 |
 | 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 / March 2006How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)
How long before former AT&T customers will be forced into switching over to Cingular phone/plans? Do you mean to ask, "How long before the old att tdma network is completely shut down?"? Former att customers can switch to any network/phones they want to. Nobody seems to know. There is not much advantage in waiting until the last minute anyway. > How long before former AT&T customers will be forced into switching > over to Cingular phone/plans? Well, here is the reason I asked. I'm on a business account and found out from a co-worker that there is a phone number we can call to get equipment upgrades, so I called. I wanted to upgrade my phone to the Moto V3 but when I was hesitant when they could only give me a silver one, the gal begin to tell me that the day is going to come when the old AT&T network was going to be eliminated and at some point we would need to migrate over to the Cingular side. Do you think she was wrong? (I opted to stay with what I have for the time being) > Do you mean to ask, "How long before the old att tdma network is >completely shut down?"? Former att customers can switch to any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> How long before former AT&T customers will be forced into switching >> over to Cingular phone/plans? At some point, if you want to continue having wireless telephone service, you will have to either migrate to cingular or port your number to a different carrier. > Well, here is the reason I asked. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Do you think she was wrong? (I opted to stay with what I have for the > time being) At some point, Cingular will not be in business as well, but you missed my point/question entirely. > At some point, if you want to continue having wireless telephone >service, you will have to either migrate to cingular or port your number [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Do you think she was wrong? (I opted to stay with what I have for the >> time being) Sorry, I thought I answered all of your questions. Exactly which question do you still have? As I stated previously, nobody seems to know exactly when cingular will shut down the tdma network. cingular will likely continue in business for decades, now as gsm and soon as wcdma. My guess is the former att tdma network will not last much more that another year or less. > At some point, Cingular will not be in business as well, but you > missed my point/question entirely. > Sorry, I thought I answered all of your questions. Exactly which >question do you still have? As I stated previously, nobody seems to >know exactly when cingular will shut down the tdma network. cingular >will likely continue in business for decades, now as gsm and soon as >wcdma. My guess is the former att tdma network will not last much more >that another year or less. Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA).  SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA). Only in 18 markets, and in even those markets, UMTS does not cover the entire market footprint as per coverage maps. http://dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4820&src=rss10 SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >> Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA). > >Only in 18 markets, and in even those markets, UMTS does not cover the >entire market footprint as per coverage maps. > >http://dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4820&src=rss10 True, but that will undoubtedly come, just as EV-DO was rolled out. It's simply a back and forth that really isn't worth arguing about. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > True, but that will undoubtedly come, just as EV-DO was rolled out. It's > simply a back and forth that really isn't worth arguing about. 2010 will undoubtedly come as well. You have previously stated that UMTS is widely available- obviously you were wrong. Why not admit it for a change? > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > True, but that will undoubtedly come, just as EV-DO was rolled out. It's > simply a back and forth that really isn't worth arguing about. I'd say there's a massive difference between "is" and "will be soon." SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >>>>Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA). >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I'd say there's a massive difference between "is" and "will be soon." Again, 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> I just looked at cingular's web site. It does not say any thing about wcdma. What I was referring to was when wcdma was launched across the entire cingular network and gsm was being wound down and had about as much life left as tdma has now. >> Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA). > > Only in 18 markets, and in even those markets, UMTS does not cover the > entire market footprint as per coverage maps. > > http://dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4820&src=rss10 > I just looked at cingular's web site. It does not say any thing about >wcdma. UMTS, and the HSDPA upgrade to UMTS, are WCDMA. >What I was referring to was when wcdma was launched across the >entire cingular network and gsm was being wound down and had about as >much life left as tdma has now. UMTS, and the HSDPA upgrade to UMTS, are designed to complement, not replace, GSM. >>> Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA). >> >> Only in 18 markets, and in even those markets, UMTS does not cover the >> entire market footprint as per coverage maps. >> >> http://dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4820&src=rss10 SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> "... Cingular will not be in business. . . . " meaning?? Best, Wayne > At some point, Cingular will not be in business as well, but you > missed my point/question entirely. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> Do you think she was wrong? (I opted to stay with what I have for the >>> time being) There really isn't too much left to the imagination about that. What portion do you not understand? Remember, AT&T is being bought out. >"... Cingular will not be in business. . . . " meaning?? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>> Do you think she was wrong? (I opted to stay with what I have for the >>>> time being) >"... Cingular will not be in business. . . . " meaning?? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm not answering his question, but eventually every business in existence today will cease to exist. It's only a matter of time. >Well, here is the reason I asked. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I think it depends on whether you have a TDMA plan or a GSM plan. I have an ATTWS GSM plan, and I have had no mention of needing to switch to a Cingular plan. In fact, I got a letter a few months back saying that regional plans have been upgraded to national coverage with no domestic long distance charges. TH >I'm on a business account and found out from a co-worker that there is >a phone number we can call to get equipment upgrades, so I called. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Do you think she was wrong? (I opted to stay with what I have for the >time being) Let me try this again because obviously the communication problem is with me if everybody is misunderstanding my question..... This woman told me that at some point, AT&T phones would be no good on the Cingular network, GSM as well. She had no clue or wouldn't tell me, but she said one of the reasons that AT&T former customers had little choice for upgrading was because the "entire" network would be changed over to Cingular and former AT&T customers would need to switch over. Better? -:) Now, if somebody comes back and says that isn't true that the AT&T network is incorporated with Cingular or something like that, explain to me why a Cingular phone will not work on a AT&T "Plan"? Sorry for the confusion...I'm just trying to get a layman handle on this whole thing. > Now, if somebody comes back and says that isn't true that the AT&T > network is incorporated with Cingular or something like that, explain > to me why a Cingular phone will not work on a AT&T "Plan"? > > Sorry for the confusion...I'm just trying to get a layman handle on > this whole thing. If it's a tdma device, your days are numbered. If you're in SC or NC, you're already dark, and OK or TX it's gettin pretty dim. Cing doesn't want to run two billing systems either. The whole thing makes more sense to me if I think of it as Cing buying a customer list(ATTWS) and selling, trading, turning off everything else in the deal (to save money). Like M$ buying a competing product, then offering those users an upgrade to the M$ product and deep six'ing the "obsolete" product. That list is long ;-) Also, the goal of just about every cell provider is a monthly charge of at least $50 per subscriber. Most are within a few $ of that goal, it's in their annual reports! -larry / dallas >Let me try this again because obviously the communication problem is >with me if everybody is misunderstanding my question..... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >network is incorporated with Cingular or something like that, explain >to me why a Cingular phone will not work on a AT&T "Plan"? 1. TDMA service is being phased out, so ATTWS (and Cingular) TDMA phones will eventually stop working. 2. An ATTWS GSM plan means an ATTWS SIM, and a locked Cingular GSM phone won't work with an ATTWS SIM. Likewise a locked ATTWS GSM phone won't work with a Cingular SIM (i.e., on a Cingular plan). The key word there is "locked" -- if GSM phones are unlocked, then they will work with pretty much any GSM SIM (if they have the necessary bands). Cingular will unlock Cingular phones on request, but not ATTWS phones. 3rd parties can unlock either phones. 3. The ATTWS ("blue") network is being integrated into the Cingular ("orange") network, meaning that it will eventually disappear. That's not really a problem, since ATTWS GSM handsets will roam freely on the Cingular network in the absence of an ATTWS signal. >Sorry for the confusion...I'm just trying to get a layman handle on >this whole thing. Not your fault -- Cingular's desire to herd customers to Cingular GSM makes it more confusing than it needs to be. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >won't work with an ATTWS SIM. Likewise a locked ATTWS GSM phone won't work >with a Cingular SIM (i.e., on a Cingular plan). Why? >The key word there is >"locked" -- if GSM phones are unlocked, then they will work with pretty much >any GSM SIM (if they have the necessary bands). Cingular will unlock Cingular [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >really a problem, since ATTWS GSM handsets will roam freely on the Cingular >network in the absence of an ATTWS signal. Again, Why? I guess this is the type of converstation that is best done face to face.....Why will an AT&T "sim"/"phone" not work on a Cingular phone if it's all intergrated? >>Sorry for the confusion...I'm just trying to get a layman handle on >>this whole thing. > >Not your fault -- Cingular's desire to herd customers to Cingular GSM makes it >more confusing than it needs to be. Understood. The key word here is why? I keep reading all over the place, "It won't work", but nobody wantes to explain why? >>2. An ATTWS GSM plan means an ATTWS SIM, and a locked Cingular GSM phone >>won't work with an ATTWS SIM. Likewise a locked ATTWS GSM phone won't work >>with a Cingular SIM (i.e., on a Cingular plan). > >Why? That's what locking is all about. Locking is a way to keep subscribers from making off with phones that have been subsidized by the carrier. >>3. The ATTWS ("blue") network is being integrated into the Cingular >>("orange") network, meaning that it will eventually disappear. That's not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >done face to face.....Why will an AT&T "sim"/"phone" not work on a >Cingular phone if it's all intergrated? Again, the subsidy lock. For more information, see <http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=100>. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Again, the subsidy lock. For more information, see ><http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=100>. So, in short. What your telling me is that Cingular is making the decision to not allow former AT&T customers to be able to have the same advantages that are afforded to non AT&T customers? I'm sure this locking function is something that could be dealt with to allow former AT&T customers to circumvent this issue? >>Again, the subsidy lock. For more information, see >><http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=100>. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I'm sure this locking function is something that could be dealt with >to allow former AT&T customers to circumvent this issue? I'm guessing the real issues are that: 1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management. 2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly. 3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use. 4. Unlocking would be very expensive. 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset). SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset). I understand all of the above and it would make since that "past" equipment would not be compatible. With that said, however, what is wrong with on a go forward basis to incorporate the two, so that the service really is "merged" and both could co-exist without this interference. Another words, why not make/sell the equipment today that is compatible with both? Of course this is a rhetorical question. >>I'm guessing the real issues are that: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >incorporate the two, so that the service really is "merged" and both >could co-exist without this interference. That's in fact what's happening. >Another words, why not make/sell the equipment today that is >compatible with both? Of course this is a rhetorical question. New Cingular handsets work on both "orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old ATTWS) networks, and ENS allows them to be Homed on either network. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >New Cingular handsets work on both "orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old >ATTWS) networks, and ENS allows them to be Homed on either network. Not according to the Cingular store in my neighborhood. I've been down there on a couple of occasions and they will not sell me a device unless I change my plan over. I ask why not, they say my service will not work on the Cingular phones. >>New Cingular handsets work on both "orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old >>ATTWS) networks, and ENS allows them to be Homed on either network. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >unless I change my plan over. I ask why not, they say my service will >not work on the Cingular phones. I didn't say new Cingular handsets would work on an ATTWS *rate plan* (SIM) -- they won't, as I made clear. What I said is that they will work on the "'blue' (old ATTWS) network" -- and they will, when used with a Cingular ("orange") rate plan (SIM). So you will have to switch your plan over if you want to buy a Cingular handset. Otherwise, you can buy an unlocked or locked ATTWS handset, which will work with a ATTWS ("blue") rate plan (SIM) on both "orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old ATTWS) networks, albeit without ENS. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >ATTWS handset, which will work with a ATTWS ("blue") rate plan (SIM) on both >"orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old ATTWS) networks, albeit without ENS. Thanks for the exchange. >Not according to the Cingular store in my neighborhood. I've been >down there on a couple of occasions and they will not sell me a device >unless I change my plan over. I ask why not, they say my service will >not work on the Cingular phones. > Your SIM card will not be accepted by the new locked Cingular phones, only Cingular branded SIMs will work in the devices. Likewise, only AT&T SIMs will work in AT&T branded phones. Of course, devices can be unlocked, in which case any GSM SIM can be used in the phone. TH >>Again, the subsidy lock. For more information, see >><http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=100>. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I'm sure this locking function is something that could be dealt with >to allow former AT&T customers to circumvent this issue? p.s. If you need someone to blame, the old ATTWS is more culpable than Cingular, since (unlike Cingular) it refused to unlock handsets. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > p.s. If you need someone to blame, the old ATTWS is more culpable than > Cingular, since (unlike Cingular) it refused to unlock handsets. And now Cingular can fix the problem but refuses, as there is no more ATTW. There is only Cingular, which now possesses all of those subsidy locks. And yet they don't feel compelled to help. But the merger is going real smooth for the consumer, isn't it? Not! >> p.s. If you need someone to blame, the old ATTWS is more culpable than >> Cingular, since (unlike Cingular) it refused to unlock handsets. >> >And now Cingular can fix the problem but refuses, as there is no more ATTW. >There is only Cingular, which now possesses all of those subsidy locks. And >yet they don't feel compelled to help. Are you just being argumentative (as usual), or did you miss my earlier post, where I wrote: I'm guessing the real issues are that: 1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management. 2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly. 3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use. 4. Unlocking would be very expensive. 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset). >But the merger is going real smooth >for the consumer, isn't it? > >Not! Cingular results say otherwise. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > Are you just being argumentative (as usual), or did you miss my earlier post, > where I wrote: > > I'm guessing the real issues are that: > > 1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management. Uhm, even by your previous FAQ posts regarding ENS John, that "network management" issue disappears when the integration is complete. > 2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly. But not ALL subscribers, and the subscribers who see no reason to upgrade because the service has worked fine without this planned obsolescence are the ones that are being affected. The people who fall into the "most"category" are not the people complaining. And to be honest, the old TDMA equipment has served these customers well and would continue to do so if it were not for poor business decisions and long-time-coming missteps in planning long ago, being made at the corporate level. > 3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use. AT&T Wireless handsets cannot be unloacked via keypad combinations? > 4. Unlocking would be very expensive. See my response to #3. And even barring keypad combination, how expensive is it to hook up a phone and reprogram it? They seem content to do this just fine for other service work. > 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset). How does uncrippling a handset crash it? >>But the merger is going real smooth >>for the consumer, isn't it? >> >>Not! > > Cingular results say otherwise. No they don't. Cingular has the lowest number of subscriber adds this quarter, and has been beaten in the adds game for the past three quarters. Unless they clean up their act soon, they will not hold the #1 spot for long. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >> 1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management. > >Uhm, even by your previous FAQ posts regarding ENS John, that "network >management" issue disappears when the integration is complete. True, but that's then, and this is now, when there are service issues that ENS can solve, and for which Cingular would be blamed ( and flamed here :), so I don't think it's unreasonable for Cingular to discourage a flood of non-ENS devices. >> 2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly. > >But not ALL subscribers, ... True, but this is simply one possible factor in a general policy. >> 3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use. > >AT&T Wireless handsets cannot be unloacked via keypad combinations? Some can; some can't. Many subscribers can't be expected to deal with that in any event, particularly given the risk of screwup and the inevitable fallout. And again, this is simply one possible factor in a general policy. >> 4. Unlocking would be very expensive. > >See my response to #3. And even barring keypad combination, how >expensive is it to hook up a phone and reprogram it? They seem content >to do this just fine for other service work. Assume $50 total loaded cost to receive, reprogram, verify, and return handsets, including a management system and the pro-rata cost of setting it up. Unlocking just 2 million handsets would then be a huge $100 million project. And the numbers could be much higher. Almost certainly more cost effective to give larger discounts on new handsets. >> 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset). > >How does uncrippling a handset crash it? Firmware bug. Cockpit error. Handling error. Defective handset in the first place. ("It was OK when I sent it in!!!") All these things must be factored in. I'd guess such losses might easily be as high as 5% or more. I've actually run these kinds of programs, so I'm not just speculating. >>>But the merger is going real smooth >>>for the consumer, isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No they don't. ... 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> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fallout. > And again, this is simply one possible factor in a general policy. What general policy- the Navas policy of screwing up a company? >>> 4. Unlocking would be very expensive. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cost > effective to give larger discounts on new handsets. Or assume no loaded cost to handle the reprogramming in a local service center. >>> 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed >>> handset). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > factored > in. I'd guess such losses might easily be as high as 5% or more. We don't need your guesses- stick to facts for once. You have no practical working experience to validate such a guess. > I've actually run these kinds of programs, so I'm not just speculating. What kind of programs? Cingular programs? Be specific, because only an idiot would screw up 5% running such an application. And I will go on record saying that there is no way you have run authorized Cingular programs on a large enough sample of phones to know what you are talking about. >>>>But the merger is going real smooth >>>>for the consumer, isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We'll just have to agree to disagree. No we don't- we'll continue to state the facts and you can continue to ignore them. We are used to that from you. > Are you just being argumentative (as usual), or did you miss my earlier > post, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly. Actually, many do not- far more than instatistically insignificant. > 3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use. No- they could be provisioned at a local service center. > 4. Unlocking would be very expensive. How so? > 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed > handset). Statistically insignificant. >>But the merger is going real smooth >>for the consumer, isn't it? >> >>Not! > > Cingular results say otherwise. You mean the results that were matched or beaten by smaller carriers? The results that show a shrinking market share? The results of customer staisfaction surveys that show declining satisfaction with the product and service? You are the only one that seems to be satisfied with mediocre results. Why is that not surprising? > Are you just being argumentative (as usual), or did you miss my earlier > post, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly. Actually, many do not- far more than instatistically insignificant. > 3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use. No- they could be provisioned at a local service center. > 4. Unlocking would be very expensive. How so? > 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed > handset). Statistically insignificant. >>But the merger is going real smooth >>for the consumer, isn't it? >> >>Not! > > Cingular results say otherwise. You mean the results that were matched or beaten by smaller carriers? The results that show a shrinking market share? The results of customer staisfaction surveys that show declining satisfaction with the product and service? You are the only one that seems to be satisfied with mediocre results. Why is that not surprising? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I think a bigger problem would be technical support. You'd have to start supporting any AT&T GSM device on the new Cingular system. It would be a nightmare, and probably too costly to justify the research into each and every GSM handset that AT&T Wireless ever sold to be reprogrammed for Cingular's GPRS/EDGE/WCDMA network. TH >I think a bigger problem would be technical support. You'd have to >start supporting any AT&T GSM device on the new Cingular system. It >would be a nightmare, and probably too costly to justify the research >into each and every GSM handset that AT&T Wireless ever sold to be >reprogrammed for Cingular's GPRS/EDGE/WCDMA network. Just because they don't "support" a device doesn't mean that you can't use it on their system! - - > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > makes it > more confusing than it needs to be. Hmmmm.... sounds like the merger isn't going as smoothly as you are trying to portray it other threads. I see hurdles here that are not experienced in other merged companies. Thanks for the confirmation. >> Not your fault -- Cingular's desire to herd customers to Cingular GSM >> makes it >> more confusing than it needs to be. >Hmmmm.... sounds like the merger isn't going as smoothly as you are trying >to portray it other threads. I see hurdles here that are not experienced in >other merged companies. Thanks for the confirmation. Only in your dreams. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Only in your dreams. No John- those of us that live in reality see the real facts. Declining net adds, lower income per subscriber than the competition, decreasing market share, lower customer satisfaction- these are all facts. Your opinion is of no value to the company, any of its subscribers or anyone in this group. Your opinion does not trump the facts. That is, it doesn't trump the facts to anyone not living on Planet Moron with you. >>I'm on a business account and found out from a co-worker that there is >>a phone number we can call to get equipment upgrades, so I called. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Sorry for the confusion...I'm just trying to get a layman handle on >this whole thing. Just to keep the documentation clear, I just learned from one of my co-managers in my department that he called them back after receiving his phone and did verify that the AT&T equipment would "NOT" be supported as some point and time but they could not give a time frame. They did however allow him to return his new equipment with no penalty. And before anybody says it, yes, I'm talking about the GSM equipment. The best solution is to circumvent the locked cingular phone. Just buy your new V3 online unlocked then pop your sim into it and have a great day. I know thats what I have. 2qwik qwikmr2atgeemaildotcom remove the extra ee's from gmail Keep in mind that when using an unlocked phone on Cingular's network the web portion of the usually will not work. Fred > The best solution is to circumvent the locked cingular phone. Just > buy your new V3 online unlocked then pop your sim into it and have a > great day. I know thats what I have. 2qwik > qwikmr2atgeemaildotcom remove the extra ee's from gmail >Keep in mind that when using an unlocked phone on Cingular's network the web >portion of the usually will not work. The Web portion will work properly *if* the unlocked phone is configured properly. See the FAQ below. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > There is not much advantage in waiting until the last minute anyway. There is if you're currently using TDMA and if that TDMA coverage is better than the GSM coverage in your area. No point in moving to an inferrior service until you're forced to. It is my understanding that cingular has launched/overlaid it's entire network with gsm, therefore the gsm coverage is just as good as the tdma coverage was. >> There is not much advantage in waiting until the last minute anyway. > > There is if you're currently using TDMA and if that TDMA coverage is better > than the GSM coverage in your area. No point in moving to an inferrior > service until you're forced to. > > There is if you're currently using TDMA and if that TDMA coverage is better > > than the GSM coverage in your area. > > > It is my understanding that cingular has launched/overlaid it's entire > network with gsm, therefore the gsm coverage is just as good as the tdma > coverage was. YMMV. GSM at my house has NEVER been full bars like TDMA was (GAIT phone). Also since they started "tuning" the joint GSM system it's dropped another bar. Not far enough to be a problem but noticably weaker than TDMA. And don't forget that some of us roam outside the major cities onto other carriers--GSM is still not available at all in many rural areas and small towns. It would make sense for SOME people to stay on a TDMA plan as long as possible. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA You'll have to define what "overlaid" means. Apparently it doesn't mean you'll get a signal in as many places as TDMA. GSM definitely does NOT have as good of coverage as TDMA in my area. Until they fill in the gaps there's a distinct advantage to staying with TDMA. > It is my understanding that cingular has launched/overlaid it's entire > network with gsm, therefore the gsm coverage is just as good as the tdma > coverage was. It is my understanding that all cingular antenna sites have gsm. Therefore there should be just as much cingular gsm coverage as there was/is cingular tdma coverage. If customers of any carrier, gsm or cdma or whatever, encounter dead spots, they would do well to report them to the carrier so improvements can be made. > You'll have to define what "overlaid" means. Apparently it doesn't mean > you'll get a signal in as many places as TDMA. GSM definitely does NOT have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>network with gsm, therefore the gsm coverage is just as good as the tdma >>coverage was. I'm just pointing out that the premise you keep repeating that just because all antenna sites have a GSM transmitter therefore GSM coverage is as good as TDMA is wrong. That's a big assumption with no basis for fact. Maybe the power output is not as high, maybe the antenna arrays are different, I don't know why. But I can say with fact that in my area, GSM coverage is not nearly as good as TDMA. And yes, I have been reporting these dead spots to Cingular and until I see the signal strength improve for GSM in those areas I have no reason to switch to GSM. Now you have a better understanding so hopefully you'll quit saying absolutely GSM is as good/better than TDMA. It MAY be better than TDMA. > It is my understanding that all cingular antenna sites have gsm. Therefore > there should be just as much cingular gsm coverage as there was/is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>network with gsm, therefore the gsm coverage is just as good as the tdma >>>coverage was. We seem to agree that all cingular antenna sites do have gsm. That being the case, "gsm coverage is not nearly as good as tdma" is not likely. As with all providers there may be some gaps between sites, but most overlap. It is likely in this case that there are as many overlaps and gaps with cingular tdma as there are with cingular gsm, perhaps just in different places. With either cingular tdma or cingular gsm, the area is just as covered. With cingular's overall demands on their funds, perhaps getting gaps filled in is not on their top burner. And there are frequently problems with property owner permission and zoning. If unfortunately some of the gaps are at your house or/and your work and/or play areas, choosing a carrier can be difficult. > I'm just pointing out that the premise you keep repeating that just because > all antenna sites have a GSM transmitter therefore GSM coverage is as good [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Now you have a better understanding so hopefully you'll quit saying > absolutely GSM is as good/better than TDMA. It MAY be better than TDMA. I never agreed that all antenna sites have GSM but I'll concede that point since I have nothing to base that assumption on either way and it's an irrelevant point. Whether or not you think it's likely that "gsm coverage is not nearly as good as tdma" doesn't change the fact that it's what I'm seeing. In my area, taking signal strength measurements shows that the GSM signal is very regularly about 10 db lower than that of the TDMA signal at the same spot. That being so, the GSM signal drops below a usable level before the TDMA signal does thus causing a lower "usable coverage" area. What it comes down to is that it seems that the GSM transmitters are not outputting as much power as the TDMA transmitters? Maybe this is due to the fact that the TDMA transmitters were all AT&T with no Cingular presence and now that Cingular is running the show maybe they set their transmitters a bit lower. It gets back to my original question on how you define coverage. If we're just talking about a measurable signal then I guess there *is* coverage in that spot. If we're talking about a signal level where the phone will no longer talk to the cell then there is no coverage in that spot. The area is NOT just as covered. > We seem to agree that all cingular antenna sites do have gsm. That being > the case, "gsm coverage is not nearly as good as tdma" is not likely. As [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of the gaps are at your house or/and your work and/or play areas, choosing > a carrier can be difficult. The overlay of TDMA with GSM is essentially complete. However, that does not mean that all TDMA towers now have GSM, since Cingular is eliminating "redundant" towers resulting from the combination of the old ATTWS and old Cingular networks. That process isn't perfect, as you have discovered, so inevitably there will be some coverage holes for GSM as compared to the old TDMA. On the other hand, GSM coverage is continually being improved and expanded, so it's also true that there are and will be more areas where GSM coverage is better than the old TDMA coverage. It may not matter in your particular circumstances, but overall GSM coverage is now probably better than the old TDMA coverage. >I never agreed that all antenna sites have GSM but I'll concede that point >since I have nothing to base that assumption on either way and it's an [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> of the gaps are at your house or/and your work and/or play areas, choosing >> a carrier can be difficult. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >There is not much advantage in waiting until the >last minute anyway. Unless you have an AT&T Wireless plan that has superior advantages to ones offered by cingular. Switching to cingular will automatically mean that you get charged for both incoming and outgoing text messages whereas with ATTWS you were only charged for outgoing messages. - - >>There is not much advantage in waiting until the >>last minute anyway. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mean that you get charged for both incoming and outgoing text messages >whereas with ATTWS you were only charged for outgoing messages. On the other hand you get Rollover, which ATTWS plans don't have. There are always pros as well as cons. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big if. I have never wanted to text someone. I do send email, sometimes from my phone, usually when the computer is in use by another family member. >>There is not much advantage in waiting until the >>last minute anyway. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > - - > > I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I >wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. ... Why get a separate device when the phone works as well or better? SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I >wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big >if. I have never wanted to text someone. I do send email, sometimes >from my phone, usually when the computer is in use by another family >member. We're glad for you. Unfortunately you're not everyone and it's not always just about you. - - > >I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I > >wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We're glad for you. Unfortunately you're not everyone and it's not > always just about you. no, but those of you who use phones to do everything are idiots. That's all he's saying. >> >I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I >> >wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That's all he's saying. That's insulting (what a shock), and not what he's saying. All he's saying is that his own needs are (a) voice and (b) email, not messaging. I think it's a bit odd that he uses the phone for email but not messaging, since it's arguably better at the latter than the former, but I respect that he is the best judge of his own needs. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> I very rarely use my phone for email, only when the computer is tied up. When we got our Vision phones, I tried smsing my daughter to see if and how it worked, but found it annoyingly cumbersome. I find sending email on the phone more straight forward, but not anywhere near as good as using the computer. > That's insulting (what a shock), and not what he's saying. All he's saying is > that his own needs are (a) voice and (b) email, not messaging. I think it's a > bit odd that he uses the phone for email but not messaging, since it's > arguably better at the latter than the former, but I respect that he is the > best judge of his own needs. Perhaps it's just lack of familiarity. Unless it's a poor phone, sending SMS should be at least as easy as email, if not easier. > I very rarely use my phone for email, only when the computer is tied >up. When we got our Vision phones, I tried smsing my daughter to see if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> arguably better at the latter than the former, but I respect that he is the >> best judge of his own needs. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >> We're glad for you. Unfortunately you're not everyone and it's not >> always just about you. > >no, but those of you who use phones to do everything are idiots. > >That's all he's saying. And ya know what? We're saying the same exact thing about luddites like you as well! I could be sweet like you and call everyone who doesn't do things the way you like or the way you do an idiot as well, but even I have a certain maturity level low though it may be and I wouldn't call someone an idiot just because they don't believe the way that I do. No one is forcing anyone to do anything with their phone that they don't want to do. If you want to use tin cans and a piece of string to communicate go for it. Don't expect everyone to view things the exact way that you do. - - I did not call anyone names. >>>I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I >>>wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's all he's saying. Indeed you didn't -- that was "Elmo," who is known for such behavior. > I did not call anyone names. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> That's all he's saying. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > I did not call anyone names. You really can't recall what you said either can you? You called people *idiots.* If that's not calling someone a derogatory name what is? >>>>I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I >>>>wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> That's all he's saying. - - Look back in the thread. I did not call anyone any names. The person I replied to did. I think I have been fairly successful in avoiding name calling in all the years I have been posting. >> I did not call anyone names. > > You really can't recall what you said either can you? You called > people *idiots.* If that's not calling someone a derogatory name what > is? >Look back in the thread. I did not call anyone any names. The person >I replied to did. I think I have been fairly successful in avoiding >name calling in all the years I have been posting. You wrote: " no, but those of you who use phones to do everything are idiots." I see the word idiots and you wrote it. Please explain it to those of us who are slow. - - >>Look back in the thread. I did not call anyone any names. The person >>I replied to did. I think I have been fairly successful in avoiding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I see the word idiots and you wrote it. Please explain it to those of >us who are slow. He didn't write that. It was written by "Elmo P. Shagnasty". SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> You might want to go back and re-read the thread. That text was from the posting of Elmo P. Shagnasty. Josephs post simply quoted the previous one. >>Look back in the thread. I did not call anyone any names. The person >>I replied to did. I think I have been fairly successful in avoiding [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - - I mean't to say Jeromes post not Josephs post. > You might want to go back and re-read the thread. That text was from the > posting of Elmo P. Shagnasty. Josephs post simply quoted the previous one. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> - - Probably within a year. Cingular has already started to boot the small prepaid resellers off of TDMA in rural markets. > How long before former AT&T customers will be forced into switching > over to Cingular phone/plans? > Cingular has already started to boot the small > prepaid resellers off of TDMA in rural markets. Would that be ATTWS resellers? Where are they doing that? Cingular never HAD much rural coverage in the south whether marketed directly or via resellers--ATTWS might have had a bit larger rural share since it was a hogdepoge of old class A carriers. Most TDMA in rural markets in the south is handled by small carriers and Cingular can't "boot" them out without buying up their licenses which I don't see them doing. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA >Probably within a year. Cingular has already started to boot the small >prepaid resellers off of TDMA in rural markets. Cite? - - |
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.