NEWS: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 03:44:21 GMT, "Lawrence G. Mayka"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>My understanding was that the GSM carriers (T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless, and
>Cingular) will indeed activate an arbitrary GSM phone. However, each of these
>carriers SIM-locks each phone it sells or gives away itself, in order to help
>ensure sufficient service revenue to offset the phone's price subsidy.
>
>Does anyone have contrary information?

T-Mobile and cingular will give out the unlock code after a period.
ATTWS will not under any circumstance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

---

› See More: NEWS: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
did ramble:

>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
>> the DSL to work.
>
>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
>service.

No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
you need to pay for that.

--
If you've had half as much fun reading this as I've had writing it, I've had twice as much fun as you.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:45:17 -0500, Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There was a problem with VZW's computers refusing to put a PRL on the
> phone because they didn't recognize its (Alltel) ESN. The phone does run
> fine on VZW's network; Comtel Cellular, a VZW authorized retailer in
> the Cleveland area, used to sell them at their kiosk at the Great Lakes
> Mall.
>
> I did note that the 6185 did have fewer signal issues running on Alltel,
> even though the store tech flashed the phone with VZW firmware. (At least
> I assumed they did. If not, that might partially explain the phone's
> poorer performance on VZW's network.)

In another thread I posted a question about a Motorola V60c originally from
Alltel. I was able to activate it from the VZW web site and program it via
*22801 and it works fine but VZW was unable to update the phones firmware
because they say they couldn't "read" it. Someone here suggested that it
was because their software didn't recognize the Alltel version of the
firmware and therefore wouldn't update it.

--
Ray


>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
> 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
> Steve Sobol, Proprietor
> 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Paul J. Lucas wrote:
> And, for me, cable-based broadband isn't an option because they
> don't offer static IPs

Try www.tzo.com or www.dynaip.com or dyndns.org to resolve your
dynamic IP to a static one.

DevilsPGD wrote:

> In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
> did ramble:
>
>
>>>I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
>>>the DSL to work.
>>
>>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
>>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
>>service.
>
>
> No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
> doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
> you need to pay for that.
>


Okay, I'm unaware of which tariff you're referring to. Maybe you
could offer a cite from some web-based document.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

On 9/6/03 11:44 PM, in article
[email protected], "Lawrence G. Mayka"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> My understanding was that the GSM carriers (T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless, and
> Cingular) will indeed activate an arbitrary GSM phone. However, each of these
> carriers SIM-locks each phone it sells or gives away itself, in order to help
> ensure sufficient service revenue to offset the phone's price subsidy.
>
> Does anyone have contrary information?

Not contrary, but a minor clarification: GSM carriers actually activate a
SIM. It can be used in any unlocked GSM phone of the proper frequency, and
the carrier doesn't see or know about what handset the SIM is in.

In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
did ramble:

>>>>I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
>>>>the DSL to work.
>>>
>>>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
>>>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
>>>service.
>>
>> No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
>> doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
>> you need to pay for that.
>
>Okay, I'm unaware of which tariff you're referring to. Maybe you
>could offer a cite from some web-based document.

Gah, I can't believe I didn't fix that... Sorry, I meant "greed" not
"tariff" *sighs* Need to sleep more before posting.

--
If you've had half as much fun reading this as I've had writing it, I've had twice as much fun as you.

DevilsPGD wrote:

> In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
> did ramble:
>
>
>>>>>I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
>>>>>the DSL to work.
>>>>
>>>>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
>>>>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
>>>>service.
>>>
>>>No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
>>>doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
>>>you need to pay for that.
>>
>>Okay, I'm unaware of which tariff you're referring to. Maybe you
>>could offer a cite from some web-based document.
>
>
> Gah, I can't believe I didn't fix that... Sorry, I meant "greed" not
> "tariff" *sighs* Need to sleep more before posting.


Okay, I'll give you that.

Now, since I've had my sleep, and some time to chat with a couple of
SBC buds, here's one deal.... AT&T is an alternate voice provider
across SBC copper wires to homes and business. AT&T uses a
two-channel multiplexor on their customer's premises. The multiplexor
on the customer end communicates with another one on the telco end,
and the mux on the telco end is actually an integral part of the AT&T
switch. Which means the copper wires used for AT&T voice service go
no where near the SBC switch, nor any other service equipment offered
by SBC or their DSL partner.

This mux and DSL service cannot exist on the same copper pair - the
mux cannot pass DSL signals. Any customer wanting SBC DSL service and
AT&T voice service on the same line, will be told 'no can do - mux
gotta go'.

Now, the other deal... (Repeat: can SBC offer DSL service without
their own dial-tone service?) Answer: No, they won't. This
particular bud of mine said he thought it was a policy issue, not a
tariffed issue. Laughingly he said, "Why would anyone want DSL
service without voice? I mean, that's the whole point of DSL, voice
and broadband on the same copper wires. If we started selling DSL
service without voice, it would break the business model we depend on.
The price point for DSL delivery depends on, and is partially
subsidized by, dial tone." So, it sounds like it may be technically
possible for SBC to provide DSL broadband service without dial tone,
but they won't because nobody is forcing them to do otherwise. And
that's where your Greed Factor kicks in.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Carriers will likely spend heavily to keep customers once number
portability
> kicks in this November.
>
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - On Nov. 24, the long-awaited wireless number
> portability rule kicks in, which will allow cell phone users to keep their
> numbers when they switch service providers.
>
<snip>

Now, if the carriers were to offer you a discount to trade in phones from
old carriers when you sign up with them ... that would a deal clincher!
Offer me something for my now dead phones and I will be more likely to
become your customer ...

Tom Veldhouse

Don't really know how that can happen.

1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
supposed to.)

2. SBC DSL is available in my town, however SBC local phone service is
not. Therefore they can not require me to have their phone service.
Wonder if it is an area specific thing.


[email protected] (Brian peterson) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
> the DSL to work. If I read your message correct your saying to transfer
> the phone service to another company is that right?
>
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <h%[email protected]>:
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Sep 2003
> > 15:56:00 GMT, "Paul J. Lucas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >In alt.cellular.verizon Doru Roll <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> With WLNP the "need" for a wired phone is truly gone.
> > >
> > > Except if you happen to have SBC DSL. SBC won't just sell you
> > > DSL service: you MUST have a land-line number. You might be
> > > thinking, "Well, of course you need a land-line since DSL runs
> > > over the same copper." Except there's a difference between the
> > > copper and the *number* assigned to the copper. It's certainly
> > > possible to have DSL on a copper pair with no phone number
> > > assigned to it (I used to have this with Northpoint before they
> > > went bankrupt).
> > >
> > > And, for me, cable-based broadband isn't an option because they
> > > don't offer static IPs (not to mention cable companies'
> > > Draconian TOS policies).
> > >
> > > So, for now, I'm sorta of stuck with my land-line.
> >
> > Not really. Transfer the DSL to a number you don't care about on the lowest
> > possible cost service, and then move your current landline number elsewhere.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"Frederick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
> supposed to.)

Yes, it is supposed to and it does. As another poster has said, that is the
whole point of DSL: to piggyback data on the same copper pair as voice.

> 2. SBC DSL is available in my town, however SBC local phone service is
> not. Therefore they can not require me to have their phone service.
> Wonder if it is an area specific thing.

As another poster has said, SBC's primary business model for DSL assumes
bundling with voice service. That's the only way SBC can afford to provide
1.5Mbps downspeed data for $30/month ($25/month if you caught the special deal
that was only available July 1-2).

If your SBC DSL is not bundled with voice, I can only assume that either your
monthly rate is much higher than $30/month, or SBC is cross-subsidizing you for
the sake of uniform national pricing.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's the only way SBC can afford to provide
> 1.5Mbps downspeed data for $30/month

Thats only for 12 months, then it goes upto $49.99

Frederick wrote:

> Don't really know how that can happen.
>
> 1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
> supposed to.)
>
> 2. SBC DSL is available in my town, however SBC local phone service is
> not. Therefore they can not require me to have their phone service.
> Wonder if it is an area specific thing.


I suppose you could call it an area thing. The important part to
understand is, in most places, SBC is the primary voice provider, and
they are also the primary DSL provider - their equipment is located at
the same place and is wired to work together.

OTOH, if SBC isn't the primary voice provider (someone else is), but
SBC is the primary DSL provider, then SBC's equipment is still wired
to be an integral part of the copper (or fiber) service.

Yes, I understand that one could get DSL service from a variety of
alternate DSL providers, but that service will still be carried to you
on an SBC copper loop, and SBC's DSLAM is simply programmed to home
off the alternate's network.

Where AT&T is the alternate voice provider (in Dallas), their voice
switch is in the same building as SBC's switch, but there's a hard
demarc between the two, with only a tie cable to hand off a copper
pair to AT&T's voice switch. Once that copper pair is handed over to
AT&T, it won't come back to SBC's side for all the tea in China. It's
also my understanding the AT&T's service from Verizon locations is the
same arrangement.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Sep 2003
> 06:12:17 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, all the predictions are that Verizon and T-Moble will be
>>the big winners. ...
>
>
> Actually, no one really has a clue, notwithstanding your Verizon-colored
> glasses; e.g.,
>
> "As Number Portability Nears"
> [excellent overview of WLNP issues]
> <http://yahoo.businessweek.com/invest...3757_pi044.htm>
>
> At this time, it's still difficult to sort out the winners and losers.
>
> "iGillottResearch Says Wireless Number Portability Could Cost the Industry
> More Than $20 Billion"
> <http://wirelessweek.com/index.asp?la...50000a6224277f>
>
> "Nobody truly knows what the effect of WNP will be in the U.S.," says Iain
> Gillott, founder and president of iGillottResearch Inc.
>
> Verizon actually has much to lose in the long run, because WLNP will make GSM
> carriers more attractive, given the ready portability of GSM phones. With
> GSM, subscribers have a choice of three major carriers (ATTWS, Cingular, and
> T-Mobile), as compared to only two with CDMA (Sprint, Verizon).


To some people, the idea of taking a phone from carrier to carrier is
more important than you might think. First of all, Verizon WILL NOT
activate a phone that they did not sell you. That would prevent you
from receiving a subsidized phone, and thus cancelling the reason you
would be required to sign a contract.

If you have good GSM coverage where you live, it might not be a bad idea
to go with that, even if you switch carriers. In the long run, if you
move to an area without coverage, it is much easier to either be given
free roaming with GSM, or get out of your contract. If you sign up with
Verizon and move to an area without coverage -- gueass what?? Early
Termination Fee!!! (They don't care if you don't have coverage - it's
your problem, not theirs)



>>Where Verizon is really doing well is in subscriber additions.
>>
>>"http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/statistics.htm"
>
>
> Cute the way you cite your own website presentation of suspect statistics.
>
>
>>You make a major mistake in thinking that people care about being
>>able to keep the same phone when switching carriers.
>
>
> Not a terribly surprising position for a Verizon proponent to take. ;-)
>
>
>>First of all,
>>if it's not a world-phone it is unlikely that the carrier will
>>unlock it (and AT&T will not unlock ANY phone). Second, phones are
>>very cheap (or free) when you change carriers.

On the brighter side with AT&T, I know quite a few people who are
choosing the GoPhone. It's nice to sign up without a contract,
especially for college and graduate students who study in different
areas of the country (whether it be internships or what...)


> Only with a term commitment, which defeats the purpose of WLNP. I think we'll
> see a decrease in subsidy term commitments and an increase in unlocked phones
> as customers demand flexibility.
>
>
>>850 GSM is very appealing, but when will it be ubiquitous? Never.
>
>
> Irrelevant. What matters is when multi-band (850 & 1900) GSM phones will be
> ubiquitous, and that day is fast approaching.
>
>
>>Verizon made a big push to get PTT out there before LNP occurs.
>>In fact, one of the reasons for Verizon's sudden change of position
>>with regard to LNP, is that they will be the only mainstream carrier
>>with PTT when LNP takes effect.
>
>
> Hardly. Verizon just flip-flopped when it saw the battle was lost.
>
>
>>While Verizon's PTT is inferior
>>to Nextel's, for a lot of users it is adequate. Many people fail to
>>realize that one of the major features of PTT is being able to call
>>entire groups of people at the same time, and that the extra delay
>>is not a big concern.
>
>
> Only for business. PTT in the consumer market is mostly one-to-one.
>
> While GSM is coming last to the PTT party, GSM looks to trump other PTT
> solutions in the long run, since GSM PTT will be IP-based (over GPRS/EDGE),
> making inter-GSM carrier PTT possible. GSM PTT latency is expected to be
> comparable to Nextel. ATTWS is expected to have market trials going by year
> end. Cingular is also expected to have a market trial sometime soon.
>

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 22:40:39 GMT, Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Sep 2003
>> 18:39:19 GMT, Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The thing is, over in England where portability has been around for a
>> >while, the AVERAGE business discount is 50%, because of the willingness
>> >of businesses to change carriers.
>>
>> The big difference is that in England, businesses can change carriers while
>> keeping the same phones (just issue new SIMs), whereas here in the USA it
>> often takes all-new phones.
>
>I thought the carriers were "locking" phones so simple SIM swaps
>wouldn't work?

They do, but many except AT&T will give out the unlocking codes after
a period and there are unlocking services where you can get it done
for a relatively small fee. They exist in many major cities and
through the mail.