 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / March 2004Any way to switch T720 cell phone from Cingular to Verizon
Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? No. Why would you ask this in the AT&T Wireless NG? >Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used >with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? Why not. Cingular & AT&T are about to become one company. > Why would you ask this in the AT&T Wireless NG? > > >Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > >with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? | Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used | with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? The verizon T720 and Cingular T720 are actually two completely different phones. The Cingular one is GSM, and the Verizon is CDMA, so no it would be impossible. > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? Why would you want to? We just dropped Verizon for Cingular. Good riddance, also. Cingular service is SOooooooo much better. -Dave What planet did you say you were from? > > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? > > Why would you want to? We just dropped Verizon for Cingular. Good > riddance, also. Cingular service is SOooooooo much better. -Dave > > Why would you want to? We just dropped Verizon for Cingular. Good > > riddance, also. Cingular service is SOooooooo much better. -Dave Hey, verizon isn't bad. But Cingular's GSM coverage in New England (and all other parts of the country I've travelled) is (at worst) just as good as Verizon. We went to visit some friends in Maryland and someone else visiting had to use our phone as her Verizon phone had no signal ANYWHERE. :) Besides which, Cingular is a LOT less expensive. And that's before you figure in the outrageous billing errors that Verizon makes. No such problem on Cingular. But if you want Verizon disservice, have fun. Just don't sign a long-term contract. -Dave And monkeys fly out of my backside..... > > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? > > Why would you want to? We just dropped Verizon for Cingular. Good > riddance, also. Cingular service is SOooooooo much better. -Dave I will 'qualify' my statement. As with anything, YRMV, but.... Out west and especially in Seattle, out of the 7 wireless carriers serving this market, Cingular is DEAD last, by a long shot. They truly suck. Anyone switching from VZW to Cingular in this market will be taking a giant step backwards. > And monkeys fly out of my backside..... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why would you want to? We just dropped Verizon for Cingular. Good > > riddance, also. Cingular service is SOooooooo much better. -Dave > I will 'qualify' my statement. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anyone switching from VZW to Cingular in this market will be taking a giant step backwards. In the 12 metro areas surveyed by Consumer Reports, Verizon was number one in every single area. The Consumer Reports survey had a HUGE sample size for a survey of this sort, resulting in a very low margin of error. As you stated, the west is an area where Cingular is especially weak. Hopefully the merger will improve things for both AT&T AND Cingular, and give Verizon some competition. > > Anyone switching from VZW to Cingular in this market will be taking a > giant step backwards. > > In the 12 metro areas surveyed by Consumer Reports, Verizon was number one > in every single area. The Consumer Reports survey had a HUGE sample size for > a survey of this sort, resulting in a very low margin of error. Yet their results are suspect at best, considering that they rated Nextel as having good coverage. Saying or even implying that Nextel is as good as Verizon proves that Consumer Reports is full of sh.t. I've travelled every state east of the mississippi and some of them west of the mississippi as well. Verizon coverage is good, but no better than cingular. Nextel's coverage in the same areas is so poor it would be overpriced if Nextel PAID YOU to use their service*. But Nextel got great ratings from CR. What does that say about CR? -Dave *If you are lucky enough to have a signal at all on the Nextel service, you will note that most of your incoming calls go straight to voicemail, so even if Nextel's coverage was better, you'd STILL miss most of your calls. > > > Anyone switching from VZW to Cingular in this market will be taking a > > giant step backwards. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yet their results are suspect at best, considering that they rated Nextel as having good coverage. Saying or even implying that Nextel is as good as Verizon proves that Consumer Reports is full of sh.t. Consumer Reports did not rate Nextel as having good coverage. Their subscribers in the surveyed areas did the ratings. And clearly the ratings reflected coverage in the metro area, where often Nextel does provide good coverage, and not outside these areas. Consumer Reports did warn about non-metro coverage issues, both for Nextel and for GSM. The fact is that most people spend 95%-99% of their time in their home area, so the ratings don't really reflect how bad certain carriers are outside these areas. I.e., if I were to rate Cingular's GSM coverage outside the metropolitan Bay Area (or inside the Bay Area for than matter), it would get horrible ratings. Even in some areas with GSM coverage, Cingular doesn't have access to the available network (though this will change after the merger). > I've travelled every state east of the mississippi and some of them west of the mississippi as well. Verizon coverage is good, but no better than cingular. It is in the west where Cingular is very poor because they are 1900 Mhz GSM only. The merger will have major benefits to the western region because AT&T had a very good TDMA network at 800 Mhz, which is transitioning to 800 Mhz GSM. Also, AT&T has affiliates in less urban areas, which until now haven't always allowed non-AT&T GSM customers to roam onto their networks. Fortunately, Cingular out here has been selling 850/1900 Mhz phones for a while, so when the merger is complete, Cingular's woes in the west may be a thing of the past. > Nextel's coverage in the same areas is so poor it would be overpriced if Nextel PAID YOU to use their service*. But Nextel got great ratings from CR. What does that say about CR? Again, the survey ratings were based on survey results, IN the areas surveyed. Obviously Nextel users are pretty self-selected, mainly business users, for whom coverage outside metro areas isn't important. There are very few Nextel users that choose them for non-business applications. It would be nice to have overlayed map of the available (native or non-native) coverage of the major carriers, especially since for both GSM and CDMA you can't necessarily roam (even if you're willing to pay roaming charges). CR did show a map comparing GSM and TDMA coverage. >Consumer Reports did not rate Nextel as having good coverage. NEXTEL is NOT a cellular or PCS provider and should be disregarded in all "ratings" since the people doing the ratings are too stupid to realize that they are simply a 2-way radio company that provides an interconnection to the telephone network - poorly I might add! The Carterphone decision also created stupidity along the way too! -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > Yet their results are suspect at best Dont like the message, attack the messenger. Consumer Reports' results are near identical to those of The Yankee Group J.D. Power and thus are highly credible. > Consumer Reports did not rate Nextel as having good coverage. Their > subscribers in the surveyed areas did the ratings. And clearly the ratings [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > most people spend 95%-99% of their time in their home area, so the ratings > don't really reflect how bad certain carriers are outside these areas. Well that explains a lot. I spend 4-5 days a week on the road. Thus, I'm almost never in my "home" area. I carry a Nextel phone because my employer requires me to. It never has a signal, and is worthless even when it DOES have a signal. I know it's not the phone, as this isn't the first phone I've carried on the Nextel Network, and it behaves like all the others . . . utter crapola. Even when I'm IN a metro area, I find it's next to impossible to either initiate OR receive a call on the nextel network. If the phone call is important, I don't even think about it. I just use my personal cell phone, which is Cingular GSM . . . and formerly Verizon. I have no idea why CR would warn about non-metro coverage issues for GSM. Yeah, I've found a few blind spots hundreds of miles from nowhere, but those same areas have huge blind spots on the Verizon network, also. -Dave > I > have no idea why CR would warn about non-metro coverage issues for GSM. Because most GSM phones do not do Analog, and Analog is what provides your coverage out "in the sticks". > > I > > have no idea why CR would warn about non-metro coverage issues for GSM. > > Because most GSM phones do not do Analog, and Analog is what provides > your coverage out "in the sticks". And now half of Verizon's CDMA phones don't do Analog either. > > Consumer Reports did not rate Nextel as having good coverage. Their > > subscribers in the surveyed areas did the ratings. And clearly the ratings [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > almost never in my "home" area. I carry a Nextel phone because my employer > requires me to. My wife's employer got everyone, including the field people Nextel phones. Two problems. First there is no coverage in many of the areas the field people go to. Second, they all had to turn off the speakerphones, because they can't have the clients they are visiting hearing confidential information about other clients being broadcast. So no one uses the phones, but everyone has to carry them. Bizarre. I don't think my wife has used her Nextel phone once in the year or so she's had it. Oh, and they "permit" you to sign up for a second number on the same phone for your personal calls! <snip> > I have no idea why CR would warn about non-metro coverage issues for GSM. > Yeah, I've found a few blind spots hundreds of miles from nowhere, but those > same areas have huge blind spots on the Verizon network, also. -Dave Unless you have a GAIT phone, you'll have a lot of dead spots in rural areas. Ditto for CDMA phone that lacks AMPS. And of course there are many areas that have TDMA and/or CDMA coverage, but little or no GSM coverage. Like the entire state of Alaska, and many areas in California. The non-AT&T affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added digital to their AMPS network. They did this for cost reasons since less towers are needed to cover the same geograhic area with CDMA than GSM or TDMA, and they often cover large, sparsely populated areas. >The non-AT&T >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added digital >to their AMPS network. They did this for cost reasons since less towers are >needed to cover the same geograhic area with CDMA than GSM or TDMA, Where did you get that piece of bullshit? The technology doesn't have sh.t to do with using less or more towers. The frequency used does. Cellular does not require as many towers as PCS (1900.) The technology doesn't. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply Verizon has one big advantage over all carriers, and that's COVERAGE! > >The non-AT&T > >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added digital [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply | Verizon has one big advantage over all carriers, and that's COVERAGE! Verizon coverage (lack of) is a disadvantage over most carriers here. They are definately the best nationally as a whole though. > Verizon has one big advantage over all carriers, and that's COVERAGE! Not really if you compare apples to apples. Verizon coverage WITH analog, Cingular national GAIT coverage WITH analog, and ATT national coverage WITH analog all look similar to me--basically the entire country with a few spots that don't have ANY coverage. Back out the analog and look at only the "all-digital" portion of the Verizon map and it compares to Cingular's new GSM-only coverage. Could be even less. Small cities of 20000 to 30000 in Texas have GSM of some kind (T-Mobile usually) but CDMA is MUCH less common. Actually hard to tell on my screen--somebody deliberately made the V national map hard to see the difference between "all-digital" and "home rate"--colors are very similar. Select the new "IN-Network" maps and you'll see that Verizon's own network is much smaller still. I really considered Verizon the last time I had to change plans but decided against it because the phone would have been in analog for most of the area I roam--with poor battery life and lack of SMS whereas the GAIT phone is in TDMA most of that time.  SignatureJud Dallas TX USA >Verizon has one big advantage over all carriers, and that's COVERAGE! Not necessarily - without the roaming agreements in place. I find that there are a lot of places that Sprint PCS has coverage when even my TDMA AT&T WS phone is useless. Since Sprint offered the plan that doesn't charge for roaming on analog or other CDMA systems, I love it more. I have been no place recently that I couldn't make or receive a call on my Sprint phone. In fact for plain ole PCS liceneses, Sprint has far more than Vereizon (check the FCC auction information). -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >Where did you get that piece of bullshit? The technology doesn't have >sh.t to do with using less or more towers. WHOA There Big Boy - you are wrong. in a perfect world the CDMA technology would cover far more area with far fewer towers. In our everyday world, what with buildings and such - that's still pretty much true. Frequency of course does make a huge difference as well. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >Where did you get that piece of bullshit? The technology doesn't have > >sh.t to do with using less or more towers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Frequency of course does make a huge difference as well. John No flame here just an honest question. What about CDMA would make it's 1900mhz radio wave travel farther than a TDMA or GSM 1900mhz wave? >No flame here just an honest question. What about CDMA would make >it's 1900mhz radio wave travel farther than a TDMA or GSM 1900mhz >wave? The "radio wave" per se is not the issue. It's the method of utilizing the radio wave - CDMA vs TDMA. CDMA is basically a technology (extremely simplified here) that operates as a noise generator and can put up with a far weaker signal (deeper in the noise) than TDMA can. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >The non-AT&T > >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added digital [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Cellular does not require as many towers as PCS (1900.) The > technology doesn't. Watch your language--especially when you don't know what you're talking about. The air interface has everything to do with how many towers are required. GSM has a maximum range of 35 km, even if the signal strength is adequate, timing considerations prevent longer distances. CDMA can have a range of 110km. This is why countries like Australia went to CDMA in the rural areas, you need far fewer towers. These ranges are possible with tall towers and non-mountainous terrain. In the U.S., there are areas that will either remain as AMPS, or go to CDMA, GSM is not an option. The GSM carriers are creating corridors of coverage along major highways through rural areas. In urban areas there is no advantage to CDMA in terms of the number of towers to cover an area, only the capacity advantages that CDMA offers. >> >The non-AT&T >> >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >rural areas, you need far fewer towers. These ranges are possible with tall >towers and non-mountainous terrain. In Australia, they tweak a CDMA parameter on the cell sites to allow the handset to be even further away than "standard" CDMA. Nice thing is, the handsets do not require any firmware changes; the cell site just tolerates more timing skew in the signal from the handset. > In Australia, they tweak a CDMA parameter on the cell sites to allow the > handset to be even further away than "standard" CDMA. Nice thing is, > the handsets do not require any firmware changes; the cell site just > tolerates more timing skew in the signal from the handset. This sounds like a good solution for an AMPS replacement in the U.S. as well. | > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used | > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? | | Why would you want to? We just dropped Verizon for Cingular. Good | riddance, also. Cingular service is SOooooooo much better. -Dave Cingular is also definately better in my area and the area I travel to, but definately not the case everywhere. Verizon is better in other areas of the country. > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? No. On Verizon, get the T730, which is a revision of the T720. The handset cost is minor when you switch. Good move leaving Cingular, Verizon quality of coverage is magnitudes better in most areas. Boy are you a moron with this stupid question. I wouldn't say he was a moron because he has no technical knowledge of cellular phones. You on the other hand for assuming everyone knows what you know...... > Boy are you a moron with this stupid question. > I wouldn't say he was a moron because he has no technical knowledge of > cellular phones. You on the other hand for assuming everyone knows what you > know...... Which may be not much. Mark The Verizon Website lists their T730 for $49.99 with a contract. You could buy that, and potentially sell your current T720 on ebay to offset your cost. -Dan > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was used > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service? There is a Motorola T720 which works on CDMA on the Cricket network but the internal workings are different from that of the T720 used with GSM on Cingular and ALLTEL. Verizon has a similar phone in the T72x series which might meet your needs. Generally, GSM phones are locked to a specific carrier and only that carrier's SIM will work in that phone. TDMA and CDMA phones do not use SIMs but the ESN of the phone you want to use must be in the database of the carrier with whom you want to start service. SignatureEarl F. Parrish >> Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was >used [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >use SIMs but the ESN of the phone you want to use must be in the >database of the carrier with whom you want to start service. Only some CDMA carriers have this requirement (e.g., SprintPCS). Verizon and Alltel only require that they support the particular model, and that the phone is unlocked (not locked by the previous provider). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.