AT-T wireless service - Re: Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting 2/21/08

Author

Re: Unlimited voice AND data for only $99 come to a GSM network starting 2/21/08

John Navas

2008-02-20, 12:33 pm

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:46:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47bc58c6$0$36374$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>4phun wrote:
>
>Analysts say Sprint will offer unlimited voice and messaging for between
>$60 and $80 in the next few weeks.

Citation? Oh wait ... you almost never have any ... you mostly just
make stuff up.

>If Sprint went one further, and
>offered unlimited voice and (relatively) unlimited 3G data for $100,
>that would really shake things up. What does Sprint have to lose at this
>point?

It's XXX. That would make no sense at all.

--
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

Todd H.

2008-02-20, 12:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:46:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 47bc58c6$0$36374$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Citation? Oh wait ... you almost never have any ... you mostly just
> make stuff up.

John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)

As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped
over the headline:

http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected...ml?tag=nefd.top

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

John Navas

2008-02-20, 3:33 pm

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
<84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:

>As for a cite, anyone who visited news.cnet.com today would've tripped
>over the headline:

Thanks for the insult.

>http://www.news.com/Sprint-expected...ml?tag=nefd.top

Thanks for that.

--
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

John Navas

2008-02-20, 3:33 pm

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:33:13 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47bc71b5$0$36410$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd H. wrote:
>
>
>Actually I saw the "$60-80" from
>"http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/20/ap4676170.html"
>
>It's always amusing to see "he who must not be named" demanding
>citations for widely disseminated news stories, while at the same time
>never providing citations for any of the claims he makes up, and never
>providing any factual basis for disputing any of the citations that
>others make.

Total nonsense.

>He's never provided a citation for extended GSM, despite repeated requests.

Actually several of them.

>He's never provided a citation disputing the accuracy of the network
>quality surveys, despite repeated requests.

Actually several of them.

>He's never provided a citation disputing the USA Today story that Apple
>approached Verizon with the iPhone prior to going to Cingular/AT&T,
>despite repeated requests.

There's no need to refute spin solely from Verizon.
The other companies don't comment.

>He complains that people treat him badly, but if he would change his
>behavior he would be forgiven and perhaps he could make some useful
>contributions.

Total nonsense.

--
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

Todd H.

2008-02-20, 3:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
> <84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> Thanks for the insult.

It wasn't meant as an insult, but rather criticism of criticism.

Why be a pain in the XXX over a cite when a) you rarely give them
yourself, and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?"
[color=darkred]

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

John Navas

2008-02-20, 3:33 pm

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:01:34 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
<84skznv1lt@news.giganews.com>:

>John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> writes:
>
>
>It wasn't meant as an insult, but rather criticism of criticism.

It looked like an insult to me, and still does. I've been to several
news sites today, and didn't see anything on this until now. If I had,
then I would not have asked.

>Why be a pain in the XXX over a cite when a) you rarely give them
>yourself,

In fact I probably post more links than anyone else here. I just don't
post them over and over.

and b) one for this was exceedingly easy to find?"

I'm not interested in a potential wild goose chase, having been sent on
too many of those already.

--
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

John Navas

2008-02-20, 10:33 pm

John Navas

2008-02-20, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:56:44 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47bc935a$0$36379$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd H. wrote:
>
>For such a widely publicized and current news item I didn't see the need
>to include a link, but "he who must not be named" isn't happy unless he
>has something to complain about. Yet he rarely includes any citations on
>anything he posts because when you make up stuff out of thin air it's
>tough to find any citations to back you up.

That would be you, Steven, as your own admission (lame excuse) makes
clear.

--
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

John Navas

2008-02-20, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:25:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47bc9a2b$0$36401$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>BTW, watch out for the latest crap from "he who must not be named,"
>which is changing the newsgroups to where follow-up posts are directed
>to include alt.cellular.cingular, a newsgroup for which there is no
>corresponding carrier, while removing newsgroups that are actually
>relevant. Pathetic and sad.

Just taking a page out of your book, Steven.
You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

--
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

Todd Allcock

2008-02-21, 4:33 am

At 20 Feb 2008 23:27:32 +0000 John Navas wrote:

>
> Just taking a page out of your book, Steven.
> You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

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.

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...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Nav...

Ah, forget it- too easy!

John Navas

2008-02-23, 10:33 am

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
<84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:

>John, only you would set a followup to alt.cellular.cingular on a post
>that has to do with multiple carriers pricing. :-)

On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
< news:462cc5ff$0$2721
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> ), and my follow-up
header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
See how easy that was? ;)

--
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

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2008-02-23, 3:33 pm

In article < tcg0s3hqrlmvpl01h1o1
io5lkdhkkul8mq@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct.

And your follow-up header refers to alt.cellular.cingular, which is
equally long since defunct.

Whachoo gon' do now, boy?

Are you saying that Cingular is NOT defunct? What is your stand on this?

The Bob

2008-02-23, 3:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl0
1h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:19:47 -0600, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
> <84d4qrfq2k@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert", as typified by
> < news:462cc5ff$0$2721
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> ), and my follow-up
> header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader, but it has outlived its
> raison d'être, and thus your point is well-taken, so I'm eliminating it.
> See how easy that was? ;)
>

Make the charter next.

Kurt

2008-02-23, 10:33 pm

In article < Xns9A4D90734BD5bob@2
16.196.97.136>,
The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:

> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> amazed us all with the following in
> news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl0
1h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@
4ax.com:
>
>
> Make the charter next.

The incessant charter posting is pure obsessive-compulsive.

Multiple header posting to a particular topic should be let alone, but
knowing the poster (sorry John) probably along the same lines.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Todd Allcock

2008-02-24, 4:33 am

"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:tcg0s3hqrlmvpl0
1h1o1io5lkdhkkul8mq@
4ax.com...

>
> On the contrary -- that's a blanket follow-up header that I set because
> alt.cellular.attws applies to a carrier now long since defunct. My
> follow-up header isn't even close to the inappropriate thread
> cross-posting and thread/newsgroup hijacking by Steven Scharf (aka SMS,
> aka self-annointed "sfbacellexpert"

While both of your actions were childish and wrong, at least Steven just
added alt.cellular.attws to the newsgroups list- he didn't set a follow-up
designed to divert responses ONLY to his NG of choice.

You attempted to hijack all responses to you to alt.cellular.cingular and
alt.cellular.cingular alone. For a guy who claims to desire civility, you
seem to have absolutely no problem emulating behavior you condemn in others.

> my follow-up header is easily ignored in a decent newsreader

So are your posts. I find your postings occasionally informative and
entertaining, but your personal S/N ratio is taking a pretty steep dive
lately.

John Navas

2008-02-24, 4:33 am

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:53:07 -0700, "Todd Allcock"
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in
<uL6wj.11576$Xo1.2729@fe085.usenetserver.com>:

>So are your posts. I find your postings occasionally informative and
>entertaining, but your personal S/N ratio is taking a pretty steep dive
>lately.

Thank you, Mr, Pot. ;)

--
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

Todd Allcock

2008-02-25, 10:33 am

At 24 Feb 2008 01:45:59 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Oh please, I added alt.cellular.attws because it was time to start
> moving everyone over to the appropriate news group for wireless
> by AT&T.

Why "was it time?" The .attws group was for the defunct AT&T "Blue" service.
Cingular was the Company that adopted the AT&T name. Based on the past
content in the groups alone "Cingular " is probably the correct group for
the current AT&T service, at least until an AT&T Mobility group is created.

Personally, I don't care which group is "adopted" by the current readers-
I'll go where they take me. But let's face it, unilaterally deciding attws
was now the "correct" group and adding it to every post had nothing to do
with nomenclature, but simply to get under the skin of your nemesis.

As I said, his "stealth" counter-attack was even more wrong, and frankly
counterproductive since anyone not reading his group would never see
further posts in the sub-thread, but I guess it had the advantage of
directing many flames directed toward him in his "territory" and out of the
eye of readers of the other cellular groups.

> Yes it resulted in some thread fragments, but it had the desired result
> of others also including alt.cellular.attws in follow-ups, and eventually
> moving over to the proper newsgroup, and then removing
> "alt.cellular.cingular" from follow-ups entirely.

But again, what makes attws the "proper group?" The new AT&T is the old
Cingular- not the old ATTWS. If people choose to migrate there, fine (and
seemingly many, if not most, have) but that decision doesn't need you or I
"declaring" it to be the correct one.

> Navas removed other newsgroups, and added alt.cellular.cingular,
> because he's extremely upset that the newsgroup he proposed and
> wrote the charter for is going away, it's as simple as that.

Probably, but the readers and posters of a.c.c don't really need you to
decide for them that it's dead!

> It's the same reason he posts the Cingular charter to the
>alt.cellular.attws newsgroup even though it has no relevance, and even
> though several regular contributors have requested that he stop.

So? He's doing a petty, childish thing then. That doesn't make his
behavior something to aspire to!

> Personally I think it was rather childish for someone to report him to his
> ISP, the Usenet equivalent of "I'm going to tell my mommy on you."

I agree, but history aside, his posts, while unwelcome and not applicable,
are less offensive than the continual "We are reputable sellers of handys"
fraud posts and "How to convert video for your iPhone" spam posts that
appear in the cellular NGs far more frequently, yet no one starts 20-post
flame wars over those.

> His behavior is certainly disruptive, but nothing that an ISP is going to
> do anything about.

While I rarely agree with him, he is correct that the reactions to his
posts are more disruptive than the posts themselves.

We really should all take his recent advice- filter him.

> He certainly was free to create a new group when Cingular changed
> its name, i.e. alt.cellular.att, but he chose not to do so.

Nor did anyone else.

> alt.cellular.attws fits pretty well, and at least it relates peripherally
to
> Cingular, since Cingular did acquire AT&T Wireless.

By amazing coincidence it fits "pretty well," but frankly no better or
worse that the Cingular group.

Again, if you and anyone else wants to add the .attws group to .cingular
posts, fine- and if you want to add a footer saying "I THINK the .attws
group is a more appropriate place to discuss the new AT&T, that's fine as
well. But to play netcop and declare "posts regarding AT&T SHOULD be
posted to alt.cellular.attws" is outside your purview.

More importantly, it reduces you to his level, which makes it hard to argue
the moral high ground. ("John, you're an XXX because you pull the same
sort of stunts that I do!" is hardly a compelling arguement!) ;-)

Todd Allcock

2008-02-25, 3:33 pm

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47c2d8a6$0$3640
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> While technically alt.cellular.attws was for AT&T Wireless, no one
> proposed a new group when Cingular changed to "Wireless from AT&T," and
> their URL became "http://www.wireless.att.com." There is some history
> there too, as the old AT&T Wireless _was_ formed by spinning off the
> wireless division of AT&T into a separate company, and the current
> "Wireless from AT&T" does include the old AT&T Wireless company. A better
> explanation is at "http://tinyurl.com/2jmkx8".
>
> There's nothing "official" about "alt.cellular.attws" becoming the group
> for discussion of wireless from AT&T, it was just logical to use an
> existing newsgroup with an appropriate name.

Logical, perhaps, but not self-evident. Realistically, your saying both are
the wrong group, but .attws is "less wrong!" If you want to search the
"archives" for recent and relevant info on AT&T Mobility, prior to the name
change, Cingular's the group to find it in. The .attws group became a
desolate wasteland for quite awhile.

Again, I'll go where the users go, and that does seem to mostly be .attws,
but we should still keep tabs on the Cingular group. I still monitor the
"Voicestream" group for those who haven't discovered alt.cellular.t-mobile!

LinkBot