Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    If they are showing "2G roaming" on AT&T, then it must either be 3G or LTE that's throttled to "2G speeds", because AT&T took down their whole 2G network last December.
    What 2G? As my screen shot shows, the popup says "Talk, Text, and Non LTE data. PARTNER. " It doesn't mention 2G. Where are you seeing that?

    Since you said AT&T took down 2G, then it must be HSPA for data.

    you are claiming that 200MB of 2G-speed-throttled roaming is better than native B2 coverage, or in other cases, no coverage is better than native B2 coverage,
    That's how T-Mobile chooses to run things. Look this was all discussed on HoFo 2 years ago in this thread for the Northern MI rollout:

    http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...dout-has-begun!

    People said the same thing you're saying, that's it stupid to not put B2 and B4 on these towers and they shouldn't just use B12 exclusively to cover the area. But that's exactly what they ended up doing. And yes, they still offer roaming for those few people who don't have a B12 device. But I'm sure that number has been dwindling whereas the number of people with B12 devices have been increasing over those 2 years. You're arguing the losing side of something that's already been done before.

    Some coverage is better than no coverage. After many posts, you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact.
    Well it's not a "basic fact". It's T-Mobile's decision that shoddy 20% coverage is worse than no coverage. Hence they don't allow it. Bad coverage reflects bad on T-Mobile. Dropped calls, data timing out, all makes T-Mobile look like junk. Either the customer gets good LTE coverage on T-Mobile or they get no service at all or they get partner roaming.

    Yes, we know you have admitted to putting up with junk coverage in NH on AT&T, but T-Mobile clearly isn't catering to you. And since you don't have any intention of using T-Mobile in the near future, you can both go your separate ways.

    Then they'll have 200MB of AT&T roaming if it's available for days. That sounds like fun.
    If they don't like it, it will teach them to buy a B12 phone. Just like when they're in a B71 only area and they don't like it, they'll get a B71 phone. You want T-Mobile to cater and pamper the late adopters and that's not what they do. They force their customers to meet them part of the way if they want to take advantage of the new technology. Those that are too cheap to do so, can just suffer with their old technology and coverage.

    this is not about any "experience". There is no good "experience" from an overloaded, clogged up B12-only tower.
    Who says their B12 is clogged up. You're making all of these accusations about T-Mobile coverage and you don't even use T-Mobile. It's as fabricated as you saying they had a 2G PCS network in Northern Michigan when they didn't.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,034
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    There appears to be a tiny bit of 2G around Frankfort, MI. At least it shows up on both CellMapper and Sensorly.
    The tiny smudge of 2G around Frankfort has to be some sort of artifact or something....

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    2,871
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S7 edge, Note 5, Galaxy Tab S2
    Carrier(s)
    T,T-Mo,VZ.
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    The tiny smudge of 2G around Frankfort has to be some sort of artifact or something....
    Agreed. On Sensorly, there were green dots (3G) in a few areas up there way before the B12 build out. Some phantom coverage for sure.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,949
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 10mm View Post
    Well guys, I don't think there was any native T-Mobile 2G/EDGE on 1900 or 1700 anywhere in northern Michigan before their B12 build out. They did add some B4 UMTS in areas like Gaylord and Alpena but it was all AT&T roaming even though T-Mobile holds some PCS up there.
    The more I think about it, the map is just wrong. Not sure what's going on in the UP, looks like they picked a few random towers to enable roaming on, but maybe those are a couple of T-Mobile native towers that are parked to hold the license down? I know we had a couple of those for Clearwire around here, they were really bizarre, as they didn't actually cover much of anything.
    Happy AT&T customer and addicted Speedtester in CT
    AT&T Galaxy S7
    If you text while driving, you're an idiot. End of story.

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    2,871
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S7 edge, Note 5, Galaxy Tab S2
    Carrier(s)
    T,T-Mo,VZ.
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    The more I think about it, the map is just wrong. Not sure what's going on in the UP, looks like they picked a few random towers to enable roaming on, but maybe those are a couple of T-Mobile native towers that are parked to hold the license down? I know we had a couple of those for Clearwire around here, they were really bizarre, as they didn't actually cover much of anything.
    Those towers in the eastern U.P. are T-Mobile B12 sites. They don't hold those licenses in the central or western U.P. which is why there isn't any coverage. Marquette and Houghton/Hancock would no doubt have LTE if they had licenses up that way. 600 will be huge for expanding into those areas for sure. Sensorly is showing a lot of new 3G in northern lower Michigan. I haven't confirmed anything west of I-75 but looks like they have added a bunch of UMTS which may be on B2.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,949
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Of course. GSMinCT just made up this statement, "T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band" when in fact they did not.
    Or you could bother to READ my previous post, where I explained that I went to T-Mobile's website, and used T-Mobile's map. I would trash their map, except that AT&T's map isn't much better, and Verizon's is complete garbage now.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Since you said AT&T took down 2G, then it must be HSPA for data.
    It must be AT&T LTE or HSPA+.

    People said the same thing you're saying, that's it stupid to not put B2 and B4 on these towers and they shouldn't just use B12 exclusively to cover the area. But that's exactly what they ended up doing. And yes, they still offer roaming for those few people who don't have a B12 device. But I'm sure that number has been dwindling whereas the number of people with B12 devices have been increasing over those 2 years. You're arguing the losing side of something that's already been done before.
    There are two different arguments here:

    1. What T-Mobile WILL do.
    2. What T-Mobile SHOULD do.

    1. Maybe they will build B71-only coverage. But if they do, they are just building more pink on a map graphic. If they actually want to provide coverage, they will roll out all the spectrum they have available.

    2. T-Mobile should actually build a decent network, not this pile of trash that they built up in Northern Michigan.

    I was not aware, until this thread, about how piss poor parts of T-Mobile's LTE buildout have been, so the suggestion that they might build out more piss-poor network would be more logical given that they have a history of that.

    Well it's not a "basic fact". It's T-Mobile's decision that shoddy 20% coverage is worse than no coverage. Hence they don't allow it. Bad coverage reflects bad on T-Mobile. Dropped calls, data timing out, all makes T-Mobile look like junk. Either the customer gets good LTE coverage on T-Mobile or they get no service at all or they get partner roaming.
    STOP TROLLING. This has been explained to you several times. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

    Yes, we know you have admitted to putting up with junk coverage in NH on AT&T, but T-Mobile clearly isn't catering to you. And since you don't have any intention of using T-Mobile in the near future, you can both go your separate ways.
    STOP TROLLING.

    If they don't like it, it will teach them to buy a B12 phone. Just like when they're in a B71 only area and they don't like it, they'll get a B71 phone. You want T-Mobile to cater and pamper the late adopters and that's not what they do. They force their customers to meet them part of the way if they want to take advantage of the new technology. Those that are too cheap to do so, can just suffer with their old technology and coverage.
    STOP TROLLING.

    Who says their B12 is clogged up. You're making all of these accusations about T-Mobile coverage and you don't even use T-Mobile. It's as fabricated as you saying they had a 2G PCS network in Northern Michigan when they didn't.
    STOP TROLLING.

    I'm not even going to continue these ridiculous discussions until you:

    1. STOP TROLLING.
    2. Admit that there is no technical or engineering reason why T-Mobile would not roll out B2/4 LTE on virtually every tower where they have licenses to do so (virtually because maybe somewhere they have a solar powered site or one on a mountain 5 miles from any civilization or something).
    3. Admit that the only reason they built out B12-only coverage is because it is the fastest, cheapest possible way to build towers, and expand the map graphics, POPS covered, and size of their "LTE network" relative to Verizon's.

    Until you do those three things, you are a TROLL.

    And wow, learning all this about T-Mobile's tissue-paper network, I'm glad I don't have T-Mobile, and have a carrier that actually builds a decent network.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,949
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 10mm View Post
    Those towers in the eastern U.P. are T-Mobile B12 sites. They don't hold those licenses in the central or western U.P. which is why there isn't any coverage. Marquette and Houghton/Hancock would no doubt have LTE if they had licenses up that way. 600 will be huge for expanding into those areas for sure. Sensorly is showing a lot of new 3G in northern lower Michigan. I haven't confirmed anything west of I-75 but looks like they have added a bunch of UMTS which may be on B2.
    There are a couple of perfectly round coverage areas in the western UP, which are clearly each one tower. They may be AT&T roaming though. Looks like they threw darts at the map or something.... Wait... they ADDED UMTS? For what? Aren't they slowly choking it off of B2, and retaining a small amount on B4, with everything else going for LTE?

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    14,197
    Device(s)
    Samsung Avant, Nexus 5X, Moto G
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Project Fi, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    The tiny smudge of 2G around Frankfort has to be some sort of artifact or something....
    Possibly, but it shows up on both CellMapper and Sensorly.
    Donald Newcomb

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    286
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Or you could bother to READ my previous post, where I explained that I went to T-Mobile's website, and used T-Mobile's map. I would trash their map, except that AT&T's map isn't much better, and Verizon's is complete garbage now.



    It must be AT&T LTE or HSPA+.



    There are two different arguments here:

    1. What T-Mobile WILL do.
    2. What T-Mobile SHOULD do.

    1. Maybe they will build B71-only coverage. But if they do, they are just building more pink on a map graphic. If they actually want to provide coverage, they will roll out all the spectrum they have available.

    2. T-Mobile should actually build a decent network, not this pile of trash that they built up in Northern Michigan.

    I was not aware, until this thread, about how piss poor parts of T-Mobile's LTE buildout have been, so the suggestion that they might build out more piss-poor network would be more logical given that they have a history of that.



    STOP TROLLING. This has been explained to you several times. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.



    STOP TROLLING.



    STOP TROLLING.



    STOP TROLLING.

    I'm not even going to continue these ridiculous discussions until you:

    1. STOP TROLLING.
    2. Admit that there is no technical or engineering reason why T-Mobile would not roll out B2/4 LTE on virtually every tower where they have licenses to do so (virtually because maybe somewhere they have a solar powered site or one on a mountain 5 miles from any civilization or something).
    3. Admit that the only reason they built out B12-only coverage is because it is the fastest, cheapest possible way to build towers, and expand the map graphics, POPS covered, and size of their "LTE network" relative to Verizon's.

    Until you do those three things, you are a TROLL.

    And wow, learning all this about T-Mobile's tissue-paper network, I'm glad I don't have T-Mobile, and have a carrier that actually builds a decent network.
    It's pretty obvious you are anti-tmobile. You knock their LTE which is just your opinion. The facts show they have LTE in a lot of places, nobody can dispute that

    You consider TMobile customers to be bottom feeders. If you go through life judging someone by their chosen cell carrier that's a sad state of affairs. I'm sure you can do things that are more productive with your time. You go out of your way to try and convince people how bad TMobile is, but in reality they are pretty good. If they don't work for you don't use them but understand that for millions of people they do work, and at times they work very well.

    Maybe you got fired from tmobile, I don't know but you are making the boards unpleasant with how anti-tmobile you are. We understand you don't like TMobile and that their customers are bottom feeders but we don't need to hear it constantly.
    """new T-Mobile customer"""

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    2,871
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S7 edge, Note 5, Galaxy Tab S2
    Carrier(s)
    T,T-Mo,VZ.
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    There are a couple of perfectly round coverage areas in the western UP, which are clearly each one tower. They may be AT&T roaming though. Looks like they threw darts at the map or something.... Wait... they ADDED UMTS? For what? Aren't they slowly choking it off of B2, and retaining a small amount on B4, with everything else going for LTE?
    Yep those are definitely T-Mobile B12 sites in the U.P. Coverage is depicted strangely though I must say. I haven't confirmed UMTS over on the west side of northern lower Michigan but it appears they have added it. I haven't checked Cellmapper yet.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,600
    Device(s)
    LG G4
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Let's get back to the V30 that many of us are interested in buying. The people that come to this board that hate T-Mobile will never stop.

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,949
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by caddypower View Post
    It's pretty obvious you are anti-tmobile. You knock their LTE which is just your opinion. The facts show they have LTE in a lot of places, nobody can dispute that
    I actually was very enthusiastic to see T-Mobile building out like this and providing some more competition for the big two until I actually learned how superficial their build-out is. They are building a network fast and cheap, which is not a network that people are going to be happy with using. I happen to go to Northern Michigan semi-frequently, and I've seen the improvements over more than a decade that Cingular and now AT&T Mobility has made, and for T-Mobile to plaster pink all over it on their map, and find out that's a single 5x5 is an insult to the idea of "coverage". That's just enough to technically be LTE, but it's certainly not going to be providing a consistent LTE experience. Maybe, if you're lucky, it will be as good as AT&T's 3G network. Maybe. Meanwhile, I'm pulling 10 or 20 or 30mbps on AT&T today, and once the B14/29/30 buildout happens nationwide, I'll be pulling significantly more than that.

    If T-Mobile is serious about being a competitor to the big guys, they will continue on their build-out, with all new towers being B71/2/4 (assuming they have B4 everywhere), and they will have to come back and fix the mess they made in Michigan and other places. If they think a single 5x5 block of LTE is a way to compete with Verizon and AT&T, then they are sadly mistaken, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

    The challenge is how the big guys communicate something as arcane and nerdy as LTE band deployment to your average customer, who might switch, and then have a lousy experience when they travel to B12-only areas, with stuff being too slow or bombing out entirely.

    You consider TMobile customers to be bottom feeders. If you go through life judging someone by their chosen cell carrier that's a sad state of affairs. I'm sure you can do things that are more productive with your time. You go out of your way to try and convince people how bad TMobile is, but in reality they are pretty good. If they don't work for you don't use them but understand that for millions of people they do work, and at times they work very well.
    Well, T-Mobile and Sprint customers are lower quality customers, on average, than Verizon and AT&T, although for new customers, and based on their market positions, I'd think that T-Mobile has pulled way ahead of Sprint, and the bottom-feeders are now on Sprint or a Sprint MVNO.

    Maybe you got fired from tmobile, I don't know but you are making the boards unpleasant with how anti-tmobile you are. We understand you don't like TMobile and that their customers are bottom feeders but we don't need to hear it constantly.
    I have never worked for any of the cell carriers. I have had Cingular/AT&T Mobility all along.

    Quote Originally Posted by 10mm View Post
    Yep those are definitely T-Mobile B12 sites in the U.P. Coverage is depicted strangely though I must say. I haven't confirmed UMTS over on the west side of northern lower Michigan but it appears they have added it. I haven't checked Cellmapper yet.
    The ones out on the western side are outside of where T-Mobile owns B12. I can't single out T-Mobile, since none of the carriers have good coverage maps, but their coverage map is really weird. Their use of AT&T roaming is also really weird, since they got the ability to use it nationwide through the merger breakup clause.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,891
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    I actually was very enthusiastic to see T-Mobile building out like this and providing some more competition for the big two until I actually learned how superficial their build-out is. They are building a network fast and cheap, which is not a network that people are going to be happy with using. I happen to go to Northern Michigan semi-frequently, and I've seen the improvements over more than a decade that Cingular and now AT&T Mobility has made, and for T-Mobile to plaster pink all over it on their map, and find out that's a single 5x5 is an insult to the idea of "coverage". That's just enough to technically be LTE, but it's certainly not going to be providing a consistent LTE experience. Maybe, if you're lucky, it will be as good as AT&T's 3G network. Maybe. Meanwhile, I'm pulling 10 or 20 or 30mbps on AT&T today, and once the B14/29/30 buildout happens nationwide, I'll be pulling significantly more than that.

    If T-Mobile is serious about being a competitor to the big guys, they will continue on their build-out, with all new towers being B71/2/4 (assuming they have B4 everywhere), and they will have to come back and fix the mess they made in Michigan and other places. If they think a single 5x5 block of LTE is a way to compete with Verizon and AT&T, then they are sadly mistaken, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

    The challenge is how the big guys communicate something as arcane and nerdy as LTE band deployment to your average customer, who might switch, and then have a lousy experience when they travel to B12-only areas, with stuff being too slow or bombing out entirely.



    Well, T-Mobile and Sprint customers are lower quality customers, on average, than Verizon and AT&T, although for new customers, and based on their market positions, I'd think that T-Mobile has pulled way ahead of Sprint, and the bottom-feeders are now on Sprint or a Sprint MVNO.



    I have never worked for any of the cell carriers. I have had Cingular/AT&T Mobility all along.



    The ones out on the western side are outside of where T-Mobile owns B12. I can't single out T-Mobile, since none of the carriers have good coverage maps, but their coverage map is really weird. Their use of AT&T roaming is also really weird, since they got the ability to use it nationwide through the merger breakup clause.
    Everything I've heard from T-Mobile employees, read online, etc shows great potential for them building out nicely with 600. 700 can be considered a band aide fix but it looks like things will be more serious with 600. 700 has made a big difference it just doesn't have as much potential as 600 on a broad scale.

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Or you could bother to READ my previous post, where I explained that I went to T-Mobile's website, and used T-Mobile's map.
    I read your previous post and I looked at T-Mobile's map. I don't see anything on the map which would backup your statement that, "T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band"

    This is what I see on the map for Northern Michigan when I turn off Extended LTE:

    Name:  N-MI.png
Views: 151
Size:  595.9 KB

    The legend has solid magenta for 4G LTE (of which there is very little of when band 12 is turned off)

    Then it shows Talk, Text and Non-LTE data. Whenever I click into any of that territory, I get a popup that looks like this:

    Name:  N-MI Roaming.png
Views: 151
Size:  146.8 KB

    It shows PARTNER.

    Nothing about a native T-Mobile GSM/GPRS network in the PCS band as you previously stated. Unless you present a screen shot of something else you saw, this appears to be a completely fabricated statement.


    It must be AT&T LTE or HSPA+.
    No, since the PARTNER pop up shown above says Non-LTE data, it can only be HSPA+. I don't know of anywhere where T-Mobile actively roams on AT&T's LTE network.



    This has been explained to you several times. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
    What's being discussed is a business decision. You are not the arbiter of what the correct decision is. You can certainly have your opinion. I just pointed out that T-Mobile executives have a different opinion on this than you. They have B12 only sites in other locations such as North Dakota and Oregon as well. This isn't exclusive to Northerm Michigan. Frequently where they have added new coverage with B12, they have spaced the sites apart for maximum coverage and only put B12 on those sites.

    Yes, it is noted that you advocate they add other LTE bands despite the issues of dropped calls and lost data that it would cause. Is it noted that it is acceptable to you to have service that, "was basically impossible to do anything that required a continuous connection while driving" such as AT&T provided you in NH. But the fact that others wouldn't want such poor service doesn't automatically make them wrong and you right.

    You attack T-Mobile's network and make statements like, "There is no good "experience" from an overloaded, clogged up B12-only tower. " When you were asked for a real example of such a clog, your only reply was "STOP TROLLING".


    Basically when you are unable to discuss the topic rationally, you have to engage in name calling such as:

    "you are a TROLL."

    Admit that there is no technical or engineering reason why T-Mobile would not roll out B2/4 LTE on virtually every tower where they have licenses to do so
    Why would I admit to something that is not true. I have provided reasons. One was the dropped calls and loss of service that would happen if non low-band devices were used. Another reason is devices that are brought from AT&T or Verizon may have B2/4, but they don't have T-Mobile compatible VoLTE. Thus, while they would appear to get some service on B2/4, calls could not be completed nor received. This causes a life safety issue.

    Whereas, devices sold by T-Mobile with B12, have T-Mobile VoLTE and are able to make voice calls on T-Mobile's B12 only sites.

    And wow, learning all this about T-Mobile's tissue-paper network, I'm glad I don't have T-Mobile, and have a carrier that actually builds a decent network.
    It depends on your standard of a decent network. T-Mobile regularly trounces AT&T in speed rankings:

    Open Signal:

    https://opensignal.com/reports/2017/...mobile-network

    Ookla:

    http://fortune.com/2017/09/07/ookla-...eless-network/

    I don't really care about how fast the coverage is in these remote areas. I want fast speeds in the large metro areas that I travel to and T-Mobile gives me that. Last night, I was next to someone at a bar and who was on AT&T and he couldn't even get pictures on his Twitter timeline to load. I had him do a speedtest and he was getting a pathetic 0.34 Mbps down. That's not a speed I can live with.

    Now since you have the goal to travel to all 50 states, I could see where you would need better remote coverage and if AT&T provides that, that's great. But I'll stick with the carrier that provides me the fastest coverage where I go.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,034
    Feedback Score
    0
    Jet1000 said: ". And yes, they still offer roaming for those few people who don't have a B12 device. But I'm sure that number has been dwindling whereas the number of people with B12 devices have been increasing over those 2 years..."

    For what it's worth, I DO dave a band 12 device in that area. And I also roam onto AT&T a lot by default.

    If I force the device to LTE only, then my situation becomes 2/3 T-Mobile coverage and 1/3 nothing at all.... Because of the places with no band 12 that it can't roam onto AT&T at all if I am doing LTE-only.

    Roaming on to AT&T makes Northwest lower Michigan coverage work. At least until they fill out the rest of the coverage with band 71 or whatever so most of the rest becomes TMO-native.

Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-28-2014, 01:43 PM
  2. Motorola to launch the first 'world' phone
    By Bratan in forum Motorola
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-31-2004, 07:04 AM
  3. The first wireless phones in Canada with GPS capability.
    By Helmsley in forum TELUS Mobility
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-17-2003, 11:30 AM
  4. What's going to be the first camera phone to come to verizon ?
    By WeneedJapPhones in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-27-2003, 12:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks