ATT and TMOBILE agreement?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Hector Reports Spam - 21 May 2004 08:35 GMT

ATT told me that they had roaming areements with t mobile. And i
seen the t mobile name on my att gsm phone. Supposebly this happened
in the last 2 weeks?

-hec

Reply to this Message

CARBUFF - 21 May 2004 14:42 GMT

>ATT told me that they had roaming areements with t mobile. And i
>seen the t mobile name on my att gsm phone. Supposebly this happened
>in the last 2 weeks?
>
>-hec

Thats probably what ATT's recent ad campaign is all about. They are claiming to
have a new GSM network with the most coverage. Whats their new slogan, "How
many bars do you have?"

George

Reply to this Message

Matthew Todd - 21 May 2004 18:18 GMT

> >ATT told me that they had roaming areements with t mobile. And i
> >seen the t mobile name on my att gsm phone. Supposebly this happened
> >in the last 2 weeks?
> >
> >-hec

I'm TMobile and I still can't choose them on my phone, it says 'No System
Access' when I try. So
maybe the agreement is one way. There are a few spots in the DC area
(mostly inside of buildings)
where I can't get TMobile but ATT still pops up as a choice.

I'd like to be able to roam when/if I want to roam and just pay the charges.
You never know when
you will need service and it'd be nice to be able to grab it.

-Matt

Reply to this Message

Brian Fitzgibbon - 21 May 2004 19:21 GMT

I just drove from South Bend , IN back to New York area. Had ATT on my
Samsung R225m in east Ohio and parts of NJ. Voice Mail notification did
not work (I was not notified).

Quality "seemed" poorer on ATT network (voice).

-bfg

>>>ATT told me that they had roaming areements with t mobile. And i
>>>seen the t mobile name on my att gsm phone. Supposebly this happened
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> -Matt

Reply to this Message

Julian - 24 May 2004 05:45 GMT

> Quality "seemed" poorer on ATT network (voice).

I noticed the same while roaming on AT&T last month in AZ.. The voice
quality was terrible, nothing like what I'm used on T-Mobile.

Julian

Reply to this Message

Andrew Shepherd - 28 May 2004 05:51 GMT

> > Quality "seemed" poorer on ATT network (voice).
>
> I noticed the same while roaming on AT&T last month in AZ.. The voice
> quality was terrible, nothing like what I'm used on T-Mobile.

As far as I know, T-Mobile still supports by default the EFR (enhanced
full-rate) vocoder. GSM EFR is anecdotally known to provide superior
voice quality over the CDMA QCELP or EVRC codecs & particularly over
the IS-136 TDMA ACELP or VSELP codecs. But the GSM QoS advantage will
likely erode w/ the AMR (adaptive multi-rate) vocoder.

In its decision to migrate fully to GSM, Cingular highlighted the
nascent AMR codec as one of the capacity-enhancing benefits. AMR can
more than double GSM voice capacity by utilizing half-rate modes --
allowing two GSM users to alternate in a single recurring timeslot --
at the obvious expense of voice quality. In fact, at least one of the
AMR half-rate modes uses the very same IS-136 ACELP or VSELP.

Thus, if your T-Mobile handset is technically capable of AMR, and if
AT&TWS supports AMR by default, perhaps AMR is being forced over EFR,
which could explain the discrepancy in voice QoS.

If supported by the handset, is AMR the default codec on either or
both Cingular GSM or AT&TWS GSM? Anyone?

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/

Reply to this Message

Cyrus Afzali - 21 May 2004 23:21 GMT

>> >ATT told me that they had roaming areements with t mobile. And i
>> >seen the t mobile name on my att gsm phone. Supposebly this happened
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>(mostly inside of buildings)
>where I can't get TMobile but ATT still pops up as a choice.

The roaming agreement only covered specific areas; basically it was
more of a boon to AT&T customers than TM customers. It's possible that
as AT&T gets more of its own buildout done, it will help TM customers
more, but that's complicated by the fact that AT&T has a lot of 850
mHz spectrum, and that doesn't do a TM customer any good.

>I'd like to be able to roam when/if I want to roam and just pay the charges.
>You never know when
>you will need service and it'd be nice to be able to grab it.

Then truly, you're better off getting a second account with someone
like Verizon Wireless, with very low min. allowances.

Reply to this Message

Hector Reports Spam - 22 May 2004 01:47 GMT

Well this bites..that is only for the National plan, mines local..
Doesnt cover roaming..its weird that it used to be able to roam
without charges. The ATT national plan sucks, they offered 450 mins
for 49.99. bleh to that. ATT sucks...<-- comming from an att customer.
I have both tdma and gsm from them,both arent any good. I miss my t
mobile :(

-hec

Reply to this Message