 |
 | 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 / August 2004GSM network question (T226 and T637 or AT&T vs Cingular)
I am in bayarea. I have had AT&T GSM for over an year on my T226. I could go to Connect->GSM Networks, and the phone would show the available networks. I get AT&T, Cingular and sometimes Tmobile networks listed in the available NW list. I get excellent signal strength at both home and inside office bulding with my AT&T GSM. Note that T226 works in GSM 850 and GSM 1900 Recently I bought T637 and signed up with Cingular. But the reception has gone down considerably with this new device + service. My understanding is that AT&T and Cingular share the same network for GSM and the signal strength should be the same. Why is there a difference? Also, unlike in T226, I am not able to see the available neworks with my T637. In T637, if I go to Connect->GSM Networks I only see an empty list. There is not even an entry for Cingular! With the T226, I had the flexibility to switch between Cingular and AT&T and pick the one with the better signal in a particular area.. and this seems to be missing in T637! Is there any way to enable it? Or Is there something fishy happening here? Btw, I got the Cingular phone from Amazon unlocked. thanks, driz > Also, unlike in T226, I am not able to see the available neworks with > my T637. In T637, if I go to Connect->GSM Networks I only see an empty > list. There is not even an entry for Cingular! Have you performed a "New Search" ? > > Also, unlike in T226, I am not able to see the available neworks with > > my T637. In T637, if I go to Connect->GSM Networks I only see an empty > > list. There is not even an entry for Cingular! > > Have you performed a "New Search" ? There is no option to do a "new search"... Both my previous SE phones (T226 and T68i) had it.. >I am in bayarea. >I have had AT&T GSM for over an year on my T226. I could go to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >understanding is that AT&T and Cingular share the same network for GSM >and the signal strength should be the same. Why is there a difference? Because that's not correct -- Cingular shares network infrastructure with T-Mobile, not ATTWS. >Also, unlike in T226, I am not able to see the available neworks with >my T637. In T637, if I go to Connect->GSM Networks I only see an empty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and this seems to be missing in T637! Is there any way to enable it? >Or Is there something fishy happening here? Not if Cingular has blocked it in the SIM. >Btw, I got the Cingular phone from Amazon unlocked.  SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > Because that's not correct -- Cingular shares network infrastructure with > T-Mobile, not ATTWS. ??? My AT&T GSM phones read either AT&T or Cingular, *never* T-Mobile. I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, which may make a difference? The phones (an SE 226 and T68i) don't seem to care which, they just grab onto whichever has the strongest signal. Never a roaming charge. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com >> Because that's not correct -- Cingular shares network infrastructure with >> T-Mobile, not ATTWS. > >??? My AT&T GSM phones read either AT&T or Cingular, *never* T-Mobile. I'm >in the San Francisco Bay Area, which may make a difference? That's because you're an ATTWS subscriber, and ATTWS now has free *roaming* on Cingular. But that Cingular network is shared with T-Mobile -- you just see Cingular and not T-Mobile because ATTWS has roaming in that area on the former, but not the latter, although it's the same network infrastructure in either case. If you were a Cingular subscriber, you would be sharing the same network infrastructure with T-Mobile, even though you wouldn't see the T-Mobile name since Cingular has blocked roaming on T-Mobile, which makes sense because it's the same network. You also wouldn't see ATTWS because Cingular blocks roaming on ATTWS. >The phones (an >SE 226 and T68i) don't seem to care which, they just grab onto whichever has >the strongest signal. Never a roaming charge. That's called free roaming, but still roaming nonetheless. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > If you were a Cingular subscriber, you would be sharing the same network > infrastructure with T-Mobile, even though you wouldn't see the T-Mobile name > since Cingular has blocked roaming on T-Mobile, which makes sense because it's > the same network. You also wouldn't see ATTWS because Cingular blocks roaming > on ATTWS. In the Seattle market, ATT is who you roam to, and I have never seen "cingular extend" either, so things must be a bit different here. Bernard >>Because that's not correct -- Cingular shares network infrastructure with >>T-Mobile, not ATTWS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > SE 226 and T68i) don't seem to care which, they just grab onto whichever has > the strongest signal. Never a roaming charge. Bad example. T-Mobile has NO network infrastructure in California and piggyback off AT&T Wireless! >>>Because that's not correct -- Cingular shares network infrastructure with >>>T-Mobile, not ATTWS. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >T-Mobile has NO network infrastructure in California and piggyback off >AT&T Wireless! T-Mobile currently shares network infrastructure with Cingular, not ATTWS, and will buy ownership of that infrastructure from Cingular when the Cingular acquisition of ATTWS closes. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ >T-Mobile has NO network infrastructure in California and piggyback off >AT&T Wireless! You are absolutely *wrong.!* T-Mobile has been using cingular's GSM network in California and has been ever since they were sharing networks in New York. Once the cingular/AT&T deal goes through cingular is selling the network in California to T-Mobile. Why don't you make up some other stuff as well, eh? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>T-Mobile has NO network infrastructure in California and piggyback off >>AT&T Wireless! > >You are absolutely *wrong.!* T-Mobile has been using cingular's GSM >network in California ... It's actually a joint venture. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ >T-Mobile has NO network infrastructure in California and piggyback off >AT&T Wireless! Should read - "T-Mobile has NO network infrastructure in California and piggyback off Cingular Wireless!" -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >Recently I bought T637 and signed up with Cingular. But the reception >has gone down considerably with this new device + service. My >understanding is that AT&T and Cingular share the same network for GSM >and the signal strength should be the same. Why is there a difference? You assumed incorrectly. cingular and AT&T Wireless *will* be one network at some future time. They are not completely united yet. >Also, unlike in T226, I am not able to see the available neworks with >my T637. In T637, if I go to Connect->GSM Networks I only see an empty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and this seems to be missing in T637! Is there any way to enable it? >Or Is there something fishy happening here? cingular has disabled the ability to see other networks on their phones. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >My >understanding is that AT&T and Cingular share the same network for GSM >and the signal strength should be the same. Cingular and T-Mobile share the same network. AT&T currently doesn't play into the scenario. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >>My >>understanding is that AT&T and Cingular share the same network for GSM >>and the signal strength should be the same. > >Cingular and T-Mobile share the same network. AT&T currently doesn't play into >the scenario. Why chime in when the question has already been answered? SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ >Why chime in when the question has already been answered? Why not. Repeition is all that is something that a log of people here need. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net |
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
|
©2010 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.