 |
 | 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 2007Calls Dropped Continually
I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and my husband commutes to and from Oakland. I'm not kidding when I say our calls are dropped three-four times if we're on the phone during his commute. It happens just before the Caldecott on the Oakland side, in the Caldecott, just after the Caldecott on the Orinda side, at the Hwy 24 turn onto Hwy 680, and a half-mile after the turn before Rudgear. This seems really odd to me considering we're not out in the sticks somewhere. What's going on with this company? Do they ever plan on fixing this problem? Or should I go back to Sprint? >I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls >dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >sticks somewhere. What's going on with this company? Do they ever >plan on fixing this problem? Or should I go back to Sprint? Try a better phone. While the signal isn't the best from Orinda to the Caldecott tunnel, my Motorola V551 is still almost always able to carry a call all the way from Walnut Creek to Oakland. The usual problem is a "bargain" phone from the carrier. For what it's worth, the signal in this area is a result of NIMBY in these hilly high-end communities that have been fighting tower placements needed for better signal.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > For what it's worth, the signal in this area is a result of NIMBY in > these hilly high-end communities that have been fighting tower > placements needed for better signal. And of course they are the first to complain they can't get coverage in said high-end community. Palm tree camouflage theme is very effective, or religious crosses - saw one cell site in a PHX parking lot the was just a tall light pole configuration with three 120º spaced crosses, and a cabinet at the base. >> For what it's worth, the signal in this area is a result of NIMBY in >> these hilly high-end communities that have been fighting tower [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >one cell site in a PHX parking lot the was just a tall light pole >configuration with three 120º spaced crosses, and a cabinet at the base. My own favorite is a fake pine tree cell tower in Danville, which I personally think looks worse than a plain cellular tower. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > My own favorite is a fake pine tree cell tower in Danville, which I > personally think looks worse than a plain cellular tower. Found in the Fort Worth Star Telegram today. [snipped] Bell tower, cell tower St. Vincent's Episcopal Church in Bedford...The bells were purchased by the parish, but 93-foot tower was built by Verizon, which wanted a cell tower in the area. >> My own favorite is a fake pine tree cell tower in Danville, which I >> personally think looks worse than a plain cellular tower. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >parish, but 93-foot tower was built by Verizon, which wanted a cell tower >in the area. Cellular has been a windfall to many churches, and to some schools as well. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>> My own favorite is a fake pine tree cell tower in Danville, which I >>> personally think looks worse than a plain cellular tower. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cellular has been a windfall to many churches, and to some schools as > well. Depends on what you call a windfall. A bum would say a buck is a windfall. Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy bought some land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner had it removed. Of course after they went to court. Judge ruled that the new owner had the right to have it removed. I bet AT&T was pissed after they had to remove it. The old owner of the land said he was getting approx 300.00 a month. Not that much when you have to look at it everyday in your backyard. >> Cellular has been a windfall to many churches, and to some schools as >> well. >> >Depends on what you call a windfall. A bum would say a buck is a >windfall. The churches I've talked to around here have been grateful for the revenue, which is far more than a buck. >Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy >bought some land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >approx 300.00 a month. Not that much when you have to look at it >everyday in your backyard. The typical lease is much more than that, but even $300 would be fine with me. But as always, YMMV. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy > bought some land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner > had it removed. Of course after they went to court. Judge ruled that the > new owner had the right to have it removed. I bet AT&T was pissed after > they had to remove it. That's unusual that AT&T didn't have a clause in the contract to perpetuate the lease if the property changed ownership. Obviously they didn't and the judge ruled in the property's new owner. About thirty years ago, another tower contractor and myself testified in a civil court case about a tower. Attorneys never lie, but they can sure reveal different perceptions of the truth. It was so funny, we were told to sit outside the courtroom as we were giggling so much. >> Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy bought some >> land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner had it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > reveal different perceptions of the truth. It was so funny, we were told > to sit outside the courtroom as we were giggling so much. Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner. Unless he wanted the money. He buys the land. Says no to the tower. I would say they would have to remove it and it anything legal would go back to the person that agreed to the orig contract. I'm no lawyer. I can't see how they could enforce it on the new owner. > Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner. Of course it would. If AT&T had a long-term lease with the old owner it would be binding on the new one as well. It would be just another factor the new owner would've had to consider before buying. >>> Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy bought some >>> land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner had it [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >back to the person that agreed to the orig contract. I'm no lawyer. I >can't see how they could enforce it on the new owner. If it was an easement on the property, then the new owner would be bound. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner. Deed restrictions can be made binding on the new owner. It happens all the time. > Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner. > Unless he wanted the money. He buys the land. Says no to the tower. I > would say they would have to remove it and it anything legal would go > back to the person that agreed to the orig contract. I'm no lawyer. I > can't see how they could enforce it on the new owner. Typically its up to the seller to specify in his sales contract, "The seller warrants the Attached Goods and included Unattached Goods are in normal working order and are free and clear of all encumbrances." where an encumbrance would be an existing land use contract. >>> My own favorite is a fake pine tree cell tower in Danville, which I >>> personally think looks worse than a plain cellular tower. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cellular has been a windfall to many churches, and to some schools as > well. I don't know where I read it, but some carrier was going to install a site on a high school stadium light pole, but parents objected. So carrier built them a new athletic dept. building. A win-win deal if I ever heard one. I want to say a small hick Kansas or Nebraska town, I just don't remember. > >I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls > >dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Hmm...I have a good phone..an Audiovox smartphone. My husband has a Blackjack. Maybe it's like you said, they're fighting NIMBY. So what does that stand for?? :^) >> >I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls >> >dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Blackjack. Maybe it's like you said, they're fighting NIMBY. So what > does that stand for?? :^) an acronym for "Not In My Back Yard" >> Try a better phone. While the signal isn't the best from Orinda to the >> Caldecott tunnel, my Motorola V551 is still almost always able to carry [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> these hilly high-end communities that have been fighting tower >> placements needed for better signal. >Hmm...I have a good phone..an Audiovox smartphone. My husband has a >Blackjack. Smartphones don't necessarily have good radio performance -- in fact, some are downright poor -- my V551 is far better than the Treo a friend of mine uses. >aybe it's like you said, they're fighting NIMBY. So what >does that stand for?? :^) Not In My Back Yard. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > >> Try a better phone. While the signal isn't the best from Orinda to the > >> Caldecott tunnel, my Motorola V551 is still almost always able to carry [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not In My Back Yard. This group is now turning into the San Francisco/Oakland "whose penis coverage is bigger" contest. Geez, guys. BTW- my Treo 650 takes me all over the US (and Europe) just fine. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" > This group is now turning into the San Francisco/Oakland "whose penis > coverage is bigger" contest. Well..DUH....San Francisco...Castro District...do the math. [snicker mode off] I guess that depends on the brand as well. I recently upgraded from a Moto V551 to a Nokia E62. The Nokia has better reception. >Smartphones don't necessarily have good radio performance -- in fact, >some are downright poor -- my V551 is far better than the Treo a friend >of mine uses. > Try a better phone. Wow- you haven't used that one in a while. I guess that it infers that Cingular sells sub-par equioment if the phone is the soilution. >>I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls >>dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >a call all the way from Walnut Creek to Oakland. The usual problem is a >"bargain" phone from the carrier. Ran a careful test today with my new Motorola RAZR V3xx handset (which I highly recommend), westbound from Lafayette through the rightmost (northernmost) bore of the Caldecott tunnel to central Berkeley. I carried one call all the way. I had 5 bars of signal most of the way, never less than 3 bars, with crystal clear sound, except for a very short stretch a bit west of the tunnel where signal dropped to 2 bars and I got just a bit of audio interference. What most impressed me was how good and improved the signal is around Orinda. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls >>>dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and I got just a bit of audio interference. What most impressed me was > how good and improved the signal is around Orinda. We need more than anecdotal claims, Mr. Novice. >> short stretch a bit west of the tunnel where signal dropped to 2 bars >> and I got just a bit of audio interference. What most impressed me was >> how good and improved the signal is around Orinda. > > We need more than anecdotal claims, Mr. Novice. Well at least it's tacit acknowledgment that the signal was bad before! The east bay, including Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga, as well as the tri-valley area has been especially problematic for Cingular coverage until recently. I noticed that Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita road, is much improved recently as well, but I haven't been out on 24 in a while to check. It'll be interesting to see what the surveys show next year and in 2009. Cingular may finally be getting their act together and within two years may have coverage as good as Verizon's. [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless Service.] >>> short stretch a bit west of the tunnel where signal dropped to 2 bars >>> and I got just a bit of audio interference. What most impressed me was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well at least it's tacit acknowledgment that the signal was bad before! On the contrary -- it's just not 5 bars all the way. My V551 has been able to hold a call along that route for quite a long time. >The east bay, including Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga, as well as the >tri-valley area has been especially problematic for Cingular coverage >until recently. Only if you have a crap phone. >I noticed that Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita road, is >much improved recently as well, but I haven't been out on 24 in a while >to check. It'll be interesting to see what the surveys show next year >and in 2009. Cingular may finally be getting their act together and >within two years may have coverage as good as Verizon's. Actually better than Verizon in the East Bay for years. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>> short stretch a bit west of the tunnel where signal dropped to 2 >>>> bars and I got just a bit of audio interference. What most [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Only if you have a crap phone. Cingular uses crap phones? Can I quote you on that? It makes it so much easier to fight your own outlandish claims with your own words. Try T-Mobile for really great service. >I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls > dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sticks somewhere. What's going on with this company? Do they ever > plan on fixing this problem? Or should I go back to Sprint? You should go back to Sprint if they have worked for you in the past without problems. It is that simple. > Try T-Mobile for really great service. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> sticks somewhere. What's going on with this company? Do they ever >> plan on fixing this problem? Or should I go back to Sprint? |
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.