Letter From Cingular - Service Impacting Issue

[email protected] wrote:
> Don't know if this has been discussed before.
>
> Got a letter from Cingular in the mail today. ...
> upgrade the existing SIM
> card in my wireless phone immediately to the new 64K SmartChip SIM card.
>...

My wife and I (both Cingular customers) got exactly the same letter
just last week, and this week some automated Cingular dialer left us a
voicemail with the same message.

Did anybody ever figure out what the real purpose is? Changing out
all the existing SIM cards can't be cheap - Cingular must have a good
reason.

In addition to the "better sevice" line (and what effect does a SIM
card have on your coverage, anyway?) one customer service rep told us
that the new cards would "allow us to store more contacts in our
phone." That's clearly nonsense since a) the old SIM cards were 64K
too, and b) nobody in this country stores their contacts on their SIM
cards anyway.

Bob

---

› See More: Letter From Cingular - Service Impacting Issue

[email protected] wrote:
> I thought the old SIM's cards were only 32K.

Not mine or hers - I have right here an 18 month old, orange Cingular
SIM that says "64K smartchip".

BTW, the "new" SIMs are mostly white with an orange stripe and the
word "cingular" in blue.

Bob

On 13 Jul 2006 11:08:33 -0700, "Bob Armstrong" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Don't know if this has been discussed before.
>>
>> Got a letter from Cingular in the mail today. ...
>> upgrade the existing SIM
>> card in my wireless phone immediately to the new 64K SmartChip SIM card.
>>...
>
> My wife and I (both Cingular customers) got exactly the same letter
>just last week, and this week some automated Cingular dialer left us a
>voicemail with the same message.
>
> Did anybody ever figure out what the real purpose is? Changing out
>all the existing SIM cards can't be cheap - Cingular must have a good
>reason.
>
> In addition to the "better sevice" line (and what effect does a SIM
>card have on your coverage, anyway?) one customer service rep told us
>that the new cards would "allow us to store more contacts in our
>phone." That's clearly nonsense since a) the old SIM cards were 64K
>too, and b) nobody in this country stores their contacts on their SIM
>cards anyway.

<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ#Does_ENS_make_for_better_coverage_and.2For_connections.3F>
or <http://tinyurl.com/85ofh>

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Makes me wonder why the phone companies aren't offering a monthly
> service to keep your numbers stored away somewhere, so that when you
> need them you can have them restored to the phone over the air.

It turns out that Verizon at least, does offer this service for a
"nominal fee".

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Makes me wonder why the phone companies aren't offering a monthly
> service to keep your numbers stored away somewhere, so that when you
> need them you can have them restored to the phone over the air.

They do offer this, at least Verizon does, but it isn't free. Also, the
Verizon stores will transfer your phone book from phone to phone for
either free or $10 depending on your account.

On my GSM phone, I used to store numbers on the SIM card, rather than
the phone, but the reality is that this was not a good idea because I
used the phone overseas with prepaid SIM cards. So I'd lose the phone
numbers when I switched SIMs. It actually makes sense to store them on
both the SIM and the phone.

>On my GSM phone, I used to store numbers on the SIM card, rather than
>the phone, but the reality is that this was not a good idea because I
>used the phone overseas with prepaid SIM cards. So I'd lose the phone
>numbers when I switched SIMs. It actually makes sense to store them on
>both the SIM and the phone.
My old Nokia 6200 has "copy phone to SIM" and "copy SIM to phone"
functions. Is that not standard?

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:30:13 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

> We have had the Moto V400 & V557. Can't remember ever seeing that as an
> option in the menu.


The Moto V551, presumably the V557, since they are virtually the same,
offers the ability to copy one entry, or all, from SIM to phone, or phone
to SIM. Phonebook-Menu-Copy. Entry, All to Phone, All to SIM.

I use Motorola Phone Tools to back up the contact lists on a v220 and v551.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

> I dropped my Moto V557 into the ocean at the local boat launch while it was
> turned on. Couldn't recover the phone or the SIM. Both were 'dead in the
> water' pardon the pun :-).
>
> Were all my contacts lost for good? Nope, I store them on the computer
> using Motorola Phone Tools

I think the phone tools method is the way to go. The phone book on
the SIM always has to initialize and on some phones, that can take up to
a minute and half after you've turned it on. Your phonebook is useless
until it initializes.

Storing on the phone with backup on your computer is the best way. Plus
if you change phone brands or networks, if you get another phone that is
compatable with Outlook, you're up and running in just "sync"

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]>

Shagnasty, I knew a person years ago who used that moniker,
actual last name of O'Shaughnessy (my *****ing is suspect).
You his cousin, or you be he, perhaps?

--
RJW

>>>>> "EPS" == Elmo P Shagnasty <[email protected]> writes:

>> You remind me of someone who is very arrogant and thinks his
>> opinion is the only opinion that matters.

EPS> Well, when the option offered is "yeah, but your numbers
EPS> aren't available for a minute or so after turning the phone
EPS> on," the facts are plain to see.

The facts are plain, the interpretation varies. I often don't have my
phone on, and when I do turn it on, I do so to...<drumroll>...place a
call! Most often, using the contact list! Which, like the poster
said, if I kept it on the SIM card wouldn't be available for an
annoyingly long time.

Your web browser example was bogus too. If windows computers would
boot up in a few seconds, like every other electrical appliance in the
house, their use would be second nature, like a landline telephone,
radio or sound system, and so on. But no--they take minutes to become
useful so people who don't leave them on 24/7 don't use them
spontaneously.

Elmo P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You remind me of the people who ***** about a web browser because it
> takes a few more seconds to launch than another web browser. Tell me,
> how often do you launch a web browser?
>

Fairly often. I go on the web may times during the day and I use two
different browsers (IE and Firefox). The speed that it loads can be annoying
to me. Tabbed browsing does reduce the issue, however, when I am done with my
task, I close the browser[s] and later, I often need to reload. BTW ... I
have 2GB RAM on this box and still prefer to to load it up.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Bob Fry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The facts are plain, the interpretation varies. I often don't have my
> phone on, and when I do turn it on, I do so to...<drumroll>...place a
> call! Most often, using the contact list! Which, like the poster
> said, if I kept it on the SIM card wouldn't be available for an
> annoyingly long time.
>

I agree with whoever posted that startup time isn't that big of a deal. To
each his own on that issue. In may case, I do not shut off my phone for weeks
[or even months] at a time. I currently use Sprint PCS on a CDMA phone, so it
boots pretty quick and the phonebook is available immediately, but that is not
my point.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:11:48 -0400, "Richard J. Wyble"
<nospam@bitbucket> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]>
>
>Shagnasty, I knew a person years ago who used that moniker,
>actual last name of O'Shaughnessy (my *****ing is suspect).
> You his cousin, or you be he, perhaps?

Naw, just 'nasty.

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

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:50:26 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> You remind me of someone who is very arrogant and thinks his opinion is the
>> only opinion that matters. You attempt to invalidate anyone who disagrees
>> with you.
>
>I don't do any such thing. ...

Had me fooled. And I'm obviously not the only one.

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

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:44:00 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <qVMvg.2690$Mz3.2614@fed1read07>,
> paulmurray1 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The phone book on
>> the SIM always has to initialize and on some phones, that can take up to
>> a minute and half after you've turned it on. Your phonebook is useless
>> until it initializes.
>
>Huh? What's the problem with that?
>
>Tell me, how often do you turn your phone off? Then how often do you
>need your SIM card IMMEDIATELY upon turning your phone on?
>
>You remind me of the people who ***** about a web browser because it
>takes a few more seconds to launch than another web browser. Tell me,
>how often do you launch a web browser?

Pretty often, actually -- I see no point in tying up a lot of memory for
no good reason. That's my only real ***** with Mozilla Firefox -- it's
a memory pig and a startup turtle.

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