Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31
  1. #21  
    ijablokov - I was making my previous post before seeing your latest posts. I guess we were posting at the same time . See if they can send you detail in writting just to cover yourself. I'm asking for your deal once my Treo comes in .
  2. #22  
    Well, I do have a touch more bargaining power since our company has a national account with them. But it was definitely a family plan with both phones included at that price. I'll find out soon enough when I get the ebill. You should have access to the same plans I do, they just have tiered discounting afterwards based on how big the company you work for is (10-15-20-25%), you may want to work that angle for those of you employed in Fortune 500 corporations.
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by mictreo
    Was speaking to my cousin. Is a wireless guru with a Phd in communications. He said expect performance near or equal to that of a 56k dial-up connection from this new service from pcs. Also, the more people start 'browsing' or are 'on' in a given area , expect the speed to slow down.
    A Wireless Guru with a PHd in communications must account for at least 5 opinions if you assume 10 opinions equals a fact. This is really like comparing apples and oranges but agree that right now the service is similar to a slow PC connection with bursty speeds around 10 PM pacific when the lights are pretty well out in the East. Without elevating myself to Guru status, I would say that giving people unlimited data for the first three months is likley to me a major factor in overall data usage and if Sprint adds capacity to handle that demand, we should be in good shape when the minutes run out.

    It would be kind of neat if your friend had some industry friends that could give us a more technical look at what Sprint is doing and how.
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by doctorc
    Next, BLAZER has been suggested in this forum to be somewhat of a pig as far as performance goes. I don't want to start a flame war here. I'm sure it's a fine product. I also like the fact that it's built into the ROM on the Treo so it's not taking up additional space (if you delete the cache). I am going to try some other browsers tonight as I have time (Suggestions from anyone greatly appreciated).
    For what it's worth, Handspring claims that Blazer 2.0 is "an average of four times faster than our competitors". I doubt they're just making up that figure out of whole cloth.
  5. #25  
    Anyone else out there get the 44.95 (500/4000) plan like the DOCS?
  6.    #26  
    Originally posted by Dan Harkless
    For what it's worth, Handspring claims that Blazer 2.0 is "an average of four times faster than our competitors". I doubt they're just making up that figure out of whole cloth.
    Hmm.... well if they are 4x faster than their competition, it's going to be pretty depresseing when I try out the Eudora browser I guess. Blazer is pretty slow, regardless of how poor 3g performance is at the moment -- the application itself (or maybe the Treo 300 / Palm OS in general?) has some major performance issues.
  7.    #27  
    Originally posted by treologist
    Anyone else out there get the 44.95 (500/4000) plan like the DOCS?
    All you have to do is call SPCS and ask for this plan. It's available just not advertised. 3 different reps have listed the plan to me when I called over the phone asking about it.
  8. #28  
    Whenever a company says "ours is better" or "ours is x times better" and leave it at that you have to question it. Because they give no details about who these so called "competitors" are that they are faster than. No details of the versions of the competitor's software used. And no details regarding the device used during testing.

    To me HandSpring saying "Blazer is faster" is an empty statement. They need to fully qualify the statement with facts from their actual tests.

    Eudora's browser is faster than Blazer because Eudora's browser does not load graphics. So it's not a fair comparison, unless you turn off graphics in Blazer. And with no graphics you take all the fun out of "Vision" .
  9.    #29  
    Originally posted by doctorc


    Hahaha, Ok to add even more to the confusion, check out what I just did.

    Called *2 again. After talking to a SPCS rep who put me on hold for about 40 minutes to figure out what the pricing plans are, he came back with this info.

    My current plan: 4000 N&W / 500 anytime / 2 megs
    $44.99 / month
    minutes shared
    nationwide long distance (not regional plan)
    2 megs

    *THIS* plan WILL be charged $20 for the add a phone.
    (3rd SPCS rep who told me this, so now I'm 3 votes for Will charge $20 for add a phone and 2 votes for won't charge add a phone).

    Then the SPCS rep put me on hold again, and said he might be able to find me a 'better deal'

    After about 20 min he came back and said that this Plan:

    $59.99
    4000 N&W / 500 anytime / 2 megs
    minutes shared
    nationwide long distance (not regional plan)
    8 megs

    Does *NOT* charge the extra $20 for add a phone.

    Thus, even though this is $15 more than the 44.99 per month it actually ends up being $5 cheaper because of no add a phone charge, and I also get more megs on top of that (not that I can use them all as 3g is so slowwwwww).

    So, I'm not sure yet if this deal is for real or not, but in keeping with my "lets switch SPCS plans at least 3 times per day" theme, I figured what the heck and took it.

    I specifically asked him 4 times, "ARE YOU SURE that there is NO CHARGE FOR ADD A PHONE" and he assured me yes all 4 times.

    Thus, it appears, that for SOME plans, there is no charge for add a phone, but for others there is. So be aware of that and try to get the most straight answer you can when buying a plan. I'm going to cross post this to a couple of other threads so that others are aware of this.
    Holy cow, as a correction to this post, anothe 10 minutes on hold and the SPCS rep comes back to me and gives me the following info. He assures me this info is true and correct. Here is the "true" information according to SPCS Rep one Million that I have spoken to:

    SPCS does *NOT* charge an add a phone fee for the FIRST phone that you add to your account -- AS LONG as you have MEGABYTES on your plan (any amount of megabytes).

    They *DO* charge for the addition of any other phones beyond the first add a phone.

    Now, the catch is, (and this is where many of you may get caught so I'd call back SPCS to be sure) that in order for you to NOT get charged for the first addd a phone, SPCS reps need to set it up a "special way" so that you are not billed for the add a phone on your first add a phone.

    I had my account originally set up this way, but then an uninformed SPCS rep (oxymoron?) "un-setup" the account and put it back to the "old way" where you DO get charged a $20 add a phone fee.

    I suspect that many SPCS reps are accidentally setting up add-a-phones in an incorrect way. Basically the "new" add a phone setup requires SPCS reps to set up the add-a-phone as if it were also a "primary" phone so that you don't get billed the add a phone fee for it. Most SPCS reps are probably setting up your add a phone as a 'secondary' phone so you will be billed the extra $20 for it.

    Take home message: NO CHARGE for add a phone (up to 1 additional phone) as long as you have PCS Vision with Data.

    BUT -- you need to absolutely be sure that the SPCS rep you are speaking with sets up your second add a phone in the correct way so that you are not charged for it. Many (including the guy I just spoke to) were not / are not aware of this and are probably setting up your second phones the wrong way.

    I urge you to call back to double check that you are set up correctly, and to "share the knowledge" with your SPCS rep, so to speak.
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by doctorc:
    I had my account originally set up this way, but then an uninformed SPCS rep (oxymoron?)
    Um, no, not according to reports. Presumably you meant "(redundant?)".
  11.    #31  
    Originally posted by Dan Harkless
    Originally posted by doctorc:
    Um, no, not according to reports. Presumably you meant "(redundant?)".
    Doh!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions