone etiquette! Even as an innocent bystander I can

    > never
    > > > get accustomed to the CRACK, BEEP, STATIC, "Alpha Tango Bravo this is
    > > > whiskey zulu eight-niner. Do you read me? OVER!"

    > >
    > > Etiquette is a user responsibility, not a carriers. I've seen less
    > > obnoxious Nextel users talk in (fairly) normal tones on those things.

    > I've
    > > seen obnoxious twits screaming at their full duplex phones too.
    > >

    >
    >
    > I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ETIQUETTE. I NEVER MENTIONED ETIQUETTE. YOU DID.


    Um, you typed, and I quote:
    "Talk about bad phone etiquette!" then did a lame "comedic" riff about air
    strikes.

    > BUT MISSING THE POINT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOUR POST (and I suspect your

    life)
    > IS ALL ABOUT.


    I'm not the one who was trying out a sophmoric cellular stand-up routine
    disguised as a post. You claimed cellular was a "monopoly" and that all
    carriers "suck" and as "evidence" made fun of their TV commercials.


    > WHY? I CAN SINGLE THEM OUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A CUSTOMER OF THEIRS. I
    > HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. AND I DIDN'T "SINGLE" THEM OUT JAG-OFF.


    You singled them out as being a "tapestry" of providers. My point was so is
    Cingular or AT&T- Verizon isn't the only "tapestry."

    > MY
    > VIPUTERATIVE, MY INVECTIVE, MY VITRIOL


    ....your thesaurus?...

    > STRUCK AT THE HEART OF AT&T. YOU
    > HAVE A CONVENIENT NEGLECT FOR FACTS NOT TO MENTION A MARKED INABILITY TO

    BE
    > OBJECTIVE.


    Really? I was ASKING for facts, and admittedly offered opinions. as for
    objective, you said "all carriers suck" and admitted you haven't used all of
    them.

    > > I forgot that every company in the country was now obligated to provide

    us
    > > with streamlined websites giving access to every bit of data in their
    > > possession just because you like using the internet!

    >
    >
    > WOW! YOUR SHORT MEMORY IS NO LONGER IS DISPUTE. LOOKS LIKE I DIDN'T
    > "SINGLE OUT VERIZON" AFTER ALL, DWEEB.


    Sngled them out as a TAPESTRY. Why don't you actually READ what i wrote,
    rather than simply insult me because I had the audacity to actually disagree
    with you.

    > >
    > >
    > > > T-Mobile - How do you say "Deutsche Telekom" in English? How do you

    say
    > > > "Voice Stream Sucks?" Catherine Zeta Jones, hot as she is, isn't

    enough
    > > to
    > > > carry the day. This carrier is a pig with lipstick.

    > >
    > > Nice rant. Got any specifics to back it up?

    >
    > NO MORE OR LESS THAN YOU, FAG.


    Arrrgh! I've been defeated in verbal sparring. I fear I breathe my last...

    > You spewed venom about AT&T
    > > for 5 paragraphs. T-Mo is a "specialty" carrier, IMHO.

    >
    > YOU ARE ABOUT AS "HUMBLE" AS CHARLES BARKLEY.


    I didn't call T-Mo a "pig in lipstick" without saying why I thought that.

    > > > Cingular - I like their plans and "no contract" attitude. Cute logo

    > too.
    > >
    > > Yet on the next line you say "they all suck"- yet you admit you've never

    > had
    > > Cingular.
    > >

    >
    > "THEY" MEANING ALL THE ONES I HAVE USED. I DIDN'T CITE CINGULAR, JAG-OFF.


    You listed every major carrier followed by your worthless opinion of them
    and followed it with "they all suck."

    Obviously you didn't read my post, but i has assumed you read your own...

    > > > By the way, I'm not giving them one cent for ringtones anymore.

    > Instead,
    > > > I'll send them myself at http://www.itsmycellphone.com

    > >
    > > Good for you. Has anyone over 30 actually bought a ringtone, or even

    > gives
    > > a rat's hindquarters about them?
    > >

    >
    > ONCE AGAIN, YOU'VE PROVEN YOUR OVERWHELMING STUPIDITY AND UNASSUMING,
    > IMBECILE LIKE NAIVETE!


    My only naivete was trying to have a conversation with someone who called
    themselves "Shizz". My bad.

    Also, I assumed you actually had something to say- I should've realized you
    were just posting an excuse to push your "ringtonez sitez."


    > THE MONEY MARKET NOWADAYS IS 18 - 24 YEAR OLDS!


    Wow- I assumed you were about 12, I apologize.

    BTW, 18-24 demographic isn't desired because they are "the money market",
    it's because they are by far, the easiest to con with advertising.

    > > Let's just say cost and selection of ringtones rank about 131st and

    132nd
    > on
    > > my Top 100 considerations of what makes a good cell carrier.

    >
    > I WOULDN'T TRY TO APPEASE, MOLLIFY, PLACATE, OR INGRATIATE A VERITABLE

    DUNCE
    > SUCH AS YOURSELF.


    A veritable plethora of verbs. I'm suitably impressed you found the
    thesaurus hotkey.

    > YOU'RE MOST LIKELY CHAINED TO SOME CUBICLE SOMEHWERE,
    > FETTERING AWAY THE HOURS FILLING OUT PAPERWORK AND BEING SUBORDINATE AND
    > OBSEQUIOUS LIKE ALL WORMS.


    Yeah, you got me. How's that Fortune 500 website of yours doing?
  20. Shizz In It

    Shizz In It Guest

    <snore>


    "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:dbef9eac74f9e02ead83e5b0e668284e@news.teranews.com...
    >
    > "FIGMO" <interpretthis03@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:YB3Cb.152$z24.131@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    > >
    > > TODD "ALLCOCK?" LOL! GOT THAT RIGHT!

    >
    > At least it's my real name, as well as my only "handle". Should I call

    you
    > Shizz, or Fig, or what?
    >
    > > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3e03ceb90781f3b751d0104131acf838@news.teranews.com...
    > > >
    > > > "Shizz In It" <no_spam@int-spam-mierda.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:mIGBb.2730$Y83.112@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
    > > >
    > > > > I have been a power user at each of the carriers with the exception

    of
    > > > > Cingular.
    > > > >
    > > > > As consumers we are stuck with a six company monopoly. Yes

    > "monopoly."
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > How can you support that position- the carriers have differentiated
    > > > themselves pretty well, IMHO,

    > >
    > >
    > > HOW DO YOU SUPPORT YOUR "POSITION" WHICH YOU REFER TO AS AN "OPINION?
    > > (IMHO)"

    >
    > Well, for starters, I identified my opinion as an opinion- I'm not
    > pretending it's fact, like some do.
    >
    > My point was that the carriers try to differentiate themselves with
    > different promos, gimmicks and marketing (i.e. Verizon pushes coverage,
    > Cingular has rollover, etc.)
    >
    > > and competition has spurred low prices on
    > > > equipment and rates. Compare wireless today to "cellular" before the

    5
    > > PCS
    > > > licenses were added. A "good" high volume rate plan back then was

    what,
    > > 500
    > > > minutes for $100/month? No included roaming, no LD?

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I REMEMBER AT&T OFFERED UNLIMITED EVERYTHING FOR A FLAT RATE OF

    > $0.10/MINUTE
    > > BACK IN ABOUT 1997. YOUR JOURNEY BACK IN TIME MIGHT AS WELL REFER TO

    THE
    > > MODEL T!

    >
    > No, it makes the point that the VALUE of wireless today is greater than
    > ever- not something a "monopoly" would be giving us.
    >
    >
    > > >
    > > > Bad analogy. There is no comparative hub system in cellular, although

    > > some
    > > > carriers, like airlines, offer better service in some areas than

    others,
    > > and
    > > > have no service in some areas. Blame the Feds, I guess! They

    > (correctly,
    > > > IMHO) assumed that back in the A/B license days it would be better for
    > > > consumers to prevent national cellular duopolies.
    > > >

    > >
    > > GREAT ANALOGY ACTUALLY. BLAME THE FEDS? GET REAL HOSER.

    >
    > Caps lock stuck?
    >
    > The Feds stuck us with the RSA/MSA rules which made it tough for a
    > "national" carrier to exist until the PCS spectrum was added. That's my
    > only point.
    >
    > You whine a lot about "all the carriers" but the only axe you seem to have
    > to grind is with AT&T.
    >
    > > > > Talk about bad phone etiquette! Even as an innocent bystander I can

    > > never
    > > > > get accustomed to the CRACK, BEEP, STATIC, "Alpha Tango Bravo this

    is
    > > > > whiskey zulu eight-niner. Do you read me? OVER!"
    > > >
    > > > Etiquette is a user responsibility, not a carriers. I've seen less
    > > > obnoxious Nextel users talk in (fairly) normal tones on those things.

    > > I've
    > > > seen obnoxious twits screaming at their full duplex phones too.
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > > I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ETIQUETTE. I NEVER MENTIONED ETIQUETTE. YOU DID.

    >
    > Um, you typed, and I quote:
    > "Talk about bad phone etiquette!" then did a lame "comedic" riff about air
    > strikes.
    >
    > > BUT MISSING THE POINT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOUR POST (and I suspect your

    > life)
    > > IS ALL ABOUT.

    >
    > I'm not the one who was trying out a sophmoric cellular stand-up routine
    > disguised as a post. You claimed cellular was a "monopoly" and that all
    > carriers "suck" and as "evidence" made fun of their TV commercials.
    >
    >
    > > WHY? I CAN SINGLE THEM OUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A CUSTOMER OF THEIRS. I
    > > HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. AND I DIDN'T "SINGLE" THEM OUT JAG-OFF.

    >
    > You singled them out as being a "tapestry" of providers. My point was so

    is
    > Cingular or AT&T- Verizon isn't the only "tapestry."
    >
    > > MY
    > > VIPUTERATIVE, MY INVECTIVE, MY VITRIOL

    >
    > ...your thesaurus?...
    >
    > > STRUCK AT THE HEART OF AT&T. YOU
    > > HAVE A CONVENIENT NEGLECT FOR FACTS NOT TO MENTION A MARKED INABILITY TO

    > BE
    > > OBJECTIVE.

    >
    > Really? I was ASKING for facts, and admittedly offered opinions. as for
    > objective, you said "all carriers suck" and admitted you haven't used all

    of
    > them.
    >
    > > > I forgot that every company in the country was now obligated to

    provide
    > us
    > > > with streamlined websites giving access to every bit of data in their
    > > > possession just because you like using the internet!

    > >
    > >
    > > WOW! YOUR SHORT MEMORY IS NO LONGER IS DISPUTE. LOOKS LIKE I DIDN'T
    > > "SINGLE OUT VERIZON" AFTER ALL, DWEEB.

    >
    > Sngled them out as a TAPESTRY. Why don't you actually READ what i wrote,
    > rather than simply insult me because I had the audacity to actually

    disagree
    > with you.
    >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > T-Mobile - How do you say "Deutsche Telekom" in English? How do you

    > say
    > > > > "Voice Stream Sucks?" Catherine Zeta Jones, hot as she is, isn't

    > enough
    > > > to
    > > > > carry the day. This carrier is a pig with lipstick.
    > > >
    > > > Nice rant. Got any specifics to back it up?

    > >
    > > NO MORE OR LESS THAN YOU, FAG.

    >
    > Arrrgh! I've been defeated in verbal sparring. I fear I breathe my

    last...
    >
    > > You spewed venom about AT&T
    > > > for 5 paragraphs. T-Mo is a "specialty" carrier, IMHO.

    > >
    > > YOU ARE ABOUT AS "HUMBLE" AS CHARLES BARKLEY.

    >
    > I didn't call T-Mo a "pig in lipstick" without saying why I thought that.
    >
    > > > > Cingular - I like their plans and "no contract" attitude. Cute logo

    > > too.
    > > >
    > > > Yet on the next line you say "they all suck"- yet you admit you've

    never
    > > had
    > > > Cingular.
    > > >

    > >
    > > "THEY" MEANING ALL THE ONES I HAVE USED. I DIDN'T CITE CINGULAR,

    JAG-OFF.
    >
    > You listed every major carrier followed by your worthless opinion of them
    > and followed it with "they all suck."
    >
    > Obviously you didn't read my post, but i has assumed you read your own...
    >
    > > > > By the way, I'm not giving them one cent for ringtones anymore.

    > > Instead,
    > > > > I'll send them myself at http://www.itsmycellphone.com
    > > >
    > > > Good for you. Has anyone over 30 actually bought a ringtone, or even

    > > gives
    > > > a rat's hindquarters about them?
    > > >

    > >
    > > ONCE AGAIN, YOU'VE PROVEN YOUR OVERWHELMING STUPIDITY AND UNASSUMING,
    > > IMBECILE LIKE NAIVETE!

    >
    > My only naivete was trying to have a conversation with someone who called
    > themselves "Shizz". My bad.
    >
    > Also, I assumed you actually had something to say- I should've realized

    you
    > were just posting an excuse to push your "ringtonez sitez."
    >
    >
    > > THE MONEY MARKET NOWADAYS IS 18 - 24 YEAR OLDS!

    >
    > Wow- I assumed you were about 12, I apologize.
    >
    > BTW, 18-24 demographic isn't desired because they are "the money market",
    > it's because they are by far, the easiest to con with advertising.
    >
    > > > Let's just say cost and selection of ringtones rank about 131st and

    > 132nd
    > > on
    > > > my Top 100 considerations of what makes a good cell carrier.

    > >
    > > I WOULDN'T TRY TO APPEASE, MOLLIFY, PLACATE, OR INGRATIATE A VERITABLE

    > DUNCE
    > > SUCH AS YOURSELF.

    >
    > A veritable plethora of verbs. I'm suitably impressed you found the
    > thesaurus hotkey.
    >
    > > YOU'RE MOST LIKELY CHAINED TO SOME CUBICLE SOMEHWERE,
    > > FETTERING AWAY THE HOURS FILLING OUT PAPERWORK AND BEING SUBORDINATE AND
    > > OBSEQUIOUS LIKE ALL WORMS.

    >
    > Yeah, you got me. How's that Fortune 500 website of yours doing?
    >
    >
    >

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?