How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:44:50
-0800, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:03:57 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>Again, the subsidy lock. For more information, see
>><http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=100>.
>
>So, in short. What your telling me is that Cingular is making the
>decision to not allow former AT&T customers to be able to have the
>same advantages that are afforded to non AT&T customers?
>
>I'm sure this locking function is something that could be dealt with
>to allow former AT&T customers to circumvent this issue?

I'm guessing the real issues are that:

1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management.

2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly.

3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use.

4. Unlocking would be very expensive.

5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset).

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

---

› See More: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:44:50
-0800, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:03:57 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>Again, the subsidy lock. For more information, see
>><http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=100>.
>
>So, in short. What your telling me is that Cingular is making the
>decision to not allow former AT&T customers to be able to have the
>same advantages that are afforded to non AT&T customers?
>
>I'm sure this locking function is something that could be dealt with
>to allow former AT&T customers to circumvent this issue?

p.s. If you need someone to blame, the old ATTWS is more culpable than
Cingular, since (unlike Cingular) it refused to unlock handsets.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:22:38
-0800, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:41:27 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>I'm guessing the real issues are that:
>>
>>1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management.
>>
>>2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly.
>>
>>3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use.
>>
>>4. Unlocking would be very expensive.
>>
>>5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset).
>
>I understand all of the above and it would make since that "past"
>equipment would not be compatible.
>
>With that said, however, what is wrong with on a go forward basis to
>incorporate the two, so that the service really is "merged" and both
>could co-exist without this interference.

That's in fact what's happening.

>Another words, why not make/sell the equipment today that is
>compatible with both? Of course this is a rhetorical question.

New Cingular handsets work on both "orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old
ATTWS) networks, and ENS allows them to be Homed on either network.

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

It is my understanding that all cingular antenna sites have gsm.
Therefore there should be just as much cingular gsm coverage as there
was/is cingular tdma coverage. If customers of any carrier, gsm or cdma
or whatever, encounter dead spots, they would do well to report them to
the carrier so improvements can be made.


JohnF wrote:
> You'll have to define what "overlaid" means. Apparently it doesn't mean
> you'll get a signal in as many places as TDMA. GSM definitely does NOT have
> as good of coverage as TDMA in my area. Until they fill in the gaps there's
> a distinct advantage to staying with TDMA.
>
> "Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>It is my understanding that cingular has launched/overlaid it's entire
>>network with gsm, therefore the gsm coverage is just as good as the tdma
>>coverage was.
>
>
>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 1 Nov 2005
> 18:22:46 -0700,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Not your fault -- Cingular's desire to herd customers to Cingular GSM
>>> makes it
>>> more confusing than it needs to be.
>
>>Hmmmm.... sounds like the merger isn't going as smoothly as you are trying
>>to portray it other threads. I see hurdles here that are not experienced
>>in
>>other merged companies. Thanks for the confirmation.
>
> Only in your dreams.
>

No John- those of us that live in reality see the real facts. Declining net
adds, lower income per subscriber than the competition, decreasing market
share, lower customer satisfaction- these are all facts. Your opinion is of
no value to the company, any of its subscribers or anyone in this group.
Your opinion does not trump the facts. That is, it doesn't trump the facts
to anyone not living on Planet Moron with you.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> p.s. If you need someone to blame, the old ATTWS is more culpable than
> Cingular, since (unlike Cingular) it refused to unlock handsets.
>
And now Cingular can fix the problem but refuses, as there is no more ATTW.
There is only Cingular, which now possesses all of those subsidy locks. And
yet they don't feel compelled to help. But the merger is going real smooth
for the consumer, isn't it?

Not!

I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I
wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big
if. I have never wanted to text someone. I do send email, sometimes
from my phone, usually when the computer is in use by another family
member.


Joseph wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:29:57 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>There is not much advantage in waiting until the
>>last minute anyway.
>
>
> Unless you have an AT&T Wireless plan that has superior advantages to
> ones offered by cingular. Switching to cingular will automatically
> mean that you get charged for both incoming and outgoing text messages
> whereas with ATTWS you were only charged for outgoing messages.
>
> - -
>

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Nov 2005
03:59:12 GMT, Jerome Zelinske <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I
>wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. ...

Why get a separate device when the phone works as well or better?

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:36:10
-0800, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 02:04:52 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>New Cingular handsets work on both "orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old
>>ATTWS) networks, and ENS allows them to be Homed on either network.
>
>Not according to the Cingular store in my neighborhood. I've been
>down there on a couple of occasions and they will not sell me a device
>unless I change my plan over. I ask why not, they say my service will
>not work on the Cingular phones.

I didn't say new Cingular handsets would work on an ATTWS *rate plan* (SIM) --
they won't, as I made clear. What I said is that they will work on the
"'blue' (old ATTWS) network" -- and they will, when used with a Cingular
("orange") rate plan (SIM). So you will have to switch your plan over if you
want to buy a Cingular handset. Otherwise, you can buy an unlocked or locked
ATTWS handset, which will work with a ATTWS ("blue") rate plan (SIM) on both
"orange" (old Cingular) and "blue" (old ATTWS) networks, albeit without ENS.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:57:28 -0700,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> p.s. If you need someone to blame, the old ATTWS is more culpable than
>> Cingular, since (unlike Cingular) it refused to unlock handsets.
>>
>And now Cingular can fix the problem but refuses, as there is no more ATTW.
>There is only Cingular, which now possesses all of those subsidy locks. And
>yet they don't feel compelled to help.

Are you just being argumentative (as usual), or did you miss my earlier post,
where I wrote:

I'm guessing the real issues are that:

1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management.

2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly.

3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use.

4. Unlocking would be very expensive.

5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset).

>But the merger is going real smooth
>for the consumer, isn't it?
>
>Not!

Cingular results say otherwise.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Nov 2005
11:01:09 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >I have a wireless phone because it is a phone. I talk on it. If I
>> >wanted to text someone, I would get a 2 way pager. But that is a big
>> >if. I have never wanted to text someone. I do send email, sometimes
>> >from my phone, usually when the computer is in use by another family
>> >member.
>>
>> We're glad for you. Unfortunately you're not everyone and it's not
>> always just about you.
>
>no, but those of you who use phones to do everything are idiots.
>
>That's all he's saying.

That's insulting (what a shock), and not what he's saying. All he's saying is
that his own needs are (a) voice and (b) email, not messaging. I think it's a
bit odd that he uses the phone for email but not messaging, since it's
arguably better at the latter than the former, but I respect that he is the
best judge of his own needs.

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

"... Cingular will not be in business. . . . " meaning??

Best,
Wayne


"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At some point, Cingular will not be in business as well, but you
> missed my point/question entirely.
>
>
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:00:38 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> At some point, if you want to continue having wireless telephone
>>service, you will have to either migrate to cingular or port your number
>>to a different carrier.
>>
>>Mark wrote:
>>> Well, here is the reason I asked.
>>>
>>> I'm on a business account and found out from a co-worker that there is
>>> a phone number we can call to get equipment upgrades, so I called.
>>>
>>> I wanted to upgrade my phone to the Moto V3 but when I was hesitant
>>> when they could only give me a silver one, the gal begin to tell me
>>> that the day is going to come when the old AT&T network was going to
>>> be eliminated and at some point we would need to migrate over to the
>>> Cingular side.
>>>
>>> Do you think she was wrong? (I opted to stay with what I have for the
>>> time being)
>>>

John Navas wrote:

> Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA).

Only in 18 markets, and in even those markets, UMTS does not cover the
entire market footprint as per coverage maps.

http://dailywireless.org/modules.php...4820&src=rss10


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

John Navas wrote:

>
> Are you just being argumentative (as usual), or did you miss my earlier post,
> where I wrote:
>
> I'm guessing the real issues are that:
>
> 1. Only new handsets have ENS, which Cingular needs for network management.

Uhm, even by your previous FAQ posts regarding ENS John, that "network
management" issue disappears when the integration is complete.

> 2. Most subscribers upgrade handsets regularly.

But not ALL subscribers, and the subscribers who see no reason to
upgrade because the service has worked fine without this planned
obsolescence are the ones that are being affected. The people who fall
into the "most"category" are not the people complaining. And to be
honest, the old TDMA equipment has served these customers well and would
continue to do so if it were not for poor business decisions and
long-time-coming missteps in planning long ago, being made at the
corporate level.

> 3. Handsets would have to be shipped out and back, thus loss of use.

AT&T Wireless handsets cannot be unloacked via keypad combinations?

> 4. Unlocking would be very expensive.

See my response to #3. And even barring keypad combination, how
expensive is it to hook up a phone and reprogram it? They seem content
to do this just fine for other service work.

> 5. Might well do more harm than good in some cases (e.g., crashed handset).

How does uncrippling a handset crash it?

>>But the merger is going real smooth
>>for the consumer, isn't it?
>>
>>Not!
>
>
> Cingular results say otherwise.


No they don't. Cingular has the lowest number of subscriber adds this
quarter, and has been beaten in the adds game for the past three
quarters. Unless they clean up their act soon, they will not hold the
#1 spot for long.


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

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:56:54 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> Cingular is already WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA).
>
>Only in 18 markets, and in even those markets, UMTS does not cover the
>entire market footprint as per coverage maps.
>
>http://dailywireless.org/modules.php...4820&src=rss10

True, but that will undoubtedly come, just as EV-DO was rolled out. It's
simply a back and forth that really isn't worth arguing about.

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