smartphones and WiFi

I'm surprised to note my new "smartphone" apparently won't be a telephone
unless it has bars, ie, I can't talk over WiFi. Is that standard?

---

› See More: smartphones and WiFi

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm surprised to note my new "smartphone" apparently won't be a telephone
> unless it has bars, ie, I can't talk over WiFi. Is that standard?

get a voice over ip app. there are many.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > I'm surprised to note my new "smartphone" apparently won't be a
> > telephone unless it has bars, ie, I can't talk over WiFi. Is that standard?
>
> If you want to add VoIP, add it. "WiFi calling" is fairly standard on T-
> Mobile smartphones, because T-Mobile supports routing cellular packets
> over the internet in addition to over cellular. They originally deployed
> this a few years ago to help compensate for their comparatively limited
> coverage.

don't they charge extra for that?

if cellphone companies were smart they'd offer it for free.

On 6/26/2011 11:51 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> If you want to add VoIP, add it. "WiFi calling" is fairly standard on T-
> Mobile smartphones, because T-Mobile supports routing cellular packets
> over the internet in addition to over cellular. They originally deployed
> this a few years ago to help compensate for their comparatively limited
> coverage.

It's still a big help for T-Mobile in some rural areas where they have
no coverage since typically you'll still have Wi-Fi available in
restaurants, hotels, etc.. Especially in the San Francisco Bay Area
where T-Mobile lost vast amounts of voice coverage when roaming
agreements with AT&T lapsed.


Standard Disclaimers
--------------------
1. Not everyone has internet access at work.
2. Not everyone lives in a city or country that has free wi-fi as
ubiquitous as what is available in most metro areas in the U.S..
3. There is a small percentage of users that use vastly more data than
the mode, mean, or median, for a good reason.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > don't they charge extra for that?
>
> Not really. The only "charge" is that the call counts as cellular minutes.
> (So "free" calls like N&W or in-network are also free over WiFi, but
> "charged" minutes reduce your minute bucket just as if you called via
> cellular.

they charge you minutes when you are using your own wifi and your own
data line (which you're paying for too) instead of their cell towers?

> You might be recalling that T-Mo used to sell an add-on package for
> $10/month that offered unlimited WiFi calls, rather than having them
> count the same as a cell call. That plan was optional.

optional, and an extra charge. it should be free.

hell they should be *paying* customers to use wifi since it reduces the
load on the cell system as well as have coverage in places that aren't
worth covering.

> Another advantage is that WiFi calls placed or received overseas are free
> of roaming charges, since they count as regular (domestic) cell calls,
> without the hassles of dealing with call forwarding, or giving everyone a
> new number like you'd need to do with VoIP or using a local SIM.

that helps.

On 6/26/2011 1:54 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since I'm
> roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
> Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero Wireless)
> is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.

As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't renew
the roaming agreements, you're safe. The problem out here was that the
roaming agreements between T-Mobile and AT&T started as roaming
agreements between AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile, not as roaming agreements
between Cingular (which owned the 1900 MHz spectrum now owned by
T-Mobile) and T-Mobile. When Cingular bought AT&T Wireless they didn't
renew those roaming agreements.

The other problem is that AT&T was buying up their partner carriers like
Edge Wireless, though last time I checked the roaming agreement between
T-Mobile and Edge Wireless had not yet expired.

T-Mobile out here never sold 1900 MHz only GSM phones. Cingular, which
originally operate the 1900 MHz network now owned by T-Mobile did start
with 1900 Mhz only phones, or tri-band (900/1800/1900). By the time
T-Mobile started service out here they were selling dual band phones.

On 6/26/2011 3:42 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Jun 2011 14:53:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
>> On 6/26/2011 1:54 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since
> I'm
>>> roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
>>> Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero
> Wireless)
>>> is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
>>
>> As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't
>> renew the roaming agreements, you're safe.
>
> A moot point with the looming merger. Iff it happens, T-Mobike is history,
> if it doesn't, T-Mo its granted roaming access to AT&T's entire network
> as a penalty clause.

I like that. Now will AT&T continue the $10/year prepaid on T-Mobile?
Unlikely.

> If you read my post, those roaming agreements seemed to be more for (old)
> AT&T's benefit, not T-Mo's.

I know, but things changed to benefit T-Mobile subscribers. AT&T
Wireless's migration to 800 MHz GSM (originally they had GSM on 1900 and
TDMA/analog on 800) meant that T-Mobile began to benefit more than AT&T
Wireless.

Cingular's purchase of AT&T meant that T-Mobile customers now could roam
onto AT&T's very good 800 MHz GSM network. Of

> Right, because the "new" AT&T no longer needed them. What I'm setting
> is that those roaming agreements in California were mostly one-way- (old)
> AT&T was buying coverage from Cingular, obligations which T-Mo
> "inherited" with the orange network.
> There was nothing T-Mo needed from old AT&T, whose GSM coverage at the
> time was inferior to the orange PacBell/Cingular/T-Mo network.

Yep, it all reversed later on. And suddenly those of us that kept a
prepaid T-Mobile phone active wondered why our coverage was getting
poorer. Well except for one person of course!

On 6/26/2011 5:57 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Jun 2011 16:59:58 -0700 SMS wrote:
>> On 6/26/2011 3:42 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 26 Jun 2011 14:53:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2011 1:54 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since
>>> I'm
>>>>> roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
>>>>> Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero
>>> Wireless)
>>>>> is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
>>>>
>>>> As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't
>>>> renew the roaming agreements, you're safe.
>>>
>>> A moot point with the looming merger. Iff it happens, T-Mobike is
> history,
>>> if it doesn't, T-Mo its granted roaming access to AT&T's entire
> network
>>> as a penalty clause.
>>
>> I like that. Now will AT&T continue the $10/year prepaid on T-Mobile?
> Unlikely.
>
> Agreed. That's why in my opinion, the best possible outcome is that the
> merger is blocked, and T-Mo gets AT&T's coverage and the $6 billion
> golden handshake from AT&T the penalty clause includes.

I read that the Obama administration will likely push it through in an
attempt to appear business friendly prior to the 2012 election. OTOH,
AT&T seems extremely worried about it not going through and is
soliciting support from various non-profit groups to which it donates money.

I suspect that T-Mobile's recent worsening of its plans is because they
want to "prove" that less competition will not increase costs, they can
increase costs even without the acquisition.

> "Very good?" This from the same SMS who write in the Verizon NG today
> "in my area (N. California) Verizon is the only carrier with coverage in
> many locations..
> "

Everything is relative. Compared to the abysmal Cingular nee Pacific
Bell Mobile GSM coverage and capacity, AT&T was indeed "very good" once
they put GSM onto both 800 and 1900. And AT&T's TDMA/AMPS system rivaled
Verizon for coverage until the GSM conversion.

It was the Cingular/Pacific Bell Mobile disaster that led to more state
regulations in California (even though the carriers claimed that the
state has no authority over them), and that led to the 30 day return
policy offered by carriers
<http://www.informationweek.com/blog/229216457>. I did not terminate
service in-contract, I suffered for a year then canceled, even though if
I had canceled I could have later recovered the ETF (but of course I
didn't know that at the time).