 |
 | 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 / General / General Topics / February 2004Newbie needs help choosing carrier! (Chicago/Mpls areas)
Having lived off an ATT/Nokia TDMA (?) phone that actually belonged to a family, I must get my own. I am overwhelmed with choices I dont understand and would be most grateful for advice. Here is some basic info: I need to use the phone in Chicago area, but I travel to Minneapolis often, so probably need a national plan. I have been using under 200 anytime minutes and around 600-800 night/weekend minutes, so a very basic national plan. Rather than get unneeded minutes, I would get a better phone. Must have voice mail. The carrier: Most casual recommendations have been for Cingular, T-Mobile, and Verizon. Who has the best coverage and signals in these cities? Who has the best reputation for accurate hassle-free billing and good customer service? Next the plan: T-M's basic ($30) plan has no night minutes; cingular's has no voicemail. This makes Verizon's $35 plan (300 min, unlimited nights/weekends, voicemail) most attractive to me. But verizon uses CDMA. People are telling me I should move to GSM. If you understand the scene, please advise. Finally, the phone and just where to get the whole thing. I suppose that should wait until I know what to get. If you know the cellular scene in Chicago or even if you know these companies in general to make outright Do/Dont recommendations, that would be greatly appreciated. >Next the plan: T-M's basic ($30) plan has no night minutes; cingular's >has no voicemail. This makes Verizon's $35 plan (300 min, unlimited >nights/weekends, voicemail) most attractive to me. > >But verizon uses CDMA. People are telling me I should move to GSM. If >you understand the scene, please advise. You really don't need to pay any attention to the CDMA is better or worse than GSM or TDMA. If all you're interested in is a phone it's likely that any of the major carriers will work for you. Depending on what kind of coverage you need *between* MSP/CHI will likely be the determining factor. Even carriers such as T-Mobile that don't provide the wide coverage that Verizon does would work for you as they have the major metro areas as well as the highways connecting them pretty well covered. However, your requirement for evening minutes on a plan less than $40 will likely mean that you'll opt for a Verizon national plan. Go for the coverage first and don't concern yourself with the underlying technology that a phone system uses. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply Thanks, I'll forget about CDMA vs GSM etc. Under-$40 National plan from any of the three will meet my needs. Although I mentioned travel in my previous post (hence the National plan), I have decided to choose whoever is best in Chicago area, where I spend most of the time. So which of these three carriers have: (1) Best service in terms of accurate billing, customer service being easy to get to and easy to deal with? (2) Best signal quality and coverage in the Chicago area? (3) Best phones? (I can't understand why but "talk time" spec in verizon's phones tends to hover around 200 min while others seem to have it higher. This happens even if you focus on a single manufacturer.) Finally, the phone (free to $50 with plan). I think I want to emphasize: talk time and signal clarity first, well-designed for intuitive and efficient working second, light weight next, and screen color quality etc the last. Which manufacturer should I be looking at? > So which of these three carriers have: > > (1) Best service in terms of accurate billing, customer service being > easy to get to and easy to deal with? > > (2) Best signal quality and coverage in the Chicago area? I have been happy enough with ATT/Nokia 3360 but it is within the city and I can't compare with other carriers. The plans are definitely getting worse. Two years ago I got ATT nationwide 500 anytime minutes and unlimited night/weekend for $35 and 1 year contract (ie, I am contract free now). There is no such deal today as both of us have separately discovered. I think there is a "conspiracy" to bring the consumers to accept $40 as the floor. Plans below that seem deliberately crippled. So I'd suggest one of the $40 plans, or Verizon's 300 minute plan ($35). > (3) Best phones? (I can't understand why but "talk time" spec in > verizon's phones tends to hover around 200 min while others seem to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Which manufacturer should I be looking at? I cannot help you but I am debating upgrading from my little battle tank (3360) and I'd be reading any replies with interest. PS. Always good to run into mac/thoth users. :-) If you are going to accept Verizon's $35 plan for 300, you might as well look at T-Mobile's $40 for 600. That extra $5 is worth the piece of mind knowing you probably won't have to worry about overages. As for a phone, you can't go wrong with the Nokia 3595. It's free, has a color screen and is an excellent quality phone. If you are looking for something a little "more", the 6610 is a nice phone. I doubt you'd go wrong with either T-Mobile or Verizon. Just be wary of Verizon's national network plans, if you roam you pay. They do have one-rate plans, but aren't as competitive as their "on-network" plans. The T-Mobile plan is free roaming/free long distance. As for talk time, GSM provides for a better battery life than CDMA. It's noticeable, but it's not like CDMA is bad on battery life either. For no more minutes than you're looking to use, the difference in battery life probably won't be a big deal. Don't forget......you can keep your number! > > So which of these three carriers have: > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > PS. Always good to run into mac/thoth users. :-) > If you are going to accept Verizon's $35 plan for 300, you might as well > look at T-Mobile's $40 for 600. That extra $5 is worth the piece of mind > knowing you probably won't have to worry about overages. The person I was replying to has been using <200 minutes and thought 300 would be plenty. As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I will stay. For now I am just looking to upgrade my phone. Going by Phonescoop.com's listings for ATT/TDMA phones, Motorola v120t, Nokia 3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available for which one. I've carried all 3 phones you mentioned(I used to work for AT&T), and all are good phones. The v120 is a very good phone. I think I even have one new or close to new in a box somewhere. I really liked the 6360, although the size was a bit of an issue(although it is the same size, roughly, as the Motorola). Still, nothing I've seen could match my old 6160. > > If you are going to accept Verizon's $35 plan for 300, you might as well > > look at T-Mobile's $40 for 600. That extra $5 is worth the piece of mind [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available > for which one. >Still, nothing I've seen could match my old 6160. They are/wwere great phones. I still have one in a drawer as an emergency backup - swap out the ESN with CS and I am working again! -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked > but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I > will stay. For now I am just looking to upgrade my phone. Going by > Phonescoop.com's listings for ATT/TDMA phones, Motorola v120t, Nokia > 3560 and 6360 seem interesting. I'll have to see what deal is available > for which one. If the v120t has the same stubby extendable antenna as the v120c, I'd recommend against it. I had a v120c and the antenna broke off twice while the phone was in my pocket, costing me $20 to repair it each time. Jesse The 120t has a fixed stub antenna. > > As for me, I have ATT's $35 plan for 500 min, also Nokia 3360. I looked > > but can't even match the plan leave alone better it at present, so I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jesse >The 120t has a fixed stub antenna. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> recommend against it. I had a v120c and the antenna broke off twice >> while the phone was in my pocket, costing me $20 to repair it each time. TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and >often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are >extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint. And of course the purpose of the extension is for the lower frequency of the AMPS capability. Otherwise it is not necessary to pull out the antenna although most people I see do. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > And of course the purpose of the extension is for the lower frequency of the > AMPS capability. Otherwise it is not necessary to pull out the antenna although > most people I see do. In the twin cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul), Verizon has no PCS, and does an AMPS/CDMA overlay. I think this may be true in many Verizon markets, and also US Cellular and Alltel. AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile have PCS everywhere, though AT&T also has both PCS and Cellular in some markets. I think that a pull out antenna helps in any case. Anything that gets the signal away from the head, which absorbs the signal should help. I have an R520M, and even with T-Mobile's PCS signal, the extendable antenna (which is about 6 or 7" long) makes a big difference in rural areas (this phone came with a stub). I think what is going on is that Verizon wants their customers to have a better signal. CDMA phones cost more anyway, so the additional cost of the better antenna may not mean so much. With a GSM phone that is going to be made by the millions, they pinch every penny, and they are probably designed for Europe where they have more cell sites per sq in, and don't need to worry about reception. On E-BayI I saw the extendable antenna for the T28/R520M/R320 sold for about 3 times what they cost when Ericsson still sold them . Too bad. > TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and > often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are > extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint. Interesting. Is that because CDMA cells can be larger? Jesse > TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and > often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are > extendable antennas such as from Verizon and Sprint. Hmmmm. I'd have guessed it had to do with frequencies used. Wavelength (and thus antenna size) decreases as frequency increases. Verizon uses 800Mhz a lot (pretty much exclusively in old BAM territories), and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is 800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively. Bob >>TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and >>often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is > 800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively. But TDMA commonly uses 800 MHz, doesn't it? And don't many TDMA phones also support analog? Jesse I have a drawer full of TDMA tri-mode phones and they all have fixed antennas. It's possible that it just works better with the extendable antenna but not necessary. Also, I have an old Powertel GSM phone and it had an extendable antenna. I believe they were 1900MHz. > >>TDMA and GSM phones generally do not have extendable antennas and > >>often have internal antennas while CDMA antennas usually are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jesse > I have a drawer full of TDMA tri-mode phones and they all have fixed > antennas. It's possible that it just works better with the extendable [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > Jesse My old dualmode phone, used on BellSouth Mobility, and retained for backup is a Motorola M77a. It's a TDMA/AMPS model in the MicroTac flip form, with an extendable antenna. The M70 and M75 are the same. I also have the same PowerTel Motorola MicroTAC Select 3000e, a 1900 MHz GSM phone with an extendable antenna. Whether the antenna extends or not is a decision between the manufacturer and the buyer (wireless company with buying power). John C. >Whether the antenna extends or not is a decision between >the manufacturer and the buyer (wireless company with >buying power). If that's true why are the majority of handsets made for the CDMA carriers such as Verizon and Sprint all seem to have extendable antennas and none have internal only antennas as do many TDMA and GSM models. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >Hmmmm. I'd have guessed it had to do with frequencies used. Wavelength >(and thus antenna size) decreases as frequency increases. Verizon >uses 800Mhz a lot (pretty much exclusively in old BAM territories), >and while Sprint is 1900Mhz, most phones have analog backup which is >800MHz. T-Mobile, the main GSM carrier, uses 1900MHz exclusively. Well, if that's so how do you reckon it applies to TDMA? TDMA is both cellular (at 800 Mhz) and PCS (at 1900 Mhz.) My guess is it has more to do with the technology used rather than the frequency the handsets use. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply > My guess is it has more to do with the technology used rather than the > frequency the handsets use. That's why I thought it might be because CDMA supports larger cells. If you're far enough from a TDMA or GSM tower that you *need* an extendable antenna to get good reception, you might be far enough that the delay between your handset and the tower approaches the length of a timeslot, making it impossible to use the network. Jesse US Cellular. If you're going to make local calls in chicago, we have an All You can Call Plan $69.99 for Unlimited Local calls, which includes most of Illinois, WI , IA. > The carrier: Most casual recommendations have been for Cingular, > T-Mobile, and Verizon. VZW, ATTWS, SPCS, T-Mobile, and Nextel offer serivce in both metros. Cingular offers service in Chicago, but roams on either ATTWS or T-Mobile in MSP, depending on plan and technology used. > Who has the best coverage and signals in these cities? Usually the cellular carriers. That would be VZW and ATTWS for MSP, and VZW and Cingular for Chicago. > Who has the best reputation for accurate hassle-free billing and good > customer service? Definitely not ATTWS and SPCS. They have the worst reputation for CS. > Next the plan: T-M's basic ($30) plan has no night minutes; cingular's > has no voicemail. This makes Verizon's $35 plan (300 min, unlimited > nights/weekends, voicemail) most attractive to me. Who told you Cingular has no voicemail? I believe every single plan they offer comes with basic voicemail. > But verizon uses CDMA. People are telling me I should move to GSM. If > you understand the scene, please advise. Mostly depends on * whether you need analog service * whether you need to easily switch between multiple handsets * what your data needs are For a quick summary of the GSM/CDMA issues see http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=298d9cbf.040207 0833.2c092343%40posting.google.com > Finally, the phone and just where to get the whole thing. I suppose > that should wait until I know what to get. http://www.phonescoop.com lists all currently offered phones by grouped by carrier. It's a good place to start looking. > If you know the cellular scene in Chicago or even if you know these > companies in general to make outright Do/Dont recommendations, that > would be greatly appreciated. Your decision depends on many factors, but for most consumers with typical needs I would recommend VZW or Cingular, with SPCS and T-Mobile also being viable choices if you understand (and don't care about) the shortfalls. XFF <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote> > Who told you Cingular has no voicemail? I believe every single plan > they offer comes with basic voicemail. Their GSM Nation 250 ($30) doesn't, voicemail is a $5 option. I just think of it as $35 plan. > XFF <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Their GSM Nation 250 ($30) doesn't, voicemail is a $5 option. I just > think of it as $35 plan. Are you sure? Is this market specific? The web site lists Basic Voice Mail as an "optional feature" for all the GSM Nation plans, but there's no charge associated with it. > > > Who told you Cingular has no voicemail? I believe every single plan > > > they offer comes with basic voicemail. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mail as an "optional feature" for all the GSM Nation plans, but there's > no charge associated with it. My notes say $5 and I think I got that from some Cingular rep but can't be sure. The following site http://getconnected.com/v_wireless/w_plan_detail.asp?plan=32378&tag=a&pr od=&cat=61&vert=2 mentions $5 for voicemail but the description seems to refer to web. Another one, http://www.letstalk.com/product/product.htm?depId=2&pgId=101&prId=24921 mentions $2. So the exact cost could well be region or offer specific. However we can reasonably conclude that "optional" things are unlikely to be free. I am not saying $2 or even $5 is a big deal. I was just surprised, as I am sure you are, that the advertised price did not include voice mail. Once I decided to continue with ATT for now, I lost interest and did not pursue or clarify the details any furhter. I am now focusing on choosing an ATT/TDMA phone upgrade for my Nokia 3360 and the best way to go about getting it. In alt.cellular XFF <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote: > Usually the cellular carriers. That would be VZW and ATTWS for MSP, > and VZW and Cingular for Chicago. From what I've heard, SPCS actually is better in the outlying areas of the Twin Cities than Verizon. This may have changed recently, though. Of course, when I was hearing that SPCS was better in the Twin Cities, I was also hearing that VZW was better in the Chicagoland area. :)  SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED A good buddy of mine lives in Chicago and uses Cingular. He's an airline pilot and travels all over the country. I talk to him all the time using National Mobile to Mobile minutes (cingular is the only one to offer National M to M). The nice thing about Cingular is that they have rollover minutes, meaning that minutes you don't use one month will be saved for future use. Without a rollover plan, you only get 80% of your allocated minutes (if you want to make sure you don't go over you plan minutes and pay exorbitant fees). I'm kinda value-for-the-money person and I find that Cingular has the least expensive prices. T-Mobile has better prices if you need to talk a lot (like 2500 minutes anytime). All Cingular plans have voice mail as far as I know. For you, I'd recommend the Cingular National 450 minutes anytime/5000 nights and weekend plan for $39.99. The Samsung X427 is a nice phone with great reception. It's cute and has a nice color screen too. > Having lived off an ATT/Nokia TDMA (?) phone that actually belonged to > a family, I must get my own. I am overwhelmed with choices I dont [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > companies in general to make outright Do/Dont recommendations, that > would be greatly appreciated. > All Cingular plans have voice mail as far as I know. They have one called GSM nation 250 ($30) which doesn't. I think it is $5 extra. No big deal, just how they choose to present it. I just think of it as $35 plan. T-Mobile offers NW mobile-to-mobile. $6.99 per month for unlimited M2M, and free on family plans(and you don't have to lose your unlimited n/w minutes to get it). Rollover minutes are nice, but if you get a plan with better monthly minutes for close to the same money, rollover loses some of its value. Again, rollover is a cool feature, but I don't see it as a deciding factor. > A good buddy of mine lives in Chicago and uses Cingular. He's an airline > pilot and travels all over the country. I talk to him all the time using [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and weekend plan for $39.99. The Samsung X427 is a nice phone with great > reception. It's cute and has a nice color screen too. >rollover is a cool feature, but I don't see it as a deciding factor. It kinda depends. My wife and son have Cingular and they were contantly going over their minutes. I bumped their minutes to a slightly higher plan right in the area of what they were actually using and since then have accumulated over 4000 rollover minutes so I have quite worrying about high Cingular bills. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > I talk to him all the time using >National Mobile to Mobile minutes (cingular is the only one to offer >National M to M). T-Mobile offers mobile-to-mobile nationwide provided you're on their network. I imagine cingular is the same. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >(cingular is the only one to offer >National M to M). Actually, this is not true. On my AT&T plan (I changed it) I had mobile to mobile minutes nationwide. Right now on my T-Mobile plan I have mobile to mobile minutes nationwide. On my Sprint phones I have mobile to mobile nationwide. Although I don't use Verizon they are now advertising "In" as mobile to mobile - calling any one else on the Verizon network. Mobile to mobile means that as long as I call anyone that is using the same carriers phone my minutes are free and not charged against my monthly usage minutes. How do you define mobile to mobile that ONLY cingular has? -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > Having lived off an ATT/Nokia TDMA (?) phone that actually belonged to > a family, I must get my own. I am overwhelmed with choices I dont [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > companies in general to make outright Do/Dont recommendations, that > would be greatly appreciated. If you want feature transparency, including data, you should go with either T-Mo or Verizon. Verizon is probably better in Chicago, but they are about equal (with VZW having a slight edge on in-building coverage) in Minneapolis (they are the two best, IMHO, with SPCS close behind). My experience is that with the exception of Evansville (and some nearby areas), VZW still has the very best coverage in greater Chicagoland. T-Mo has had to play catch-up, but has done quite well, if my roaming experiences and other co-workers experience in and around Chicago are any indication. VZW will be (free) roaming on either Alltel or USCC between about Madison, WI and the WI/MN border (actually more like Roberts, WI, but let's say the border). T-Mo will be (free) roaming between the IL/WI border (roughly) and Eau Claire, WI. The main advantage to VZW is the AMPS roaming capability. Also, if you travel more than 50 miles or so from downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul, you will be digital (extended area - or "free" roaming on an AC plan) roaming if you have Verizon. T-Mo extends outward from the Twin Cities in most directions much further - in some cases all the way to adjacent states down highway corridors. Check the coverage maps to see the exact corridors and areas. However, again if you lose T-Mo in MN or much of western WI, you have no AMPS to fall back on - actually no roaming at all (the ATTWS GSM agreement is still one-way, AFAIK, plus their network is a small subset of T-Mo's in the Minneapolis market). Phones are very much a personal thing, but the Nokia 3589i is probably the best performing phone VZW carries (albeit one of the more simple units, feature-wise). The LG VX4400B (tri-mode) is one of the best performers for VZW as well (VX4500 or VX6000 if you are OK with all-digital). I have several friends that speak highly of the Samsung R225m and E105 on T-Mo. The Nokias are all usually very good as well. I would take advantage of the return policies of each carrier to test it for yourself (in both markets) and see if there are any deal-breakers as far as coverage, CS or phones. -Jon > If you want feature transparency, including data, you should go with either > T-Mo or Verizon. > > Verizon is probably better in Chicago, but they are about equal (with VZW > having a slight edge on in-building coverage) in Minneapolis (they are the > two best, IMHO, with SPCS close behind). I think AT&T with TDMA has better coverage overall in the Twin Cities than Verizon, having had both, but I have been off Verizon for a year. I don't know about AT&T GSM, which might be bad if they don't provide GSM 850. Everyone I know with AT&T has TDMA (and some are former Sprint customers). I have noticed that AT&T's PCS GSM signal around Madison is very poor. They don't have enough towers, at least for our phone. Einstein PCS is much better. T-Mobile lets you use either one. I don't know what AT&T allows you to use with GSM. We could not roam with T-Mobile onto AT&T GPRS for data usage in Madison, only voice was allowed. Einstein has no GPRS. At any rate, if you stick to the interstates (I-90 & I-94) you can get from Chicago to Minneapolis without losing coverage with T-Mobile. With Amtrak you would have gaps. The main reason we have T-Mobile is that their data is such a great deal. And this is mainly because their WAP site allows unlimited access to POP, SMTP and HTML. Thanks to everyone for all the advice. I have selected Verizon's $35 plan with 300 anytime and unlimited night/weekend minutes. Let's see how it goes, I may be back soon for more advice! :) -A > Having lived off an ATT/Nokia TDMA (?) phone that actually belonged > to a family member, I must get my own. I am overwhelmed with choices [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > companies in general to make outright Do/Dont recommendations, that > would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks to everyone for all the advice. I have selected Verizon's $35 > plan with 300 anytime and unlimited night/weekend minutes. Let's see > how it goes, I may be back soon for more advice! :) Good luck. > Having lived off an ATT/Nokia TDMA (?) phone that actually belonged to > a family, I must get my own. I am overwhelmed with choices I dont [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > minutes, so a very basic national plan. Rather than get unneeded > minutes, I would get a better phone. Must have voice mail. {snip} If you don't mind giving your local area code, you might want to try Cellular 4 Less Inc. They are giving me 300 anytime and 3000 night & weekend minutes on the Verizon Wireless America's Choice network for $27.75 per month and no contract. You can buy a tri-mode CDMA phone from them, or do what I did and pick one up off e-bay for $20 bucks. (and no, I have no affiliation with them ot her than being a satisifed customer.) Here's their info: Cellular 4 Less Inc. 1-888-654-5377 1-360-866-2105 PO Box 12450 Olympia WA 98508 -Jeff > If you don't mind giving your local area code, you might want to try > Cellular 4 Less Inc. They are giving me 300 anytime and 3000 night & weekend [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > PO Box 12450 > Olympia WA 98508 Ajanta just posted this morning that she had decided on verizon. I hope she sees your post in time to consider it. I had decided to keep ATT but I am contract free and thus also free to consider whatever comes along. I'll have to think about giving up my number though. I can't find any info about these plans at cellular 4 less website (which I guessed as cellular4less.com), it seems to be all about accessories? |
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
|
©2008 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.