Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest
    Could you please give us, in as detailed of an explanation as you can, why
    you THINK ATTWS customers are allowed to roam free on Cingular, but
    Cingular customers are not allowed to roam on ATTWS towers?





    See More: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted




  2. #2
    Jud Hardcastle
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    > Could you please give us, in as detailed of an explanation as you can, why
    > you THINK ATTWS customers are allowed to roam free on Cingular, but
    > Cingular customers are not allowed to roam on ATTWS towers?
    >
    >
    >


    You might want to make that statement "Cingular customers are not
    allowed to roam on ATTWS" a bit less inclusive - since it certainly
    isn't true for all Cingular customers--and never has been. I'm on a
    GAIT regional plan now and I'm able to roam (without roaming charges) on
    ATTWS within the region just fine in areas where there is no carrier
    preferred over them. I've had a Cingular national plan (TDMA/AMPS) and
    roamed nationwide on ATT and I never once saw a roaming charge.

    I suspect you're talking about customers from a very specific area--let
    me guess--California? What part of the country are you in and what PLAN
    are you on?
    --
    Jud
    Dallas TX USA



  3. #3
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

    NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
    No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
    --------------------------------------------------------

    On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:24:19 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >[email protected] says...
    >> Could you please give us, in as detailed of an explanation as you can, why
    >> you THINK ATTWS customers are allowed to roam free on Cingular, but
    >> Cingular customers are not allowed to roam on ATTWS towers?

    >
    >You might want to make that statement "Cingular customers are not
    >allowed to roam on ATTWS" a bit less inclusive - since it certainly
    >isn't true for all Cingular customers--and never has been. I'm on a
    >GAIT regional plan now and I'm able to roam (without roaming charges) on
    >ATTWS within the region just fine in areas where there is no carrier
    >preferred over them. I've had a Cingular national plan (TDMA/AMPS) and
    >roamed nationwide on ATT and I never once saw a roaming charge.
    >
    >I suspect you're talking about customers from a very specific area--let
    >me guess--California? What part of the country are you in and what PLAN
    >are you on?


    California/Nation (GSM).









  4. #4
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

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

    In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:30:03
    +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Could you please give us, in as detailed of an explanation as you can, why
    >you THINK ATTWS customers are allowed to roam free on Cingular,


    1. ATTWS is advertising improved network coverage.

    2. As an ATTWS customer I was able to roam freely on Cingular, and even to
    select Cingular manually when signals from both carriers were available.

    3. Others have reported similar experiences.

    >but
    >Cingular customers are not allowed to roam on ATTWS towers?


    As a Cingular customer I'm not able to roam on ATTWS in all areas.

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



  5. #5
    Ralph Blach
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

    Yes, att can roam on the Cingular network, but the reverse is not
    always true

    Chip

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:30:03
    > +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Could you please give us, in as detailed of an explanation as you can, why
    >>you THINK ATTWS customers are allowed to roam free on Cingular,

    >
    >
    > 1. ATTWS is advertising improved network coverage.
    >
    > 2. As an ATTWS customer I was able to roam freely on Cingular, and even to
    > select Cingular manually when signals from both carriers were available.
    >
    > 3. Others have reported similar experiences.
    >
    >
    >>but
    >>Cingular customers are not allowed to roam on ATTWS towers?

    >
    >
    > As a Cingular customer I'm not able to roam on ATTWS in all areas.
    >




  6. #6
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:22:16 -0400, Ralph Blach
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Yes, att can roam on the Cingular network, but the reverse is not
    >always true


    I accept that as fact.

    I just wanted to know why John Navas think that ATTWS and Cingular made
    those respective business decisions -- for ATTWS to allow their customers
    to roam onto Cingular (I'm sure costing ATTWS roaming charges), and for
    Cingular to not (avoiding paying ATTWS roaming charges).

    I mean the obvious is that ATTWS doesn't mind paying Cingular roaming fees
    and Cingular does. But why? Is it that Cingular's plans are less
    expensive, etc.???





  7. #7
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:33:24 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:30:03
    >+0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Could you please give us, in as detailed of an explanation as you can, why
    >>you THINK ATTWS customers are allowed to roam free on Cingular,

    >
    >1. ATTWS is advertising improved network coverage.
    >
    >2. As an ATTWS customer I was able to roam freely on Cingular, and even to
    >select Cingular manually when signals from both carriers were available.
    >
    >3. Others have reported similar experiences.


    I'm sorry, John -- I wasn't clear.

    What I meant was why do you think that ATTWS PERMITS their customers to
    roam onto Cingular towers but Cingular does not PERMIT their (GSM I guess)
    customers to roam onto ATTWS towers? This, theoretically, gives ATTWS
    better coverage in California than Cingular ones, since ATTWS customers
    can use all ATTWS (850MHz?)/Cingular (1900MHz?) GSM towers, but Cingular
    customers can only use Cingular towers.

    I'm sure there is a business reason why ATTWS decided to allow their
    customers to, and a business reason why it makes sense for Cingular to
    not. I'm talking about California.

    I wanted you to speculate on this, especially in light of the almost
    certain Cingular/ATTWS merger.





  8. #8
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

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

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:30:01
    +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:22:16 -0400, Ralph Blach
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Yes, att can roam on the Cingular network, but the reverse is not
    >>always true

    >
    >I accept that as fact.
    >
    >I just wanted to know why John Navas think that ATTWS and Cingular made
    >those respective business decisions -- for ATTWS to allow their customers
    >to roam onto Cingular (I'm sure costing ATTWS roaming charges), and for
    >Cingular to not (avoiding paying ATTWS roaming charges).
    >
    >I mean the obvious is that ATTWS doesn't mind paying Cingular roaming fees
    >and Cingular does. But why? Is it that Cingular's plans are less
    >expensive, etc.???


    I think it's simply a matter of ATTWS needing to do whatever it could to
    counter the negative impact on churn and subscribers of being acquired by
    Cingular on top of the hangover from GSM migration and customer service
    problems.

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



  9. #9
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

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

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:40:02
    +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:33:24 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:30:03
    >>+0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Could you please give us, in as detailed of an explanation as you can, why
    >>>you THINK ATTWS customers are allowed to roam free on Cingular,

    >>
    >>1. ATTWS is advertising improved network coverage.
    >>
    >>2. As an ATTWS customer I was able to roam freely on Cingular, and even to
    >>select Cingular manually when signals from both carriers were available.
    >>
    >>3. Others have reported similar experiences.

    >
    >I'm sorry, John -- I wasn't clear.
    >
    >What I meant was why do you think that ATTWS PERMITS their customers to
    >roam onto Cingular towers


    I think ATTWS feels it needs to do whatever it can to counter the negative
    impact on churn and subscribers of being acquired by Cingular on top of the
    hangover from its GSM migration and customer service problems.

    >but Cingular does not PERMIT their (GSM I guess)
    >customers to roam onto ATTWS towers?


    As the surviving acquiring entity, Cingular gets positive rather than negative
    impact from the merger, and hasn't suffered as much from GSM migration and
    customer service problems. It also probably needs to avoid possible legal
    implications of prematurely acting as if the merger is approved and completed.

    >This, theoretically, gives ATTWS
    >better coverage in California than Cingular ones, since ATTWS customers
    >can use all ATTWS (850MHz?)


    And 1900 MHz.

    >Cingular (1900MHz?)


    1900 MHz only.

    >GSM towers, but Cingular
    >customers can only use Cingular towers.


    Correct. However, many Cingular subscribers in California have handsets that
    don't support 850 MHz, so the benefit would be limited and uneven without a
    major expensive upgrade program (that would be a waste if the merger isn't
    consummated).

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



  10. #10
    John S.
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

    >I mean the obvious is that ATTWS doesn't mind paying Cingular roaming fees
    >and Cingular does. But why? Is it that Cingular's plans are less
    >expensive, etc.???
    >


    Roaming agreements have nothing at all to do with the individual carriers
    plans. Roaming is agreed upon by the two carriers by negotiation. If AT&T is
    willing to pay Cingular 1¢ a minute and that is what Cingular agrees to, that's
    what is paid regardless of what the AT&T customer is charged.


    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net



  11. #11
    John S.
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

    >I think it's simply a matter of ATTWS needing to do whatever it could to
    >counter the negative impact on churn and subscribers of being acquired by
    >Cingular on top of the hangover from GSM migration and customer service
    >problems.


    I agree with this assesment.

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net



  12. #12
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: ATTN: John Navas -- Opinion Wanted

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

    In <[email protected]> on 12 Oct 2004 22:08:21 GMT,
    [email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote:

    >>I mean the obvious is that ATTWS doesn't mind paying Cingular roaming fees
    >>and Cingular does. But why? Is it that Cingular's plans are less
    >>expensive, etc.???

    >
    >Roaming agreements have nothing at all to do with the individual carriers
    >plans. Roaming is agreed upon by the two carriers by negotiation. If AT&T is
    >willing to pay Cingular 1¢ a minute and that is what Cingular agrees to, that's
    >what is paid regardless of what the AT&T customer is charged.


    Indeed. It could even be a net upper for ATTWS if it reduces churn, given the
    high cost of replacing a lost customer (on the order of $350-400).

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



  • Similar Threads