 |
 | 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 / December 2005Cingular vs T-Mobile for data
In order to tether on Cingular with support, I apparently need a plan that normally costs $80/month and is currently on sale for about $60. It occurred to me to check what it would cost at T-mobile. As best I can determine, I can have unlimited data from T-mobile for a dollar a day, prepaid without a contract, or about the same price on a monthly basis. T-mobile has no objection to tethering. That plan also gives me phone calls at $.15/minute. We don't use our cell phones very often--they exist mainly as a way for our kids to reach us if there is an emergency when we are out of the house, and for use on trips--so that is almost certainly cheaper than the usual cell plan. The prepaid version is especially tempting, both because it lets me test the service without a commitment and because I want tethering mainly for our two annual family trips. One reason I was checking with T-mobile is that it is, so far as I know, the one U.S. carrier that doesn't use the 850 frequency. I'm interested in the Nokia 9300, a triband phone that is currently available only in the European version--900/1800/1900. Cingular was supposed to have the U.S. model available sometime last month, but they didn't, and so far as I can tell by talking to their people have no detectable plans to have it available anytime soon. At this point I am considering getting a prepaid T-mobile contract, keeping my current Cingular account, and perhaps later shifting entirely to T-mobile if I like their service. I'm curious as to whether anyone here has experience relevant to that plan. In particular, how does the T-mobile wireless connection compare with Cingular's? In practice, how much does Cingular's greater coverage matter? Is there anything I'm missing?  SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com for our two > One reason I was checking with T-mobile is that it is, so far as I know, > the one U.S. carrier that doesn't use the 850 frequency. I'm interested [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Is there anything I'm missing? Remember that T-mobile and Cingular roam on each other where they're not competing. A phone without 850 won't be able to roam on Cingular anywhere in C's 850 areas which is now their primary freq. Also most small carriers (and there are still lots of them away from the major cities) that converts/converted from TDMA will be on 850 so would also be unavailable to a 900 phone. If you plan to do any traveling at all I'd avoid a model that didn't have 850 whether T-mobile or Cingular. I really don't understand these manufacturers that are using a tri-mode chip instead of a quad-mode one especially in high-end pda models like the 9300 and the new Sony Ericsson P990. They either loose a large market in NA or have to have two models, one with 900 and one with 850, like the iMate JAM, which makes no financial sense to me. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA > I really don't understand these manufacturers that are using a tri-mode > chip instead of a quad-mode one especially in high-end pda models like > the 9300 and the new Sony Ericsson P990. They either loose a large > market in NA or have to have two models, one with 900 and one with 850, > like the iMate JAM, which makes no financial sense to me. A few years ago, when the only U.S. GSM coverage was at 1900 Mhz, it made perfect sense for a 900/1800/1900 Mhz "World Phone." The same chipset that is used for a 900/1800/1900 Mhz can be used for a 800/1800/1900 Mhz phone, and these chipsets are slightly less expensive than the chipsets that support quad band. In most cases, the manufacturer will make two versions of the tri-mode phone, one that is 800/1800/1900, which is great for the U.S. but lousy for Europe and Asia, and one that is 900/1800/1900 which is great for Europe and Asia, but lousy for the U.S. Of course the real reason for making the cheap tri-band phones is that it enables the pricing of the quad-band phones to remain higher. The actual cost difference in terms of components is extremely small. But you're right, for the high end devices, there is no excuse for what they're doing. >Of course the real reason for making the cheap tri-band phones is that >it enables the pricing of the quad-band phones to remain higher. Nonsense. >actual cost difference in terms of components is extremely small. It's actually significant. >But >you're right, for the high end devices, there is no excuse for what >they're doing. You're smarter than they are? LOL SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > for our two > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> > > Is there anything I'm missing? > Remember that T-mobile and Cingular roam on each other where they're not > competing. A phone without 850 won't be able to roam on Cingular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be unavailable to a 900 phone. If you plan to do any traveling at all > I'd avoid a model that didn't have 850 whether T-mobile or Cingular. T-mobile has a webbed map which distinguishes between areas that depend on roaming and those that don't, and shows which are 850. (http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/?class=coverage) It looks from that as though substantial parts of our annual trip across the country are in roaming areas, but almost none of them are 850. > I really don't understand these manufacturers that are using a tri-mode > chip instead of a quad-mode one especially in high-end pda models like > the 9300 and the new Sony Ericsson P990. They either loose a large > market in NA or have to have two models, one with 900 and one with 850, > like the iMate JAM, which makes no financial sense to me. Two possibilities occur to me, one technical and one economic. The technical one is that there may be some reason why it is easier to make a phone that works well tri-band than quad--I have no idea whether that is the case. The economic one is that it may be a device to let them price discriminate--charge a higher price in the market where they think people are willing to pay a higher price. But certainly things would be easier for me if the 9300 were quad band--I expect I would have bought one about a year ago, when it first came out. SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com > T-mobile has a webbed map which distinguishes between areas that depend > on roaming and those that don't, and shows which are 850. > (http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/?class=coverage) > It looks from that as though substantial parts of our annual trip across > the country are in roaming areas, but almost none of them are 850. Ok, but note that most of the "noservice" areas will eventually be 850 GSM as the small carriers convert. Minus the few that may go from TDMA to CDMA instead of GSM. That's the most accurate GSM map I've seen. Much more realistic than Cingular's version which shows GSM everywhere they have a roaming partner regardless of whether the carrier has physically converted. The "noservice" areas in north Texas looks close to what I've experienced on Cingular--where there simply isn't any GSM yet although TDMA/AMPS works fine. One last consideration. I've had mixed results while roaming with CSD data on TDMA and GSM. Some partners support it but others don't-- apparently data is NOT required in the roaming agreements. I would suspect GPRS and EDGE will be the same--it may or may not work where you roam. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA > > T-mobile has a webbed map which distinguishes between areas that depend > > on roaming and those that don't, and shows which are 850. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > suspect GPRS and EDGE will be the same--it may or may not work where you > roam. The T-mobile map has a note to the effect that roaming partners don't always support data. SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com > The T-mobile map has a note to the effect that roaming partners don't > always support data. www.t-mobile.com/morecoverage says that GPRS works on roaming 850. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > > The T-mobile map has a note to the effect that roaming partners don't > > always support data. > > www.t-mobile.com/morecoverage says that GPRS works on roaming 850. "Data coverage is available in all areas except select roaming locations." SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com > That's the most accurate GSM map I've seen. Much more realistic than > Cingular's version which shows GSM everywhere they have a roaming > partner regardless of whether the carrier has physically converted. The > "noservice" areas in north Texas looks close to what I've experienced on > Cingular--where there simply isn't any GSM yet although TDMA/AMPS works > fine. It's very impressive how honest T-Mobile is being regarding coverage. My friend went into a T-Mobile store near me, ready to sign up, and the salesperson put in his address and showed him how poor coverage would be at his house, and convinced him not to sign up. Now his two kids each have Cingular cell phones as toys to play with, and he's on Sprint. That map also shows me why T-Mobile so desperately wants to put in a tower in my neighborhood--it would turn a lot of "none" to "fair" into "Great." > That's the most accurate GSM map I've seen. Much more realistic than > Cingular's version which shows GSM everywhere they have a roaming > partner regardless of whether the carrier has physically converted. The > "noservice" areas in north Texas looks close to what I've experienced on > Cingular--where there simply isn't any GSM yet although TDMA/AMPS works > fine. I like the T-Mobile maps because the bands of coverage quality give you a very good idea of just where their towers are located. The battle against T-Mobile in my neighborhood has been raging for years, but there really is no other location that T-Mobile can go to to solve the coverage problem. Remember that 1900 Mhz covers a much smaller geographic area per tower. On average, 800 MHz sites are spaced about 6-8 miles apart and 1900 MHz sites are spaced about 2-2.5 miles apart, unless capacity constraints necessitate closer placement (which is often the case in dense urban areas). It's really the suburbs that suffer under 1900 MHz because so many people object to cell towers close to their homes. >... Remember that 1900 Mhz covers a much smaller >geographic area per tower. On average, 800 MHz sites are spaced about >6-8 miles apart and 1900 MHz sites are spaced about 2-2.5 miles apart, Nonsense. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > That's the most accurate GSM map I've seen. Much more realistic than > Cingular's version which shows GSM everywhere they have a roaming > partner regardless of whether the carrier has physically converted. The > "noservice" areas in north Texas looks close to what I've experienced on > Cingular--where there simply isn't any GSM yet although TDMA/AMPS works > fine. The smaller carriers are putting off the conversion of TDMA to something else until the Cingular TDMA network is turned off. There isn't any real upside for them to rush to convert, given that the cost will not be made up by increased sales of data services. Also, they can avoid the expense of what the GSM carriers have gone through, first launching 1G GPRS, then, 2.5G Edge, then 3G UMTS/HSPDA. > > That's the most accurate GSM map I've seen. Much more realistic than > > Cingular's version which shows GSM everywhere they have a roaming [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of what the GSM carriers have gone through, first launching 1G GPRS, > then, 2.5G Edge, then 3G UMTS/HSPDA. But a LOT of their income comes from Cingular customers roaming on THEM. The vast majority of Cingular customers will have GSM-only phones long before Cingular actually turns off TDMA. A couple of small carriers that I figured would go down to the wire have already finished their conversion and no longer offer TDMA phones on their website. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA >I really don't understand these manufacturers that are using a tri-mode >chip instead of a quad-mode one especially in high-end pda models like >the 9300 and the new Sony Ericsson P990. They either loose a large >market in NA or have to have two models, one with 900 and one with 850, >like the iMate JAM, which makes no financial sense to me. Two models turns out to be cheaper, since tri-band is significantly less expensive to make than quad-band. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > We don't use our cell phones very often--they exist mainly as a way for > our kids to reach us if there is ... > I'm interested in the Nokia 9300, a triband phone that is currently > available only in the European version--900/1800/1900. You rarely use the phone, but you want to limit yourself to one phone that doesn't work for the 850 frequency? > Is there anything I'm missing? T-Mobile has a very nice coverage map, but a lot of what shows up on it is roaming. Can you roam for data or voice with this T-Mobile data plan? Does T-Mobile cover the areas that you want? Does Cingular? Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > > We don't use our cell phones very often--they exist mainly as a way for > > our kids to reach us if there is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You rarely use the phone, but you want to limit yourself to one phone that > doesn't work for the 850 frequency? I rarely use the phone as a phone. I suspect that I would use a phone as a portable web browser if I had one suited for the purpose, and I would use it to connect a laptop to the internet on trips, of which our family takes two long ones a year. > > Is there anything I'm missing? > > T-Mobile has a very nice coverage map, but a lot of what shows up on it is > roaming. Can you roam for data or voice with this T-Mobile data plan? > Does T-Mobile cover the areas that you want? Does Cingular? Both appear to cover the area where I live. According to the T-mobile map, they cover the location of friends we regularly visit with in Indiana who don't have a highspeed internet connection, and my wife's parents in Ohio, ditto. I can't find a similar map on the Cingular site, although I have a vague memory of having seen one in the past. SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com > I rarely use the phone as a phone. I suspect that I would use a phone as > a portable web browser if I had one suited for the purpose, and I would > use it to connect a laptop to the internet on trips, of which our family > takes two long ones a year. My Cingular Motorola v551, with Opera Mini as an add-on browser, and Google.com/glm as a map and routing assistant, is quite capable. The built in browser is frustrating for anything but the Cingular-supplied weather and news. It is severely limited in what it can browse. The Opera Mini will display almost anything, although it's hard to navigate through all the crud that you usually ignore on the sidebars of a web page. Those two are pretty lightweight for data usage, so an unlimited plan isn't so important. The Google maps take a lot of data though, typically 300k for one simple navigation session. An unlimited plan is advised by Google. An alternative would be a laptop card and an internet phone. I use Skype, which is great to other Skype users around the world. The gang at home could use Skype as well, and it would be free. For outbound or inbound dialing to a POTS phone, Skype hasn't been so good for me, with long delay, but people that I know in Europe use it, one from a wireless PDA. That might improve with eBay buying them. Outbound Skype to a regular phone is about 4 cents a minute (currently priced in Euros). The urgency of emergency would be missing with that arrangement, but might be suitable. So why this particular phone? My area is 850 roaming, according to the T-Mobile chart, so you'd be out of luck for voice. Does the data roam? www.t-mobile.com/morecoverage says that GPRS still works on 850, so I guess so. My Cingular data doesn't seem to roam, but I don't know if that is just because the only place I've had the voice roam doesn't have data coverage, or not. I haven't found any maps as nice as the t-mobile.com "personal coverage" page, and I hadn't noticed that it pointed out that my area was 850 instead of 1900, until pointed out in this thread. You can almost see the towers in the circle of "Great" coverage. There's no signal strength indicator for the roaming areas, though. I did get a personal map sent to me by ATT-ws once, but that was from a phone call to support, asking about coverage at my new house. John Navas said that Cingular and T-Mobile share towers in the bay area. If that's true, the T-Mobile site is pessimistic, unless they show roaming where roaming is stronger than theirs. I can get Cingular at my house, but it trips over to roaming very near by. The map shows "fair" at my old house, where Cingular TDMA was very spotty, and the "good" corresponds to my recollection of where the phone actually worked. GSM seems to be quite a bit better in that area. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > John Navas said that Cingular and T-Mobile share towers in the bay area. > If that's true, the T-Mobile site is pessimistic, unless they show roaming > where roaming is stronger than theirs. I can get Cingular at my house, > but > it trips over to roaming very near by. In california (and nevada??), t-mobile and cingular shared the 1900mhz network. Since cingular bought attws, cingular decided to use the 850mhz attws network there and give t-mobile the 1900mhz network. Cingular customers currently can use the 850mhz network and the 1900mhz network (until t-mobile gets full control or something. a few years). There are opinions regarding this. Ive been told the 1900mhz network was better but ive never been there. Out by me, i roam in western illinois occasinally. When i go out that way, i frequently roam on Iowa Wireless, onelink pcs and "USA 040". I can get a usable gprs signal on iowa wireless and usa 040. (onelink pcs is ok since its roaming coverage inside an area already filled with t-mobile.) My last trip i used about 10mb of gprs data over the weekend. (on the $5.99 tmobileweb plan. Hooked up to a laptop. Yes it works, for me.) and i have never been charged for using data while roaming. There isn't any 850mhz roaming that i go. I do keep a nokia 6010 just incase. ( and i have not used it ever. I love my k750 too much to get a phone with 850mhz) The coverage maps near me show less coverage usually than is there. That's ok though. I rather it show less than too much coverage. My house is listed as "fair" yet i get a full signal or one bar less. >An alternative would be a laptop card and an internet phone. Internet phone is painful over Cellular data due to high latency. >John Navas said that Cingular and T-Mobile share towers in the bay area. >If that's true, the T-Mobile site is pessimistic, unless they show roaming >where roaming is stronger than theirs. I can get Cingular at my house, but >it trips over to roaming very near by. That used to be true, but post merger Cingular sold it's old (orange) network to T-Mobile, buying back roaming, retaining the ATTWS (blue) network for itself. Thus Cingular (blue plus roaming on orange) now has better coverage here in the Bay Area than T-Mobile (orange only). SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > >An alternative would be a laptop card and an internet phone. > Internet phone is painful over Cellular data due to high latency. Argh. I forgot that part. Skype specifically mentions not being usable over GPRS. Cisco IP communicator was useless when I tried it. How about "an alternative would be a laptop with a WiFi card" ;-) Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 David, First I would log on to www.gsmworld.com to see exact 1900 frequency coverage in my area. That'll give you an idea of what areas your Nokia 9300 will work in. I like it better than looking at any carrier's coverage map in a store. Also, have you thought about using a laptop connect card from one of these carriers? Also, is data speed important to you? I know that Cingular will be releasing HSDPA in January in some markets so you may want to look into devices that will support that high speed data transfer. Just some thoughts, but I would definitely look on gsmworld.com. It breaks each carrier's coverage down by frequency. . .not just a giant orange or red map. Blake. > David, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > definitely look on gsmworld.com. It breaks each carrier's coverage > down by frequency. . .not just a giant orange or red map. T-Mobile has very detailed maps available on their web site, showing coverage quality down to specific street addresses. The problem with T-Mobile is that the coverage is all 1900 MHz, except for 800 MHz roaming in non-T-Mobile areas. This means you're dealing with the shorter range of 1900 MHz base stations, and you can't roam onto Cingular 850 MHz in areas where T-Mobile has a 1900 MHz network. However in some areas of the country this is not much of a problem. In California, it's a big problem because T-Mobile faces so much opposition over the siting of new towers, while Cingular is enjoying the use of the AT&T Wireless 800 MHz network. > David, > > First I would log on to www.gsmworld.com to see exact 1900 frequency > coverage in my area. That'll give you an idea of what areas your Nokia > 9300 will work in. Many thanks for the URL. It isn't as detailed as the T-Mobile map, but much better than nothing. > I like it better than looking at any carrier's > coverage map in a store. Also, have you thought about using a laptop > connect card from one of these carriers? I use a Mac--no slot for a card. > Also, is data speed important > to you? I know that Cingular will be releasing HSDPA in January in > some markets so you may want to look into devices that will support > that high speed data transfer. Just some thoughts, but I would > definitely look on gsmworld.com. It breaks each carrier's coverage > down by frequency. . .not just a giant orange or red map. Thanks. It might be worth investigating HSDPA. SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com >First I would log on to www.gsmworld.com to see exact 1900 frequency >coverage in my area. ... Where exactly would you find that? AFAIK Cingular isn't broken down by frequency on that site. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Where exactly would you find that? AFAIK Cingular isn't broken down by > frequency on that site. http://www.gsmworld.com/cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?x=0&y=0&z=0&cc=us&net=be The label at the right specifies GSM 1900. Whether it is true of course I don't know. I got there by clicking on "GSM Roaming" Then on "GSM Coverage Maps" Then on "United States" Then on "Coverage Map" under "Cingular Wireles." Just to the right of that it says "GSM 1900" SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com >> >First I would log on to www.gsmworld.com to see exact 1900 frequency >> >coverage in my area. ... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The label at the right specifies GSM 1900. ... Indeed -- it doesn't show any 850 spectrum. And you'l find that the ATTWS map doesn't distinguish between 850 and 1900. In short, I don't think this does what you're looking for. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In short, I don't think this does what you're looking for. You are saying that it does not show Cingular's 1900 coverage? SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com >> >> >First I would log on to www.gsmworld.com to see exact 1900 frequency >> >> >coverage in my area. ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >You are saying that it does not show Cingular's 1900 coverage? I'm saying that it doesn't properly distinguish between 850 and 1900 -- it just shows coverage. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In article <dePnf.281218$zb5.184972@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I'm saying that it doesn't properly distinguish between 850 and 1900 -- it > just shows coverage. Could be true, but given that it says it is 1900, why do you conclude that it is actually 1900+850? SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com > > I'm saying that it doesn't properly distinguish between 850 and 1900 -- it > > just shows coverage. > > Could be true, but given that it says it is 1900, why do you conclude > that it is actually 1900+850? Well, Cingular DFW is NOT 1900 (now or ever) so it's definately showing 850 regardless of what that label says. In fact, if you back up to the carrier list page it doesn't show 850 for Cingular AT ALL--even before the ATTWS merge they had lots of 850. Yet this map is also clearly not just their 1900 areas so.... SignatureJud Dallas TX USA >Where exactly would you find that? AFAIK Cingular isn't broken down by >frequency on that site. <a href="http://www.gsmworld.com/cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=be">http://www.gsmworld.com/ cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=be (Cingular)</a> <a href="http://www.gsmworld.com/cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=at">http://www.gsmworld.com/ cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=at (AT&T Wireless)</a> <a href="http://www.gsmworld.com/cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=we">http://www.gsmworld.com/ cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=us&net=we (T-mobile USA)</a> Sorry. . .I had forgotten that you had to dig around a little to find the maps. I don't think these maps include any tower sharing agreements between various companies though. . still pretty cool to see. <a href="http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml"> Here is the main page</a> P.S.. I"m really sorry if these links do not work. I don't post in groups very often. As TabooLexicon shows in the links provided above, there are actually two maps for Cingular. [He also adds T-Mobile's map] There is the: Cingular Wireless GSM 1900 map. And the: AT&T Wireless PCS LLC (Cingular Wireless) GSM 850/1900 map. As description for the previous two maps indicate, AFAIK, there is no map on this site that shows Cingular 850 coverage only. I have to agree with JN on this one. > One reason I was checking with T-mobile is that it is, so far as I know, > the one U.S. carrier that doesn't use the 850 frequency. I'm interested [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can tell by talking to their people have no detectable plans to have > it available anytime soon. I wouldn't give up on the 850 version just yet. Nokia is definately showing the 850 version of the 9300: http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/9300/0,7747,feat:1,00.html and http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/6336.html reports the wifi equiped 9300i is also to be in 850 -- 1qtr 2006 (just cleared the FCC)--maybe that's what Cingular is waiting for. I hadn't paid too much attention to that phone since I don't really like/need a keyboard but on a Symbian non-touchscreen model it might be needed. Interesting it's 1 inch longer than the iMate Wizard but is narrower and thinner. And with NO camera!!!!! I would have to add it to my "possibles list" except for one show stopper: NO VIBRATE. Of all the stupid things for Nokia to leave out of a phone in their "business" lineup!!!! SignatureJud Dallas TX USA > > One reason I was checking with T-mobile is that it is, so far as I know, > > the one U.S. carrier that doesn't use the 850 frequency. I'm interested [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reports the wifi equiped 9300i is also to be in 850 -- 1qtr 2006 (just > cleared the FCC)--maybe that's what Cingular is waiting for. Thanks. I hadn't seen that story. But the original announcement of the 9300 said they were bringing out both 850 and 900 models. I believe that was well over a year ago, and the 850 model isn't out yet. For a while Nokia stopped saying it was going to come out, then resumed, presumably after the deal with Cingular. So I'm not inclined to rely on Nokia (or Cingular) press releases so far as when the 850 model comes out. SignatureRemove NOPSAM to email www.daviddfriedman.com |
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.