Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 54 of 54
  1. #46
    JohnF
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

    I never agreed that all antenna sites have GSM but I'll concede that point
    since I have nothing to base that assumption on either way and it's an
    irrelevant point. Whether or not you think it's likely that "gsm coverage is
    not nearly as good as tdma" doesn't change the fact that it's what I'm
    seeing. In my area, taking signal strength measurements shows that the GSM
    signal is very regularly about 10 db lower than that of the TDMA signal at
    the same spot. That being so, the GSM signal drops below a usable level
    before the TDMA signal does thus causing a lower "usable coverage" area.

    What it comes down to is that it seems that the GSM transmitters are not
    outputting as much power as the TDMA transmitters? Maybe this is due to the
    fact that the TDMA transmitters were all AT&T with no Cingular presence and
    now that Cingular is running the show maybe they set their transmitters a
    bit lower.

    It gets back to my original question on how you define coverage. If we're
    just talking about a measurable signal then I guess there *is* coverage in
    that spot. If we're talking about a signal level where the phone will no
    longer talk to the cell then there is no coverage in that spot.

    The area is NOT just as covered.



    "Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > We seem to agree that all cingular antenna sites do have gsm. That being
    > the case, "gsm coverage is not nearly as good as tdma" is not likely. As
    > with all providers there may be some gaps between sites, but most overlap.
    > It is likely in this case that there are as many overlaps and gaps with
    > cingular tdma as there are with cingular gsm, perhaps just in different
    > places. With either cingular tdma or cingular gsm, the area is just as
    > covered. With cingular's overall demands on their funds, perhaps getting
    > gaps filled in is not on their top burner. And there are frequently
    > problems with property owner permission and zoning. If unfortunately some
    > of the gaps are at your house or/and your work and/or play areas, choosing
    > a carrier can be difficult.
    >






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




  2. #47
    JohnF
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

    You might want to go back and re-read the thread. That text was from the
    posting of Elmo P. Shagnasty. Josephs post simply quoted the previous one.


    "Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:07:18 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Look back in the thread. I did not call anyone any names. The person
    >>I replied to did. I think I have been fairly successful in avoiding
    >>name calling in all the years I have been posting.

    >
    > You wrote: " no, but those of you who use phones to do everything are
    > idiots."
    >
    > I see the word idiots and you wrote it. Please explain it to those of
    > us who are slow.
    >
    > - -
    >






  3. #48
    JohnF
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

    I mean't to say Jeromes post not Josephs post.

    "JohnF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > You might want to go back and re-read the thread. That text was from the
    > posting of Elmo P. Shagnasty. Josephs post simply quoted the previous one.
    >
    >
    > "Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:07:18 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Look back in the thread. I did not call anyone any names. The person
    >>>I replied to did. I think I have been fairly successful in avoiding
    >>>name calling in all the years I have been posting.

    >>
    >> You wrote: " no, but those of you who use phones to do everything are
    >> idiots."
    >>
    >> I see the word idiots and you wrote it. Please explain it to those of
    >> us who are slow.
    >>
    >> - -
    >>

    >
    >






  4. #49
    Jerome Zelinske
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

    I very rarely use my phone for email, only when the computer is tied
    up. When we got our Vision phones, I tried smsing my daughter to see if
    and how it worked, but found it annoyingly cumbersome. I find sending
    email on the phone more straight forward, but not anywhere near as good
    as using the computer.


    John Navas wrote:
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >




  5. #50
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

    Wayne G. Dengel wrote:

    >"... Cingular will not be in business. . . . " meaning??
    >
    >Best,
    >Wayne
    >
    >
    >
    >


    I'm not answering his question, but eventually every business in
    existence today will cease to exist. It's only a matter of time.



  6. #51
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular) (Revised)


    >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.
    >
    >


    Your SIM card will not be accepted by the new locked Cingular phones,
    only Cingular branded SIMs will work in the devices. Likewise, only
    AT&T SIMs will work in AT&T branded phones. Of course, devices can be
    unlocked, in which case any GSM SIM can be used in the phone.

    TH



  7. #52
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular) (Revised)

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

    I think a bigger problem would be technical support. You'd have to
    start supporting any AT&T GSM device on the new Cingular system. It
    would be a nightmare, and probably too costly to justify the research
    into each and every GSM handset that AT&T Wireless ever sold to be
    reprogrammed for Cingular's GPRS/EDGE/WCDMA network.

    TH



  8. #53
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

    The overlay of TDMA with GSM is essentially complete. However, that does not
    mean that all TDMA towers now have GSM, since Cingular is eliminating
    "redundant" towers resulting from the combination of the old ATTWS and old
    Cingular networks. That process isn't perfect, as you have discovered, so
    inevitably there will be some coverage holes for GSM as compared to the old
    TDMA. On the other hand, GSM coverage is continually being improved and
    expanded, so it's also true that there are and will be more areas where GSM
    coverage is better than the old TDMA coverage. It may not matter in your
    particular circumstances, but overall GSM coverage is now probably better than
    the old TDMA coverage.

    In <[email protected]> on Sat, 05 Nov
    2005 02:30:41 GMT, "JohnF" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I never agreed that all antenna sites have GSM but I'll concede that point
    >since I have nothing to base that assumption on either way and it's an
    >irrelevant point. Whether or not you think it's likely that "gsm coverage is
    >not nearly as good as tdma" doesn't change the fact that it's what I'm
    >seeing. In my area, taking signal strength measurements shows that the GSM
    >signal is very regularly about 10 db lower than that of the TDMA signal at
    >the same spot. That being so, the GSM signal drops below a usable level
    >before the TDMA signal does thus causing a lower "usable coverage" area.
    >
    >What it comes down to is that it seems that the GSM transmitters are not
    >outputting as much power as the TDMA transmitters? Maybe this is due to the
    >fact that the TDMA transmitters were all AT&T with no Cingular presence and
    >now that Cingular is running the show maybe they set their transmitters a
    >bit lower.
    >
    >It gets back to my original question on how you define coverage. If we're
    >just talking about a measurable signal then I guess there *is* coverage in
    >that spot. If we're talking about a signal level where the phone will no
    >longer talk to the cell then there is no coverage in that spot.
    >
    >The area is NOT just as covered.
    >
    >"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> We seem to agree that all cingular antenna sites do have gsm. That being
    >> the case, "gsm coverage is not nearly as good as tdma" is not likely. As
    >> with all providers there may be some gaps between sites, but most overlap.
    >> It is likely in this case that there are as many overlaps and gaps with
    >> cingular tdma as there are with cingular gsm, perhaps just in different
    >> places. With either cingular tdma or cingular gsm, the area is just as
    >> covered. With cingular's overall demands on their funds, perhaps getting
    >> gaps filled in is not on their top burner. And there are frequently
    >> problems with property owner permission and zoning. If unfortunately some
    >> of the gaps are at your house or/and your work and/or play areas, choosing
    >> a carrier can be difficult.
    >>

    >


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



  9. #54
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: How Long? (AT&T - Cingular)

    Perhaps it's just lack of familiarity. Unless it's a poor phone, sending SMS
    should be at least as easy as email, if not easier.

    In <[email protected]> on Sat, 05 Nov 2005
    13:48:33 GMT, Jerome Zelinske <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I very rarely use my phone for email, only when the computer is tied
    >up. When we got our Vision phones, I tried smsing my daughter to see if
    >and how it worked, but found it annoyingly cumbersome. I find sending
    >email on the phone more straight forward, but not anywhere near as good
    >as using the computer.
    >
    >John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >> 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>



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234