Change phone without renewing Cingular contract?

Jeremy wrote:
> "clifto" <[email protected]> wrote...
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>> unlimited
>>> n/w minutes (not the 5,000 free minutes that Cingular offered if I would
>>> switch to GSM),
>>
>> That part's a pyrrhic victory. There are 45 hours of nights and 48
>> hours of weekend each week, and 93 times 4-1/3 is 403 possible N/W
>> hours per month. 5,000 per YEAR would cover that.
>>
>> Now, why Cingular can't say "unlimited" instead of [bigsoundingnumber]
>> is beyond me.
>
> 5000 minutes per month is 83 hours per month. I think you are comparing
> "minutes per month" to "hours per month."

Er, cranial flatulence? Senior moment? Is it true blondes have
more fun?

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

---

› See More: Change phone without renewing Cingular contract?

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>>> Over all, I'd say that Sprint wold droop me twice as often as Cingualr
>>> now does.
>>
>> Seems to vary around the country. Some Sprint users in other cities
>> are extremely pleased with the service. But here in Chicago, a
>> friend who had Sprint couldn't get through five minutes of talking
>> before his phone dropped him; an hour conversation with him was
>> invariably a comedy of unending call drops.
>
> Of course it would be fair point out that the place I used the Sprint
> phone the MOST was about 5 miles from nearest tower.

He was *usually* at home, about a mile from O'Hare Airport. I could
chalk that up to busy cells dropping calls to make room for lots
and lots of calls. But anywhere he went in the area, we got the
same behavior.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Somewhere around Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:28:18 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from
DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]>:

>Jeremy wrote:
>> I'm so pleased with the crystal-clear calls I am now getting on Sprint
>> (CDMA) that I regret only that I took so long to dump Cingular.
>
>Really haven't seen significantly better or worse calls between the two.
>
>> Best thing of all is no more dropped calls
>Over all, I'd say that Sprint wold droop me twice as often as Cingualr
>now does.
When my family in Seattle calls, using Sprint, the call gets disconnected
several times during one conversation - what a pain; and this is from their
home, not their car. I *never* got disconnected from Cingular when not
traveling, and rarely in my car.

>
>> and no having to wait several minutes when the phone is turned on,
>> before it finally locates a signal from Cingular.
>
>Only take a second for my phone to lock in.

Seems like that would be a function of the phone - my RAZR takes 15 or 20
seconds, but my old Nokia was only a few seconds -- Damn Cingular!
>
>> Smaller phones, louder
>> speakerphones, 5 bars of signal strength,

Gee, Cingular really controls the size and loudness of the phones. I
suppose if Cingular sold a phone with 20 bars, he'd be all over it!
My RAZR only has 3 bars, so I guess I should be switching!

Reminds me of Spinal Tap, where the guitarist had a super amp with volume
controls that went higher than "10".

>
>All in all....I dont' see that much advantage you have. Bottom line,
>Sprint might be better for YOU in your particular area, but that's not
>to be taken as an over all recommendation for everyone.

Amazing at the straws that are grasped during personal crusades, isn't it?
--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Somewhere around Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:59:17 -0600, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from clifto
<[email protected]>:

>Jeremy wrote:
>> "clifto" <[email protected]> wrote...
>>> Jeremy wrote:
>>>> unlimited
>>>> n/w minutes (not the 5,000 free minutes that Cingular offered if I would
>>>> switch to GSM),
>>>
>>> That part's a pyrrhic victory. There are 45 hours of nights and 48
>>> hours of weekend each week, and 93 times 4-1/3 is 403 possible N/W
>>> hours per month. 5,000 per YEAR would cover that.
>>>
>>> Now, why Cingular can't say "unlimited" instead of [bigsoundingnumber]
>>> is beyond me.
>>
>> 5000 minutes per month is 83 hours per month. I think you are comparing
>> "minutes per month" to "hours per month."
>
>Er, cranial flatulence? Senior moment? Is it true blondes have
>more fun?
Still, 83 hours per month spent on the phone wouldn't leave much time to
complain about how bad Cingular is. I pity anyone that spends that much of
their nights and weekends on the phone. My whole family of 3 can't make
much of a dent in our 5000 bucket of N&W minutes.
--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:06:57 -0800, kras wrote:

> I'm not in a contract right now, it ran out in November, so I'm doing
> month to month with a Cingular plan that hasn't been available for
> years. In fact I got it when it was still Cellular One, before it
> switched to ATT, before they switched to Cingular, before they became
> ATT again and I don't want to lose it
>
> I'm in the bay area and have heard that GSM service is not very good
> here, and I'm am going to need a new phone soon. I don't know if I can
> even find a "new" TDMA phone, but if I did, could I switch it with the
> one I have and not have to renew a contract? If so, what do I need to
> know before I buy and before I contact ATT? My current phone is a nokia
> 8260, if that matters.
>
> I searched the archives but didn't find anything newer than 2003 posts
> regarding the switching to GSM and sure enough, ATT has Cingular, but
> has that affected the quality of GSM service here? And what is the word
> about when will we be forced to switch from TDMA?
> thanks

I was on the Network Advantage AT&T plan for almost 5 years. I finally
switched to the 450 minute GSM plan. My voice coverage and quality has
been _much_ better. This includes both the San Francisco and San Jose area.
I used to not be able to use my phone at work AT ALL (Mountain View); now
it works great.

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

In <[email protected]> on 18 Mar 2006
12:06:57 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>I'm not in a contract right now, it ran out in November, so I'm doing
>month to month with a Cingular plan that hasn't been available for
>years. In fact I got it when it was still Cellular One, before it
>switched to ATT, before they switched to Cingular, before they became
>ATT again and I don't want to lose it
>
>I'm in the bay area and have heard that GSM service is not very good
>here,

Cingular GSM (based on both "blue" [old ATTWS] and "orange" [old Cingular]
networks) is actually quite good in the San Francisco Bay Area.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm in the bay area and have heard that GSM service is not very good
> here, and I'm am going to need a new phone soon. I don't know if I can
> even find a "new" TDMA phone, but if I did, could I switch it with the
> one I have and not have to renew a contract? If so, what do I need to
> know before I buy and before I contact ATT? My current phone is a nokia
> 8260, if that matters.

They may not let you activate the replacement TDMA phone, even if you
can find one, since a TDMA phone will not be E911 capable.

My kid's both have prepaid TDMA/AMPS phones, and we are in the bay area.
The coverage is still fine, much better than GSM coverage, though much
of this is because of the AMPS capability.

GSM coverage in the bay area is okay. It's not up to the level of CDMA
coverage yet, but it's close. I've found gaps in GSM coverage in several
places where I have CDMA coverage, most notably along the 280 corridor,
along the periphery of the suburban areas, and in the tri-valley area of
the east bay (Pleasanton is particular). The bigger difference is that
with your TDMA phone, you also have AMPS coverage (as you will have with
a tri-mode phone from Sprint or Verizon). AMPS coverage gives you
coverage in areas where there is no TDMA, CDMA, or GSM, and there are
still a lot of areas like this, even within bay area, if you get into
the greenbelt, or go out to the unpopulated coastal areas of the Bay
Area, or go up to the north coast area until you get to Crescent City.

You'll have to get rid of the TDMA phone in a year or two anyway, so
maybe it's time to switch now. If you're on one of the lower cost AT&T
rate plans, Cingular won't let you move to a GSM plan with the same
rate, as they don't offer any such plans. So you're free to choose from
all four carriers and move your number. I'd advise going to Sprint or
Verizon with a tri-mode phone. This will give you the best coverage in
the bay area, as well as in the entire country.

[email protected] wrote:
> Thanks for the response. I was told by 3 different Cingular CSAs that I
> was better off keeping my TDMA service because the GSM coverage wasn't
> as good, and that was as recent as November.

Where exactly are you in the bay area. In most areas, if you look only
at digital coverage, GSM and TDMA are about equal, with TDMA having only
a slight edge.

> Has it changed much since
> then? I don't use my phone for email, text messaging or web browsing,
> because I can't afford it. I only pay $30/mo and have unlimited off
> peak, mobile to mobile, free long distance and 650 anytime minutes and
> I don't travel, so not having roaming doesn't affect me yet.

You won't get a plan like that from any of the current carriers. If
you're looking for a low cost service, there are plenty of prepaid
services where you pay by the minute, but there is no free off-peak or
mobile to mobile in most cases.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

> A year later, it seems like TDMA really is going away, but if I had it to do
> over again maybe I would have waited until it really did start to go away
> because my experience is that GSM just isn't as reliable as TDMA. With TDMA,
> zero bars was something I never even knew about because I never experienced it.
> Might be the carrier I went to... but I've heard other people on other GSM
> systems talk about being in "dead spots".

All things being equal, the range of a TDMA cell is slightly longer than
that of a GSM cell (CDMA is longer than both, and AMPS is the longest).

Also, maybe with the TDMA phone your phone was automatically going to
AMPS, something that can't happen with your GSM phone, unless it's a
Nokia 6340 or Sony-Ericsson T62u.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:52:55
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Thanks for the response. I was told by 3 different Cingular CSAs that I
>> was better off keeping my TDMA service because the GSM coverage wasn't
>> as good, and that was as recent as November.
>
>Where exactly are you in the bay area. In most areas, if you look only
>at digital coverage, GSM and TDMA are about equal, with TDMA having only
>a slight edge.

As a result of network upgrades and free blue-orange network roaming, Cingular
GSM coverage in the Bay Area is actually now significantly better than D-AMPS
("TDMA").

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:59:38
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>(PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>> A year later, it seems like TDMA really is going away, but if I had it to do
>> over again maybe I would have waited until it really did start to go away
>> because my experience is that GSM just isn't as reliable as TDMA. With TDMA,
>> zero bars was something I never even knew about because I never experienced it.
>> Might be the carrier I went to... but I've heard other people on other GSM
>> systems talk about being in "dead spots".
>
>All things being equal, the range of a TDMA cell is slightly longer than
>that of a GSM cell (CDMA is longer than both, and AMPS is the longest).

* GSM is actually a form of TDMA.
* What you call "TDMA" is actually D-AMPS, another form of TDMA.
* GSM can have range comparable to D-AMPS and CDMA.
* Maximum range isn't an issue in most cases.

>Also, maybe with the TDMA phone your phone was automatically going to
>AMPS, something that can't happen with your GSM phone, unless it's a
>Nokia 6340 or Sony-Ericsson T62u.

* Those are GAIT, not just GSM.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Thanks for the response. I was told by 3 different Cingular CSAs that I
>> was better off keeping my TDMA service because the GSM coverage wasn't
>> as good, and that was as recent as November.
>
> Where exactly are you in the bay area. In most areas, if you look only
> at digital coverage, GSM and TDMA are about equal, with TDMA having only
> a slight edge.

FYI, I corresponded extensively with the original poster by e-mail, and
he is in the far reaches of the Bay Area, where he is better off not
going to Cingular GSM, because if he goes slightly outside his home area
he will have no coverage at all. He definitely would be better off with
a carrier that still offers AMPS coverage (at least for the next 2
years). So what Cingular told him about keeping TDMA is correct.

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

In <[email protected]> on 18 Mar 2006
12:06:57 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>I'm in the bay area and have heard that GSM service is not very good
>here, ...

Cingular GSM service has continued to improve. In addition to the big boost
from free roaming on the "blue" (old ATTWS) network in addition to the
"orange" (old Cingular) network:

Cingular Wireless today announced it has the "Best Network" among
national wireless carriers in the Bay Area, according to information
provided by a leading independent research and advisory firm that
provides information, insight and performance measures for the
wireless industry.
...
In 2005, Cingular Wireless invested $1 billion in California,
including more than $275 million in the Bay Area. This investment
added more than 200 new cell sites to the local network, including 43
new sites in Alameda, 18 in Contra Costa, four in Marin, 39 in San
Francisco, 20 in San Mateo, 44 in Santa Clara, six in Santa Cruz, 14
in Solano and 16 in Sonoma counties. In addition to the new cell
sites, the investment delivered other enhancements to improve
customers' wireless experience, including portable generators,
back-up batteries and new high-speed data features.
...
This year, the company is expected to spend nearly $300 million in
Northern California, which will turn on-air approximately 260 more
new cell sites to maintain Cingular's position as the best network.
...
<http://cingular.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1443>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>