|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > October 2006 > SPRINT: "The Most Powerful Network!"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
SPRINT: "The Most Powerful Network!"
|
|
| JoshIII 2006-10-22, 10:33 pm |
| JoshIII wonders:
Sprint's latest TV advertising campaign states
"(we are) The most powerful network"
What do they mean?
Yes, the Sprint's network is
"more powerful" now that it ever has been before.
Yes, Sprint has the best walkie-talkie system, thanks
to their Nextel acquisition.
Maybe they mean their towers have a tenth
of a watt more output power than all the other networks?
Even if this was so, it would not give them the best coverage.
What do they mean by "The most powerful network" ?
Come on Sprint, give me a Hint!
JoshIII
upstate south carolina
| |
|
|
"JoshIII" < josh3iREMOVE@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
news:453bed59$0$9722
8$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> JoshIII wonders:
> What do they mean by "The most powerful network" ?
>
> Come on Sprint, give me a Hint!
>
> JoshIII
> upstate south carolina
Well, in my case, I get more for my money. That is powerful enough for me.
I just dropped Verizon and so far, Sprint works as well as Verizon did
everywhere I have had to use it.
My plan is relatively inexpensive, no roaming charges and the plan fits my
needs quite well. I have had some issues with customer service but things
have been straightened out to my satisfaction.
I don't need data services, mp3 players and I don't give a rat's "patoot"
what the phone looks like as long as I can make and receive calls on it.
| |
|
|
| Bill Marriott 2006-10-22, 10:33 pm |
| The tagline is mostly targeted against Cingular. Sprint's EvDO data network
is 5x faster than Cingular's EDGE. Against Verizon, Sprint can claim
additional features.
I agree that Sprint gives more for the money. For my Treo 700p, I'm paying
under $50/month for 400mins and unlimited hi-speed data. Similar plan with
Verizon would be $80/month.
"EOO" <whereeverforever.com> wrote in message
news:9eOdnUplxIhUbKb
YnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> "JoshIII" < josh3iREMOVE@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:453bed59$0$9722
8$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
>
> Well, in my case, I get more for my money. That is powerful enough for
> me. I just dropped Verizon and so far, Sprint works as well as Verizon did
> everywhere I have had to use it.
>
> My plan is relatively inexpensive, no roaming charges and the plan fits my
> needs quite well. I have had some issues with customer service but things
> have been straightened out to my satisfaction.
>
> I don't need data services, mp3 players and I don't give a rat's "patoot"
> what the phone looks like as long as I can make and receive calls on it.
>
| |
|
| JoshIII wrote:
> JoshIII wonders:
>
> Sprint's latest TV advertising campaign states
> "(we are) The most powerful network"
>
> What do they mean?
They explain it in the add.
The largest high-speed data network, a true statement.
The largest voice coverage area. Technically true, because of their
roaming agreements, and because they still provide roaming AMPS coverage
in many areas where only Verizon's longer-term customers (those on AC,
not ACII) still get that coverage.
The PTT functionality is not really related to the other two, since you
can't have both PTT and the data network and better voice coverage at
the same time as PTT.
"Powerful" can mean whatever they want it to mean.
| |
| DevilsPGD 2006-10-24, 4:33 am |
| In message < 453d74be$0$88674$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>JoshIII wrote:
>
>They explain it in the add.
>
>The largest high-speed data network, a true statement.
>
>The largest voice coverage area. Technically true, because of their
>roaming agreements, and because they still provide roaming AMPS coverage
>in many areas where only Verizon's longer-term customers (those on AC,
>not ACII) still get that coverage.
>
>The PTT functionality is not really related to the other two, since you
>can't have both PTT and the data network and better voice coverage at
>the same time as PTT.
>
>"Powerful" can mean whatever they want it to mean.
It could be raw power, meaning the number of megawatts.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
| |
| Bill Marriott 2006-10-24, 7:33 am |
| > It could be raw power, meaning the number of megawatts.
But it's not.
"DevilsPGD" < spam_narf_spam@crazy
hat.net> wrote in message
news:kk0rj2pa8c10ere
n5pnn4ksc1usm9saji7@
4ax.com...
> In message < 453d74be$0$88674$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It could be raw power, meaning the number of megawatts.
>
> --
> A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
> Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
> Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
And bottom-posting is worse because just about everyone who uses it seems to
quote 50 pages of the prior thread, then put one-sentence comments they've
made up out of thin air at the very bottom... meaning you have to scroll for
ten minutes just to see they didn't really contribute anything at all.
| |
| eRichard 2006-10-24, 7:33 am |
| Top posting is not as bad as those that don't snip
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:24:06 -0500, DevilsPGD
< spam_narf_spam@crazy
hat.net> wrote:
>A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
--
eRichard
| |
|
| I tend to agree. It's more logical to top-post, FIFO, though some people
apparently like scrolling through an enormously long post with multiple
follow-ups. The solution is to do both.
Bill Marriott wrote:
> And bottom-posting is worse because just about everyone who uses it seems to
> quote 50 pages of the prior thread, then put one-sentence comments they've
> made up out of thin air at the very bottom... meaning you have to scroll for
> ten minutes just to see they didn't really contribute anything at all.
I tend to agree. It's more logical to top-post, FIFO, though some people
apparently like scrolling through an enormously long post with multiple
follow-ups. The solution is to do both.
| |
| Bill Marriott 2006-10-24, 10:33 pm |
| That gave me a good chuckle :)
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:453e8b03$0$8864
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>I tend to agree. It's more logical to top-post, FIFO, though some people
>apparently like scrolling through an enormously long post with multiple
>follow-ups. The solution is to do both.
>
> Bill Marriott wrote:
>
>
> I tend to agree. It's more logical to top-post, FIFO, though some people
> apparently like scrolling through an enormously long post with multiple
> follow-ups. The solution is to do both.
|
|
|
|
|