 |
 | 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 / April 2007Newbie on phone unlocking
I am embarking on a path to swap a current Motorola phone purchased 2 years ago from Cingular for a another Cingular-approved phone but purchased from a difference source. In other words, I didn't want a new 2 year contract with Cingular. The phone I'm leaning towards is a Nokia 2610. Can someone point me to a how-to on swapping my sim card from the old to the new? I've been told that I can't get unlock codes from Cingular but haven't tried. A step by step guide would be helpful so I don't screw it up. Bob >I am embarking on a path to swap a current Motorola phone purchased 2 years >ago from Cingular for a another Cingular-approved phone but purchased from a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >new? I've been told that I can't get unlock codes from Cingular but haven't >tried. A step by step guide would be helpful so I don't screw it up. You _can_ get unlock codes from Cingular for a phone purchased from Cingular -- just ask. You'll need to buy an unlocked phone (or a phone locked to Cingular). Don't buy a phone locked to some other carrier. You can simply move your SIM from phone to phone. Store your phone numbers on the SIM, and they'll be available on the new phone.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Thanks >>I am embarking on a path to swap a current Motorola phone purchased 2 >>years [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You can simply move your SIM from phone to phone. Store your phone > numbers on the SIM, and they'll be available on the new phone. > I am embarking on a path to swap a current Motorola phone purchased > 2 years ago from Cingular for a another Cingular-approved phone but > purchased from a difference source. In other words, I didn't want > a new 2 year contract with > Cingular. The phone I'm leaning towards > is a Nokia 2610. I assume the 2610 is unlocked? If not, you need to get itunlocked first, either by a pay-per-code online unlocker, an online code calculator, or by getting the code from the phone's original carrier. As a general rule, one carrier cannot unlock another's phone. Some phones, like TracFones, can't be unlocked. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Assume the phone is unlocked. I will likely purchase new from distributor of unlocked phones. >> I am embarking on a path to swap a current Motorola phone purchased >> 2 years ago from Cingular for a another Cingular-approved phone but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rule, one carrier cannot unlock another's phone. Some phones, like > TracFones, can't be unlocked. > I assume the 2610 is unlocked? If not, you need to get itunlocked first, > either by a pay-per-code online unlocker, an online code calculator, or > by getting the code from the phone's original carrier. As a general > rule, one carrier cannot unlock another's phone. Some phones, like > TracFones, can't be unlocked. I checked on "http://www.peters1.dk/unlock/nokia/online.php?sprog=en" which is what I've used to unlock Nokia phones, and the 2610 is apparently not unlockable by the online code generators using the IMEI. See "http://www.unlockitnow.com/Nokia/" and it says that it requires unlocking by the operator. [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.] >[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.] Please stop this rude crap, which only serves to trash attws with thread fragments. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > >[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular > >posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Please stop this rude crap, which only serves to trash attws with thread > fragments. Oh yeah! When are you going to stop posting your childish charter into other group? <snip> > Oh yeah! When are you going to stop posting your childish charter into > other group? The charter itself is not childish, though it's rather ironic that one of the biggest violators of the charter is the person that continually posts it. What _is_ childish is posting it to a group that it doesn't apply to. It's bad enough to repost it constantly to the group it _does_ apply to, but at least it's relevant. Why he posts the charter of one group to a group that the charter was never intended to apply to is a mystery. It seems to fit with his goal of being as obnoxious as humanly possible. The gradual transition to alt.cellular.attws is just something that makes sense. The Cingular name is disappearing, so it makes no sense to continue to have a Usenet group for something that doesn't exist anymore. It's similar to the transition from alt.cellular.gsm.carriers. voicestream to alt.cellular.t-mobile. [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.] > The gradual transition to alt.cellular.attws is just something that > makes sense. The Cingular name is disappearing, so it makes no sense > to continue to have a Usenet group for something that doesn't exist > anymore. Except that the Cingular-to-AT&T name transition is still in it's early stages. Every ad I've seen so far is co-branded, and the stores still say "Cingular" on the sign. > It's similar to the transition from alt.cellular.gsm.carriers. > voicestream to alt.cellular.t-mobile. Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo group was in use. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> The gradual transition to alt.cellular.attws is just something that >> makes sense. The Cingular name is disappearing, so it makes no sense [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >stages. Every ad I've seen so far is co-branded, and the stores still >say "Cingular" on the sign. Yep. He's just got a big personal grudge that gets in the way of simple facts and common courtesy. >> It's similar to the transition from alt.cellular.gsm.carriers. >> voicestream to alt.cellular.t-mobile. > >Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo >group was in use. Ditto. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo > group was in use. It was in use outside the U.S. for several years before the U.S. change of Voicestream to T-Mobile, but not for that long in the U.S. before the alt.cellular.t-mobile group was created. >> Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo >> group was in use. > >It was in use outside the U.S. for several years before the U.S. change >of Voicestream to T-Mobile, but not for that long in the U.S. before the >alt.cellular.t-mobile group was created. Not true. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > > Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo > > group was in use. > > It was in use outside the U.S. for several years before the U.S. change of Voicestream to T-Mobile, but not for that long in the U.S. before the alt.cellular.t-mobile group was created. IIRC, only in the last year has the T-Mo group "replaced" the VStream group- prior to that the VS group had far more activity. The T-Mo name has been in use here for at least three years. While I understand your desire to get things moving faster WRT the AT&T group, I feel we should probably wait and see what AT&Tingular actually intends to call "the wireless service formerly known as Cingular" before we use the incorrect, but "close" ATTWS group. As you correctly pointed out, the T-Mobile group was CREATED after the service changed names- T-Mo users didn't just take over an old group with a similar name! ;-) Unless AT&T calls Cingular "AT&T Wireless" the attws group has the wrong name! A situation at least as confusing as using the Cingular group. In short, what's the hurry, unless your ONLY motive is to get under a certain person's skin? (Which, if the case, is fine as long as you're up front about it, and those who wish to play along, can.) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >In short, what's the hurry, unless your ONLY motive is to get under a >certain person's skin? (Which, if the case, is fine as long as you're up >front about it, and those who wish to play along, can.) Actually not fine -- that's abuse of Usenet. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Unless AT&T calls Cingular "AT&T Wireless" the attws group has the wrong > name! A situation at least as confusing as using the Cingular group. When I've seen it mentioned, they call it the wireless unit of AT&T. So technically maybe it should be alt.cellular.wsatt or just alt.cellular.att. It's better to just use the existing name than to create a new group. >> Unless AT&T calls Cingular "AT&T Wireless" the attws group has the wrong >> name! A situation at least as confusing as using the Cingular group. > >When I've seen it mentioned, they call it the wireless unit of AT&T. So >technically maybe it should be alt.cellular.wsatt or just >alt.cellular.att. alt.cellular.att obviously makes the most sense if and when the Cingular name is actually retired. I may even do just that. ;) >It's better to just use the existing name than to >create a new group. Because you say so? :) Not really true, of course, since that confuses it with the old defunct and poorly regarded AT&T Wireless Service. But of course you'd like that -- anything to impede the GSM juggernaut. ;) SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> I'll be sure to follow this advice. As I indicated, I'm a newbie on this group and I appreciate all of the proper netiquettte advice one can give. Thanks. When is the official transition? > [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.] That isn't good advice, and there is no official transition, Steven just has big grudges against Cingular the company, because his wife got poor coverage, and against me personally, fueled by envy, because I keep setting the record straight on his bashing of GSM in general and Cingular in particular, and because I created the Cingular newsgroup and the Cingular FAQ. He's now doing his best to damage the Cingular newsgroup, in part because of Cingular, in part because I created it. It's all very childish. Always consider the source before taking advice. Use the newsgroup that's most appropriate to your needs, which is still (for now at least) the Cingular newsgroup. And since cross-posting thread fragments to the ATTWS newsgroup only serves to pointlessly damage it with noise, please don't that. >I'll be sure to follow this advice. As I indicated, I'm a newbie on this >group and I appreciate all of the proper netiquettte advice one can give. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless >> Service.] SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Grow up navas! Stop your childish whining. At least he has a life and a wife. What happen to your marriage? Why did she leave you? All you got is your V3xx & the last word on everything regardless of its accuracy. [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.] > That isn't good advice, and there is no official transition, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless > >> Service.] > I'll be sure to follow this advice. As I indicated, I'm a newbie on this > group and I appreciate all of the proper netiquettte advice one can give. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless >> Service.] Nothing is official here. "AT&T has done a good job of reintroducing its brand. Cingular will take a while to get rid of. They're at the middle of transition that just has to be done, and it's like pulling off the Band-Aid--you just have to do it," he says." Here's the post where I suggested a transition schedule. With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor of calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of the alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the alt.cellular.attws group. I suggest the following transition strategy: 1. New threads should be posted to both alt.cellular.cingular and alt.cellular.attws, until June 30th 2007. 2. Follow-up posts to threads that are only posted on alt.cellular.cingular should add alt.cellular.attws, but keep alt.cellular.cingular until June 30th 2007. 3. Beginning July 1st 2007, new threads should be posted only to alt.cellular.attws. 4. Beginning July 1st 2007, follow-up posts to threads that are only posted on alt.cellular.cingular, should remove alt.cellular.cingular, and add alt.cellular.attws. I think that this will work well. Look at how quickly alt.cellular.t-mobile replaced alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream. The latter group now has very, very, few postings. The Nokia phone 2610 is being purchased unlocked. The only phone being unlocked is a current Motorola which I purchased direct from Cingular in 2005. No more about unlocking the Nokia phone because it is already unlocked. >> I assume the 2610 is unlocked? If not, you need to get itunlocked first, >> either by a pay-per-code online unlocker, an online code calculator, or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless > Service.] (Sorry for double post in alt.cellular.cingular, I forgot to include alt.cellular.attws as we are supposed to be doing). > I assume the 2610 is unlocked? If not, you need to get itunlocked first, > either by a pay-per-code online unlocker, an online code calculator, or > by getting the code from the phone's original carrier. As a general > rule, one carrier cannot unlock another's phone. Some phones, like > TracFones, can't be unlocked. I checked on "http://www.peters1.dk/unlock/nokia/online.php?sprog=en" which is what I've used to unlock Nokia phones, and the 2610 is apparently not unlockable by the online code generators using the IMEI. See "http://www.unlockitnow.com/Nokia/" and it says that it requires unlocking by the operator. [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.] |
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.