Is Sprint draining my battery?

On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:56:01 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>David,
>
>This might sound a bit wacky, but, this PROBLEM sounds wacky. And my
>idea might answer this question once and for all.
>
>When you're getting the diagnsotics done at the store, ask the tech to
>*switch* the ESNs on the account. In other words, have him swap YOUR
>ESN to HER number, and HER ESN to YOUR number.

Thanks, but I had the Sprint manager give me a whole new
handset. Same problem. I've been saying it's not the handset, but now
they cannot argue with me anymore. I'm on the phone with tech support
while I'm typing this.

I'm asking them to re-route the number onto a different part
of the system. Wish me luck, and thanks again!

DGI

---

› See More: Is Sprint draining my battery?

On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:03:59 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:



>If you're willing to post here or e-mail to me the area codes and first
>three digits of the two phone numbers (if they don't match), I can look
>up their switch assignments.

Thanks, I don't mean to trouble you:

Mine: 917 541 ----

Hers: 917 676 ----
>
>Also, have these numbers been ported from another carrier, or were these
>numbers always activated on Sprint?

Always SPCS. Thanks! DGI

On 10 May 2006 11:22:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>It sounds like Sprint grew it's capacity, in doing so your wifes phone
>began "hashing" to the new frequency, perhaps even on the same tower,
>where the RF environment is different - possibly worse. Therefore the
>two phones act differently. This has nothing to do with the phone
>itself, but rather the phone number which the network uses to tell the
>phone to use one frequency or another. Don't bother asking a
>salesperson to explain this, they won't know. If you swap numbers with
>your wife, then your phone should begin working like hers is. Since
>it's a random feature you may have to ask for a couple of different
>numbers before you get one that works on the "good" carrier.
>Good Luck.

Thanks, I'm trying to avoid getting a new number, but I
suppose I will if I have to.

DGI

On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:03:59 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:


>If you're willing to post here or e-mail to me the area codes and first
>three digits of the two phone numbers (if they don't match), I can look
>up their switch assignments.

I just spent about an hour talking with tech support on this
and something in my gut tells me they're beginning to take it more
seriously. I think I had to have that phone switched to get them into
a corner where they couldn't make ME do any more footwork.

I really do appreciate everyone's comments and advice on this.

I'll say also that although they really haven't been all that
helpful thus far, I think that's more due to protocols than laziness
or simple incompetence. Everyone I've dealt with has been polite,
well-spoken and seemed sincere in wanting to help. This doesn't
ameliorate all the misery I've been going through, including buying a
new battery for my previous phone and the many hours of work lost, but
it counts for something in my book.

DGI

My wife's phone gets coverage places mine doesn't. Though they are
different models, they operate in the same bands. But in my case, the
phones are different. So I chuck it up to that difference. Both are
top of the line phones.

Good luck.

David G. Imber wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:03:59 -0400, Isaiah Beard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> If you're willing to post here or e-mail to me the area codes and first
>> three digits of the two phone numbers (if they don't match), I can look
>> up their switch assignments.
>
> Thanks, I don't mean to trouble you:
>
> Mine: 917 541 ----
> Hers: 917 676 ----

These two numbers are homed at a central office in the same building
(111 8th Ave, New York, NY 10011-5201), but they are indeed on different
switching equipment WITHIN that building.

917-541's switch ID: NYCMNY83CM2
917-676's switch ID: NYCMNY83CM3

It's quite possible that those switches could well be right next to each
other. But, routing could still be handled differently.




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

On Thu, 11 May 2006 20:32:30 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Thanks, I don't mean to trouble you:
>>
>> Mine: 917 541 ----
>> Hers: 917 676 ----
>
>These two numbers are homed at a central office in the same building
>(111 8th Ave, New York, NY 10011-5201), but they are indeed on different
> switching equipment WITHIN that building.
>
>917-541's switch ID: NYCMNY83CM2
>917-676's switch ID: NYCMNY83CM3
>
>It's quite possible that those switches could well be right next to each
>other. But, routing could still be handled differently.

Many thanks. I've posted elsewhere that I seem to have
stumbled upon the magic word to get them to look into the system on
this (as of tonight the phone is still randomly going in and out of
signal). They called back to say that within 24 hours there should be
some resolution. When I call them tomorrow I will be armed with this
information.

Very grateful for your help. DGI

Sprint has been stealing battery power from phones to power their
towers. Or your phone is being used as a relay device for spam.

Robot dj wrote:
> Sprint has been stealing battery power from phones to power their
> towers. Or your phone is being used as a relay device for spam.

Reportedly, in diagnostic mode cell phones can be configured to listen
to
conservsations without any indication to the owner. Is NSA
and Co. listening to your phones for some reason ??

A one day loss of battery strength could indicate frequent "Check-ups"
by the Cheney crowd on your activities.

JG

[email protected] wrote:

> Reportedly, in diagnostic mode cell phones can be configured to listen
> to
> conservsations without any indication to the owner.


No.

It USED to be true, of the old OKI and early Motorola Teletac phones,
back when AMPS was the reigning standard in the US. There was a field
diagnostic mode that allowed for the unit to "scan" cellular channels,
allowing the user to listen in.

With CDMA at least, you need a lot more than just a cell phone in field
service mode to listen in on other calls over the air. While such
equipment does exist, its expense and rarity tends to make it a lot
easier and cheaper for Law Enforcement to just tap the phone line at the
switching center.

> A one day loss of battery strength could indicate frequent "Check-ups"
> by the Cheney crowd on your activities.

I also hear there's a sale on tinfoil at Wal-Mart. :P


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

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Reportedly, in diagnostic mode cell phones can be configured to listen
> > to
> > conservsations without any indication to the owner.
>
>
> No.
>
> It USED to be true, of the old OKI and early Motorola Teletac phones,
> back when AMPS was the reigning standard in the US. There was a field
> diagnostic mode that allowed for the unit to "scan" cellular channels,
> allowing the user to listen in.
>
> With CDMA at least, you need a lot more than just a cell phone in field
> service mode to listen in on other calls over the air. While such
> equipment does exist, its expense and rarity tends to make it a lot
> easier and cheaper for Law Enforcement to just tap the phone line at the
> switching center.

I'm not refering to cell phone call tapping. I'm refering to turning on
the microphone on a phone in the OP's kitchen to check on any
converstions in their home. This seems more plausible than signal
searching causing battery drain on one of a pair of identical phones
sitting in their cradles in the OP's home.

Mr. Imber hasn't stated if any of their activities would warrant
bugging by the NSA crowd.

This "feature" was mentioned by Penn (of Penn & Teller) on his
radio show.

>
> > A one day loss of battery strength could indicate frequent "Check-ups"
> > by the Cheney crowd on your activities.
>
> I also hear there's a sale on tinfoil at Wal-Mart. :P

Such personal jabs only make the original point seem
more valid and plausible.

JG

On 16 May 2006 16:52:58 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Isaiah Beard wrote:

>Mr. Imber hasn't stated if any of their activities would warrant
>bugging by the NSA crowd.

Warrant it? I think the very lack of warrant on the part of
the NSA is what the controversy is about.

It would be curious why they'd pick my wife's line and not
mine.

I like intrigue, but this is not that.

DGI

PS: I am still working with them every day to get this issue solved,
and may be on the verge. When this whole thing started I wrote here
that I knew it would be a long, daily slog, and I dreaded it. I was
right about the slog, but it hasn't been too awful so far, if in fact
I'm within a day or so of remedying it.

On 16 May 2006 16:52:58 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm not refering to cell phone call tapping. I'm refering to turning on
>the microphone on a phone in the OP's kitchen to check on any
>converstions in their home. This seems more plausible than signal
>searching causing battery drain on one of a pair of identical phones
>sitting in their cradles in the OP's home.

Are you next going to suggest foil hats and undies?

If a govt. agency is going to get a wiretap, it isn't going to
sniff the RF network; it is simply going to record the call at
sprint's end.

David G. Imber wrote:
> On 16 May 2006 16:52:58 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> >Mr. Imber hasn't stated if any of their activities would warrant
> >bugging by the NSA crowd.
>
> Warrant it? I think the very lack of warrant on the part of
> the NSA is what the controversy is about.
>
> It would be curious why they'd pick my wife's line and not
> mine.

The question to ponder is if either of you are candidates for
"monitoring"?
With a NYC address, its not out of the question.

Again, I'm refering to bugging conservations inside the apartment. NOT
their cell phone calls which is easily done from the telco central
office.

And so far NO ONE has denied that this "home bugging" by turning on the
microphone, detecting any voices and then sending out the conversation
is possible.

JG
>
> I like intrigue, but this is not that.
>
> DGI
>
> PS: I am still working with them every day to get this issue solved,
> and may be on the verge. When this whole thing started I wrote here
> that I knew it would be a long, daily slog, and I dreaded it. I was
> right about the slog, but it hasn't been too awful so far, if in fact
> I'm within a day or so of remedying it.

Paul Miner wrote:
> On 18 May 2006 16:28:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> And so far NO ONE has denied that this "home bugging" by turning on
>> the microphone, detecting any voices and then sending out the
>> conversation is possible.
>
> Then let me be the first. There is NO WAY to remotely turn on the
> microphone in a wireless handset. In case I wasn't clear, let me
> repeat, there is NO WAY. Good?

You really know how to ruin a good conspiracy theory, Paul. ^_^


--
Mike | Have you ever imagined a world with no
'04 FLHTCUI | hypothetical situations?