How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

At 23 Feb 2008 08:10:08 -0800 SMS wrote:

> > Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to
sleep
> > at night! ;-)
>
> Yes, that's how I am able to sleep.
>
> Seriously though, I have two GSM phones without 800 MHz, my original
> Cingular GSM phone from when Cingular out west was only 1900 MHz,
> and my tri-mode "traveling phone" which is 900/1800/1900.

In this day and age, however, not using a GSM cellphone with 850 doesn't
really give you the right to complain about crummy GSM service that you
claim to "test" on a regular basis. Particularly in light of your
statements about places you've been with "only analog or CDMA and no GSM
coverage..." Without GSM 850, (which is what AT&T's analog footprint has
converted to) those statements are VERY suspect.


> If I put my SIM card into one of those phones, which limits me to
> roaming on the T-Mobile network with SpeakOut (an AT&T MVNO), the
> loss of coverage is very noticeable (starting with no coverage where
> I live, unless I go outside and down the street a bit).


Fair enough. I've already acknowledged T-Mo doesn't have as extensive a
network as Verizon, and if it didn't work where I lived I wouldn't use them
either.

However, as I've pointed out before, when I moved to my current house, I
was in the opposite, and admittedly _very_ rare situation- neither
Verizon nor AT&T had no coverage here yet Sprint and T-Mo did! (Four years
later, they all have coverage now.)

> The big problem with T-Mo, is that they won't let you roam onto AT&T
> in areas where they have a network.

That's a problem with most carriers- Verizon doesn't let you roam if they
have coverage in the area either, though admittedly that "problem" will
happen less often than with T-Mo! ;-)

> According to some Sprint users, if you set your handset to roaming
> only then Sprint does allow roaming onto Verizon even in areas where
> Sprint has a network.

Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.

---

› See More: How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

Todd Allcock wrote:

> In this day and age, however, not using a GSM cellphone with 850 doesn't
> really give you the right to complain about crummy GSM service that you
> claim to "test" on a regular basis. Particularly in light of your
> statements about places you've been with "only analog or CDMA and no GSM
> coverage..." Without GSM 850, (which is what AT&T's analog footprint has
> converted to) those statements are VERY suspect.

Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM testing
on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models because I
wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.

> That's a problem with most carriers- Verizon doesn't let you roam if they
> have coverage in the area either, though admittedly that "problem" will
> happen less often than with T-Mo! ;-)

There was one building at a company I worked at where I was constantly
roaming onto Sprint in one specific conference room. This was several
years ago, but apparently there are or were PRLs where Sprint roaming
was permitted even in Verizon markets.

> Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.

Someday I'll find a Sprint subscriber in my area and be able to confirm
or deny this, but I've not yet met one. Everyone I know uses either AT&T
or Verizon (or T-Mobile prepaid). I do know one Sprint subscriber in
Florida and one in L.A., so maybe the next time I see them I'll try it.
The Sprint coverage in most of California is nearly as bad as T-Mobile's
coverage.

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond
>>> even what they've done over the past two years, which is large.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month,
>>> and will instead move to prepaid.
>>
>> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago
>> that "basic cable" would start at $50/month?
>
> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.

Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
$99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
package of services including HBO and others.

At 23 Feb 2008 10:42:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:

> Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM
> testing on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models
> because I wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.


Are you sure SpeakOut still roams on T-Mo in your area? I think the
network transition is over (or darn near.) The network IDs were recently
changed, IIRC.


Can't you just do a network search and see who comes up? Or does Cingular
lock that menu out?

(Although last year when I was in the Bay Area a network search on my T-Mo
phone and SIM showed "Cingular" and "Cingular") ;-)

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-02-23, bruceR <[email protected]> wrote:

> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.

Plus, satellite requires line-of-sight to the "bird"... and many people
don't have that. For example, satellite would never have worked at the
last place I lived in Ohio... trees to the southwest pretty much guaranteed
that...


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

>> According to some Sprint users, if you set your handset to roaming
>> only then Sprint does allow roaming onto Verizon even in areas where
>> Sprint has a network.
>
> Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.
>
>

This feature is included on all Sprint "digital only" phones that have been
released in the past several years.
>

> Someday I'll find a Sprint subscriber in my area and be able to confirm or
> deny this, but I've not yet met one. Everyone I know uses either AT&T or
> Verizon (or T-Mobile prepaid). I do know one Sprint subscriber in Florida
> and one in L.A., so maybe the next time I see them I'll try it. The Sprint
> coverage in most of California is nearly as bad as T-Mobile's coverage.

You are very uninformed and are probably operating from out-of-date facts or
are simply repeating something that you read or something that one of your
buddies said while in a bar. Sprint coverage in Southern California is as
good or better than Verizon. Sprint will also allow you to force your
digital Sprint Phone to Roaming Only mode anytime that you desire. This
gives you the best of Verizon and Sprint together anytime that you want to
use this capability. Therefore, Sprint is better than Verizon because it is
the only cell phone service that offers this option. I have the best of
Verizon and Sprint in one phone on a low cost plan.

"bruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
>> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
>> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
>> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
>
> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.

Wow. I've seen the $99 package on 6- and 12-month deals, but never for two
years. Quite a coup.

bruceR wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond
>>>> even what they've done over the past two years, which is large.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month,
>>>> and will instead move to prepaid.
>>> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago
>>> that "basic cable" would start at $50/month?
>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
>> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
>> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
>> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
>
> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.
>
>
They do it because they know it is an excellent strategy. They know most
people (no comment about you implied) don't care for change. So when the
rate goes way up after the promo period few will call for disconnection.

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> "bruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
>>> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
>>> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
>>> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
>>
>> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone
>> for $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one
>> included digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get
>> after analog shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another
>> $29/mo will get me a package of services including HBO and others.
>
> Wow. I've seen the $99 package on 6- and 12-month deals, but never for
> two years. Quite a coup.
>

At least in my market they are offering a year as evidenced by the
glossy flyer that shows up in the mailbox every week.

> bruceR wrote:
>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price
>>>>> increase--beyond even what they've done over the past two years,
>>>>> which is large. Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month,
>>>>> and will instead move to prepaid.
>>>> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago
>>>> that "basic cable" would start at $50/month?
>>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few
>>> years, but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was
>>> amazed to see how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain,
>>> but it's far less expensive than the equivalent programming from
>>> Comcast.
>>
>> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and
>> Telephone for $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want
>> the one included digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will
>> continue to get after analog shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box
>> at all. Another $29/mo will get me a package of services including
>> HBO and others.
> They do it because they know it is an excellent strategy. They know
> most people (no comment about you implied) don't care for change. So
> when the rate goes way up after the promo period few will call for
> disconnection.

True. I responded to the one year offer but the CS person offered me two
years so I grabbed it. When the two years is up, I will likely call and read
them ATT's latest offer and get them to match it. They'll usually do it for
6 months at a time.

SMS wrote:

> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
> or go down, but landlines still work. During the bad hurricane season a
> few years ago, we also saw that a lot of wireless sites had no back-up
> generator, only batteries, so they went down pretty quickly. Cingular
> had 25% of their sites with generators (according to their own press
> release), while Verizon had 80% with back up power (Verizon claims to
> have a generator at every site where they are allowed to have one).
> Cingular's goal is to have enough sites up to provide complete coverage,
> but to sacrifice capacity, "We will sacrifice the capacity piece to try
> to attain blanket coverage as much as possible."

Thinking of this old AUTOVON relay site very near where I lived when I
went to high school:

http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli1.jpg
http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli2.jpg
http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli3.jpg

I had found documentation on one web site showing that a Solar[tm]
backup generator made by International Harvester was ready to kick in at
that site any time power went down. Given that it was a deep rural area,
wind could easily take down a power line and knock power out.

These days VZW maintains a cell site there and has done so since 1999. I
wonder if that Solar generator is still there.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected] (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> M.L. wrote:
>
>>> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
>>> or go down, but landlines still work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, just the opposite is true. Granted, as usual you showed an
>> exception to the rule in order to pass it along as the rule. However,
>> during most natural disasters it's the landlines that go down first.
>
>
> Don't cell phones eventually connect via landlines? It seems to me that
> it's cell phone to tower by air, tower to central office by wire,
> Central office to central office by wire, central office to tower by
> wire and tower to cell by air. For wire, you may substitute fiber
> optics, if the local phone company is REALLY up-to-date.

Rural sites (like the one I just posted links to pictures of) used
microwave to connect to another cell site or to the main switch's tower
with all kinds of microwave dishes on it.

Think of the days of AT&T running Radio Relay, from the mid-'50s to the
mid-'90s. with all those feed horns and L-2 and L-3 circuits passing
phone calls and televison network feeds.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected] (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen

On 2008-02-23, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Feb 2008 15:16:12 -0500 Carl wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, T-Mobile is a great deal for a lot of peak minutes. Unfortunately
>>>> they have no coverage yet where I live, and poor coverage where I
>>>> usually travel to.
>>>>
>>> If they had better coverage, they wouldn't be only $40! There's a point
>>> there somewhere that some seem to miss. Maybe it's me. Sorry.
>>
>>
>> Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to sleep
>> at night! ;-)
>
> Yes, that's how I am able to sleep.
>
> Seriously though, I have two GSM phones without 800 MHz, my original
> Cingular GSM phone from when Cingular out west was only 1900 MHz, and my
> tri-mode "traveling phone" which is 900/1800/1900. If I put my SIM card
> into one of those phones, which limits me to roaming on the T-Mobile

Why would you be limited to T-Mobile? AT&T has 1900 MHz coverage in the
bay area. I get it when I put my AT&T SIM in a phone which lacks 850 MHz,
though the coverage is abysmal for reasons that aren't clear to me.

> network with SpeakOut (an AT&T MVNO), the loss of coverage is very
> noticeable (starting with no coverage where I live, unless I go outside
> and down the street a bit).

The funny thing is, the last time I tried a SpeakOut SIM in my phone
I couldn't even force it to use T-Mobile's network in the bay area (I
can't force my AT&T SIM to use T-Mobile's network either); I got
registration failures.

If you are evaluating T-Mobile's coverage using a SpeakOut SIM either
you have a much better SpeakOut SIM than I had, or you may be evaluating
AT&T's 1900 MHz service instead. That latter is indeed poor.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2008-02-23, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 23 Feb 2008 10:42:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM
>> testing on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models
>> because I wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.
>
>
> Are you sure SpeakOut still roams on T-Mo in your area? I think the
> network transition is over (or darn near.) The network IDs were recently
> changed, IIRC.
>
>
> Can't you just do a network search and see who comes up? Or does Cingular
> lock that menu out?
>
> (Although last year when I was in the Bay Area a network search on my T-Mo
> phone and SIM showed "Cingular" and "Cingular") ;-)

Last year the MCC-MNC for AT&T and T-Mobile were 310-380 and 310-170,
respectively, which a lot of phones of a certain vintage might call
"Cingular" and "Cingular".

This year they are now 310-410 and 310-260, which most phones will
get right, though with my AT&T SIM in my phone they show up as "AT&T"
and "AT&T". I don't quite know the reason for that, though I assume
it has something to do with AT&T using T-Mobile for roaming in other
parts of the country.

Dennis Ferguson