Why IS IT...

That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply by
showing your driver's license . . .

Yet you can't take a ~$300 FULL RETAIL PRICE (usually less) cellular handset
for a day or two for testing purposes without:
- A major credit card
- A copy of your driver's license
- Paying an activation fee
- Signing a 2 year contract (or 1 year in some very limited
circumstances) AND
- Often paying part or even MOST of the full retail price of the handset
up front

WHY IS THAT???

If you can test-drive a car (and risk damaging it) with no up-front cost and
no obligation to buy, why can't you "test-drive" a cellular handset before
paying for it and signing a contract. WHY?????????? Can anyone come up
with a reasonable explanation? (I didn't think so)

Why don't cellular providers have "loaner" handsets for this purpose? You'd
only need about ten per store, and they wouldn't have to be the high-end
models. For testing purposes, the low-end handsets (that the cellular
providers get for much less than a hundred bucks a piece) would do. Why
can't you just walk into Cingular or Verizon or T-Mo or whatever and say you
want a loaner handset to test the network where you live and work? WHY???

Yes, I know that all cellular service providers have a "trial" period of 10
days or 15 days or whatever, during which you can cancel your contract.
Only problem is, there is considerable money and paperwork involved just to
GET the "trial", only to learn that you have to cancel it later. THERE
SHOULD BE AN EASIER WAY. If cellular service providers would allow you to
show identification, then take a handset home for a day or two, cellular
service providers would have (literally) nothing to lose and lots of
potential customers to gain. It would be a real win-win situation. SO WHY
ISN'T IT DONE?

*************************************************************

On a side note, what brought this up was, my wife and I recently switched
jobs, only to discover that Cingular had NO SERVICE at either of our new
office locations. Cingular claimed that we should have "good" strength
signal at work. We told them that we had no service. First, they tried to
blame the handset. OK, we tried . . . 4 different Nokia handsets and 2
different Motorola handsets. 2 of the Nokia handsets we tried were recently
re-programmed with the latest list of towers (re-provisioned, or whatever
they call it). Not surprisingly, we had NO SIGNAL on any of them. Then
Cingular told us it was the buildings. Those are some really odd buildings,
blocking Cingular GSM signals both inside AND OUTSIDE, yet allowing cellular
handsets from 3 other networks to have FULL signal strength both outside AND
INSIDE. (!)
Obviously, the problem was that the Cingular network had NO COVERAGE where
we were working. Out of curiosity though, I walked into a local Cingular
store and asked to see the street level coverage map (WHY IS THIS ONLY
ACCESSIBLE IN THE CINGULAR STORE?!?) and sure enough . . . I could confirm
with my own eyes that the Cingular coverage map showed the building where I
work was smack dab in the middle of a "good" signal strength area. So
Cingular didn't lie to us . . . they just fed us information that is
obviously inaccurate. That is, their street level map shows "good" signal
strength in a couple of areas where there is in fact NO SIGNAL AT ALL.

In other words, even the very detailled street level coverage maps are NO
GOOD. If you want to know if a handset will work where you live and/or
where you work, you have to take the handset "home" and "to work" and use it
from there.

So what to do? Well, we'd previously dumped Verizon for Cingular, due to
constant (and outrageous) billing errors on Verizon. We LOVED our Cingular
Nation GSM service for the two years that we used it. NO billing errors, NO
reception problems (until we switched jobs), good quality handsets that just
WORK, nothing to complain about at all with Cingular. In our experience,
Cingular's customer service was pretty good, also. At least, the few times
we did have to call Cingular customer service, our issue was resolved
immediately, on the FIRST phone call. Also, it was pretty significant that
we found Cingular's coverage was at least as good as Verizon's (and we both
travel a lot).

So we really did not want to dump Cingular, and we didn't want to switch to
Verizon, but what other choice did we have? After many years of headaches
trying to use Nextel/Sprint (employer provided handsets), I wouldn't sign
with Nextel. If you held a gun to my head and ordered me to sign with
Nextel, I'd say "SHOOT".

But in our area, all we have is:
Cingular (no signal at work now, unfortunately . . . otherwise, they are
great)
Verizon (good network, so-so handsets, frequent outrageous billing errors)
Nextel/Sprint (don't even get me started on all the coverage problems with
Nextel . . . in short, the network SUCKS RAW EGGS)
T-Mobile (never had them, don't know anybody else who has them, either)

So ****, it looked like I'd have to sign with T-Mobile. When I went to the
T-Mo web site, their street level map showed "good" signal strength at both
of our work locations (ha ha) and signal strength at home was smack dab in
the middle of "good" and "fair". Considering I already knew that the street
level coverage maps can be horribly inaccurate, it wasn't very encouraging
to note that T-Mo might be just "fair" at home. I called T-Mobile to ask if
I could borrow a handset for a day or so to test it. You'd think I was
asking for the salesman's first born child or something. Is it so wrong to
want to test a network BEFORE signing a contract for service on that
network?

But then I discussed the matter with my wife. She reminded me that we both
had coworkers who used Verizon cellular handsets at our work locations. So
I reminded HER that I'd dumped Verizon as I was sick and ****ing tired of
spending hours on the phone every month trying to do Verizon's work for
them. So she came back and told me that all of her friends and relatives
are on Verizon, so most of our phone calls would be "IN" and thus free. And
she REALLY wanted a Verizon handset so that she could call her best friend
for free.

Awwwww, **** . . . I guess I'm a Verizon customer again. Yup, I signed a
contract with Verizon. But take note Verizon . . . I WILL BE WATCHING MY
BILLS EXTREMELY CLOSELY. I dumped you once, and I will ****ing dump you
AGAIN if you treat me like you did the last time I was your customer. "IN"
be damned if I get half my calls for free and pay WAY TOO MUCH for the REST
of my calls.

OK, enough venting.

T-Mobile take note: If you'd just let me borrow a handset for a day or two,
you might have gained a contract for service on two cellular handsets (both
Nokia 6101) recently. All I wanted was something that could reliably make
calls from both home AND work (and most areas of the continental U.S., and I
understand that ALL cellular providers do have "dead spots"). I had no way
to know if the T-Mo network would work without actually USING a T-Mo handset
at home and work, and I wasn't about to sign a contract to find out. I
don't care that I know nobody on T-Mo. If T-Mo would work for me, I WOULD
have signed with T-Mo. If I'd signed with T-Mo, my wife wouldn't have been
able to 'twist my arm' hard enough to make me go back to Verizon.

But I don't mean to pick on T-Mo specifically. It seems like ALL cellular
service providers make you sign a contract if you want to just TEST a
handset at home or YOUR OWN work location. If the cellular service
providers are worried about people borrowing the phones just to make free
phone calls, why not pass out really cheap handsets that are programmed to
ONLY connect calls to 911, other users of THE SAME CELLULAR NETWORK, and the
cellular network's customer service numbers? That is all you'd NEED to test
the network, and it wouldn't cost the cellular service provider anything.
In fact, you really don't need to make phone calls at all to test the
network. Just walk around with the borrowed handset at work and home and
see how many bars of signal strength you get. If you see 3-5 (or more) bars
of signal strength and the name of your prospective service provider is
displayed (not roaming), then you pretty much know that the handset will
work OK for you at that location. If that's not good enough, call the
customer service number (pre-programmed in the phone, probably) and ask "can
you hear me now"????

To Cellular Service providers: Why don't you allow prospective customers to
test a handset at home (and work) without signing a contract? WHY????

---

› See More: Why IS IT...

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in news:jcDkf.196$9R4.123
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> WHY?

Because if they did that, you'd find out where the holes in the coverage is
before signing a contract and wouldn't buy it.....??

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:39:11 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

>WHY IS THAT???

Because you're much more likely to steal something like a $300
headset, rather than a $30,000 car.

No normal person would doubt that the authorities would come after you
BIG TIME for stealing a car; but a merchant who let a customer walk
out of his store with a $300 item without paying for it, would
probably just get laughed at by the police.

A_C

>> WHY?
>
> Because if they did that, you'd find out where the holes in the coverage
> is
> before signing a contract and wouldn't buy it.....??

And the alternative is? They make you sign a contract, then you cancel
during the trial period (because of course you found the holes in the
coverage) and get your money back. How is THAT better than not signing up
in the first place, from the point of view of a cellular service
rovider??? -Dave

"Agent_C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:39:11 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>WHY IS THAT???
>
> Because you're much more likely to steal something like a $300
> headset, rather than a $30,000 car.
>

I already answered this in my original post. I don't expect cellular
providers to just hand over the handset without verifying your identity
(they could copy down your driver's license number, for example). Also, you
wouldn't need a $300 handset to test the network . . . the cellular
providers could pass out their cheapest handsets, which cost the cellular
providers much less than $100 . . . and who would WANT to steal those?
Besides, who is going to activate a stolen handset??? So a stolen handset
would be worthless.

But assuming the cellular service providers were REALLY paranoid about the
potential loss of something that costs them next to nothing . . . they could
always ask for a credit card number, in case you don't return the handset,
but agree not to make any charges on the credit card if the handset is
returned. In the worst case, why require the contract? -Dave

my 2 cents - you can drop a cellphone, you cant drop a car. :-)

"marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> my 2 cents - you can drop a cellphone, you cant drop a car. :-)
>

But you can wrap the car around the nearest telephone pole, so I don't get
your point. If you mention "insurance", keep in mind that cellular handsets
can be insured, also. Besides which, even if a new car is "totalled", you
KNOW that the insurance company isn't going to reimburse the dealer the full
cost of what the dealer paid for the car. So the potential loss to the car
dealer could be thousands, while the maximum potential loss to the cellular
service provider is less than I paid for dinner last night. -Dave

"Evan Platt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:39:11 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply
>>by
>>showing your driver's license . . .
>
> Notice though the salesperson goes with you?
>
> Would you want to take the cellphone AND a salesperson home with you
> for a few days?
>
> Plus, most test drives I've had lasted 15 minutes.

Only at ****ty car dealers do the salespeople insist on riding with you on a
test drive. If you can't test drive a car without a salesman, don't buy the
car at that particular dealer. I believe it was GM that was recently
offering test drives that last several DAYS.

But all this is beside the point. The handsets (the cheapies anyway) cost
the cellular provider next to nothing. If they get your driver's license
number and a major credit card (to charge if the handset isn't returned),
why insist on the contract?????? -Dave

"Evan Platt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:59:59 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Also, you wouldn't need a $300 handset to test the network . . . the
>>cellular
>>providers could pass out their cheapest handsets, which cost the cellular
>>providers much less than $100 . . . and who would WANT to steal those?
>
> So with a lot of people saying that reception varies from handset to
> handset - and when I had sprint, I can attest to this - the first
> phone I got wouldn't work at all in my house. I'd literally have to
> walk outside. The second phone worked great. So one of two things
> would happen:
>
> You get the trial phone, it works great. You then decide to buy, so
> you come back and get the phone you want. It don't work worth a squat
> in your house. You're fed up, so you cancel and return it.
>
> Or, you get the 'no frills' phone, try it, it doesn't work, you come
> back and return the phone and leave, and take your business elsewhere,
> not realizing that you would have had fine coverage on another phone.
>

Generally, reception does not vary SIGNIFICANTLY from one handset to another
ON THE SAME NETWORK IN THE SAME LOCATION, except for a few oddball
scenarios, such as:
A) the handsets are connecting to different towers (for one example, a
programming problem causing one handset to ignore a stronger signal from a
nearby tower, such as an older Cingular handset located near a ATT tower and
further away from a Cingular tower, which it INSISTS on trying to connect
to)
B) one handset is defective
C) One handset is analog capable, and the other is digital only, and you
are in an area with analog service ONLY, or very weak digital signal

Reception WILL vary from one handset to another, but not so much that you'd
suddenly go from no signal to good signal, just by changing handsets. More
likely, you will see (for example) 3 bars of signal on one handset and 2 or
4 on the other. Changing the handset can make a difference, but not nearly
as much of a difference as changing the NETWORK that you are connecting to.
That is, unless there was a problem with one of your handsets, as outlined
above.

If you get the trial phone and it works great, you STILL have a trial period
on the contract handset, so if the contract handset is ****, return it.

But it is highly unlikely that a "no frills" phone wouldn't work well in an
area with good signal. Some of the "no frills" phones have the best
reception anyway. If you look at most of the freebie phones offered by
cingular (for example) they range from good reception to SUPERIOR reception
quality (on the freebie Nokia models).

When you are shopping for a cellular phone, reception quality is ALL that
really matters, and reception quality is at least 80% or more dependent on
the NETWORK that the phone is connected to. (not to sound like a verizon
commercial, but it's true that "it's the network") So to find a good
cellular service, you first have to pick the network and THEN pick the
phone. But how can you pick the network without a handset to test it?
Really, you can't. If you don't have friends/neighbors with a cellular
handset from the cellular provider you are considering, there is currently
no GOOD way to find out if the handset will work for you or not. That's
what I'm complaining about. There should be an easier way. Street level
coverage maps are not accurate, and often NOT EVEN AVAILABLE to individual
consumers. -Dave

>
> It's a lot easier to drop a cell phone in a puddle of water, and say
> "oops" than it is to wrap a car around a telephone pole and walk away.

Yes, but even the slightest ding on a new car can cost several times as much
as even a high-end, brand new cellular handset. -Dave

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005
14:39:11 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

>That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply by
>showing your driver's license . . .
>
>Yet you can't take a ~$300 FULL RETAIL PRICE (usually less) cellular handset
>for a day or two for testing purposes without:
>- A major credit card
>- A copy of your driver's license
>- Paying an activation fee
>- Signing a 2 year contract (or 1 year in some very limited
>circumstances) AND
>- Often paying part or even MOST of the full retail price of the handset
>up front
>
>WHY IS THAT??? [SNIP]

Because the car dealer makes enough money off the sale to have someone
accompany you on the test drive. Do you expect the cell carrier to pay
someone to keep an eye on the cell phone while you walk around with it?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

They all give you a op-out. most of the time 2 weeks. 15 days for verizon.
Take it, try it. don't like it bring it back.
Simple enough.

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply
> by showing your driver's license . . .
>
> Yet you can't take a ~$300 FULL RETAIL PRICE (usually less) cellular
> handset for a day or two for testing purposes without:
> - A major credit card
> - A copy of your driver's license
> - Paying an activation fee
> - Signing a 2 year contract (or 1 year in some very limited
> circumstances) AND
> - Often paying part or even MOST of the full retail price of the
> handset up front
>
> WHY IS THAT???
>
> If you can test-drive a car (and risk damaging it) with no up-front cost
> and no obligation to buy, why can't you "test-drive" a cellular handset
> before paying for it and signing a contract. WHY?????????? Can anyone
> come up with a reasonable explanation? (I didn't think so)
>
> Why don't cellular providers have "loaner" handsets for this purpose?
> You'd only need about ten per store, and they wouldn't have to be the
> high-end models. For testing purposes, the low-end handsets (that the
> cellular providers get for much less than a hundred bucks a piece) would
> do. Why can't you just walk into Cingular or Verizon or T-Mo or whatever
> and say you want a loaner handset to test the network where you live and
> work? WHY???
>
> Yes, I know that all cellular service providers have a "trial" period of
> 10 days or 15 days or whatever, during which you can cancel your contract.
> Only problem is, there is considerable money and paperwork involved just
> to GET the "trial", only to learn that you have to cancel it later. THERE
> SHOULD BE AN EASIER WAY. If cellular service providers would allow you to
> show identification, then take a handset home for a day or two, cellular
> service providers would have (literally) nothing to lose and lots of
> potential customers to gain. It would be a real win-win situation. SO
> WHY ISN'T IT DONE?
>
> *************************************************************
>
> On a side note, what brought this up was, my wife and I recently switched
> jobs, only to discover that Cingular had NO SERVICE at either of our new
> office locations. Cingular claimed that we should have "good" strength
> signal at work. We told them that we had no service. First, they tried
> to blame the handset. OK, we tried . . . 4 different Nokia handsets and 2
> different Motorola handsets. 2 of the Nokia handsets we tried were
> recently re-programmed with the latest list of towers (re-provisioned, or
> whatever they call it). Not surprisingly, we had NO SIGNAL on any of
> them. Then Cingular told us it was the buildings. Those are some really
> odd buildings, blocking Cingular GSM signals both inside AND OUTSIDE, yet
> allowing cellular handsets from 3 other networks to have FULL signal
> strength both outside AND INSIDE. (!)
> Obviously, the problem was that the Cingular network had NO COVERAGE where
> we were working. Out of curiosity though, I walked into a local Cingular
> store and asked to see the street level coverage map (WHY IS THIS ONLY
> ACCESSIBLE IN THE CINGULAR STORE?!?) and sure enough . . . I could confirm
> with my own eyes that the Cingular coverage map showed the building where
> I work was smack dab in the middle of a "good" signal strength area. So
> Cingular didn't lie to us . . . they just fed us information that is
> obviously inaccurate. That is, their street level map shows "good" signal
> strength in a couple of areas where there is in fact NO SIGNAL AT ALL.
>
> In other words, even the very detailled street level coverage maps are NO
> GOOD. If you want to know if a handset will work where you live and/or
> where you work, you have to take the handset "home" and "to work" and use
> it from there.
>
> So what to do? Well, we'd previously dumped Verizon for Cingular, due to
> constant (and outrageous) billing errors on Verizon. We LOVED our
> Cingular Nation GSM service for the two years that we used it. NO billing
> errors, NO reception problems (until we switched jobs), good quality
> handsets that just WORK, nothing to complain about at all with Cingular.
> In our experience, Cingular's customer service was pretty good, also. At
> least, the few times we did have to call Cingular customer service, our
> issue was resolved immediately, on the FIRST phone call. Also, it was
> pretty significant that we found Cingular's coverage was at least as good
> as Verizon's (and we both travel a lot).
>
> So we really did not want to dump Cingular, and we didn't want to switch
> to Verizon, but what other choice did we have? After many years of
> headaches trying to use Nextel/Sprint (employer provided handsets), I
> wouldn't sign with Nextel. If you held a gun to my head and ordered me to
> sign with Nextel, I'd say "SHOOT".
>
> But in our area, all we have is:
> Cingular (no signal at work now, unfortunately . . . otherwise, they are
> great)
> Verizon (good network, so-so handsets, frequent outrageous billing errors)
> Nextel/Sprint (don't even get me started on all the coverage problems with
> Nextel . . . in short, the network SUCKS RAW EGGS)
> T-Mobile (never had them, don't know anybody else who has them, either)
>
> So ****, it looked like I'd have to sign with T-Mobile. When I went to
> the T-Mo web site, their street level map showed "good" signal strength at
> both of our work locations (ha ha) and signal strength at home was smack
> dab in the middle of "good" and "fair". Considering I already knew that
> the street level coverage maps can be horribly inaccurate, it wasn't very
> encouraging to note that T-Mo might be just "fair" at home. I called
> T-Mobile to ask if I could borrow a handset for a day or so to test it.
> You'd think I was asking for the salesman's first born child or something.
> Is it so wrong to want to test a network BEFORE signing a contract for
> service on that network?
>
> But then I discussed the matter with my wife. She reminded me that we
> both had coworkers who used Verizon cellular handsets at our work
> locations. So I reminded HER that I'd dumped Verizon as I was sick and
> ****ing tired of spending hours on the phone every month trying to do
> Verizon's work for them. So she came back and told me that all of her
> friends and relatives are on Verizon, so most of our phone calls would be
> "IN" and thus free. And she REALLY wanted a Verizon handset so that she
> could call her best friend for free.
>
> Awwwww, **** . . . I guess I'm a Verizon customer again. Yup, I signed a
> contract with Verizon. But take note Verizon . . . I WILL BE WATCHING MY
> BILLS EXTREMELY CLOSELY. I dumped you once, and I will ****ing dump you
> AGAIN if you treat me like you did the last time I was your customer.
> "IN" be damned if I get half my calls for free and pay WAY TOO MUCH for
> the REST of my calls.
>
> OK, enough venting.
>
> T-Mobile take note: If you'd just let me borrow a handset for a day or
> two, you might have gained a contract for service on two cellular handsets
> (both Nokia 6101) recently. All I wanted was something that could
> reliably make calls from both home AND work (and most areas of the
> continental U.S., and I understand that ALL cellular providers do have
> "dead spots"). I had no way to know if the T-Mo network would work
> without actually USING a T-Mo handset at home and work, and I wasn't about
> to sign a contract to find out. I don't care that I know nobody on T-Mo.
> If T-Mo would work for me, I WOULD have signed with T-Mo. If I'd signed
> with T-Mo, my wife wouldn't have been able to 'twist my arm' hard enough
> to make me go back to Verizon.
>
> But I don't mean to pick on T-Mo specifically. It seems like ALL cellular
> service providers make you sign a contract if you want to just TEST a
> handset at home or YOUR OWN work location. If the cellular service
> providers are worried about people borrowing the phones just to make free
> phone calls, why not pass out really cheap handsets that are programmed to
> ONLY connect calls to 911, other users of THE SAME CELLULAR NETWORK, and
> the cellular network's customer service numbers? That is all you'd NEED
> to test the network, and it wouldn't cost the cellular service provider
> anything. In fact, you really don't need to make phone calls at all to
> test the network. Just walk around with the borrowed handset at work and
> home and see how many bars of signal strength you get. If you see 3-5 (or
> more) bars of signal strength and the name of your prospective service
> provider is displayed (not roaming), then you pretty much know that the
> handset will work OK for you at that location. If that's not good enough,
> call the customer service number (pre-programmed in the phone, probably)
> and ask "can you hear me now"????
>
> To Cellular Service providers: Why don't you allow prospective customers
> to test a handset at home (and work) without signing a contract? WHY????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> Because the car dealer makes enough money off the sale to have someone
> accompany you on the test drive. Do you expect the cell carrier to pay
> someone to keep an eye on the cell phone while you walk around with it?
>

Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way. And why would anyone need to keep an eye on the cell
phone? We're talking about something that costs next to nothing for the
cellular provider to purchase!!!* And the odds that it would get stolen or
damaged are really low . . . and can be close to ZERO if the cellular
provider just takes reasonable precautions, such as verifying identity and
collecting credit card information to be used only in case of damage or
loss. -Dave

* Remember, the cellular provider is not paying retail price for the
handsets. With the typical handset lasting 2 years or longer, one store
might only need to spend about $500/year on average, to keep a few loaners
on hand. Next to all the profits that the average store rakes in, that is
NOTHING . . . and would probably be more than offset by the increase in
profits that would result. I wonder how many people don't own cell phones
for the specific reason that they don't want to sign a contract before
trying the service?

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> They all give you a op-out. most of the time 2 weeks. 15 days for verizon.
> Take it, try it. don't like it bring it back.
> Simple enough.
>

I take it it's been a LONG time since you started up a cellular contract?
You seem to not remember all that's involved in the process. The paperwork
alone takes over an hour, and THAT assumes that someone in the store (who is
very FAST at doing it) is filling it out for you, and that you don't bother
to READ everything that you are signing (which is not a good idea, but it
will get you out of the store in less than two hours, possibly). Plus you
have to fork out a couple hundred dollars in fees up front for service.
Even if you take the freebie phones and the 2-year contract, there are still
activation charges to be paid up front. Yes, you can get your money back
and cancel the contract. My point is, why should you have to go through all
that hassle just to learn that the service won't work for you?

If you take a "loaner" or "tester" or (whatever) phone home and find it
doesn't work, you return the phone to the store. Very little paperwork, no
money involved, SIMPLE. Also, if all the providers did this, you could
collect two or three loaners at the same time to see which one works best.
Then you know who to sign a contract with BEFORE the paperwork is started.
Under the current system, it could take MONTHS (theoretically) to get the
right network. That is, sign up for Verizon, discover verizon is ****,
cancel, sign up for someone else, discover they're **** also, cancel . .
-Dave

Dave, IF you are in California, be DAMN glad you didnt sign up with T-Mo!
You would have been roaming on Ching-Chingular's system as T-Mo has
ZERO sites in Southern California.
While "GSM" sounds great when you have a good signal, their 1800-1925Mhz
signals
DO NOT get inside a lot of buildings. Verizon's 820-894Mhz CDMA system is a
LOT
more robust and will see you with up to 6 sites at the same time (soft
handoff).
Verizon has TWO ***MAJOR*** longtime customers that they cater to. "On-Star"
and the California Dept of Highways (Caltrans) for service to freeway and
highway
callboxes.Look at the callboxes and see the 880Mhz antennas on them.
On Cingular how many calls did you miss when inside a store or other
commercial building?
If Cingular REALLY had their **** together they COULD make a "kick ass/take
names" system!
First off, take all the old AT&T TDMA handsets out of service and GIVE them
new dual-band GSM handsets.
Convert all the old AT&T 880Mhz TDMA sites to GSM and overlay them into the
existing 1800Mhz GSM system.
The new 880Mhz GSM system would fill in where the 1800Mhz system stops at
the door.
The main problem is the CHEAP-ASS BASTARDS at Ching-Chingular wont lay out
the front money. Instead they
continue to piss off the public, make poor excuses and continue to provide
substandard overall service. If thier shareholders
ever figure it out the **** would hit the fan.
This is really a shame as there are TONS of really cool GSM handsets
available everywhere.
Meanwhile, I will continue to use my Verizon SCH-730,Samsung 6000 (2 of
them) and my PC-5220 datacard (so I can watch my DISH network) on my laptop
while away from the house (YES..it IS that fast)
In Los Angeles California Verizon wins the system award hands down! there is
no comparasion in voice or especially data from
NEXTIME/SPLINT,CHINGULAR or the now defunct (thank god) (A)ll (T)urd
(T)elephone.