 |
 | 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 / Cingular / October 2005Cingular GSM v. digital
Digital phone service is being phased out. Why? It (still) works better than the GSM network, in my opinion. In fact, I don't receive a good GSM signal where I live. Ever since Cingular purchased ATT Wireless, it seems Cingular has been secretly heading a campaign to reduce and eliminate digital towers in order to force the issue for it's customers to either join the GSM team or migrate to another provider. This does not serve the consumer well, especially since the cost of the Cingular plans is more-or-less the same, but the rub is that the customer receives less minutes and benefits. What's worse is that I'm not receiving the same signal strength in areas that used to be perfect. That's curious to this user. I can't believe that signal strength magically disappears. Anyone else having the same concerns? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: tk8669@comcast.net > Sent: 10/14/2005 3:11 AM -0400 > Subject: Cingular GSM v. digital > Digital phone service is being phased out. Why? It (still) works > better than the GSM network, in my opinion. GSM is digital; the above statements therefore make no sense.  SignatureRJW >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: tk8669@comcast.net [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >GSM is digital; the above statements therefore make no sense. He is, no doubt, referring to TDMA service, which was referred to as "digital" service by AT&T and Cingular ... before they implemented GSM. > Digital phone service is being phased out. No it's not! It is being chenged from one form of TDMA to another form of TDMA. All still Digital. >Digital phone service is being phased out. Presumably you mean IS-136, also known as "TDMA". >Why? Inefficient use of spectrum. Lacks advanced features (e.g., SIM, GPRS/EGPRS). Lacks growth path. Limited choice of handsets. >It (still) works >better than the GSM network, in my opinion. GSM is also based on TDMA technology, but is quite a bit more advanced than TDMA. >In fact, I don't receive a >good GSM signal where I live. In other areas the GSM signal will be much better than IS-136. No one technology has best coverage in all areas -- that's a function of deployment. >Ever since Cingular purchased ATT >Wireless, it seems Cingular has been secretly heading a campaign to >reduce and eliminate digital towers in order to force the issue for >it's customers to either join the GSM team or migrate to another >provider. Not secret at all, and ATTWS had the same program pre-merger. Both carriers were quite public about their plans to migrate to GSM. The simple fact is that IS-136 has been going away, quite publicly, regardless of carrier. >This does not serve the consumer well, Many (most?) customers are quite happy with GSM, at least as happy as they were with IS-136. >especially since the cost of the >Cingular plans is more-or-less the same, but the rub is that the >customer receives less minutes and benefits. 1. That kind of pricing is part of what got ATTWS into so much trouble that it lost its independence. It would be unrealistic to expect some other carrier to commit the same kind of suicide. 2. IS-136 customers are free to get the best deal available from some other carrier. 3. Cingular plans have benefits you're not properly valuing that didn't exist with ATTWS, including Rollover, and Free Mobile-to-Mobile over the largest subscriber base in the USA. 4. If pressed, faced with losing a customer, Cingular will often make up much if not all of the difference over an old ATTWS plan. >What's worse is that I'm not receiving the same signal strength in >areas that used to be perfect. That's curious to this user. I can't >believe that signal strength magically disappears. Cingular is turning off "redundant" IS-136 towers as a cost-saving measure. Since the process isn't perfect, that can mean less good signal in certain locations. >Anyone else having the same concerns? You need to face up to the fact that IS-136 is on its way out, and that you'll need to migrate to something else. What else is up to you. Choice is good. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> Cingular's GSM service here in Sarasota is VERY bad. I am about to pay whatever, dump and move on. In that regard, is CDMA any better? Experiences? My old Nokia dinasour 5600 phone (TDMA ?) worked like a charm though is was heavy, etc. Upon "upgrading" to a smaller pkg, I found myself stuck, dumped into what here is a bad, very bad system. I called the President's office - spoke with one of his support staff who eventually said that I might be better to move on (to another vendor). (Conversation was very cordial, etc.) Moving from GSM to CDMA ~ ~ frying pan into the fire or what?? Tks! Wayne > Digital phone service is being phased out. Why? It (still) works > better than the GSM network, in my opinion. In fact, I don't receive a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Anyone else having the same concerns? > Cingular's GSM service here in Sarasota is VERY bad. I am about to pay > whatever, dump and move on. In that regard, is CDMA any better? > Experiences? I use CDMA currently and have no problems. This is on Verizon wireless. Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM works wonderfully if it is deployed well and the coverage is there; it's just that Cingular has gone this piecemeal route of not having uniform TDMA and GSM coverage. Likewise, CDMA can be pretty horrible too if the carrier doesn't keep up with coverage demands. A great example of this is Sprint, particularly in the Northeast lately. > My old Nokia dinasour 5600 phone (TDMA ?) worked like a charm though is was > heavy, etc. Upon "upgrading" to a smaller pkg, I found myself stuck, dumped > into what here is a bad, very bad system. This could be any number of things, but I wouldn't blame the GSM standard specifically. Either TDMA is turned on while GSM isn't yet at the cell sites near you, or the particular phone they gave/sold you is poor at RF reception, or perhaps even both. It could also be that they haven't turned down enough TDMA channels to allocate them to GSM to make better use of the spectrum; meanwhile they're pushing everyone off TDMA and crowding the GSM channels and degrading performance (this is likely happening if you're missing calls and getting "system busy" messages). > I called the President's office - spoke with one of his support staff who > eventually said that I might be better to move on (to another vendor). > (Conversation was very cordial, etc.) Probably a good idea if they don't plan on fixing this mess for you. Cingular wants off TDMA as quickly as it can, so I wouldn't expect it to last very long. > Moving from GSM to CDMA ~ ~ frying pan into the fire or what?? Who knows? Best thing to do is try it out before you port your number. Sign up with Verizon or another CDMA carrier on one of their numbers, try the service out, and then if you're sure you like it, THEN call up Verizon's customer support and let them know you want to port your old number into that existing account (should be very quick and easy to do). I did this after I made the mistake of porting right away from Sprint to Cingular and then finding that I *really* shouldn't have done that. After I knew Verizon was where I wanted to stay, I ported and had no issues since. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so >much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM >works wonderfully if it is deployed well and the coverage is there; it's >just that Cingular has gone this piecemeal route of not having uniform >TDMA and GSM coverage. Cingular has made considerable progress on upgrading TDMA to GSM and integrating the old ATTWS and Cingular networks, and Cingular GSM is now arguably the best network. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >>Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so >>much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > integrating the old ATTWS and Cingular networks, and Cingular GSM is now > arguably the best network. Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please cite your sources? SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. > >>Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so > >>much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please > cite your sources? John has no sources other than the wonderfully spring-like universe inside his head. >>>Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so >>>much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please >cite your sources? Published financial and independent reports, a number of which I've previously cited here. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > >Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please > >cite your sources? > > Published financial and independent reports, a number of which I've previously > cited here. When you write something, it is up to you to cite your resources--each time. It is NOT up to the reader--whom you know nothing about and can assume nothing about--to accept your blowhard response of "oh, I've cited those resources before, just believe me". >>Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please >>cite your sources? > > Published financial and independent reports, a number of which I've previously > cited here. Then it should be easy to list links. Please list them. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >>>Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please >>>cite your sources? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Then it should be easy to list links. Please list them. Why? Is your mind open? ;) Whatever, as always, "Google is your friend." <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=author%3Anavas+cingular+quarter> SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >>>>Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please >>>>cite your sources? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why? Is your mind open? ;) Whatever, as always, "Google is your friend." > <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=author%3Anavas+cingular+quarter> Posting links to your own posts hardly counts as an authoritative source, John. When someone asks yout o cite reliable sources, citing yourself doesn't lend any credibility. Further, the press reports you're talking about date back to 2003 through earlier parts of 2005. I've already posted authorititive links (not just to me saying so in past usenet threads) to CURRENT figures, which clearly indicate Cingular is lagging in subscriber adds. Clearly they're suffering. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >>>>>Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please >>>>>cite your sources? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Posting links to your own posts hardly counts as an authoritative >source, John. The cites are in those posts, which are easy to find, as I've shown. >When someone asks yout o cite reliable sources, citing >yourself doesn't lend any credibility. I'm not trying to impress you (or anyone else for that matter). >Further, the press reports you're talking about date back to 2003 >through earlier parts of 2005. I've already posted authorititive links >(not just to me saying so in past usenet threads) to CURRENT figures, >which clearly indicate Cingular is lagging in subscriber adds. My most recent citation was for the 3rd Quarter of 2005, the most current data available. >Clearly >they're suffering. We'll just have to agree to disagree. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >> My old Nokia dinasour 5600 phone (TDMA ?) worked like a charm though is >> was heavy, etc. Upon "upgrading" to a smaller pkg, I found myself stuck, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > specifically. Either TDMA is turned on while GSM isn't yet at the cell > sites near you, Cingular has GSM in ALL their cell sites nationwide. Not bein gturned on is not the issue. It is alleged that Isaiah Beard claimed: > Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so > much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > carrier doesn't keep up with coverage demands. A great example of this > is Sprint, particularly in the Northeast lately. Yah, in most cases it's an issue of coverage. I had zero problems with Verizon Wireless for many years, until I moved to where I am now. Zero CDMA coverage anywhere in my condo complex, and very iffy on the street. The problem is that even though there are two or three CDMA towers in theoretical range, all of them are on the other side of one of several hills, leaving me in a signal shadow. However, I have line-of-sight to a GSM tower, I get three or four bars of signal since I switched to Cingular. SignatureJeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (Lt. Cmdr. Ivanova (quoting Santayana), B5 "Infection") Let me ask a question here (this question has led me to these forums). I am a college student, and I must say I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on cell phones. I am assuming that I am still on a TDMA, considering I switched over from AT&T ( or suncom in Richmond, VA). BUT, I did go into the store a few months ago and buy a brand new phone (an LG) and service plan. It now says 'Cingular' on my phone. So wouldn't this mean I'm on the GSM network now? And if so, why am I getting this shitty service all of a sudden? At night, when I try and make phone calls, I have to dial the number AT LEAST 10 times and the call won't go through. All it says is 'channel not available'. Hope I don't ever have to use it for an emergency. Also, today I didn't even have service at all (no bars) for about 2 hours in the afternoon. I NEED this phone to work because I don't have a home phone line. So what's the deal? (I miss Suncom) :( >Let me ask a question here (this question has led me to these forums). > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(an LG) and service plan. It now says 'Cingular' on my phone. So >wouldn't this mean I'm on the GSM network now? What is the model of your phone? Does it have a SIM card? >And if so, why am I >getting this shitty service all of a sudden? At night, when I try and >make phone calls, I have to dial the number AT LEAST 10 times and the >call won't go through. All it says is 'channel not available'. Could be a service problem in your area. Have you reported it> >Hope I >don't ever have to use it for an emergency. A cell phone isn't something to depend on in an emergency. >Also, today I didn't even >have service at all (no bars) for about 2 hours in the afternoon. I >NEED this phone to work because I don't have a home phone line. So >what's the deal? Report the problem. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >I am a college student, and I must say I don't have a whole lot of >knowledge on cell phones. I am assuming that I am still on a TDMA, >considering I switched over from AT&T ( or suncom in Richmond, VA). >BUT, I did go into the store a few months ago and buy a brand new phone >(an LG) and service plan. It now says 'Cingular' on my phone. So >wouldn't this mean I'm on the GSM network now? Just because it says CINGULAR on your phone doesn't mean that you're on a GSM network. Unless you purchased a GSM phone (which requires the small smart card "SIM" which is usually installed under the battery you do not have a GSM phone. >And if so, why am I >getting this shitty service all of a sudden? At night, when I try and >make phone calls, I have to dial the number AT LEAST 10 times and the >call won't go through. It's likely because CINGULAR is devoting more of their resources to their GSM service and less to the TDMA so called "digital" service. cingular really is putting the squeeze on anyone who still has the older service to switch to the new service. Degrading the old service will have that desired effect for cingular. - - |
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.