AT&T flings cellphone network wide open

Wasn't somebody recently asking about this?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...2-05-att_N.htm

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

---

› See More: AT&T flings cellphone network wide open

At 05 Dec 2007 22:27:32 -0600 Jer wrote:
>
> Wasn't somebody recently asking about this?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...2-05-att_N.htm


It's ironic that AT&T, who has let anyone use any device they wished to
ever since the conversion to GSM, has allowed themselves to be put in a "me
too" position by Verizon!

AT&T should've issued an "it's about time, Verizon" press release and
stressed they've always been "open," rather than allow themselves to look
like followers.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 05 Dec 2007 22:27:32 -0600 Jer wrote:
>> Wasn't somebody recently asking about this?
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...2-05-att_N.htm
>
>
> It's ironic that AT&T, who has let anyone use any device they wished to
> ever since the conversion to GSM, has allowed themselves to be put in a "me
> too" position by Verizon!
>
> AT&T should've issued an "it's about time, Verizon" press release and
> stressed they've always been "open," rather than allow themselves to look
> like followers.

It was amusing to hear some "experts" on the local radio station
praising Verizon for allowing any device to be used on their network.
They said that GSM phones can now be used on Verizon.

On 2007-12-06, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 05 Dec 2007 22:27:32 -0600 Jer wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't somebody recently asking about this?
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...2-05-att_N.htm
>
> It's ironic that AT&T, who has let anyone use any device they wished to
> ever since the conversion to GSM, has allowed themselves to be put in a "me
> too" position by Verizon!
>
> AT&T should've issued an "it's about time, Verizon" press release and
> stressed they've always been "open," rather than allow themselves to look
> like followers.

AT&T's problem is that while they've always been "open" as
a practical matter, their policy in the past has been to never,
ever actually admit this to anyone, certainly not on the sales
floor in their stores or in their website software. Just try to
sign up for a service plan at the AT&T website without buying a
phone.

I did sign up for service without buying a phone at an AT&T store,
but had a long discussion about just why it was I had to sign up
for the same contract term, with the same early termination fee,
as someone who left with a phone which (they claimed) had been
subsized to the tune of $150 or $200. Avoiding that discussion
might have something to do trying to make you take the phone
whether you want it or not.

Dennis Ferguson

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> writes:

> > It's ironic that AT&T, who has let anyone use any device they wished to
> > ever since the conversion to GSM, has allowed themselves to be put in a
> "me
> > too" position by Verizon!
>
> Pfft, open doesn't mean squat given the horrendous coverage they've got.
> Try using actual world GSM phones on AT&T for a while. You'll discover just
> how ****ty their network really is.

I have a world quad band GSM phone (Krazr K1) and coverage in Germany,
Austria as well as sweet home Chicagoland is actually excellent.

Where have you been that your coverage is so troublesome? And what
world GSM phone did you have?

A lousy phone can make a good network look bad, and Cingular certainly
did and does sell some phones with lousy RF. The first v3c I had
was garbage, for instance.



--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Previously on alt.cellular.cingular, Bill Kearney said:

> Pfft, open doesn't mean squat given the horrendous coverage they've got.
> Try using actual world GSM phones on AT&T for a while. You'll discover just
> how ****ty their network really is.

I've got a "world phone", a Treo 680. Coverage has been quite good for
me. Usually better than my brother's phone on "can't hear you now"
Verizon.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"I want you to be happy. I want me to be happy. I want you to be
happy for me and me to be happy for you. Is that so much to ask around
here?" (Amb. Mollari, B5 "Acts of Sacrifice")

Bill Kearney wrote:
>> It's ironic that AT&T, who has let anyone use any device they wished to
>> ever since the conversion to GSM, has allowed themselves to be put in a
> "me
>> too" position by Verizon!
>
> Pfft, open doesn't mean squat given the horrendous coverage they've got.
> Try using actual world GSM phones on AT&T for a while. You'll discover just
> how ****ty their network really is.

This is true. Just look at the most recent Consumer Reports survey of
48,000 subscribers.

However, as long as you stay in the metro areas, AT&T coverage is fine.
It's when you get into rural areas, into National Parks, or into the
greenbelts of some metro areas, where GSM coverage falls apart. I
recently went to a meeting at my daughter's school for a Yosemite field
trip that the school is having. Only about 50 of the 300 sets of parents
had ever been to Yosemite, which was incredible to me. So there _are_
people that never venture off the beaten path. One guy that used to post
here said that he planned his routes on trips so that he would be
assured of Cingular GSM coverage, and if you're going to Yosemite then
you're out of luck since the rural carrier on the way there is Golden
State Cellular, a carrier that went from TDMA/AMPS to CDMA/AMPS. In
Yosemite Valley itself, I thing AT&T now has coverage, but in much of
the park you either get AMPS or nothing. Of course you do lose something
of the wilderness experience when you're making a cell phone call from
the top of Half Dome.

Last year I was in Everglades National Park. I had great coverage using
my Verizon phone on AT&T's network---their AMPS network. There was no
GSM or CDMA coverage, only AMPS, and Verizon has no AMPS network in
South Florida, both A&B sides are owned by AT&T now. Of course this
coverage is sure to disappear as soon as they can legally turn off AMPS.
Too bad, but that's what you get with Republicans in charge of the FCC.

At 07 Dec 2007 16:44:25 -0500 Bill Kearney wrote:

> Pfft, open doesn't mean squat given the horrendous coverage they've
> got.
> Try using actual world GSM phones on AT&T for a while. You'll
> discover just how ****ty their network really is.

Many (particularly older and/or cheaper) "world" phones lack 800MHz, which
most of AT&T's network relies on, especially for suburban/rural coverage.
Quad-band world phones (or US-centric 800/1900/1800 tri-band "world phones")
perform far better here in the US.

SMS ???? ? wrote:
> Too bad, but that's what you get with Republicans in charge of the FCC.

Well, there's still time to write the Democrat-controlled Congress, who
controls the FCC, and have them turn things around.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.