 |
 | 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 / January 2008AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
AT&T flings cellphone network wide open Updated 3d 5h ago By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device and software application from any maker -- think smartphones, e-mail and music downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract. "You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even police it." AT&T's push to give consumers maximum control of their wireless worlds is being driven, in part, by Google. The tech giant is a monster in the Internet search business for personal computers, and is hoping to replicate that success in the wireless market. Google (GOOG) recently announced plans to link arms with more than two dozen wireless companies, including Sprint (S), with the goal of developing an operating system that lets consumers use any application on mobile devices, much as they now do on PCs. Other partners include Japanese cellphone giant DoCoMo and handset maker Samsung. Everything that Google has promised to bring to the wireless market a year from now AT&T is doing today, de la Vega says. "We are the most open wireless company in the industry." FIND MORE STORIES IN: Google | AT | AT | Verizon | Ralph de la Vega AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the option of using devices and applications other than those offered by AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase. The AT&T wireless chief won't say whether AT&T plans to launch a marketing campaign to push "open" platforms, but allows that might be a possibility. Despite its bear hug of "open" standards, one AT&T device, for now, will remain tightly closed: the Apple iPhone. AT&T has a deal with Apple to be the exclusive U.S. distributor for the next five years. To get the device, consumers must sign a two-year contract. AT&T has no plans to change that arrangement, de la Vega says. "The iPhone is a very special, innovative case." Google's siren call for openness has stuck a finger in the eye of the U.S. cellphone industry, which for years has kept consumers on a short leash. Until recently, contracts were standard, and applications were largely limited to those endorsed (sold) by carriers. That's changing. Verizon (VZ), regarded as one of the most restrictive carriers in terms of devices and applications, recently announced plans to let customers use any device and application they want. [As long as they sign a two year contract with Verizon and pay $1.99 per MB data or add a high dollar unlimited data plan.] The mobile Web is still considered an open -- and largely untapped -- frontier. That's one reason companies such as Google, which has little traction there, are so nervous about getting left behind. -- That is a bummer about the iPhone being the only exception to no contract required. At least AT&T will prorate the early termination fee. You could always set the iPhone up as a GO phone on AT&T which would be no contract. The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have to live with them for 24 months! 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500- b656-7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com: > AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the > option of using devices and applications other than those offered by > AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that > consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase. Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers.... Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for years about. Larry  SignatureIt's the standing in front of them KNOWING he's lying through his teeth to you that pisses me off. > Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers.... Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to have voice communication over one of the established cellular telephone networks? "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- BFEE6B.10003409122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com: > Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to have > voice communication over one of the established cellular telephone > networks? Sure. Do you? What a stupid question.... Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v > > Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to > have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sure. Do you? What a stupid question.... No, it's not. Not the way you keep talking about "SELLphones". I'd think that you simply stay out of the whole thing that you disparage so readily and constantly. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- 8F70E1.18034109122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com: > No, it's not. Not the way you keep talking about "SELLphones". I'd > think that you simply stay out of the whole thing that you disparage so > readily and constantly. SELLphone more accurately describes the devices' functions, to SELL you some "function" the phone already had in it before the SELLphone carrier locked it out in hopes of SELLing it back to you. Wouldn't you agree? Case in point....We all now have GPS receivers built into our phones so the Illuminati's government bureaucrats can track us more accurately, even if we don't make a call to 911, the cover story. Can you see your GPS' most basic data, latitude and longitude on your SELLphone's display? Why not? You already paid for that receiver and should be able to at least read its basic output, right? No, not in the eyes of the SELLphone company. You need to pay us $10/month to have access to YOUR receiver's data. What a pure line of bullshit! SELLphone didn't provide the data, the US Taxpayers did! The phone's MINE...as pointed out to me every time it stops working! Why can't I use MY phone's GPS receiver....FOR FREE?! Why doesn't my phone's GPS receiver Bluetooth pair with my computer so IT can use MY GPS receiver's data? I had to buy ANOTHER GPS receiver for that. Why?? Gee, Elmo, I'm sorry if my pointing these things the a.sholes at SELLphone companies do to their paying customers like this. But, alas, I don't think I'm the only one this pisses off, am I? If you don't like it.....f.ck OFF! Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v > SELLphone more accurately describes the devices' functions, to > SELL you some "function" the phone already had in it before the > SELLphone carrier locked it out in hopes of SELLing it back to > you. > > Wouldn't you agree? Only Verizon. Not so with anything Cingular/AT&T has ever sold. And as has been pointed out here many times recently, the GSM network has always been able to take any phone that was designed by its manufacturer for the GSM network. Even if the provider doesn't offer that phone, if you can get it, you can use it--and all of its functions. Not so with Verizon. So it looks like you have massive tunnel vision with respect to being a Verizon customer. > Gee, Elmo, I'm sorry if my pointing these things the a.sholes at > SELLphone companies do to their paying customers like this. But, > alas, I don't think I'm the only one this pisses off, am I? > > If you don't like it.....f.ck OFF! Looks like you're ranting out of ignorance. Why don't you go with a GSM provider and get whatever phone and functionality you desire and plug your SIM card into it, without ever involving AT&T? If all you know is the Verizon way, and if all you talk about is the Verizon way, then f.ck OFF yourself and go pollute the Verizon newsgroup with your crap. T-Mobile and AT&T don't give a sh.t. That's right--the rest of us have had all the nice things you've been ranting about not having, and we've had them forever. That you choose to be ignorant about that, is YOUR problem. So f.ck OFF. And take your "SELLular" crap with you. Everybody's tired of seeing your ignorant rants. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- 9193EB.19542409122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com: > Only Verizon. Not so with anything Cingular/AT&T has ever sold. Is that why iPhones: Don't act like USB hard drives so you can copy songs, videos, pictures to them and PLAY THEM because they're YOURS? Don't allow external software to run on them so we can sell you some web-based subscription crapware that STILL won't let you run the songs, videos and pictures you finally got copied to them? Don't have common browser plugins used to STREAM video to computers over the internet for free? What you say may have been true before iPhone....but no more. iPhone prevents bandwidth usage on ATT, and is hobbled to do so. Larry SignatureMerry Christmas! http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE > > Only Verizon. Not so with anything Cingular/AT&T has ever > sold. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Don't act like USB hard drives so you can copy songs, videos, > pictures to them and PLAY THEM because they're YOURS? They don't even offer to SELL that feature to you, and many others. Apple simply made design decisions, and the phone simply doesn't have the features. So much for your "SELLular" crap. The GSM end user is free to choose whatever phone with whatever features he wants, and use it on the GMS network. Face it: you are ranting out of ignorance, based on your MASSIVE tunnel vision with regard to your Verizon world. Step out into the real world and you'll find that AT&T has never restricted features on phones only to SELL those features back to you for a monthly fee. f.ck off. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- 1BFE94.21050109122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com: > and you'll find that AT&T has never restricted features on phones only > to SELL those features back to you for a monthly fee. Notice I didn't say anything about it was ATT. It's iTunes, in this case. Stevie Jobs thinks that you should pay HIM for ever tune you ever play on HIS equipment. Appleware has a long history of PROPRIETARY built into it.... Look at the connectors...(c; f.ck off Larry SignatureMerry Christmas! http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE > Notice I didn't say anything about it was ATT. It's iTunes, in > this case. Stevie Jobs thinks that you should pay HIM for ever > tune you ever play on HIS equipment. Really? So you've never used iTunes or an iPod, yet you don't have a problem ranting about them despite your sheer ignorance of how they work. There's no paying Apple for every tune you ever play on an iPod or in iTunes. Where the f.ck did you get THAT idea? Take your ignorance back to your shack in the woods. On Dec 10, 5:55 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > In article <Xns9A01D8F458FA1noonehome...@208.49.80.253>, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Take your ignorance back to your shack in the woods. You are right Elmo. I have a hundred and fifty GB of audio in iTunes and I haven't spent dime one at the Apple Store. I use the Apple Store to help locate and manage PodCasts and my wife likes the Internet Radio feature. I pick up a couple of gigs of new free video each day also from Video podcasting. I also snag the occasional YouTube Video or a clever one from Manaic.com for download to my iTouch. 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:63998c56-c073-48e1- b46b-e2e49c01aac3@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 10, 5:55 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > also from Video podcasting. I also snag the occasional YouTube Video > or a clever one from Manaic.com for download to my iTouch. I'm just so proud of you fine boys I could.......puke. M:\ROCK> COPY *.MP3 L:\ROCK [RETURN] Doesn't that suck? That line copies over 2200 MP3 files to my 8GB SD card for the N800 to play. No begging one at a time, no reporting to Crapple what I play, it just copies files that play, as fast as the damned card can store them, ready to be played by one of many MP3 players. N:\MOVIES> COPY *.AVI L:\MOVIES That one put 63 DivX movies on another 8GB drive labeled MOVIES so I can swap 'em. No funny business. No screwing around with webpages and permission from some Crapple bureaucrat and his shitty software. Question: How long does it take to load 2200 songs into an iPod or iPhone or iAnything? How many keystrokes if you want 'em all? I've never owned ANY "player", either audio or video, that required me to use some proprietary bullshit to install playable files onto any device, not just Crapple's. I never will....(c; I've never owned ANY "player", either audio or video, that I couldn't copy those files OFF the device onto something else either locked out by the manufacturer or requiring some proprietary bullshit to filter what I take off the device to move some license nonsense to the other device, some hidden files from some locked up, hidden directories. I never will......(c; To pay for a locked up device is just STUPID!.... Larry SignatureMerry Christmas! http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE > To pay for a locked up device is just STUPID!.... > > Larry Larry where do you get the theory that the iPod is locked. I can put my audio on an iPod and I can copy it off the iPod to another computer. I dare say there are at least thousands that can do the same thing. Yes to the uninformed, such as yourself iPods appear to be only DRM audio/video but in fact you can put anything on it. I have absolutely nothing that has DRM in it nor would I ever buy anything like that. And as for putting files on and off the music device iTunes has an amazing programmable interface called SMART PLAYLISTS that almost anyone can work with after a little thought. Using SMART PLAYLISTS you can automat addition and deletion of files. I have the ability to add or replace files on a variety of MP3 devices. I would rather work with programmable snippets than sit and manually make decisions to copy one or a group of files using the native file OS. There is such a large user base to iPods and Apple products there isn't much anyone wants to do that can't currently be done. All you have to do is look and learn how. That is one of the factors that make the Apple products so neat. There is even a simple hack to beat the 3 play rule built into the ZUNE for shared files. And that is one locked up DRM product - big time. So don't even bother bad mouthing the MS media product either. 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:10848371-eb6e-4a33- a153-5a9d869da2a1@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > Larry where do you get the theory that the iPod is locked. I can put > my audio on an iPod and I can copy it off the iPod to another > computer. I dare say there are at least thousands that can do the same > thing. My parameters are quite simple..... Can this player, whatever player, be plugged into any USB port, and loaded with any simple file manager of any files on the drives, then played without hacking or begging the player to play them? Then, can this player, plugged into ANY other USB port on any other computer, copy or move these files to that computer, using that computer's simplest of file managers, without destroying the file or refusing to copy/move certain types of files. There's no reason to buy a player that must be hacked to play ANY file. If that company, any company, chooses to hobble its equipment in cooperation with RIAA or MPAA or USGA (the golf people) or NASCAR or USMC, they do not want our business. I only buy from companies who have MY interest at heart. MY interest is to be able to play ALL the files, ALL the time. I'm sure yours are, too. I don't drive cars under the remote control of some cops. I certainly am not going to drive electronic entertainment devices under similar remote controls by the music cops. If a majority of the music listeners would simply refuse to buy this sh.t.....it would all go away. I don't know how old you are or how long you've been playing with PCs, but we went through a terrible period where every program you were licensed to play had this goddamned "dongle" that had to be plugged into all the other dongles on a serial port to make SURE you didn't steal it. Lots of them simply wouldn't play, dongle or no dongle. The computer- buying public had had enough. It stopped buying ANY programs that required some kind of hardware or software key before the program would run. Software companies went down the tubes for a while until they FINALLY got the message we, the computer public, wasn't going to put up with their sh.t. Software suddenly, as they starved for cash, came out without the protective nonsense. I think Billy Gates, multi-billionaire, is feeling this effect with his new electronic-dongled Vista OS, right now! I'm one who won't buy it. I didn't buy XP for years because of its locks. I don't buy software with dongles of any kind, either....no matter how wonderful it is..... We're going to see another dongle period very soon. The FCC, in cooperation with the media money mongers, has allowed them to put dongles in all your new, wonderful digital TVs! Isn't that wonderful? Every TV is as addressable as your cable modem. Even the over-the-air broadcasters, who like the AMPS carriers never had control of what system your AMPS phone would connect to until these PRL dongles were invented, has individually-addressable control of your new TV...right over its transmitter. Wanna watch the Dallas game on HDTV? Call 1-800-Feed-Me-Money and have your credit card ready! This is coming, people, PAY OVER-THE-AIR BROADCASTING they wanted since Dumont put the knobs on the front. You don't think NASCAR and NFL are going to let you watch it for free, do you? Not if they can help it. No ZUNE or other "them" machines, here. No thank you! You still have a choice....please choose freedom. We'll now hear from the Sheeple side of the newsgroups....(c; Larry SignatureMerry Christmas! http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE > I'm just so proud of you fine boys I could.......puke. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 8GB SD card for the N800 to play. No begging one at a time, no > reporting to Crapple what I play, Again, you're as ignorant as Oxford. You plainly have NO idea how iTunes and iPods work, you plainly have NEVER used an iPod or ever seen one, yet you don't have a problem ranting about how "hard" it is to copy music to an iPod, or how "iTunes reports back to the mothership everything you listen to". Ohmigod. Do you have different thicknesses of foil hat for different seasons? The controlling radio waves have different propagation properties with different weather, you know. > Question: How long does it take to load 2200 songs into an iPod > or iPhone or iAnything? How many keystrokes if you want 'em all? Fewer keystrokes than you describe, actually. Many fewer. So if you don't know, then how can you tell the world how "bad" an iPod is? Oh, please tell us again how iTunes reports listening habits back to the mothership. > I've never owned ANY "player", either audio or video, that > required me to use some proprietary bullshit to install playable [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > To pay for a locked up device is just STUPID!.... Again: you've never touched an iPod, so you don't know how simple and straightforward it is to get the music OFF the iPod and back into a new computer. And remember, you claim that we have to pay for every piece of music we listen to. Could you think that because in your very narrow Verizon experience, that's how it works? Therefore you think that's how EVERYONE does it? Take your Verizon mentality back to your trailer, and just shut the f.ck up. You're ignorant, yet you don't mind spouting that to the world. You don't have a clue, but there you go ranting in your ignorance. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > Do you have different thicknesses of foil hat for different seasons? Yes, he does. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > > Only Verizon. Not so with anything Cingular/AT&T has ever > sold. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Don't act like USB hard drives so you can copy songs, videos, > pictures to them and PLAY THEM because they're YOURS? To be fair, there's a difference between a _carrier_ crippling a phone and a manufacturer doing it. There's no "uncrippled, unlocked" iPhone to compare the AT&T version to. The lack of UMS (USB Mass Storage) support is all Apple's doing. > Don't allow external software to run on them so we can sell you > some web-based subscription crapware that STILL won't let you run > the songs, videos and pictures you finally got copied to them? Again, Apple. There are plenty of AT&T phones that support 3rd-party apps, file transfer, etc. I even own some (that I unlocked to use on T-Mo.) > Don't have common browser plugins used to STREAM video to > computers over the internet for free? Again, blame the manufacturer- AT&T doesn't write the browser software. > What you say may have been true before iPhone....but no more. > iPhone prevents bandwidth usage on ATT, and is hobbled to do so. But it's no different than the O2-version sold in Britan, the Orange (and unlocked) in France, or the T-Mo version sold in Germany- all hobbled by APPLE exactly the same way. Probably to enrich Apple, not the carrier! Grab any Motorola, Nokia, HTC, etc. T-Mo or AT&T phone, and it's a lot different than what you put up with on the US CDMA carriers. > SELLphone more accurately describes the devices' functions, to > SELL you some "function" the phone already had in it before the > SELLphone carrier locked it out in hopes of SELLing it back to > you. > > Wouldn't you agree? No, not really. That might be the M.O. of Verizon or maybe Alltel, but it isn't an industrywide thing. Of course you already know that, and choose to use a more restrictive company because they provide better coverage in your neck of the woods. That's the free market in action- you're free to choose the "open" company with less coverage, or the restrictive company with more. > Case in point....We all now have GPS receivers built into our > phones so the Illuminati's government bureaucrats can track us > more accurately, even if we don't make a call to 911, the cover > story. No- you have a GPS-like system relying, in part, on proprietary data that belongs to the cell company that they paid for to comply with a federal regulation. > Can you see your GPS' most basic data, latitude and longitude on > your SELLphone's display? Why not? You already paid for that > receiver and should be able to at least read its basic output, > right? No, because it doesn't have a "real" GPS. It has a limited-view (small # of channels) GPS radio receiver that's data gets sent to the carrier and is combined with tower location data to compute your position OUTSIDE the handset. Unlike a real GPS, your handset doesn't "know" where it is. The carrier knows where it is. > No, not in the eyes of the SELLphone company. You need > to pay us $10/month to have access to YOUR receiver's data. No, you pay $10 for the licensed map data and their service computing your location. If you used an "open" provider, you could buy a cellphone with a real GPS in it (some Blackberries, Nokias or WinMo phones,) and use your choice of free or commercial software with it. > What a pure line of bullshit! SELLphone didn't provide the data, > the US Taxpayers did! The phone's MINE...as pointed out to me > every time it stops working! Why can't I use MY phone's GPS > receiver....FOR FREE?! Because it doesn't have one! > Why doesn't my phone's GPS receiver > Bluetooth pair with my computer so IT can use MY GPS receiver's > data? Because it doesn't have one! > I had to buy ANOTHER GPS receiver for that. Why?? Because it doesn't have one. > I don't think I'm the only one this pisses off, am I? Nope- there's certainly hobbl9ng going on, but your "GPS" isn't part of it. > If you don't like it.....f.ck OFF! Ironically, that's exactly how your cellular carrier feels about you (or any of us...) >> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers.... > > Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to have > voice communication over one of the established cellular telephone > networks? I'm not him but I have done this for as long as I can remember. I have a Nokia N95-3 which CANNOT be bought from any carrier. If your carrier uses a sim card, throw it in and configure the network. Most phones autoconfigure these days. Dave >>> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers.... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >a sim card, throw it in and configure the network. Most phones >autoconfigure these days. Really? I've yet to see one that can autoconfigure data and email settings. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers.... > > Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than > one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for > years about. While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and authorization systems used by the major carriers simply don't allow for it, so they're telling a half-truth- they can't do it because it's not worth it to them to overhaul their systems to allow it. Using a two-phone family plan with forwarding set from one to the other is a cheap way to accomplish the same thing. >> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers.... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and > authorization systems used by the major carriers simply don't allow > for it, so they're telling a half-truth- they can't do it because it's > not worth it to them to overhaul their systems to allow it. Using a > two-phone family plan with forwarding set from one to the other is a > cheap way to accomplish the same thing. Nonsense. It's not done to SELL you more SELLphone product...another number, another account, another charge. The phones aren't tied to your cell number. They each have a MAC address, just like your Ethernet card. They can each be addressed, all at once, unless we can force you to pay more money. Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v > Nonsense. It's not done to SELL you more SELLphone > product...another number, another account, another charge. Back in the analog days, Cingular used to let you add extra phones to your number- at $20/month/phone. All phones rang simultaneously and which ever you answered first, took the call. They couldn't offer this service with digital due to the way the authorization system worked. (This was in the days before family plans.) > The phones aren't tied to your cell number. They each have a MAC > address, just like your Ethernet card. They can each be > addressed, all at once, unless we can force you to pay more > money. Except the systems only allow one addressable device per number, ostensibly to limit fraud. I agree that if carriers WANTED to, they could create a system to address multiple phones per number, as Cingular once did. You don't think they'd do it for FREE though, do you? And why, in an age when you can have a whole 2nd phone with unique number for $10/extra a month, would you pay $x for an "extension" that was limited in functionality (i.e. couldn't call the other handsets sharing the number?) Again, you want an extension? Pay $10 for a family line, conditionally forward one number to the other, or a Grandcentral.com number to auto-ring both simultaneously (first to answer wins.) Cellphone companies' services are not obligated to work like you think they should work (which is apparently "like Skype works.") If you have a better way to do it, feel free to bid at the upcoming 700MHz auction! ;-) 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656- 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com: > The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. It all means nothing because their network is the same ol' Cingular network with poor coverage and spotty service on PCS it always was, at least where I live. Once outside the city, you'd better have that engine trouble within 2 miles of the major interstates or you'll be begging the farmers to use their telephones. Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v > 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656- > 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Larry 1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead. 2) I used a non-AT&T unlocked Nokia 6260 on their network for 3 years without difficulty, but was told that I could only have one sim card, therefore only one operational phone at a time -- of course, the sims could be transferred to another phone without difficulty -- as I did a few times when the 6260 was down. 3) Finally gave up with AT&T last July because they did not have a vacation leave policy. I traveled out of the States about 4 months this year and why should I waste $50/mo. Since my contract had expired a year prior and I hadn't ever asked for a phone from them, simply cancelled. Upon return calculated cost and discovered for the small number of monthly minutes, it cost 20 cents/minute. So bought a sim from T-Mobile and paid $50 for prepaid card and now the cost is 10 cents/minute. Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major arteries. Guess that's how it works with smaller companies that can't afford millions of antennas! Also discovered that with a prepaid card cannot have internet coverage; therefore I cannot call overseas from the cell phone. This is almost sufficient to force me back to AT&T. Miles >> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656- >> 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From > Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead. Nope, I've used Verizon extensively in those areas, from Fairfax out to Point Reyes, along Lucas Valley Road, etc. However I'm sure some of that coverage was on AMPS. Also, if you go north on the coast towards Mendocino and up to Crescent City, there are long stretches where the only coverage is AMPS, so you're s.o.l. unless you a tri-mode phone on Sprint or Verizon. <snip> > Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west > of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major > arteries. Guess that's how it works with smaller companies that can't > afford millions of antennas! Also discovered that with a prepaid card > cannot have internet coverage; therefore I cannot call overseas from the > cell phone. This is almost sufficient to force me back to AT&T. You can always go onto a prepaid plan that uses the AT&T network, such as 7-11 SpeakOut. It's 15¢/minute not 10¢/minute like T-Mobile, but the coverage is much better. All airtime purchases last 365 days, just like T-Mobile "Gold". For light use, the better network outweighs the higher per-minute cost. However for your area, you might want to look into PagePlus, which uses Verizon's network, which is much better than the AT&T network in your area. The real question is what's going to happen to all the coastal AMPS coverage in 2008. Will the carriers turn it off and leave vast stretches of 1 with no coverage, believing (probably correctly) that the limited number of tri-mode phones is now small enough that the roaming revenue is not worth maintaining the network. >> 1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From >> Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > City, there are long stretches where the only coverage is AMPS, so > you're s.o.l. unless you a tri-mode phone on Sprint or Verizon. Since I only have GSM 800, 1800 and 1900 which is all that is needed for AT&T and the overseas countries to which I visit, forgot about AMPS, CDMA, Sprint, Nextel, and Verizon. Not in the mood to buy another phone -- combo gsm/cdma -- for the few calls I make to/from the coast. Incidentally I have a friend who lives in Lucas Valley and has Verizon but reception is quite poor. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > T-Mobile "Gold". For light use, the better network outweighs the higher > per-minute cost. Not overly interested in returning to AT&T which provided the worst customer service I've ever experienced -- (and that includes DSL!) And must mention that my residence land line must be maintained for fax and currently is with AT&T with DSL splitting. perhaps I'll find a method to get rid of that line and it's cost. > However for your area, you might want to look into PagePlus, which uses > Verizon's network, which is much better than the AT&T network in your area. Again, don't want to purchase another phone just to cover the Marin coast. Read that Sprint is attempting to plant a tree above Lagunitas which should cover most of the valley. And have been told that T-Mobile intends to build towers in west Marin -- but nothing in writing that I can find. I've always wondered why the towns and counties don't build their own antennas and rent them out for sharing amongst the carriers. Then only one tower is needed in an area, not a half a dozen, and the governments might make more money as opposed to simply licensing a tower which may be on private property with rent being paid to someone else. > The real question is what's going to happen to all the coastal AMPS > coverage in 2008. Will the carriers turn it off and leave vast stretches > of 1 with no coverage, believing (probably correctly) that the limited > number of tri-mode phones is now small enough that the roaming revenue > is not worth maintaining the network. Guess we will soon see! Hopefully they will continue because I doubt anyone will build multitudes of towers to cover the entire coastal region, only the major towns. >I've always wondered why the towns and counties don't build >their own antennas and rent them out for sharing amongst the carriers. >Then only one tower is needed in an area, not a half a dozen, and the >governments might make more money as opposed to simply licensing a tower >which may be on private property with rent being paid to someone else. Because they would be competing with private companies that do the same thing. How would you like to be the owner of a tower leasing company that happened to live in such a place and know your tax money was being used to take business away from you? Carriers seldom own the towers on which they operate. Sharing them with other carriers is already the norm. > Because they would be competing with private companies that do the > same thing. How would you like to be the owner of a tower leasing > company that happened to live in such a place and know your tax money > was being used to take business away from you? Carriers seldom own > the towers on which they operate. Sharing them with other carriers is > already the norm. That wouldn't be anything new. Towns have been selling their citizens water, sewer, electricity, gas, etc. for hundreds of years. It works quite well in many places..... I wish towns and cities would erect whole SELLular systems, not just the towers. The people have the RIGHT to compete with the corporations, if they so choose.....while they CAN still choose, that is. I hope WiMax will be a public utility project, too. That will keep the corporations from f.cking us, again. Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v >> Because they would be competing with private companies that do >the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >citizens water, sewer, electricity, gas, etc. for hundreds of >years. It works quite well in many places..... Water, sewer, and in very few instances, electricity, are provided by government entities because they are necessary utilities which cannot be served efficiently by multiple providers. It's not efficient to have multiple sets of power lines or sewer lines serving a street. That's also why government entities offer franchise protection to and the SCPSC regulates privates utilities, so that a necessary service can be provided at a reasonable cost. And AFAIK, Fountain Inn is the only town in this area which sells natural gas, and they purchase it from Piedmont Natural Gas, the private company which serves the rest of the county. So it's not like the town is pumping it out of the ground themselves. But none of this has anything at all to do with cellular towers. Apples and oranges. >I wish towns and cities would erect whole SELLular systems, not >just the towers. The people have the RIGHT to compete with the >corporations, if they so choose.....while they CAN still choose, >that is. Why? You would still bitch about it. You bitch about cell companies. You bitch about government. Now you want to merge the two? Your irrationality never ceases to amaze me. >I hope WiMax will be a public utility project, too. That will >keep the corporations from f.cking us, again. When the Greenville County Library system offered free dial-up internet access circa 1994-95, private providers sued to end the practice. It won't happen in this state unless private companies provide it to/on behalf of governments at a profit. That's what happened in Laurens, and last I heard, it was not going that well. Too much infrastructure expense, not enough coverage, and not many people using it. =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:475c32da$0$84220 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > The real question is what's going to happen to all the coastal AMPS > coverage in 2008. Will the carriers turn it off and leave vast stretches > of 1 with no coverage, believing (probably correctly) that the limited > number of tri-mode phones is now small enough that the roaming revenue > is not worth maintaining the network. See? Here's another example of FCC not ENFORCING compliance, as it is tasked to do by its charter. You give this giant corporation a license to provide service to this area (run your finger around the map of California). They promise, in accepting the license, that they will provide the service licensed for. But, then the accountants get in the way. The company wants to provide coverage to only the most profitable crowded areas on the license map, but want to forget the areas over MOST of the coverage map, those areas you find dead or spotty, which saves them from spending profits converted to infrastructure required to cover the license. After a reasonable length of time, which is NOT 25 years now, FCC needs to hand them an NAL (FCC's equivalent to a parking ticket) demanding to know why they have not fulfilled their end of the bargain to get the license. Not satisfied with, "this costs us money", FCC then issues the appropriate fines and gives them X months to COMPLETE the project before more seriously damaging fines are levied for non-compliance. That's exactly how it works for a broadcast station. The station has to do a "proof-of- performance" by an outside auditing engineering firm to prove to the FCC that, "Hey! We have this much signal at these points as measured by Diaphram, Foam and Condom, LLC, our engineering firm....Please renew our station license.", at which point THEY are begging US to let them use OUR airwaves for X more years until the cycle repeats. Here's information on proof-of-performance for cable TV operators controlled by FCC, too: http://proofingtheproof.com/html/fccPOPrules.htm They, too are required to provide a certain level of service to you at your cable tap, by Federal regulation. They must measure the various parameters for every 12,500 subscribers. Why not SELLular licensees? What bribery makes them exempt? Why is NO SERVICE anywhere in the licensed area acceptable. It's not on the other FCC-regulated services. Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v Miles <mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote in news:uUT6j.3709 $NY.2283@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com: > Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west > of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major > arteries. All the PCS carriers in SC are like this....little strips of coverage only along interstates connecting the major cities. They never built out their systems for their license areas because the damned FCC doesn't do its job and force them to, like FCC does broadcasters. It's a real shame, too, because smaller carriers could provide service to rural areas if the big guns didn't have the territorial licensing all sewed up to keep them out. Seems like they should be given a time limit on coverage before that license is revoked for non-conformance or non-service to the public for use of its airwaves...then some other carrier could bid on the license. Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > 2) I used a non-AT&T unlocked Nokia 6260 on their network for 3 years > without difficulty, but was told that I could only have one sim card, > therefore only one operational phone at a time -- of course, the sims > could be transferred to another phone without difficulty -- as I did a > few times when the 6260 was down. Uh? Wasn't the 6260 a TDMA phone? Back in the 90's it was pretty easy to identify Nokia technology by the last two digits of the model number, and xx60 used to be 850MHz TDMA. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > AT&T flings cellphone network wide open > Updated 3d 5h ago Old news (in interent time). It was out last week > NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their > AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device Totally misleading as it gives clear impression that a Sprint or Verizon CDMA phone can be used on a AT&T's GSM network. > AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the > option of using devices and applications other than those offered Its been no secrete that you could use your own technology compatible (GSM and TDMA) phone on AT&T's network. > But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that > consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase. And loose a commission on a sale? Riiiight.... > The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder > how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO > must feel right now Where is the need for a compelling switch? The love (and hate) for a particular carrier is pretty much even across the board for all the carriers. > AT&T flings cellphone network wide open > Updated 3d 5h ago [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have > to live with them for 24 months! Lol AT&T is behind verizon again! > > AT&T flings cellphone network wide open > > Updated 3d 5h ago [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Lol AT&T is behind verizon again! WRONG - Verizon still has contracts. Verzion is not yet open, it is planned for 2008 and then it is only CDMA. There are a hell of a lot more unlocked neat GSM phones then CDMA overpriced where the manufacturer has to pay the Qualcom royalty on each and ever CDMA set he produces. 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:6de3ddaf-8ce7-40f3-bb73- d9d865c8e85d@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > WRONG - Verizon still has contracts. And AT&T will still have contracts, Oxtard. > Verzion is not yet open, it is planned for 2008 and then it is only > CDMA. What other network do they have that you'd like them to open, retard? > There are a hell of a lot more unlocked neat GSM phones then CDMA > overpriced where the manufacturer has to pay the Qualcom royalty on > each and ever CDMA set he produces. You might want to look at some of the Asian carriers and the phones available before you make that statement, Oxturd. >> downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract. > > Lol AT&T is behind verizon again! I don't quite see how. AT&T has always allowed you to bring your own phone to their network (I bought a plan without buying a phone several years ago); Verizon says they'll allow the same thing sometime next year. What is new here is that if you bring your own phone to AT&T they won't make you agree to a contract (and they're doing it now, so it isn't just at the press-release-ware stage). Verizon hasn't said anything about this yet, that I've noticed, so at this point we can only hope that Verizon follows AT&T. In fact, for Verizon to match AT&T's flexibility with equipment they'd also need to move to phones with a SIM (okay, R-UIM) slot. I assume they'll eventually want to do this anyway if they're going to deploy LTE; maybe they'll follow AT&T on this sooner rather than later. I'm actually quite happy to see the carriers getting all competitive about this particular topic. I really hope they keep it up. Dennis Ferguson 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656- 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com: > AT&T flings cellphone network wide open > Updated 3d 5h ago So what happens to existing contracts? bdog > 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656- > 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > bdog Still SOL. > 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656- > 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > bdog They stay in effect until they expire. > AT&T flings cellphone network wide open > Updated 3d 5h ago > > By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY ...and AT&T comes full Circle. Cingular always offered no-contract plans up until 2005 or 2006. Obviously the customer still had to pass a credit check, and didn't receive a subsidized handset, but they always offered a month-to-month option until fairly recently. They've always allowed any compatible hanset on their network as well- they just didn't brag about it. > "You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la > Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even > police it." True- being SIM based, they've never really cared what handset you stuck your AT&T SIM into. > The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. Again, nothing really has changed except the re-introduction of month-to- month postpaid plans. > I wonder > how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO > must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have > to live with them for 24 months! That's up to the consumers who chose them- Sprint has always offered no- contract plans (for a $5/month surcharge and, again, no handset subsidy.) T-Mo started offering no-contract plans (they call "Flexpay") a few months ago- unlike AT&T, or Sprint, T-Mo's Flexpay doesn't even require a credit check- to protect themselves, T-Mo simply shuts off the phone if you run out of minutes, rather than let you run up overages charges. (They let you setup a prepaid "slush fund" if you choose, to cover overages, rather than face a shutoff.) Again, the press is treating this like a "new age in cellular" because the writers apparently do no research into their stories beyond retyping the press releases they're handed. > Again, the press is treating this like a "new age in cellular" because > the writers apparently do no research into their stories beyond > retyping the press releases they're handed. That's not correct. The "press" does what it must to satisfy its paying advertisers. "Press" sells advertising "packages", which include certain promotional reviews to help the client sell more products...and buy more "press" advertising...a sweet deal for both of them. Pick up any boat/car/motorcycle/truck/airplane/house magazine that sells advertising, virtually all of them. Read any review you like about any product the magazine is SELLING with ad space. See any reviews that say, "This thing sucks and is so dangerous it should be recalled and buried because it's gonna kill someone!" See any reviews that say some product NOT advertised in the magazine is better than one that buys the back two covers? Of course not. Magazines, newspapers, TV, radio are all just billboards selling products. Everything about any advertiser's product is just WONDERFUL as long as that advertiser keeps buying more ads next month. It's a ponzy scheme... Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v |
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.