VERY bad reception; what can be done?

WCJ wrote:

> Any suggestions?

There is a short wmv video that will show you how to solve your problem.
Well maybe not, but at least it's what one guy in your situation did to
solve his Cingular problems, and it's very amusing.

See "http://tinyurl.com/hqjfw"

Cingular service in California has improved since the AT&T acquisition,
but it's still not great (see the February Consumer Reports). Your best
bet is to switch to Verizon.

---

› See More: VERY bad reception; what can be done?

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:44cc8b2b$0$96164

> WCJ wrote:
>
> > Any suggestions?
>
> There is a short wmv video that will show you how to solve your problem.
> Well maybe not, but at least it's what one guy in your situation did to
> solve his Cingular problems, and it's very amusing.
>
> See "http://tinyurl.com/hqjfw"

Ha!

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 05:56:39 GMT, WCJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>I recently relocated, moving back home to California from Texas. In
>preparation for the move I contacted Cingular and found out what I'd
>need to do in order to make sure I'd have service at my new location. I
>had one of the old AT&T plans--which worked fine for me, but they told
>me I'd have to upgrade both my plan and my phone if I wanted coverage in
>my new location. So, fine, I wanted a new phone anyway! I got one of
>the LG C2000 flip-phones (with a camera, etc.), and really like it.
>Everything was great until I arrived back in SoCal...
>
>Let me point out that when I spoke to Cingular [prior to my move] I made
>very clear exactly where I would be relocating--I even gave them my new
>address. So they definitely knew the exact location. Well, since I've
>been here, using my cell phone has been a crap-shoot. I have ZERO to
>one bar in the house, and zero to two (rarely three) bars if I walk
>almost all the way to the back of my backyard. Go two blocks down and I
>have FIVE bars. But that doesn't do me any good when someone calls and
>I attempt to answer...and 99% of the time we can't hear each other, and
>then the connection drops.
>
>I did contact Cingular to see if there was anything they could do or
>suggest. They "pushed" some updates to my phone, had me do some
>fiddling around with it, and that was that--but it didn't help. I'm
>TOTALLY frustrated right now because I'm essentially paying for nothing,
>since the phone is basically useless.
>
>Any suggestions?

I guess in hindsight, you should have waited to get another phone
until you got to California. It is frustrating, but Cingular is
adding new towers at a fast pace. I had exactly the same problem as
you with Verizon. I had to wait five years for a tower in our area.
Of course then I switched to Cingular only because the rest of the
family was on Cingular. Fortunately, they had a tower too. :-)

I can remember about 25 years ago, a person I worked with was going to
work for a company getting involved in something called cellular
telephone. He explained the concept of having cell towers about 1
mile apart, so that, as you moved around, you would be passed from
cell to cell seamlessly, and never lose the signal. Here we are in
2006, and we are a long, long way from that concept. In many areas of
the country, you are lucky if there is a tower 20 miles away, let
alone one mile. The cellular companies are doing much better now,
expecially in my area (Arizona to Nevada) in the last couple of years.
The big problem they face in trying to give us better coverage is the
"not in my backyard" attitude of the public. Everyone wants better
coverage, but no one wants a cell tower where they can see it. The
companies have to go through unbelievable hoops just to put in one
tower, where they need several. It would be nice if we can someday
have coverage like they have in Europe.

Dick

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:34:20 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Cingular service in California has improved since the AT&T acquisition,
>but it's still not great (see the February Consumer Reports). ...

Cingular coverage in California is actually very good.

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 05:56:39 GMT, WCJ <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>I recently relocated, moving back home to California from Texas. In
>preparation for the move I contacted Cingular and found out what I'd
>need to do in order to make sure I'd have service at my new location. I
>had one of the old AT&T plans--which worked fine for me, but they told
>me I'd have to upgrade both my plan and my phone if I wanted coverage in
>my new location. So, fine, I wanted a new phone anyway! I got one of
>the LG C2000 flip-phones (with a camera, etc.), and really like it.
>Everything was great until I arrived back in SoCal...
>
>Let me point out that when I spoke to Cingular [prior to my move] I made
>very clear exactly where I would be relocating--I even gave them my new
>address. So they definitely knew the exact location. Well, since I've
>been here, using my cell phone has been a crap-shoot. I have ZERO to
>one bar in the house, and zero to two (rarely three) bars if I walk
>almost all the way to the back of my backyard. Go two blocks down and I
>have FIVE bars. But that doesn't do me any good when someone calls and
>I attempt to answer...and 99% of the time we can't hear each other, and
>then the connection drops.
>
>I did contact Cingular to see if there was anything they could do or
>suggest. They "pushed" some updates to my phone, had me do some
>fiddling around with it, and that was that--but it didn't help. I'm
>TOTALLY frustrated right now because I'm essentially paying for nothing,
>since the phone is basically useless.
>
>Any suggestions?

Switch to a carrier with better coverage of your house if there is one.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:34:20 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Cingular service in California has improved since the AT&T acquisition,
>>but it's still not great (see the February Consumer Reports). ...
>
> Cingular coverage in California is actually very good.
>

Not according to anybody but you, Skippy.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 05:56:39 GMT, WCJ <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I recently relocated, moving back home to California from Texas. In
>>preparation for the move I contacted Cingular and found out what I'd
>>need to do in order to make sure I'd have service at my new location. I
>>had one of the old AT&T plans--which worked fine for me, but they told
>>me I'd have to upgrade both my plan and my phone if I wanted coverage in
>>my new location. So, fine, I wanted a new phone anyway! I got one of
>>the LG C2000 flip-phones (with a camera, etc.), and really like it.
>>Everything was great until I arrived back in SoCal...
>>
>>Let me point out that when I spoke to Cingular [prior to my move] I made
>>very clear exactly where I would be relocating--I even gave them my new
>>address. So they definitely knew the exact location. Well, since I've
>>been here, using my cell phone has been a crap-shoot. I have ZERO to
>>one bar in the house, and zero to two (rarely three) bars if I walk
>>almost all the way to the back of my backyard. Go two blocks down and I
>>have FIVE bars. But that doesn't do me any good when someone calls and
>>I attempt to answer...and 99% of the time we can't hear each other, and
>>then the connection drops.
>>
>>I did contact Cingular to see if there was anything they could do or
>>suggest. They "pushed" some updates to my phone, had me do some
>>fiddling around with it, and that was that--but it didn't help. I'm
>>TOTALLY frustrated right now because I'm essentially paying for nothing,
>>since the phone is basically useless.
>>
>>Any suggestions?
>
> Switch to a carrier with better coverage of your house if there is one.
>

That's right damnit, just because Cingular sold you service in an area
certainly does not mean they need to provide it. What is this country coming
to ... Next thing you know people will be expecting seats on a plane in
exchange for that ticket they bought!

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:19:45 -0400, "PC Medic" <[email protected]>
wrote in <B6xzg.2565$W93.749@dukeread05>:

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

>> Switch to a carrier with better coverage of your house if there is one.
>
>That's right damnit, just because Cingular sold you service in an area
>certainly does not mean they need to provide it. ...

Correct. No carrier guarantees complete and perfect coverage. That's
why you have a free trial period.

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

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

> Correct. No carrier guarantees complete and perfect coverage. That's
> why you have a free trial period.

Is the QoS expected to change after the trial period?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:56:51 -0400, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Correct. No carrier guarantees complete and perfect coverage. That's
>> why you have a free trial period.
>
>Is the QoS expected to change after the trial period?

Irrelevant in this context.

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

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

>>> Correct. No carrier guarantees complete and perfect coverage.
>>> That's why you have a free trial period.
>>
>>Is the QoS expected to change after the trial period?
>
> Irrelevant in this context.

Since you opted to not convince me, I take that as a yes. :-)

In short there is also no guarantee of the obtaining primo human or machine
based QoS once the trail period ends. Case in point, bandwidth capping.

PS: Its just a trail period. Its not free. If you are mean free from service
contracts obligation, that is also a false illusion since most state laws,
if not all, already provides a 30 day grace period for any service contract.
So Cingular is not doing anything new here but expose what is already law as
a marketing and sales lure.

---

Sam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Correct. No carrier guarantees complete and perfect coverage. That's
>> why you have a free trial period.
>
> Is the QoS expected to change after the trial period?
>

It didn't ... the OP moved.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:34:20 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> > wrote in <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>Cingular service in California has improved since the AT&T acquisition,
> >>but it's still not great (see the February Consumer Reports). ...
> >
> > Cingular coverage in California is actually very good.
> >
>
> Not according to anybody but you, Skippy.

In the Culver City area its infinitely better than Sprint.

Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Cingular coverage in California is actually very good.
>> >
>>
>> Not according to anybody but you, Skippy.
>
> In the Culver City area its infinitely better than Sprint.

Ah ... the ass is back with his agenda.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 02:54:18 -0400, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>> Correct. No carrier guarantees complete and perfect coverage.
>>>> That's why you have a free trial period.
>>>
>>>Is the QoS expected to change after the trial period?
>>
>> Irrelevant in this context.
>
>Since you opted to not convince me,

I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's simply a discussion. I'm
merely stating facts and my own point of view.

>I take that as a yes. :-)

That wasn't what I said, but you are of course free to take it however
you wish.

>In short there is also no guarantee of the obtaining primo human or machine
>based QoS once the trail period ends.

In fact there is a reasonable expectation that service will be
maintained during the term of any Service Agreement. Significant
service degradation would probably be a breach of the Service Agreement.

>Case in point, bandwidth capping.

There is no bandwidth capping.

>PS: Its just a trail period. Its not free. If you are mean free from service
>contracts obligation,

I mean free from any sort of penalty, including full refund on
equipment. The only thing not free is the air time.

>that is also a false illusion since most state laws,
>if not all, already provides a 30 day grace period for any service contract.

Not in the case of cellular.

>So Cingular is not doing anything new here but expose what is already law as
>a marketing and sales lure.

It's actually a response to action by state Attorneys General.

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