Cingular GSM v. digital

Digital phone service is being phased out. Why? It (still) works
better than the GSM network, in my opinion. In fact, I don't receive a
good GSM signal where I live. Ever since Cingular purchased ATT
Wireless, it seems Cingular has been secretly heading a campaign to
reduce and eliminate digital towers in order to force the issue for
it's customers to either join the GSM team or migrate to another
provider.

This does not serve the consumer well, especially since the cost of the
Cingular plans is more-or-less the same, but the rub is that the
customer receives less minutes and benefits.

What's worse is that I'm not receiving the same signal strength in
areas that used to be perfect. That's curious to this user. I can't
believe that signal strength magically disappears.

Anyone else having the same concerns?

---

› See More: Cingular GSM v. digital

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [email protected]
> Sent: 10/14/2005 3:11 AM -0400
> Subject: Cingular GSM v. digital
>

> Digital phone service is being phased out. Why? It (still) works
> better than the GSM network, in my opinion.

GSM is digital; the above statements therefore make no sense.

--
RJW

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard J. Wyble <nospam@bitbucket> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: [email protected]
>> Sent: 10/14/2005 3:11 AM -0400
>> Subject: Cingular GSM v. digital
>>
>
>> Digital phone service is being phased out. Why? It (still) works
>> better than the GSM network, in my opinion.
>
>GSM is digital; the above statements therefore make no sense.

He is, no doubt, referring to TDMA service, which was referred to as
"digital" service by AT&T and Cingular ... before they implemented GSM.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Digital phone service is being phased out.

No it's not! It is being chenged from one form of TDMA to another form of
TDMA. All still Digital.

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

In <[email protected]> on 14 Oct 2005
00:11:04 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Digital phone service is being phased out.

Presumably you mean IS-136, also known as "TDMA".

>Why?

Inefficient use of spectrum. Lacks advanced features (e.g., SIM, GPRS/EGPRS).
Lacks growth path. Limited choice of handsets.

>It (still) works
>better than the GSM network, in my opinion.

GSM is also based on TDMA technology, but is quite a bit more advanced than
TDMA.

>In fact, I don't receive a
>good GSM signal where I live.

In other areas the GSM signal will be much better than IS-136. No one
technology has best coverage in all areas -- that's a function of deployment.

>Ever since Cingular purchased ATT
>Wireless, it seems Cingular has been secretly heading a campaign to
>reduce and eliminate digital towers in order to force the issue for
>it's customers to either join the GSM team or migrate to another
>provider.

Not secret at all, and ATTWS had the same program pre-merger. Both carriers
were quite public about their plans to migrate to GSM. The simple fact is
that IS-136 has been going away, quite publicly, regardless of carrier.

>This does not serve the consumer well,

Many (most?) customers are quite happy with GSM, at least as happy as they
were with IS-136.

>especially since the cost of the
>Cingular plans is more-or-less the same, but the rub is that the
>customer receives less minutes and benefits.

1. That kind of pricing is part of what got ATTWS into so much trouble that it
lost its independence. It would be unrealistic to expect some other carrier
to commit the same kind of suicide.

2. IS-136 customers are free to get the best deal available from some other
carrier.

3. Cingular plans have benefits you're not properly valuing that didn't exist
with ATTWS, including Rollover, and Free Mobile-to-Mobile over the largest
subscriber base in the USA.

4. If pressed, faced with losing a customer, Cingular will often make up much
if not all of the difference over an old ATTWS plan.

>What's worse is that I'm not receiving the same signal strength in
>areas that used to be perfect. That's curious to this user. I can't
>believe that signal strength magically disappears.

Cingular is turning off "redundant" IS-136 towers as a cost-saving measure.
Since the process isn't perfect, that can mean less good signal in certain
locations.

>Anyone else having the same concerns?

You need to face up to the fact that IS-136 is on its way out, and that you'll
need to migrate to something else. What else is up to you. Choice is good.

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

Cingular's GSM service here in Sarasota is VERY bad. I am about to pay
whatever, dump and move on. In that regard, is CDMA any better?
Experiences?

My old Nokia dinasour 5600 phone (TDMA ?) worked like a charm though is was
heavy, etc. Upon "upgrading" to a smaller pkg, I found myself stuck, dumped
into what here is a bad, very bad system.

I called the President's office - spoke with one of his support staff who
eventually said that I might be better to move on (to another vendor).
(Conversation was very cordial, etc.)

Moving from GSM to CDMA ~ ~ frying pan into the fire or what??

Tks!

Wayne




<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Digital phone service is being phased out. Why? It (still) works
> better than the GSM network, in my opinion. In fact, I don't receive a
> good GSM signal where I live. Ever since Cingular purchased ATT
> Wireless, it seems Cingular has been secretly heading a campaign to
> reduce and eliminate digital towers in order to force the issue for
> it's customers to either join the GSM team or migrate to another
> provider.
>
> This does not serve the consumer well, especially since the cost of the
> Cingular plans is more-or-less the same, but the rub is that the
> customer receives less minutes and benefits.
>
> What's worse is that I'm not receiving the same signal strength in
> areas that used to be perfect. That's curious to this user. I can't
> believe that signal strength magically disappears.
>
> Anyone else having the same concerns?
>

Wayne G. Dengel wrote:
> Cingular's GSM service here in Sarasota is VERY bad. I am about to pay
> whatever, dump and move on. In that regard, is CDMA any better?
> Experiences?

I use CDMA currently and have no problems. This is on Verizon wireless.

Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so
much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM
works wonderfully if it is deployed well and the coverage is there; it's
just that Cingular has gone this piecemeal route of not having uniform
TDMA and GSM coverage. Likewise, CDMA can be pretty horrible too if the
carrier doesn't keep up with coverage demands. A great example of this
is Sprint, particularly in the Northeast lately.

> My old Nokia dinasour 5600 phone (TDMA ?) worked like a charm though is was
> heavy, etc. Upon "upgrading" to a smaller pkg, I found myself stuck, dumped
> into what here is a bad, very bad system.

This could be any number of things, but I wouldn't blame the GSM
standard specifically. Either TDMA is turned on while GSM isn't yet at
the cell sites near you, or the particular phone they gave/sold you is
poor at RF reception, or perhaps even both. It could also be that they
haven't turned down enough TDMA channels to allocate them to GSM to make
better use of the spectrum; meanwhile they're pushing everyone off TDMA
and crowding the GSM channels and degrading performance (this is likely
happening if you're missing calls and getting "system busy" messages).

> I called the President's office - spoke with one of his support staff who
> eventually said that I might be better to move on (to another vendor).
> (Conversation was very cordial, etc.)

Probably a good idea if they don't plan on fixing this mess for you.
Cingular wants off TDMA as quickly as it can, so I wouldn't expect it to
last very long.

> Moving from GSM to CDMA ~ ~ frying pan into the fire or what??

Who knows? Best thing to do is try it out before you port your number.
Sign up with Verizon or another CDMA carrier on one of their numbers,
try the service out, and then if you're sure you like it, THEN call up
Verizon's customer support and let them know you want to port your old
number into that existing account (should be very quick and easy to do).
I did this after I made the mistake of porting right away from Sprint
to Cingular and then finding that I *really* shouldn't have done that.
After I knew Verizon was where I wanted to stay, I ported and had no
issues since.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:56:44 -0400,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so
>much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM
>works wonderfully if it is deployed well and the coverage is there; it's
>just that Cingular has gone this piecemeal route of not having uniform
>TDMA and GSM coverage.

Cingular has made considerable progress on upgrading TDMA to GSM and
integrating the old ATTWS and Cingular networks, and Cingular GSM is now
arguably the best network.

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

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

>> My old Nokia dinasour 5600 phone (TDMA ?) worked like a charm though is
>> was heavy, etc. Upon "upgrading" to a smaller pkg, I found myself stuck,
>> dumped into what here is a bad, very bad system.
>
> This could be any number of things, but I wouldn't blame the GSM standard
> specifically. Either TDMA is turned on while GSM isn't yet at the cell
> sites near you,

Cingular has GSM in ALL their cell sites nationwide. Not bein gturned on is
not the issue.

It is alleged that Isaiah Beard claimed:

> Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so
> much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM
> works wonderfully if it is deployed well and the coverage is there; it's
> just that Cingular has gone this piecemeal route of not having uniform
> TDMA and GSM coverage. Likewise, CDMA can be pretty horrible too if the
> carrier doesn't keep up with coverage demands. A great example of this
> is Sprint, particularly in the Northeast lately.

Yah, in most cases it's an issue of coverage. I had zero problems with
Verizon Wireless for many years, until I moved to where I am now. Zero
CDMA coverage anywhere in my condo complex, and very iffy on the
street. The problem is that even though there are two or three CDMA
towers in theoretical range, all of them are on the other side of one
of several hills, leaving me in a signal shadow. However, I have
line-of-sight to a GSM tower, I get three or four bars of signal since
I switched to Cingular.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (Lt.
Cmdr. Ivanova (quoting Santayana), B5 "Infection")

Let me ask a question here (this question has led me to these forums).

I am a college student, and I must say I don't have a whole lot of
knowledge on cell phones. I am assuming that I am still on a TDMA,
considering I switched over from AT&T ( or suncom in Richmond, VA).
BUT, I did go into the store a few months ago and buy a brand new phone
(an LG) and service plan. It now says 'Cingular' on my phone. So
wouldn't this mean I'm on the GSM network now? And if so, why am I
getting this ****ty service all of a sudden? At night, when I try and
make phone calls, I have to dial the number AT LEAST 10 times and the
call won't go through. All it says is 'channel not available'. Hope I
don't ever have to use it for an emergency. Also, today I didn't even
have service at all (no bars) for about 2 hours in the afternoon. I
NEED this phone to work because I don't have a home phone line. So
what's the deal?

(I miss Suncom)

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

In <[email protected]> on 25 Oct 2005
19:41:12 -0700, "hughesle318" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let me ask a question here (this question has led me to these forums).
>
>I am a college student, and I must say I don't have a whole lot of
>knowledge on cell phones. I am assuming that I am still on a TDMA,
>considering I switched over from AT&T ( or suncom in Richmond, VA).
>BUT, I did go into the store a few months ago and buy a brand new phone
>(an LG) and service plan. It now says 'Cingular' on my phone. So
>wouldn't this mean I'm on the GSM network now?

What is the model of your phone? Does it have a SIM card?

>And if so, why am I
>getting this ****ty service all of a sudden? At night, when I try and
>make phone calls, I have to dial the number AT LEAST 10 times and the
>call won't go through. All it says is 'channel not available'.

Could be a service problem in your area. Have you reported it>

>Hope I
>don't ever have to use it for an emergency.

A cell phone isn't something to depend on in an emergency.

>Also, today I didn't even
>have service at all (no bars) for about 2 hours in the afternoon. I
>NEED this phone to work because I don't have a home phone line. So
>what's the deal?

Report the problem.

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

John Navas wrote:


>>Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so
>>much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM
>>works wonderfully if it is deployed well and the coverage is there; it's
>>just that Cingular has gone this piecemeal route of not having uniform
>>TDMA and GSM coverage.
>
>
> Cingular has made considerable progress on upgrading TDMA to GSM and
> integrating the old ATTWS and Cingular networks, and Cingular GSM is now
> arguably the best network.

Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please
cite your sources?



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:36:16 -0400,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>>Be aware though, the actual *air interface* isn't really the problem so
>>>much as it is Cingular *deployment* of that signalling format. GSM
>>>works wonderfully if it is deployed well and the coverage is there; it's
>>>just that Cingular has gone this piecemeal route of not having uniform
>>>TDMA and GSM coverage.
>>
>> Cingular has made considerable progress on upgrading TDMA to GSM and
>> integrating the old ATTWS and Cingular networks, and Cingular GSM is now
>> arguably the best network.
>
>Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please
>cite your sources?

Published financial and independent reports, a number of which I've previously
cited here.

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

John Navas wrote:

>>Your statement offers no concretes facts or evidence. Can you please
>>cite your sources?
>
>
> Published financial and independent reports, a number of which I've previously
> cited here.

Then it should be easy to list links. Please list them.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.