Results 1 to 12 of 12
- 10-10-2004, 01:30 PM #1Nomen NescioGuest
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
- 10-10-2004, 04:24 PM #2Jud HardcastleGuest
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
- 10-10-2004, 10:30 PM #3Nomen NescioGuest
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).
- 10-11-2004, 09:33 AM #4John NavasGuest
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>
- 10-11-2004, 05:22 PM #5Ralph BlachGuest
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.
>
- 10-11-2004, 07:30 PM #6Nomen NescioGuest
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.???
- 10-11-2004, 07:40 PM #7Nomen NescioGuest
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.
- 10-12-2004, 11:59 AM #8John NavasGuest
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>
- 10-12-2004, 01:02 PM #9John NavasGuest
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>
- 10-12-2004, 04:08 PM #10John 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
- 10-12-2004, 04:09 PM #11John 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
- 10-12-2004, 04:18 PM #12John NavasGuest
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
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.cingular
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat