Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / General / GSM / September 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

2 Phones, 1 Number in US Possible?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ben - 11 Sep 2003 23:33 GMT
Do any US carriers "support" using two phone with the same number in
the U.S.? I understand that cloning SIMs seems to be
impractical/unrealistic. Are there any other options to do this?
Donald Newcomb - 12 Sep 2003 00:09 GMT
> Do any US carriers "support" using two phone with the same number in
> the U.S.? I understand that cloning SIMs seems to be
> impractical/unrealistic. Are there any other options to do this?

Ben,
As far as I know, no US GSM providers currently offer "dual-SIM" service.
This is a not uncommon option among European carriers but not in the US.
--

Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Remove 'NOT' from address to  reply
Mike - 12 Sep 2003 18:33 GMT
Check out the article mentioned on phonescoop.com regarding the new
Bluetooth SIM Access Profile (hopefully I got that right.)

The idea here is that you could have a car phone (with more power and
external antenna) that takes advantage of the SIM card on your personal cell
phone (which might be in your briefcase), wirelessly via Bluetooth.

That may not be exactly what you are looking for, but this is definately
something I will want when it is available.

Mike

> Do any US carriers "support" using two phone with the same number in
> the U.S.? I understand that cloning SIMs seems to be
> impractical/unrealistic. Are there any other options to do this?
Donald Newcomb - 12 Sep 2003 20:30 GMT
> Check out the article mentioned on phonescoop.com regarding the new
> Bluetooth SIM Access Profile (hopefully I got that right.)
>
> The idea here is that you could have a car phone (with more power and
> external antenna) that takes advantage of the SIM card on your personal cell
> phone (which might be in your briefcase), wirelessly via Bluetooth.

Mike,
Is that what the BT profile is about? I thought it was just to have a
standardized handsfree calling built into the car. How do the accomodate for
all the different cellular standards (e.g. CDMA, TDMA, GSM, iDEN, etc)?
--

Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Remove 'NOT' from address to  reply
Ben - 12 Sep 2003 23:09 GMT
Interesting, but not really where I wanted to go.

What I actually want to do is drop my POTS service, and use a
Cellsocket adapter to enable my home phones. I was hoping to find a
way to avoid having to switch the SIM out of my Treo (which won't work
with the Cellsocket) into a Nokia model every time I come and go.

> Check out the article mentioned on phonescoop.com regarding the new
> Bluetooth SIM Access Profile (hopefully I got that right.)
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> > the U.S.? I understand that cloning SIMs seems to be
> > impractical/unrealistic. Are there any other options to do this?
John S. - 14 Sep 2003 03:01 GMT
>Do any US carriers "support" using two phone with the same number in
>the U.S.? I understand that cloning SIMs seems to be
>impractical/unrealistic. Are there any other options to do this?

None that I know of now.

SBMS (now Cingular) used to have a plan for the same number on different
phones.... But it has long since gone away.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Todd Allcock - 15 Sep 2003 05:09 GMT
> >Do any US carriers "support" using two phone with the same number in
> >the U.S.? I understand that cloning SIMs seems to be
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> SBMS (now Cingular) used to have a plan for the same number on different
> phones.... But it has long since gone away.

Yeah, but it was $20/month for the service!  SBMS called it "flexphone"- it
was designed for people who wanted to use both a 3-watt car phone and a
handheld on the same number.  You didn't have to use it that way, but it's
restrictions made it little good for anything else- only one phone could be
on at a time (if you turned both on, only the first one switched on would
work), and only one phone (whichever you designated) would be capable
of roaming.

When TDMA service and digital phones arrived at SBMS it was the
beginning of the end for flexphone.  Official policy was that flexing was
only for analog phones, but exceptions were occasionally made for folks
who upgraded to a digital phone yet lived in very weak signal areas.  
By the time "Cingular" was born, flexphone was pretty much dead and
buried- by that time "family plans" had arrived, and allowed you to have
two phones on one account cheaper than flexphone, without the "one
phone on at a time" restrictions.

Which leads us logically to the next point- perhaps the OP could
consider a "family plan" for his Treo and Nokia phones.  It might cost a
little more, but he'd have the flexibity of still having a working phone at
home when he's out, and with conditional forwarding, could forward
calls from his mobile mobile to his home mobile when he's not, er, mobile!

That's what I did when I went landline-less.  I added a family plan line
to leave cradled at home in a cellsocket as I don't live alone and didn't
want to strand the family without phone service!  (My wife has a mobile
as well, but it never leaves the car, lest she forget to put it back and
negate the safety aspect we mainly bought it for.)  The $20/month we
paid for the family plan was still cheaper than the $40+ we paid for
rural POTS.
Ben K. - 15 Sep 2003 05:38 GMT
Ah, but I do live alone. The problem with conditional forwarding is that
one phone must be the _ultimate_ end of the chain. Else you get loops
that mess up everything. And if I have to update the forwarding info,
its just as bad as moving the SIM.

Finally, a family plan with T-Mobile would more then double the cost of
service, which would defeat the entire point :(

> Which leads us logically to the next point- perhaps the OP could
> consider a "family plan" for his Treo and Nokia phones.  It might cost a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> paid for the family plan was still cheaper than the $40+ we paid for
> rural POTS.
 
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.