Cell Phones Forum

so how can they say it is better since it probable is not for most people?
and since you will probable have sucky signal quality still....

"John Navas" <JNspam1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127766947.583913.322260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Q: Don't ATTWS and Cingular subscribers now have the same coverage?
> A: Yes and no.
>
> Post-merger Cingular still has two separate networks, the old ATTWS
> (blue)
> network and the old Cingular (orange) network.  While both ATTWS and
> Cingular
> customers can now freely roam on the other network, thus given all
> subscribers
> the same coverage, frequency band issues aside, the difference is that
> such
> roaming can only happen when there is no "usable" home network signal,
> and a
> "usable" signal can actually be pretty crappy.
>
> In other words, ATTWS (blue) handsets will only roam on the Cingular
> (orange)
> network if there is no "usable" ATTWS (blue) network signal, and vice
> versa,
> even with ENS.  Thus in any given location a blue handset may get much
> better
> service (on the blue network) than an orange handset (given a "usable"
> orange
> signal), and vice versa.
>
> The new Cingular ENS handsets and Cingular (orange) 64K SIMs (if you
> have
> both) make it possible for Cingular to manually change your "home"
> network (to
> blue or orange) OTA (over the air), thus giving subscribers the better
> of the
> two networks until the two networks are actually integrated.  However,
> even
> with ENS, the handset still *isn't* able to automatically select the
> better
> network signal -- GSM roaming rules still apply.
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <zf3_e.3038$KQ5.1771@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> on Tue, 27 Sep 2005
03:45:35 GMT, "Phillip Devoll" <phillip@devoll.org> wrote:

>so how can they say it is better ...

Because it is.

--
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

John,

Is there an anticipated time frame for the complete merger of the two
networks?

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:7D4_e.83575$qY1.77974@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <zf3_e.3038$KQ5.1771@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> on Tue, 27 Sep 2005
> 03:45:35 GMT, "Phillip Devoll" <phillip@devoll.org> wrote:
> 
>
> Because it is.
>
> --
> Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <Pvj%e.192$QW5.2@trnddc07>,
"Michael Jay Friedman" < friedman_michael@nos
pam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Is there an anticipated time frame for the complete merger of the two
> networks?

Sorry, John Navas is too busy personally handling all aspects of the
merger, from legal to administrative to centralized technical to field
work.

You *did* know that only one person works at Cingular, right?  And
that's John.

I mean, how else could he personally know of everything that goes
on...????

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <Pvj%e.192$QW5.2@trnddc07> on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:04:15 GMT, "Michael Jay
Friedman" < friedman_michael@nos
pam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>John,
>
>Is there an anticipated time frame for the complete merger of the two
>networks?

My understanding is that most of it is expected to be done by sometime next
year.

--
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article
<zoq%e.348285$5N3.194679@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
 
>
> My understanding is that most of it is expected to be done by sometime nex
t
> year.

And from where do you get this "understanding"?

It would be most helpful for the reader, evaluating your claim, to
understand the context in which you make the claim.

But then, you'd never tell, would you.  Because you make shit up out of
thin air, then staunchly defend your "expertise" at all costs.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-1F5586. 08012201102005@nntp2
.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 01 Oct 2005
08:01:22 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article
><zoq%e.348285$5N3.194679@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> 
>
>And from where do you get this "understanding"?

Cingular press releases.  Financial statements.  Analyst reports.  A number 
of
which I've cited here.

--
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <Nxx%e.350238$5N3.37839@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
 
>
> Cingular press releases.  Financial statements.  Analyst reports.  A numbe
r of
> which I've cited here.

Ah.  In other words, fiction.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-036D32. 11530901102005@nntp2
.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 01 Oct 2005
11:53:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <Nxx%e.350238$5N3.37839@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> 
>
>Ah.  In other words, fiction.

Financial statements and information provided to analysts must be true as a
matter of law.  There's a similar burden on press releases.  Do you have
credible information to the contrary?  Or are you just trying to spread more
FUD?  ;)

--
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article
<%oy%e.350492$5N3.267724@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
 
>
> Financial statements and information provided to analysts must be true as 
a
> matter of law.

Absolutely.

Just go look at Enron's statements, or Worldcom's.  And many others.

That you believe this stuff, speaks volumes about you.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]