1 phone-2 numbers?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 29 Aug 2004
20:03:05 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote:
>
>> >And you haven't read the thread enough to know that Nextel has been
>> >doing this for some time.
>>
>> But Nextel isn't Cellular. The previous poster was 100% correct.
>>
>> You are the one that obviously needs to be paying attention!
>
>They're all wireless, they're all portable, and they're all phones.
>
>I guess you'd look at a diesel car and say it's not a car, because it
>doesn't run on gas like cars do. Trucks run on diesel, cars run on gas.
>Whatever you want to think. Guess what? Society calls them all "cell
>phones". They walk like a duck and quack like a duck and swim like a
>duck; they're all ducks.

By that logic, my cordless phone is a "cellular" phone, albeit with piss poor
coverage beyond my residence. And try putting gas into your diesel and
see how far you get. There are limitations of iDEN as compared to cellular
that can make it unsuitable for the OP, who is posting in a Cingular newsgroup
after all.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: 1 phone-2 numbers?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 29 Aug 2004
20:01:39 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> For some reason, I've understood Nextel handsets were IDEN
>> instead of cellular. My bad.
>
>Diesel or gas, it's still a car.

But not terribly useful if only gas is available, and (like mobile phones)
commonly distinguished by name ("diesel car" versus just "car").

>The technology under the hood doesn't
>matter;

Of course it does, as noted above. If there's no iDEN coverage in the area,
then iDEN isn't a viable option. And you won't be able to use your Cingular
"cellular" phones on an iDEN network.

>the fact is, it makes and receives phone calls.

So does my landline.

>Call it what
>you will; society has settled on "cell phone". So be it.

Society is often sloppy about technical terms, These are more accurately
"mobile" phones, where cellular is simply the most common current of the
types, all of which are distinct and incompatible.

>If you want to get picky about what's under the hood, that's fine--but
>don't expect anyone else to (a) know, or (b) care.

Many of us here (a) know and (b) care, and this is after all the forum.

>Nextel phones can
>have two phone numbers assigned to them at once, others can't/won't.

Dual SIMs are available for GSM, and dual numbers have been available on
non-iDEN as well. It's probably not widely available now because it's proven
to be a problematic feature with low demand.

>And guess what: they're all wireless, they're all portable, and they're
>all phones.

So are my cordless phones at home.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:10:20 -0500, Jer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>... I'm certainly no cell phone guru, but
>maybe one is floating around here somewhere and will kindly stick a nose
>in this thread to help us all understand better why Nextel does dual-NAM
>tricks and the others don't.

It's a legacy of what is basically obsolete technology (iDEN), much like the
original TDMA deployed here in the USA. About the only real advantage of iDEN
was PTT (push to talk), but that's now being neutralized.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

> About the only real advantage of iDEN
> was PTT (push to talk), but that's now being neutralized.

By what?

No one else does PTT anywhere near as well or usefully as Nextel.

And PTT does have its advantages. It may be a bit niche, but it's a
very, very strong niche.

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

> >The technology under the hood doesn't
> >matter;
>
> Of course it does, as noted above. If there's no iDEN coverage in the area,
> then iDEN isn't a viable option. And you won't be able to use your Cingular
> "cellular" phones on an iDEN network.

It doesn't matter. Either I have coverage, or I don't. I don't care
WHY I don't have coverage; the issues are the same. My carrier made
choices about what area to cover and not cover. Whether it's iDEN,
TCMA, CDMA, GSM, etc.--it just doesn't matter. I'm using a cell phone
(portable, wireless, voice) and either I have coverage or I don't.

And either I can do two numbers at once or I can't.

Why you geekoids insist on going down to the code level and then assume
that anyone else cares, is beyond me.

It's a cell phone. iDEN is a subset of cell phones, as far as anyone
cares. But what they really care about is, do I have coverage or not?
Do I have a camera or not? Can I browse the web or not?

The more you insist on telling people that "no, you don't have a cell
phone, you have a Nextel," the more you look like the A/V geek in high
school, passing the time playing dungeons and dragons.

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

> >And guess what: they're all wireless, they're all portable, and they're
> >all phones.
>
> So are my cordless phones at home.

They're all wireless, they're all portable, that portability extends to
anywhere within the continental US at least, and they're all phones.

Tell me when your cordless phone at home can go 2000 miles away and make
a call on your home line.

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

> >I'm sorry, I didn't intend to exclude any qualified handset with my
> >comment. For some reason, I've understood Nextel handsets were IDEN
> >instead of cellular. My bad.
>
> And of course not usable on Cingular, the subject of this newsgroup.

But the assertion was that "NO ONE does this". Bull****. Nextel does
it.

Go make cell calls with Nextel if you need it. Oops--here comes Mr. A/V
Geek, going to correct me that Nextel makes iDEN calls.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004
13:49:39 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >I'm sorry, I didn't intend to exclude any qualified handset with my
>> >comment. For some reason, I've understood Nextel handsets were IDEN
>> >instead of cellular. My bad.
>>
>> And of course not usable on Cingular, the subject of this newsgroup.
>
>But the assertion was that "NO ONE does this". Bull****. Nextel does
>it.

No current cellular does. Nextel is iDEN.

>Go make cell calls with Nextel if you need it. Oops--

Oops indeed -- won't work with my handsets.

>here comes Mr. A/V
>Geek, going to correct me that Nextel makes iDEN calls.

In fact it does only make iDEN calls, which is why Nextel handsets won't work
on other carriers, and iDEN features will only work on Nextel. In other
words, it's different. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004
13:47:24 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >The technology under the hood doesn't
>> >matter;
>>
>> Of course it does, as noted above. If there's no iDEN coverage in the area,
>> then iDEN isn't a viable option. And you won't be able to use your Cingular
>> "cellular" phones on an iDEN network.
>
>It doesn't matter. ...

Of course it does, no matter what you may claim.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004
13:48:31 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >And guess what: they're all wireless, they're all portable, and they're
>> >all phones.
>>
>> So are my cordless phones at home.
>
>They're all wireless, they're all portable, that portability extends to
>anywhere within the continental US at least, and they're all phones.
>
>Tell me when your cordless phone at home can go 2000 miles away and make
>a call on your home line.

Now you add a new qualifier. Are there more? Yes exclude technology as a
qualifier. Quite a tap dance.

My cordless phone will work anywhere there's coverage, even when it's 2000
miles from my home. Just like my mobile phone, it just needs to be within
range of a base station. Which goes to show how silly your claim is. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

> In fact it does only make iDEN calls, which is why Nextel handsets won't work
> on other carriers,

And my ATTWS handset won't work on other carriers, either. Does that
make it bad?

Oh, but you're going to delve in and talk about how that's not a
TECHNICAL limitation, how it's just how ATTWS wants things to be. So
what? Who cares if the limitation is technical or political? "Won't
work on other carriers" is the same as "won't work on other carriers".
Either I can make a call, or I can't.

Navas again shows how he can't see the forest for the trees. What an
ass. But then, some things never change.

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

> >> Of course it does, as noted above. If there's no iDEN coverage in the
> >> area,
> >> then iDEN isn't a viable option. And you won't be able to use your
> >> Cingular
> >> "cellular" phones on an iDEN network.
> >
> >It doesn't matter. ...
>
> Of course it does, no matter what you may claim.

If it matters to you, John, I'm proud to acknowledge that such minutae
matters not one whit to me.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004
13:43:30 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> About the only real advantage of iDEN
>> was PTT (push to talk), but that's now being neutralized.
>
>By what?
>
>No one else does PTT anywhere near as well or usefully as Nextel.

While GSM is coming last to the PTT party, GSM looks to trump other PTT
solutions in the long run, since GSM PTT is IP-based (over GPRS/EDGE),
making inter-GSM carrier PTT easy, and unlike CDMA, GSM PTT latency is
comparable to Nextel.

>And PTT does have its advantages. It may be a bit niche, but it's a
>very, very strong niche.

Indeed, and very, very vulnerable.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004
17:44:17 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Of course it does, as noted above. If there's no iDEN coverage in the
>> >> area,
>> >> then iDEN isn't a viable option. And you won't be able to use your
>> >> Cingular
>> >> "cellular" phones on an iDEN network.
>> >
>> >It doesn't matter. ...
>>
>> Of course it does, no matter what you may claim.
>
>If it matters to you, John, I'm proud to acknowledge that such minutae
>matters not one whit to me.

So noted.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004
17:43:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In fact it does only make iDEN calls, which is why Nextel handsets won't work
>> on other carriers,
>
>And my ATTWS handset won't work on other carriers, either.

Because ATTWS locks them, a problem easily avoided by buying an unlocked
handset.

>Does that
>make it bad?

I think so. Because my handsets are unlocked, I can and have changed carriers
freely, easily, and cheaply.

>Oh, but you're going to delve in and talk about how that's not a
>TECHNICAL limitation, how it's just how ATTWS wants things to be. So
>what? Who cares if the limitation is technical or political? "Won't
>work on other carriers" is the same as "won't work on other carriers".
>Either I can make a call, or I can't.

Business limitations can be avoided. Technical ones can't.

>Navas again shows how he can't see the forest for the trees. What an
>ass. But then, some things never change.

All that does is make you look the ass. Whatever.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>