 |
 | 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 / February 2006RE: when my plan expires...
When my plan expires, will it go month-month? I have the RollOver one with 1100 minutes...I want to lower to a lesser number of minutes still with rollover ...will I keep the accumulated minutes I already have? Can I do that without a contract but just month-month? YES it will go month to month and dont sign or buy phones from them, go on ebay or get them on the net, I found out tonight , that Rates/Plans are going up in March or April again > When my plan expires, will it go month-month? I have the RollOver one with 1100 minutes...I want to lower to a lesser number of minutes still with rollover ...will I keep the accumulated minutes I already have? Can I do that without a contract but just month-month? > YES it will go month to month and dont sign or buy phones from them, go > on ebay or get them on the net, I found out tonight , that Rates/Plans > are going up in March or April again If anyone is thinking of thumbing their nose at Cingular, I noticed a special offer on Sprint's web site (www.sprint.com) for online wireless orders: 1: Choice of 3 free phone models, including one model (Samsung A560) with an internal antenna--no antenna stub to crack off. 2: NO activation fees on up to 5 lines ($36.00 saving on each line). 3: Overnight shipping of the phones to your door. 4: Free roaming and free Sprint long distance. I dumped Cingular for Sprint PCS about 10 days ago, and the signal strength and clarity of the CDMA system are so much superior to what I was getting from Cingular that I regret only that I didn't make the switch sooner. If anyone is looking to bail out of Cingular and not have to pay big bucks to start over with another carrier, this may be an option deserving of consideration. Look for the link on the Sprint wireless section of the web site named "Special Offers" I am waiting to see what song or tune your going to be singing with Sprint in about 2 to 3 billing cycles and or support calls. IMHO, going from Cingulard to Sprint, would be MY last resort. I know too many people that have been through HELL and back with Sprint and I will leave it at that. Best of luck >> YES it will go month to month and dont sign or buy phones from them, go >> on ebay or get them on the net, I found out tonight , that Rates/Plans [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Look for the link on the Sprint wireless section of the web site named > "Special Offers" "Your Name Here" <mbb3977@yahoo.com> wrote in message \ > I know too many people that have been through HELL and back with Sprint > and I will leave it at that. But I've been through hell and back ALREADY--with Cingular! Sprint can't be any worse than that. And I've been a business Long Distance customer of theirs for years, with never a problem. All I will say is I wish you best........................ From time to time I contemplate switching to verizon, but than I look at what I am paying and what I need for minutes, and I always come back to Cingular. Actually Verizon is waiting to see how before T-Mobile is bought out by Cingular > "Your Name Here" <mbb3977@yahoo.com> wrote in message \ >> I know too many people that have been through HELL and back with Sprint [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sprint can't be any worse than that. And I've been a business Long Distance > customer of theirs for years, with never a problem. > I dumped Cingular for Sprint PCS about 10 days ago, and the signal strength > and clarity of the CDMA system are so much superior to what I was getting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to start over with another carrier, this may be an option deserving of > consideration. Around here, Sprint has a reputation for having bad signal. I've known about this problem for over 5 years. I guess Sprint finally admitted it, because they're not running ads touting that they've fixed it. I'm half tempted to give them a try to see what's what with that. I would even switch from Cingular if it works. >> I dumped Cingular for Sprint PCS about 10 days ago, and the signal >> strength [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm half tempted to give them a try to see what's what with that. I > would even switch from Cingular if it works. I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And, since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether Cingular's Allover Network has broader geographic coverage than Sprint's National PCS Network. All I ever travel to is New York City, and the NY-Washington corridor is well covered by every carrier. The superiority of Sprint's coverage was, for me, so pronounced over that of Cingular's that I'd have switched even if I had no other issues with Cingular. I've never had such crystal clear calls or such high signal strength before. I was driving around Philadelphia yesterday, and the signal strength icon was at the max every time I checked it. As for their customer service, I've had nothing but positive experiences so far. Yesterday, when I called to inquire if they could permanently block my company name from displaying on outbound caller ID on my three lines (my account is billed to my company), the rep offered to change the ID to display our names, individually for each phone, rather than the company! I didn't even know they could do that. Sure enough, within minutes I saw each phone line associated with the user's name when I checked my account on the Sprint web site. And a few hours later, the personal names began displaying when I tested the phones by calling my house line and seeing what came up on the Caller ID box. So I just don't know what all the fuss is about their allegedly lousy customer service. And I have been a Sprint long distance customer for over a decade, and have never had a single problem. In fact, I would rate their LD service as superior both technically and service-wise. Given that I rarely roam, will never exceed my Anytime Minutes allotment, have a Sprint tower 2 blocks from my house and get a great signal, and have gotten a great package along with a great price, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG? Unless Cingular buys Sprint, I should be just fine!!!! Lots of people here post messages suggesting that Cingular is arrogant, and I agree. But I have found that there is at least one alternative out there--one that has done handstands to cultivate my business and that gives me better service than I ever got from those dogs at Cingular. For me, in my particular circumstance, switching was a no-brainer. Just out of curiosity, why didnt you try Verizon? >>> I dumped Cingular for Sprint PCS about 10 days ago, and the signal >>> strength [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > me better service than I ever got from those dogs at Cingular. For me, in > my particular circumstance, switching was a no-brainer. > Just out of curiosity, why didnt you try Verizon? Two reasons: 1: My original plan was to hang on to my TDMA plan until the very end, but the service dwindled to the point where we hated to even try to make calls, knowing that it would take several attempts before they would complete. 2: Sprint solicited my business, and it was the catalyst that got me to give them a try. I phoned to make a minor change in my business long distance, and the rep offered me a very good price offer. I had a 14-day trial period, and I made the decision to keep the service within 48 hours of receiving my phones. I did have a look at Verizon, and their rates were higher, they had activation fees and they required that I pay for the phones up front and then wait for a partial rebate. Sprint gave me the phones for free, and assessed no activation fee. The phone I got from Sprint is one that has an equivalent model in Verizon. I believe that the level of service I am getting from Sprint is equal to what I'd get from Verizon, and at a lower cost. And, remember, my needs are quite modest. Any carrier could meet my requirements. I just want a decent price and the privilege of being treated like a valued customer, not a piece of $hit. > > Just out of curiosity, why didnt you try Verizon? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > price and the privilege of being treated like a valued customer, not a piece > of $hit. When I decided to signup with Sprint, to get a Treo, it was a lot of work. First, I ordered the phone and service from Amazon. Then, the phone was out of stock for about a month. Then, when I got it, activating it failed. I called CS, was told I had to prove my identity, and to go to a dealer, giving me the address of a Radio Shack that was open. Got there, and since they were not a corporate store, they couldn't help me. Tried the corporate store the next day, and found out that they had a customer in their system with my SS attached. I had to go back through CS, order a fraud kit, wait 1/2 a week for it to come, fill it out with copies of SS card, etc, to prove my identity, mail it off, wait a couple weeks, then still go back to the corporate store to show my drivers license again before I could get it activated. Then, it turned out I was lucky to get 1-2 bars of phone service, and there were parts of the house I couldn't even make calls. But, unfortunately, I was already out of the time I could return the phone. So I was stuck with a service that was only good at work or on the interstate. If I had made the mistake of signing up for 2 years, I would have had to do the ETF route. I ended up signing up for Cingular 9 months into this contract. My service is within a couple dollars of my Sprint coverage, with 100 fewer anytime minutes, 500 additional N/W minutes, and being able to use it at home and still do the internet via my phone. I didn't consider TMobile at the time because being only 1900mhz, they had lesser coverage, plus they didn't have Edge yet. Verizon was too expensive, if I wanted data. US Cellular didn't have data. Even now, the cheapest TMobile with unlimited internet appears to be the $60/month plan with 300 minutes. But it appears that the $30/month internet service isn't available on their basic bluetooth and edge phones. I seem to recall that their cheap $6/month internet blocks many ports. "Kevin K" <kevink4@gmail.com> wrote in message news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2- > My service is within a couple dollars of my Sprint coverage, with 100 > fewer anytime minutes, 500 additional N/W minutes, and being able to > use it at home and still do the internet via my phone. My own requirements are much more modest. I use my phone only for personal use, mainly N/W. I use it for voice calls only--never for data or internet. I rarely roam, and when I do it is to places along the Boston-Washington corridor, where every carrier has lots of towers. So I could probably get by just fine, regardless of which carrier I used. Had Cingular not messed up the ATTWS towers, I'd have been happy to remain on with my Ericsson flip phones from 5 years ago. Sorry to hear that you ran into problems with your Sprint service. >Just out of curiosity, why didnt you try Verizon? My major beef with Verizon (and one of the reasons I left them for Cingular) is that they are NOTORIOUS for crippling the firmware on their phones so that they can get you to pay for everything they can. Perfect example is their smartphones with cameras which are crippled so that you can ONLY get images via their paid service - you can't download them via a USB cable. When I contacted the manufacturer they told me that their phone was perfectly capable of being accessed via USB, but that Verizon removed that feature in their version of the f/w. Replacing it with the original f/w would render the phone disabled on Verizon's net. That's just market protectionist bullshit, and the reason I no longer deal with the 600 lb gorilla. subdude I like reading this and it pisses me the f.ck off also, cause I call verizon yesterday and the rep swore up and down that there phones would not erase anything that I put on with a USB or bluetooth connection, than I read that verizon even cripples the bluetooth connection also. I am so tempted to go down and sign up for a new contract and than go through the whole deal just to go back and make a scene in front of a store full of people at how the company is limiting , than again there are people that just dont give a flying f.ck, either. Thats like buying a new phone and than after 30 days getting a refurb phone sent to you, WTF over? >> Just out of curiosity, why didnt you try Verizon? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > subdude >I like reading this and it pisses me the f.ck off also, cause I call >verizon yesterday and the rep swore up and down that there phones would not [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >> subdude I'm personally not into "street theater," but I understand your frustration. A better approach would be to tell your story in venues that other people will see--such as here and, possibly, a letter to your local newspaper's consumer affairs reporter. This is one of the subtle differences among carriers that never gets reported. People have been conditioned into thinking that they all charge about the same, and offer about the same services and coverage. [snip] >My major beef with Verizon (and one of the reasons I left them for >Cingular) is that they are NOTORIOUS for crippling the firmware on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >that feature in their version of the f/w. Replacing it with the >original f/w would render the phone disabled on Verizon's net. [snip] Cingular is NO SAINT here either. For example, Cingular *intentionall* "crippled" the firmware of their Nokia 6620 phones as to NOT allow users to use MP3 ringtones. Presumably, this is to coerce users to purchase ringtones through their website. >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Presumably, this is to coerce users to purchase ringtones through >their website. Hmmm, that *is* strange...I have an MPX220 smartphone with them, and I can use MP3 tones just fine. Two other friends with Cingular phones that use MP3s for ringtones report the same thing. Before you go indicting Cingular falsely though, you should know your problem isn't a firmware hack. You just need to get Nokia multimedia converter and convert tones to AMRr format...MP3 isn't supported. Find it here: http://www.forum.nokia.com/main/0,,034-63,00.html As a bonus, AMR files tend to be smaller. BTW, Had you simply Googled this (like I did) you would have found this out. BTW, I just had a run with Cingular CS - my 3rd in the 18 months I've been with them. I was having problems with my THIRD MPX220 and had just about given up. The CSR was excellent and helpful (which has always been my experience with them) and ended up moving me to Customer Save personnel, who worked out a deal to replace my 220 with a brand new Cingular 3125 at a substantial discount. I see people post here about the suposedly terrible customer service at Cingular, but I've had nothing but wonderful experiences with them - short wait times, helpful people and always had the problem resolved to my satisfaction. Of course, I'm friendly but firm, and polite - I think that makes all the difference. Berating CSRs is not only stupid and rude, it never gets you what you want. subdude BTW, I do *NOT* work for Cingular (To preempt the same accusations that Navas always gets <BG>) [snip] >>For example, Cingular *intentionall* "crippled" the firmware of their >>Nokia 6620 phones as to NOT allow users to use MP3 ringtones. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Before you go indicting Cingular falsely though, you should know your >problem isn't a firmware hack. Stock (unbranded) Nokia 6620 phones allow MP3 ringtones: <http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/nokia/6620.html> [...]This phone allows you to use MP3's as ringtones.[...] <http://www.nokia.ca/english/products/6620/6620_features.asp> Nokia 6620 Features ROCK THE BLOCK MP3 Ringtones sing it out loud and proud. MP3 Player onboard allows you to carry your tunes wherever you go. [...] Music, Music Videos, Personalization and Fun * MP3 music with built-in digital music player. * MP3 ringtones. However, Cingular intentionally crippled the Nokia 6620 to not allow MP3 ringtones: <http://www.howardforums.com/archive/topic/732990-1.html> [...] I've never owned a cell phone so go easy if this is a dumb uestion. I'm thinking about ordering a nokia 6620 and cingular ervice through amazon. I've read on other threads that cingular nokia 6620, due to fw, can not use mp3 as ringtones. The amazon site's product description says it does. I'd like a final word on this before ordering. Posted by: angel_wing0 its suppose to work..but for some reason alot doesnt...thats all i m going to say~ Posted by: strickzilla with the newer FW (after 3.XX dont quote me on that ) it wont play a straight mp3 [...] <http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/281339> if anyone could help me out on this one i will really appreciate it. my wife and i have both the nokia 6620 from cingular. unfortunately my phone will not take an mp3 ringtone. it would keep saying "file format not supported" or something like that. she has the firmware: v 2.15.1 28-06-04 nhl-12 while i have: v 4.22.1 25-11-04 nhl-12 i'v researched and googled this problem and all they can say is to reflash it with a firmware not restricted to cingular. is there a way for me to flash it on my own without having to send my fone out and pay someone to do it? if so where can i get the a firmware that will work best in my situation. <http://www.howardforums.com/archive/topic/621152-1.html> [...] The Cingular branded firmware does not allow MP3's to be used as ringtones [...] Just for some clarification: Older cingular branded firmware does allow mp3 ringtones, it also came with opera. Included in the box with the cingular version was just the home charger and the memory card. Newer cingular firmware appears to disable the mp3 ringtone capability and I have heard that it only comes with a trial of opera or maybe none at all. [...] >You just need to get Nokia multimedia converter and convert tones to >AMRr format. That is a work around, correct. >..MP3 isn't supported. On unbranded Nokia 6620 they are supported, and on older Nokia 6620 Cingular firmwares they were. It is my belief, and many others, that Cingular intentionally DISABLED this feature in order to get people to purchase more ringtones thru their service. >>You just need to get Nokia multimedia converter and convert tones to >>AMRr format. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Cingular intentionally DISABLED this feature in order to get people to >purchase more ringtones thru their service. With all due respect, that theory doesn't really make much sense, since the phone can still play other formats that are readily available from non-Cingular sources. I think the more likely reason is legitimate concern over pirated MP3 ringtones.  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>It is my belief, and many others, that Cingular intentionally DISABLED >>this feature in order to get people to purchase more ringtones thru [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >non-Cingular sources. I think the more likely reason is legitimate concern >over pirated MP3 ringtones. We will have to disagree here then. Using MP3s as ringtones, for most people, are the simplest and most common format to use as ringtones. Other forms the 6620 can use are problematic and include WAV files (too big), AMR (loust quality) or a PITA to create. As I wrote, unbranded 6620s play them just fine. The one curious reason is why other Cingular branded phones released before and after can use MP3 ringtones. Doesn't make sense to either your theory (stop pirated MP3 ringtones) or mine (Cingular did it to persuade people to purchase ringtones thru their service), unless Cingular merely changed their mind about the issue. [snip] >Before you go indicting Cingular falsely though, you should know your >problem isn't a firmware hack. You just need to get Nokia multimedia [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >As a bonus, AMR files tend to be smaller. BTW, Had you simply Googled >this (like I did) you would have found this out. Oh -- one more thing. The quality of AMR files suck -- at least at the highest bitrates I was able to use with the above conversion program. Absolutely horrible compared to the original MP3s. [snip] > Cingular is NO SAINT here either. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Presumably, this is to coerce users to purchase ringtones through > their website. Verizon and Cingular appear to be the worst in terms of crippling phones in order to sell extra services. >> Cingular is NO SAINT here either. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Verizon and Cingular appear to be the worst in terms of crippling phones >in order to sell extra services. Nonsense. 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 - 10 lines] > >Nonsense. Agreed. There's no comparison between the two. And IMHO, one phone model having issues with playing MP3 ringtones is minor compared to an entire line of phones with cameras being forced to transfer images via paid MMS. BTW, I got my Cingular 8125 two days ago and it rocks. Can't tell you how useful it is and how much of a difference between the ever buggy Moto MPX220 and this superior product. I wouldn't even donate the 220 for 911 use; I plan on bringing it to a friends for target practice! subdude > Agreed. There's no comparison between the two. And IMHO, one phone > model having issues with playing MP3 ringtones is minor compared to an > entire line of phones with cameras being forced to transfer images via > paid MMS. Not true. The Motorola phones could transfer images via the Motorola phone tools and a cable. They could not transfer via Bluetooth. >> Agreed. There's no comparison between the two. And IMHO, one phone >> model having issues with playing MP3 ringtones is minor compared to an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Not true. The Motorola phones could transfer images via the Motorola >phone tools and a cable. They could not transfer via Bluetooth. We can agree to disagree. Just curious; if you believe Verizon offers a better value, what are you doing in a Cingular group? <G> >>> Agreed. There's no comparison between the two. And IMHO, one phone >>> model having issues with playing MP3 ringtones is minor compared to an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >We can agree to disagree. Just curious; if you believe Verizon offers >a better value, what are you doing in a Cingular group? <G> Trolling. Endlessly. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > We can agree to disagree. Not really. You stated that with Verizon you are forced to transfer images via paid MMS. This is untrue. There is no room for disagreement on that. Besides using Motorola's phone tools, on phones with a memory card, you can transfer photos via the card. > Just curious; if you believe Verizon offers > a better value, what are you doing in a Cingular group? <G> I also have service on the Cingular network (technically I have more phones on Cingular's networks than on Verizon's networks). Also there is one individual, John Navas, on this group that consistently posts incorrect information. While I have him kill-filed, I still am able to respond to follow-up posts that point out his endless errors of fact. It's difficult to quantify "value." If the ubiquitous coverage is the goal, then yes, Verizon is the way to go. I.e., driving up to Lake Tahoe, and going to our favorite ski area, there is no Cingular coverage at all (no GSM, though there is some TDMA), but with Verizon we roam on another carrier's AMPS network. >> We can agree to disagree. > >Not really. You stated that with Verizon you are forced to transfer >images via paid MMS. This is untrue. There is no room for disagreement >on that. Besides using Motorola's phone tools, on phones with a memory >card, you can transfer photos via the card. What I said, is here - cut and pasted from my original reply. =============================================================== My major beef with Verizon (and one of the reasons I left them for Cingular) is that they are NOTORIOUS for crippling the firmware on their phones so that they can get you to pay for everything they can. Perfect example is their smartphones with cameras which are crippled so that you can ONLY get images via their paid service - you can't download them via a USB cable. =============================================================== Verizon at the time I was purchasing had two **Smartphones**, WM2003 OS based. Neither of them were Motorola based. Both of those phones were crippled. Never said ALL phones, never said all MOTOROLA phones. READ BEFORE REPLYING, PLEASE. I was talking about SMARTPHONES. You are talking about something else entirely, although many of Verizon's camera phones are in fact crippled in that you need to buy extra s/w, h/w and or services. Not all (nor did I say that, you did), but many. >> Just curious; if you believe Verizon offers >> a better value, what are you doing in a Cingular group? <G> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >incorrect information. While I have him kill-filed, I still am able to >respond to follow-up posts that point out his endless errors of fact. Your personal feelings regarding John are absolutely meaningless to me, and have no bearing on the topic. Personally, I find his answers helpful and his website a great source of FACTUAL resources and information. But as I said, that has no bearing on your replies, which in fact are incorrect. If you had actually READ my reply before responding, you might have understood it and likely not replied. >It's difficult to quantify "value." If the ubiquitous coverage is the >goal, then yes, Verizon is the way to go. I.e., driving up to Lake >Tahoe, and going to our favorite ski area, there is no Cingular coverage >at all (no GSM, though there is some TDMA), but with Verizon we roam on >another carrier's AMPS network. Good for you, I am glad. Verizon sucks in my area and Cingular has worked fine for me in my home area, in various parts of NJ, in NYC, in Philly and in Washington, DC - without roaming, BTW - but I can't speak for other areas ...yet. As you said, "it's difficult to quantify value", what works for you may not for others. But I have to wonder, why would someone have "more phones on Cingular's networks than on Verizon's networks" if "there is no Cingular coverage at all" in areas they commonly travel? In fact, if you're getting such a great value from Verizon - why be on Cingular *at all*? Wouldn't you get a better deal having mutliple phones and accounts aggregated with a single vendor? None of this makes sense to me - but I'm sure you have a good explanation, right? Bottom line, if you like Verizon, by all means stay with them and post away in the Verizon groups. But I don't get why you would stay here and badmouth Cingular, unless you just like to have pissing matches with Navas. subdude >> We can agree to disagree. > >Not really. You stated that with Verizon you are forced to transfer >images via paid MMS. This is untrue. There is no room for disagreement >on that. ... Not even a nice try -- that wasn't the extent of the disagreement, which was: Verizon and Cingular appear to be the worst in terms of crippling phones in order to sell extra services. Which simply isn't true -- as he wrote: There's no comparison between the two. And IMHO, one phone model having issues with playing MP3 ringtones is minor... >> Just curious; if you believe Verizon offers >> a better value, what are you doing in a Cingular group? <G> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >incorrect information. While I have him kill-filed, I still am able to >respond to follow-up posts that point out his endless errors of fact. Which shows just how childish that is, no matter how you try to spin it -- disagreements between us are entirely a matter of your pro-Verizon, anti-Cingular agenda and the endless fantasies you make up to advance it. >It's difficult to quantify "value." If the ubiquitous coverage is the >goal, then yes, Verizon is the way to go. I.e., driving up to Lake >Tahoe, and going to our favorite ski area, there is no Cingular coverage >at all (no GSM, though there is some TDMA), but with Verizon we roam on >another carrier's AMPS network. Yet another agenda fantasy of yours -- Cingular actually has very good GSM coverage between the Bay Area and Lake Tahoe, including coverage at major ski areas like Squaw Valley. You must be "skiing" at Granlibakken. :) SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And, > since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether > Cingular's Allover Network has broader geographic coverage than Sprint's > National PCS Network. All I ever travel to is New York City, and the > NY-Washington corridor is well covered by every carrier. In my area, the 1900 Mhz carriers (Sprint and T-Mobile) have poor coverage compared to Verizon and Cingular. When Cingular was 1900 Mhz only (prior to their acquistion of AT&T) they also had poor coverage, as well as insufficient capacity. In areas with a lot of suburbs, 1900 Mhz usually has poorer coverage, because 1900 Mhz requires more towers to cover a given area. It can be very difficult to place towers in suburban areas. In my city, Sprint and T-Mobile are always facing opposition to new towers from neighbors, and invariably the carriers lose. The planning commission is unimpressed with the carrier's explanantion of why they need those locations, when Cingular and Verizon are able to provide complete coverage without the need for so many towers in inappropriate locations. In dense cities, 1900 Mhz doesn't have the problem of coverage, though the issue of in-building signal strength is still a big issue with 1900 Mhz. >> I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. >> And, since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > In dense cities, 1900 Mhz doesn't have the problem of coverage, though the > issue of in-building signal strength is still a big issue with 1900 Mhz. Fortunately for me, coverage is excellent--far superior to my old TDMA service. I did read that Sprint had recently been building out on the 800 MHz band, but I don't know the details. Also, I have a reduced level of expectation regarding wireless service. I don't expect perfect performance, as I would on a landline. I can live with dead spots. I can't live with mean-spirited plans to deliberately cut back on the availability of a signal, such as Cingular did to us when they took control of the ATTWS towers. And I was angry over the prospect that the situation would only become progressively worse with each passing month, until I acted to either give in to Cingular or went elsewhere. It was the kick in the butt that I needed. Sprint stepped right up to the plate, and the problem is resolved. I just want others to realize that they are not as captive as Cingular would like them to believe. What is so bad about GSM? I thought that most of the rest of the world uses it, and the reason Cingular switched was to be more internationally compatible. >>> I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. >>> And, since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > plate, and the problem is resolved. I just want others to realize that > they are not as captive as Cingular would like them to believe. > What is so bad about GSM? I thought that most of the rest of the world > uses it, and the reason Cingular switched was to be more internationally > compatible. Nothing is bad about GSM. I just wanted to leave Cingular because I was pissed at them. I rarely roam, and I don't travel outside the US, so the international roaming capabilities were not relevant to my circumstances. Actually, they switched to it because it is an adaption of TDMA. > What is so bad about GSM? I thought that most of the rest of the world > uses it, and the reason Cingular switched was to be more internationally [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> the plate, and the problem is resolved. I just want others to realize >> that they are not as captive as Cingular would like them to believe. >> I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And, >> since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >In dense cities, 1900 Mhz doesn't have the problem of coverage, though >the issue of in-building signal strength is still a big issue with 1900 Mhz. Complete rubbish. The FAQ has the facts. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And, > since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether > Cingular's Allover Network has broader geographic coverage than Sprint's > National PCS Network. All I ever travel to is New York City, and the > NY-Washington corridor is well covered by every carrier. Some pepel have a life outside of Philadelphia, so roaming is critical to them. > The superiority of Sprint's coverage was, for me, so pronounced over that of > Cingular's that I'd have switched even if I had no other issues with > Cingular. YMMV...Go with the carrier that has the better coverage. > I didn't even know they could do that. Sure enough, within minutes I saw each > phone line associated with the user's name when I checked my account on the > Sprint web site. True...Sprint can do that. Its a policy thing from Cingular that prevents them from doing that. > And I have been a Sprint long distance customer for over > a decade, and have never had a single problem. In fact, I would rate their > LD service as superior both technically and service-wise. Not relevant. Its an entirely different infrastructure. Personally, for me Sprint LD is terrible about dropping a phone from it LD subscriber list and not allowing LD calls from that telephone land line. > Given that I rarely roam, will never exceed my Anytime Minutes allotment, > have a Sprint tower 2 blocks from my house and get a great signal, and have > gotten a great package along with a great price, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG? Walmart might decide to put a store on your property and exercise eminent domain and you are forced to move to a location with poor Sprint coverage. > Lots of people here post messages suggesting that Cingular is arrogant, and > I agree. And lots of people don't feel that way. >I am fortunate because Sprint's coverage in Philadelphia is excellent. And, >since my roaming needs are extremely modest, I don't much care whether [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Cingular. I've never had such crystal clear calls or such high signal >strength before. ... But given that you only had experience with "blue" (old ATTWS) D-AMPS ("TDMA"), not Cingular ("orange") GSM (with ENS), which is now far superior to blue D-AMPS, that's a meaningless comparison. Please give it a rest. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > > YES it will go month to month and dont sign or buy phones from them, go > > on ebay or get them on the net, I found out tonight , that Rates/Plans [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Look for the link on the Sprint wireless section of the web site named > "Special Offers" SignatureCan you arrange for Sprint to build another tower so I have usable coverage at home? >> > YES it will go month to month and dont sign or buy phones from them, >> > go [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> Look for the link on the Sprint wireless section of the web site named >> "Special Offers" No, you sound like a Cingular Man to me. > >> > YES it will go month to month and dont sign or buy phones from them, > >> > go [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > No, you sound like a Cingular Man to me. SignatureAs I've covered in another message, it is for the want of a decently located Sprint tower that I don't have their service now. I don't know why a Cingular person would help me there. >I dumped Cingular for Sprint PCS about 10 days ago, and the signal strength >and clarity of the CDMA system are so much superior to what I was getting >from Cingular that I regret only that I didn't make the switch sooner. In your area. In other areas (including my area), it's much worse. No one carrier is better in all areas. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.