Ooops, Cingular did it again!

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!c0e53274!not-for-mail
>From: John Navas <[email protected]>
>Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
>Subject: Re: Ooops, Cingular did it again!
>Followup-To: alt.cellular.cingular
>Organization: The Navas Group <http://navasgroup.com>
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 56
>NNTP-Posting-Host: d09f59b66c187fddefdc3966cd8d85cb
>X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
>X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1176313651 d09f59b66c187fddefdc3966cd8d85cb (Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT
>Xref: prodigy.net alt.cellular.cingular:77216
>X-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:47:32 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:38:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:28:52 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:45:43 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>>><[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:34:26 GMT, John Navas
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No apology needed from me -- things happened pretty much as I forecast.
>>>>>My prognostication record is way ahead of several others posting here.
>>>>
>>>>You were wrong. Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
>>>>complete, as you now admit. But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
>>>>it would be.
>>>
>>>Not true on all counts.
>>
>>Absolutely true as Google posts prove. You're the childish one for
>>omitting the links that prove you wrong.
>
>You're the one making claims and omitting links.
>
>>Google is wonderful.On January 26, 2005 Navas told us Integration
>>would be complete by the end of 2006, ...
>
>Proof?
>
>>You were wrong.
>>
>>Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
>>complete, as you now admit.
>
>I was actually correct.
>
>>But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
>>it would be.
>
>Proof?
>
>>Apology still due.
>
>Nope.
>
>>Google does not lie.
>
>You've not presented anything from Google -- you're just making claims.


I most certainly have, and proved you wrong.

Will you aqpolgize with the exact google listings for your postings to
alt.cellular.cingular on the dates listed, which prove you predicted
no problems and a full integration of ATTWS networks by end 2006 ???

Of course not the man-child is never wrong. WAAAAAH.

---

› See More: Ooops, Cingular did it again!

On 11 Apr 2007 15:27:55 -0500, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>[email protected] writes:
>
>> Apology still due.
>>
>> Still waiting on your apology.
>>
>> Google does not lie.
>
>Dear god, grow up.
>
>So he made a forward looking statement that wasn't 100% correct. Big
>fuggin deal. A "my bad, close but no cigar" maybe, but an apology?
>What did his being wrong hurwt your widdle feewings or something?
>
>John, I'm not sure why you're such a lightning rod of the unhelpful.
>Your signal to noise ratio is pretty high so far as I can tell.

Thanks.

The basic problem is a few people who troll here for the purpose of
bashing GSM in general and AT&T/Cingular in particular. My correcting
of the record infuriates them, so they go after me as one of the
"enemy". Jealousy also seems to play a part.

Sadly that flaming interferes with legitimate use of this newsgroup, but
because of the way Usenet works, is something we just have to put up
with.

Like sunspot activity the flaming tends to wax and wane. At the moment
it's relatively near a maximum. It will hopefully die down again soon,
and we can then spend more time on more productive activities.

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

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:12:56 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Apology still due.
>
>I guess it all depends on your definition of "largely." It's been 2.5
>years since the merger. Less than a year after the merger a large
>percentage of the AT&T user base, both TDMA and GSM, had migrated to
>Cingular GSM, or left.
>
>Of course at that time, Navas was blaming the poor results of the
>Consumer Reports survey on the small percentage of TDMA users that were
>still on Cingular or AT&T (which made no sense since the TDMA/AMPS
>coverage was better than the GSM coverage). It was only after there were
> almost no TDMA customers left that he changed his story about why
>Cingular continued to do so poorly, inventing some bizarres stories
>about the survey methodology.

As usual, you just make wild charges with nothing to back them up.
In fact I did nothing of the sort -- my position has been consistent all
along.

>It must suck to have to spend every waking
>moment coming up with that kind of crap!

It must suck to have so much free time and anger that you have to spend
it here on flaming.

>Anyway, don't hold your breath waiting for an apology.

We do agree on something. "Wonders will never cease."

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

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

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:26:04 -0500, [email protected] wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:11:39 -0500, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> but the integration is now largely complete,
>>>
>>>You said that well over a year ago.
>>
>>Google is wonderful.On January 26, 2005 Navas told us Integration
>>would be complete by the end of 2006, cause thats what he was told.
>>
>><http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=77321>
>>
>>Nothing childish about my having a good memory. What is childish is
>>Navas uncorrectly accusing me of being childish cause we know
>>he's contracticting himself.
>>
>>Now for his apology.
>
> No apology needed from me -- things happened pretty much as I forecast.
> My prognostication record is way ahead of several others posting here.
>

IN your dreams maybe. You getting lucky every once in a while is not
something to hang your hat on, Novice.

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

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:45:43 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:34:26 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>No apology needed from me -- things happened pretty much as I forecast.
>>>My prognostication record is way ahead of several others posting here.
>>
>>You were wrong. Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
>>complete, as you now admit. But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
>>it would be.
>
> Not true on all counts.
>

Google is your friend and never lies.

On 13 Apr 2007 15:54:53 -0700, "Ryan Sinn" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Being a BLUE customer for over 4 years and having switched to being a
>ORANGE customer in December 2006... After 4 months I can confidently
>say two things about the cingular 64K SIM network...

There is no "64K SIM network". There is a "blue" network and an
"orange" network. Any SIM (64K or otherwise) can be programmed to Home
on either network, but in California would normally only be programmed
to the "blue" network, since the "orange" network is now owned by
T-Mobile, and AT&T/Cingular needs to migrate its customers to the "blue"
network in order to avoid future roaming costs.

>1] I have lower signal in more places where I would had always had
>good reception... Namely customers I've had for years... regular
>driving routes and my own home and office.
>
>2] Data speeds are overall about 1/5th of the speed using a Cingular
>Orange SIM rather than my old blue SIM...
>
>Both of these observations have been made using the same phone on the
>same firmware... the only change is the SIM.

The likely change is the Home network. Your SIMs were just programmed
differently.

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

On 2007-04-13, Ryan Sinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Being a BLUE customer for over 4 years and having switched to being a
> ORANGE customer in December 2006... After 4 months I can confidently
> say two things about the cingular 64K SIM network...
>
> 1] I have lower signal in more places where I would had always had
> good reception... Namely customers I've had for years... regular
> driving routes and my own home and office.
>
> 2] Data speeds are overall about 1/5th of the speed using a Cingular
> Orange SIM rather than my old blue SIM...

Is your phone old enough that it doesn't support ENS? All new Cingular
SIMs seem to home to 310-410 now, but ENS is supposed to fix it so that
the phone will attach to 310-380 if that signal is better. With non-ENS
phones (I have one, bought overseas) I have to force it manually to
310-380 if 310-410 is available at all.

> Both of these observations have been made using the same phone on the
> same firmware... the only change is the SIM.

If your phone is old changing the home network of the SIM can cause
this. If your phone is new enough to support ENS, however, this isn't
supposed to happen (in theory).

Dennis Ferguson

On 2007-04-17, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 15:54:53 -0700, "Ryan Sinn" <[email protected]> wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>Being a BLUE customer for over 4 years and having switched to being a
>>ORANGE customer in December 2006... After 4 months I can confidently
>>say two things about the cingular 64K SIM network...
>
> There is no "64K SIM network". There is a "blue" network and an
> "orange" network. Any SIM (64K or otherwise) can be programmed to Home
> on either network, but in California would normally only be programmed
> to the "blue" network, since the "orange" network is now owned by
> T-Mobile, and AT&T/Cingular needs to migrate its customers to the "blue"
> network in order to avoid future roaming costs.

Recent SIMs in California seem to home to 310-410 (SIM serial number starts
with 8901410) just like everywhere else in the country. I've not seen
a 64k SIM which homed to another network. You apparently need an ENS phone
for it to consider AT&T 310-380 a "home" network; my non-ENS overseas phones
turn on the roaming indicator when using a California Cingular SIM in
California.

You certainly seem to be right about Cingular wanting people to get new
SIMs to eliminate roaming costs. The T-Mobile 310-170 network refuses
service to a 310-410 SIM where I live, so switching everyone to the latter
SIM eliminates a lot of roaming. If I had a Cingular 310-170 SIM I think
I'd keep it out of spite.

Dennis Ferguson

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:34:10 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On 2007-04-13, Ryan Sinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Being a BLUE customer for over 4 years and having switched to being a
>> ORANGE customer in December 2006... After 4 months I can confidently
>> say two things about the cingular 64K SIM network...
>>
>> 1] I have lower signal in more places where I would had always had
>> good reception... Namely customers I've had for years... regular
>> driving routes and my own home and office.
>>
>> 2] Data speeds are overall about 1/5th of the speed using a Cingular
>> Orange SIM rather than my old blue SIM...
>
>Is your phone old enough that it doesn't support ENS? All new Cingular
>SIMs seem to home to 310-410 now, but ENS is supposed to fix it so that
>the phone will attach to 310-380 if that signal is better. With non-ENS
>phones (I have one, bought overseas) I have to force it manually to
>310-380 if 310-410 is available at all.
>
>> Both of these observations have been made using the same phone on the
>> same firmware... the only change is the SIM.
>
>If your phone is old changing the home network of the SIM can cause
>this. If your phone is new enough to support ENS, however, this isn't
>supposed to happen (in theory).

ENS actually just makes it possible for AT&T/Cingular to manually "home"
the phone OTA (over the air) to different networks. It does _not_ make
it possible for the phone to pick the better network signal -- an ENS
phone will still prefer the home network signal even when a non-home
network signal is much better (as per standard GSM operation).

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

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:54:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:16:48 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>ENS actually just makes it possible for AT&T/Cingular to manually "home"
>>the phone OTA (over the air) to different networks. It does _not_ make
>>it possible for the phone to pick the better network signal -- an ENS
>>phone will still prefer the home network signal even when a non-home
>>network signal is much better (as per standard GSM operation).
>
>which is EXACTLY why I ain't gonna upgrade.
>
>**** Cingular and their ENS. Also **** anybody who promotes ENS.

You're probably only putting off the inevitable, and probably not for
long -- AT&T/Cingular wants (needs) to migrate all subscribers to its
own network, and will probably cut off those that haven't migrated
sometime soon, just as with IS-136(TDMA).

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

On 2007-04-18, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:34:10 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
>>If your phone is old changing the home network of the SIM can cause
>>this. If your phone is new enough to support ENS, however, this isn't
>>supposed to happen (in theory).
>
> ENS actually just makes it possible for AT&T/Cingular to manually "home"
> the phone OTA (over the air) to different networks. It does _not_ make
> it possible for the phone to pick the better network signal -- an ENS
> phone will still prefer the home network signal even when a non-home
> network signal is much better (as per standard GSM operation).

Ah, I didn't know that, though it makes sense. I think I'll be keeping
my non-ENS phone with manual network selection (also as per standard GSM
operation), however, as I think I'm better off retaining my choice of
networks rather than letting Cingular choose for me.

Dennis Ferguson

On 20 May 2007 08:07:03 -0700, 3Gfreak <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Apr 10, 8:37 pm, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >UPGRADE NOW! The letter says.
>> >Your new SIM CARD is Enclosed!!
>>
>> >No thanks Cingular. I'll jack myself off...you don't have to do it:-).
>>
>> >My friend and I were in a major Southern California city. He had upgraded
>> >to the new 64K SIMS. I am using the old style 32K SIMS. We were standing
>> >next to each other. I had 5 bars. He had 2 bars. We changed locations.
>> >Same results. Both phones are unlocked. We switched SIMS. Same result.
>> >The phone with the 32K SIMS had 5 bars. The phone with the 64K SIMS had 2
>> >bars. We both have the same model phone: a Moto 557.
>>
>> >No thanks Cingular...
>>
>> >The only way to take my 32K SIMS from me: FROM MY COLD, BLUE DEAD finger.
>>
>> >Enuf said.
>>
>> The two SIMs might well have been homed on two different networks,
>> "blue" (old ATTWS) and "orange" (old Cingular), which could explain the
>> difference, and easily solved by having the home network changed.
>>
>> My own experience is absolutely no difference in signal in switching
>> from 32K to 64K, and from 64K to 3G, as expected.
>>
>> The home network difference issue will eventually go away when network
>> integration is complete and Cingular has migrated all of its subscribers
>> off the "orange" network now owned by T-Mobile.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>64K and 3G are one in the same.
>
>Happy celling
>3GFreak


As near as I can tell the only difference between a 64K Sim and a 3G
Sim is that the 3G sim says 3G on it.

I put my existing 64K sim in an 8525, and 3G worked just fine thank
you.

On 20 May 2007 08:07:03 -0700, 3Gfreak <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Apr 10, 8:37 pm, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The two SIMs might well have been homed on two different networks,
>> "blue" (old ATTWS) and "orange" (old Cingular), which could explain the
>> difference, and easily solved by having the home network changed.
>>
>> My own experience is absolutely no difference in signal in switching
>> from 32K to 64K, and from 64K to 3G, as expected.
>>
>> The home network difference issue will eventually go away when network
>> integration is complete and Cingular has migrated all of its subscribers
>> off the "orange" network now owned by T-Mobile.

>64K and 3G are one in the same.

They are actually different, easily identified by different markings on
the SIM.

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