Adios, Cingular!

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:41:05 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Cliff wrote:
>
>> The reality of the situation is that TDMA is old technology and maintaining
>> 2 different technologies NATIONALLY is expensive.
>
>You're absolutely right, but how is that the fault of the end user? At
>the time, Cingular touted TDMA is being THE standard, and the BEST
>standard.

D-AMPS ("TDMA") was actually touted as being "digital" and "better" than AMPS,
both of which were/are true.

>Now, GSM is THE standard, and the BEST standard.... until the

GSM is an improved form of TDMA and is a worldwide standard.

>second half of this year in which case UMTS will be THE standard, and
>then in 2007 it's going to be HSDPA.

UMTS is old news, and HSDPA is merely an improved form of UMTS, almost always
backwards compatible. Both are designed to *complement* rather than replace
GSM, which will continue.

>Yes, its expensive to maintain multiple standards, but it's expensive to
>paying end users who have been loyal for years to be forced into
>upgrading to new phones and more expensive plans.

Most consumers replace their phones every couple of years.

>And if Cingular's
>management had done its research earlier, they might not be in as a
>serious a situation as they are in now.

Cingular management has actually done well and is in a very good position as
the largest US carrier.

>So when the hell is the Cingular going to settle on a stable path that
>doesn't require end users to hop technology every year?

It has been on a stable and well-defined path.

>And why must an
>end user be forced to sign onto new contracts, upgrade their equipment
>and take on more expensive calling plans every time Cingular changes its
>mind on what technology they want the network to run on this week?

This is only one transition -- you can stick with GSM for years to come.

>Cingular is the only company right now that has these issues. T-Mobile
>and its historical derivatives have had GSM longer than Cingular's been
>in existence as a company, and people using old VoiceStream/Omnipoint
>handsets from 1995 can still use them today.

Cingular includes the old PacBell, which also has had GSM for a long time.

>Even the CDMA carriers
>appear to be handling AMPS upgrades more smoothly, and CDMA has
>maintained backward compatibility even as the network evolves.

Likewise GSM, which will be maintained as 3G evolves. In either case you need
a new handset to take advantage of new network features.

>> TDMA was good and updated versions of it may - in some form or another -
>> resurface for even better connectivity than GSM/GPRS.
>
>Uhh, nope... TDMA was a dog even when it was launched. It was a stopgap
>measure implemented for AMPS carriers who wanted quick and dirty
>capacity upgrades, even if the upgrades were suboptimal, and didn't want
>to spend just a little bit extra to hop onto GSM... even though in later
>years, they were forced to do so anyway.

D-AMPS (what you keep calling "TDMA", but which is only one version of TDMA,
just like GSM) was actually state of the art when it was introduced.

>Now, those networks are moving towards WCDMA, and another wide chasm of
>incompatibility. The day will come soon where GSM users are going to
>gripe that their GSM phones aren't working as well as they used to, and
>Cingular wants them to sign new contracts and pay upgrade fees to move
>to UMTS. And then when HSDPA rolls around....

3G (UMTS/WCDMA, HSDPA) is actually backwards compatible with and complementary
to GSM. You apparently misunderstand how the technology works.

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

---

› See More: Adios, Cingular!

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:14:58
-0800, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

>HSDPA, UMTS and EDGE are all AFAIK backwards compatibile. IOW, no one
>is going to force users into purchasing new equipment if an EDGE user
>is happy and doesn't want/need the benefits of HSDPA.

Correct.

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

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

In <X9KHf.5560$3V4.4834@trnddc06> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:23:03 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It's not. Just because something isn't a user's fault doesn't mean a
>> company should never have to pass these costs onto its users.
>
>That is not the point at all.
>
>Cingular has NOT pulled the plug on TDMA. What they have done is to slowly
>and deliberately cut back on service, making the service so unreliable as to
>be virtually unusable, and then they try to coerce customers that complain
>into signing new contracts, pay activation fees, etc.

No, as I have pointed out a number of times, all Cingular is doing is
migrating network capacity from less efficient D-AMPS ("TDMA") to more
efficient GSM as its customers migrate from D-AMPS to GSM, a process that is
now nearly complete. It would make no sense at all to favor less efficient
D-AMPS capacity over more efficient GSM capacity.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:20:13 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Anonymous wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:23:03 GMT, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Cingular has NOT pulled the plug on TDMA. What they have done is to slowly
>>> and deliberately cut back on service, making the service so unreliable as to
>>> be virtually unusable
>>
>> Correct. They no longer wish to spend any more money than is
>> absolutely necessary into technology that they are deprecating.
>
>Sorry, but there's a monumental difference between not outlaying
>additional capital for a deprecated network, and deliberately expending
>capital and manpower to actively degrade that network's functionality.

It's not -- it's simply migrating network spectrum from D-AMPS to GSM as its
customers migrate.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:43:26
-0800, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:20:13 -0500, Isaiah Beard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>> Correct. They no longer wish to spend any more money than is
>>> absolutely necessary into technology that they are deprecating.
>>
>>Sorry, but there's a monumental difference between not outlaying
>>additional capital for a deprecated network, and deliberately expending
>>capital and manpower to actively degrade that network's functionality.
>
>I don't know if Cingular is actually doing the last thing you said,
>but if they are, perhaps your problem is because TDMA towers are being
>converted to GSM. They might need to do this to improve/expand their
>GSM service.

Correct.

>And perhaps this is being done because it is cheaper to take a TDMA
>tower and convert it to GSM-only than to create new GSM towers from
>scratch or overlay GSM onto a TDMA tower which translates into what I
>wrote above.

The issue is spectrum, which is limited.

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

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

In <XjPHf.11387$CZ4.8315@trnddc05> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:15:03 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> This is generally how it works with all technology. Accept it and move
>> on...
>
>YOU can accept it, if you so choose.
>
>I have moved on. To Sprint.

Then why so much angst and venting here?

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:17:53 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Anonymous wrote:
>
>>> At the time, Cingular touted TDMA is being THE standard, and the BEST
>>> standard. Now, GSM is THE standard, and the BEST standard.... until
>>> the second half of this year in which case UMTS will be THE standard,
>>> and then in 2007 it's going to be HSDPA.
>>
>> Just like Windows v3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, etc...
>
>The problem is that Windows 3.11, 95 and 98 don't forcibly shut down
>your computer if you're still using those operating systems. Some old
>machines are still running quite nicely on those old OSes.

Not nicely at all -- there's no ongoing support, which means security issues,
and they won't run much current software.

>Old TDMA
>phones? Not so much!

Pretty much the same (or even better), actually.

>> HSDPA, UMTS and EDGE are all AFAIK backwards compatibile.
>
>And you know wrong.

He is actually correct.

> > At some point, Cingular just decided that
>> isn't not worth it to carry ancient phones for grandpa and grandmas
>> that are living in the dark ages.
>
>And to reward customers for their loyalty through the years, and not
>forcing Cingular to pay subsidies on new phones and just basically
>collect profit from these folks for such a long time, Cingular rewards
>them by forcing them to more expensive contracts offering fewer minutes
>allowances. That's what I'm getting at.

Nobody is being forced, and the price is the same for everyone. Without a
contract, there's no obligation to maintain the old price. Do you also *****
when the local gas station raises the price of gasoline?

>If Cingular wants to upgrade
>it's network, fine. But forcing customers to outlay cash for new
>equipment AND pay higher monthly fees is asking a bit much.

There's no coercion -- customers are free to stick with D-AMPS for the time
being, upgrade to GSM, or move to some other carrier.

>> BTW, I did see you in front of the HQ of Western Union the other day
>> picketing them because they discontinued telegram service*, forcing
>> you to use telephones, faxes, or email now. :^O
>
>I've never used a telegram. Likewise, I'm happy now NOT to use Cingular.

Then why are you here? Seriously.

>> I've been on Cingular's (was Pacbell initially) GSM network for at
>> least 5 years and never been forced to sign a new contract of upgrade
>> my equipment/plan.
>
>Hooray for you! Former TDMA users on the other hand, get the shaft.

Nonsense.

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

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

In <JeoIf.76582$_D1.19197@trnddc03> on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:15:21 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> Duh. For sales issues, the agents are legally representing the company.
>> This has been hashed out in court over and over again, in company after
>> company.
>
>Assuming that your legal interpretation is correct,

It's not (like much of the other unsubstantiated stuff he makes up). Cingular
wouldn't be bound to give you (say) 10,000 Anytime minutes just because a
salesperson said so. At most you would have grounds to invalidate a contract,
but not to compel specific performance (legal term of art).

>it still appears
>doubtful that the retention agent's actions (namely, misrepresenting the
>proposed withdrawal of TDMA service as being mandated by law) would be
>actionable. I was merely calling to cancel my service. Her trying to
>smooth over my feathers by providing a plausible (although false)
>explanation of WHY my service has been so unreliable over the past year is
>hardly worthy of a fine.

No kidding. There is no damage, hence no cause of action.

>But the fact remains that Cingular is training its reps to DENY that TDMA is
>being cut back--apparently to deflect customer anger. ...

There's no real evidence of that.

>She offered me what she characterized as an "upgrade." I suppose that one
>might argue that GSM was, indeed, an upgraded level of service, as opposed
>to the crap that TDMA customers had been receiving....

D-AMPS ("TDMA") was very good in its day, but is now obsolete. GSM is much
better.

>I elected not to reward Cingular with my continued business ...

Fair enough. Time to move on. For your own sake as well as ours.

>But the way that they used this as a smokescreen to hide their real
>objective--that of trying to coerce a segment of their customers into giving
>up various perks that they had earned over the years, and to insist that
>they sign new term agreements, is what my beef has been about. There is an
>arrogance and a contemptuous attitude that just rubbed me the wrong way.

With all due respect, you're wildly misinterpreting/misconstruing what's going
on.

>Apparently, millions of other ATTWS/Cingular customers are also peeved about
>this as well, and they are voting with their feet.

The numbers say otherwise.

>I only wish that all the former TDMA customers who already were coerced into
>"upgrading" with Cingular were aware of what had happened to
>them--BEFORE--they went along with Cingular's "upgrade path." Then perhaps
>there would have been millions more customers that parted company with
>Cingular--and the effect on Cingular's bottom line would have been even more
>pronounced.

Why would you care? Is this a personal vendetta?

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:46:47
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>A mere employee can't speak about many company issues, but what a sales
>agent tells you about services that they're selling you, are binding. ...

Not true (like much of the other unsubstantiated stuff he makes up). Cingular
wouldn't be bound to give you (say) 10,000 Anytime minutes just because a
salesperson said so. At most you would have grounds to invalidate a contract,
but not to compel specific performance (legal term of art, look it up).

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

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

In <zBsIf.16570$CZ4.9712@trnddc05> on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:12:47 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I suspect that this slow withdrawal is Cingular's way of buying time to deal
>with those millions of ATTWS customers that don't want to give up their
>earned perks. ...

You suspect wrong, as I've explained several times -- this is just migration
of spectrum from less efficient D-AMPS ("TDMA") to more efficient GSM to
reflect the fact that the great majority of customers have migrated from
D-AMPS to GSM. It would make no sense to maintain excess capacity for the few
to the disadvantage of the many.

>As an aside, I phoned Sprint's customer service line today, regarding a
>password problem I was having with their website, and the rep looked up my
>account, found the problem and corrected it, all very efficiently. This is
>now four calls I've made to the customer service reps with the reputation
>for being the worst in the industry, and my particular contacts with them
>were all pleasant and competent. While it is, admittedly, very early on in
>the relationship, I have no remorse over saying "Adios!" to Cingular.

Fair enough. Time then to move on. For your own sake as well as ours.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:10:11 -0600,
"bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet> wrote:

>Maybe they're giving everyone a chance to migrate, everyone knows by now
>that
>it's on it's way out. Cingular has told everyone that for years now. I'm
>sure that
>they're having to turn off some of the TDMA to make room on the tower for
>the
>up to date technology. Can't blame them for improvements.

Correct.

>nd Cingular has no remorse in saying "Adios" to you. So please say it and
>go.

Amen.

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

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

In <%RtHf.1689$7C3.951@trnddc08> on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:49:31 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But the wireless business is beginning to be a mature line of business. The
>early adopters came out in droves back in the AMPS days, when the bag phones
>were in vogue. Then when digital handsets were introduced, it was the
>middle class that embraced the technology, with the #1 reason being so they
>could be covered in case of an emergency. ...

It was actually driven by business usage.

>If memory serves me correctly, ATTWS took a beating when the FCC-mandated
>number portability went into effect. Huge numbers of their customers took
>off. That was about the time that term agreements went from one-year to
>two-years.

ATTWS took a beating for bungling the migration from D-AMPS ("TDMA") to GSM.

>Cingular has a reputation for insisting on contract term
>renewals at every opportunity.

On the contrary -- Cingular has had a practice of grandfathering whatever plan
you are on without renewal indefinitely. New contracts are only needed if you
get new equipment, just as with any other carrier, to pay back the equipment
subsidy. TANSTAAFL.

>Carriers can compete only on service. And, in my humble opinion, Cingular
>service sucks, because they take the short-term view of their customers,
>rather than try to bond them to long-term relationships that will ensure
>cash flow in the long run.

Fair enough. Time to move on. For your own sake as well as ours. Thanks.

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

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

In <GXuHf.1699$7C3.784@trnddc08> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:03:50 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Kevin K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-
>>
>> At least, with a GSM company like Cingular, if I decide to bail I
>> always have TMobile to go to, and still be able to use my phones
>> (unlocked). With Sprint, Verizon, Altel, etc, you need to buy a new
>> phone when you leave.
>
>1: The cost of a new phone is insignificant,

The cost includes the contract lock-in.

>as compared to the inability to
>use the wireless service caused by Cingular's intentional disruption of
>TDMA.

[sigh] This is just migration of spectrum from less efficient D-AMPS ("TDMA")
to more efficient GSM to reflect the fact that the great majority of customers
have migrated from D-AMPS to GSM. It would make no sense to maintain excess
capacity for the few to the disadvantage of the many.

>2: Sprint gave me THREE FREE PHONES (they actually told me that I was
>approved for up to SIX lines!), and shipped them to me overnight, and
>charged me no activation fee.

In return for a 2-year agreement. Strangely, that was fine with you for
Sprint, but not for Cingular. Can you say, "double standard"? ')

>Sprint treated me right, and I'll remember that. And the quality of the
>wireless service is miles ahead of the dropped calls and "No Service"
>periods that I endured with Cingular for the past year. And, on top of it
>all, I'm paying a few dollars LESS than I was paying Cingular. In my
>particular circumstance, Sprint was a Godsend!

Fair enough. Time to move on. For your own sake as well as ours. Thanks.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:20:35
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeremy wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Their only grip on the customer is that two-year term agreement, but
>> all it guarantees is that the day of reckoning will be put off for 24
>> months.
>
>I have noticed that the handset quality has deteriorated to the point
>where 24 months is about the time your handset starts acting a bit
>flaky. So they are all set to get you into another contract after two years.

Only if you buy the cheapest handsets. Good handsets are better than ever.

>Indeed, the reason that Cingular has been doing so poorly, while
>T-Mobile and Verizon have been doing so well, is that Cingular has no
>real value proposition other than "rollover." Verizon markets their
>superior network, while T-Mobile markets there lower prices on large
>numbers of peak minutes. Sprint and Cingular are stuck in the middle.

Cingular actually has been doing well, and actually has the best digital
network in the USA.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Feb 2006
06:37:44 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <NwAHf.1734$Lr.1577@trnddc01>, "Jeremy" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> But I would like a wireless service that isn't
>> set up to drop my calls, just so I will switch into something more lucrative
>> for the carrier, and Sprint stands head and shoulders above Cingular in that
>> regard.
>
>Unfortunately, that appears to be a location-by-location situation.
>Around here, Sprint coverage sucks rocks. I can't imagine why anyone
>around here has Sprint.

Yep. Likewise around here.

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