Moving from Sprint to Cingular

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> You said "I posted several months about loosing 30% of my Sprint
> coverage area in North Texas". Their roaming agreements and maps
> change, and not in schedule everyone's Advantage Agreement renewal
> dates. How can one successfully argue when you admit "we all know it"
> is wrong?

Actually, I'd have to say it's very irresponsible of any company to
eliminate coverage willy-nilly without updating the maps accordingly,
especially when they are offering included roaming in the Fair &
Flexible plans. If the coverage is there one day and isn't the next,
then at the very least a release from the contract is in order so that
person can port out someone who DOES cover that are. And that should be
the case for any carrier, not just Sprint.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

---

› See More: Moving from Sprint to Cingular

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>
> So you might find things will improve with Sprint Nextel as they and
> Alamosa PCS get their act together.

I agree. The sale is suppose to go through 1st qtr 06, and as soon as it
does, they might expand the territory a bit.

> Oh yea, what happens when you force the phone into analog roam and attempt
> to make a call?
>
>>
>> Am I going to run into any unanticipated unknown issues here?
>
> Yea, lack of analog roam completely. (Not a big deal to me, but for some
> it might be.)

Only, and I stress only if one upgrades to an EV-DO phone. If they keep with
a pre-EV-DO phone, it shouldn't be a problem. Speaking of which, does any
actually know whether SPCS (or it could have been Alamosa) actually
cancelled a roaming agreement with whoever the analog carrier was?

All I've seen written here is speculation. Anyone been in contact with SPCS
corporate to get the nitty gritty on that?

Bob

Bob Smith wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snipped>
>> So you might find things will improve with Sprint Nextel as they and
>> Alamosa PCS get their act together.
>
> I agree. The sale is suppose to go through 1st qtr 06, and as soon as
> it does, they might expand the territory a bit.
>
>> Oh yea, what happens when you force the phone into analog roam and
>> attempt to make a call?
>>
>>>
>>> Am I going to run into any unanticipated unknown issues here?
>>
>> Yea, lack of analog roam completely. (Not a big deal to me, but for
>> some it might be.)
>
> Only, and I stress only if one upgrades to an EV-DO phone. If they
> keep with a pre-EV-DO phone, it shouldn't be a problem.

I think he was asking about Cingular, hence my comment about analog roam
(which is what he complained about losing in the first place).

Don't even get me started on upgrading to an EV-DO phone!


> Speaking of
> which, does any actually know whether SPCS (or it could have been
> Alamosa) actually cancelled a roaming agreement with whoever the
> analog carrier was?
> All I've seen written here is speculation. Anyone been in contact
> with SPCS corporate to get the nitty gritty on that?

Not that I know of. But this sure seems like more than a coincidence to
me. To add more speculation, Alamosa is carrying $900 in net debt.
Perhaps the roaming partner--and the OP specifically stated analog
roaming--was not getting paid by Alamosa and after the lawsuit issue
they just cut them off.

Whatever the case, I don't believe Sprint is going to leave that gap
open once they take over (might not be a top priority, however).


--
Mike

Sprint PCS has not, at least I find it extremely doubtful, eliminated
any Sprint PCS coverage. They offer include roaming on the F & F plans,
where there is a current roaming agreement. Those roaming agreements
change. And those changes are not necessarily initiated by Sprint PCS,
but by the roaming partner. In my opinion the Advantage Agreement only
obligates Sprint PCS to reasonably maintain their own network. They are
not required to maintain roaming agreements nor are they responsible for
the roaming carrier's network. Carriers should be chosen by where they
have coverage. If you really need service where they do not have
coverage, you can not rely on roaming, then carrying more than one phone
from more than one carrier is prudent. A fair sized portion of the
triangle on the map was white indicating no service from any carrier.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Sprint PCS has not, at least I find it extremely doubtful,
> eliminated any Sprint PCS coverage.

No, they never dropped any of their network coverage.

> And those changes are not necessarily initiated by
> Sprint PCS, but by the roaming partner.

Yes, Alamosa dropped the coverage agreement.

> In my opinion the Advantage Agreement only obligates Sprint PCS to
> reasonably maintain their own network. They are not required to
> maintain roaming agreements nor are they responsible for the roaming
> carrier's network.

That's a reasonable expectation, but if you purchase their product based
on roaming coverage they advertise and loose it, its also a reasonable
expectation that they can let you out of your contract without the ETF.
Its not like its a common situation that is often abused. A few oil
field service companies in the Jacksboro area were left high and dry
with no coverage outside of Jacksboro.

> Carriers should be chosen by where they have coverage.

I choose sprint because they DID in fact have coverage (albeit with a
roaming partner) where Cingular was marginal (at that time) and Verizon
has no local POP numbers in my area and T-Mobile has no rural coverage.

> If you really need service where they do not have coverage...more than one phone from more than one carrier is prudent
> than one phone from more than one carrier is prudent.

Often considered that. In fact thats what I did many years ago with SW
Bell's IMTS mobile phone service.

> A fair sized portion of the triangle on the map was white indicating no service from
> any carrier.

Actually, Verizon and Cingular have coverage there now from personal
experience, although the maps may not indicate coverage.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Sprint PCS has not, at least I find it extremely doubtful, eliminated
> any Sprint PCS coverage. They offer include roaming on the F & F
> plans, where there is a current roaming agreement.

I believe they term it "no roaming charges." I don't think they've ever
guaranteed cellular access in the entire U.S.


> Those roaming
> agreements change. And those changes are not necessarily initiated
> by Sprint PCS, but by the roaming partner.

Regardless, Sprint's map does indeed show areas that are covered via
roaming agreements. They don't just say "no roaming charges;" they also
provide a map showing just where you can use your phone. In this case
they apparently lost an agreement (perhaps temporarily, or they are
adding native PCS coverage), and the map has been updated accordingly.

Of course, Sprint's maps, like most every other carrier's, come with a
pretty big disclaimer:
"Coverage Maps: Maps depict approximate service areas for outdoor
coverage based on computer-generated radio-frequency coverage
projections and information provided by third parties, but are not a
guarantee of service availability. Actual coverage, quality and
availability of coverage may vary based on network problems, signal
strength, your equipment, terrain, structures, weather and other
limitations or conditions. Coverage is not available everywhere and may
not be available in all areas depicted on these maps."


> In my opinion the
> Advantage Agreement only obligates Sprint PCS to reasonably maintain
> their own network. They are not required to maintain roaming
> agreements nor are they responsible for the roaming carrier's

While you do have a point, if the OP signed up with Sprint to use his
phone specifically in the areas shown as covered on Sprint's map--that
are no longer covered--it would be nice if Sprint dropped the ETF
(assuming the OP's contract started with a no-roaming-charges plan or
add-on from the get-go).


> network. Carriers should be chosen by where they have coverage. If
> you really need service where they do not have coverage, you can not
> rely on roaming, then carrying more than one phone from more than one
> carrier is prudent. A fair sized portion of the triangle on the map
> was white indicating no service from any carrier.

I don't believe this is true. Just because Sprint's calls the white
areas "No Service Available" doesn't mean there is no service there from
any carrier. Indeed, that very area is covered by Brazos Cellular (whom
I suspect was the roaming partner in question).


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
> Indeed, that very area is covered by Brazos Cellular (whom
> I suspect was the roaming partner in question).

Its more likely it was Brazos (at least in part) as they have stores in
Olney and Graham. Hard to tell from the on-line maps and don't have the
link that someone researched all the coverage areas of the carriers.

Why argue the point in the newsgroup and have Jerome consistently tell you
that there is nothing that can be done.

Present your case to the Better Business Bureau. www.bbb.org. Trust me,
SprintPCS will respond quickly (and generally fairly) to complaints lodged
with the BBB. SprintPCS at one time was listed as unacceptable for years
with the BBB.


"DecTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> Sprint PCS has not, at least I find it extremely doubtful, eliminated any
>> Sprint PCS coverage.
>
> No, they never dropped any of their network coverage.
>
>> And those changes are not necessarily initiated by Sprint PCS, but by the
>> roaming partner.
>
> Yes, Alamosa dropped the coverage agreement.
>
>> In my opinion the Advantage Agreement only obligates Sprint PCS to
>> reasonably maintain their own network. They are not required to
>> maintain roaming agreements nor are they responsible for the roaming
>> carrier's network.
>
> That's a reasonable expectation, but if you purchase their product based
> on roaming coverage they advertise and loose it, its also a reasonable
> expectation that they can let you out of your contract without the ETF.
> Its not like its a common situation that is often abused. A few oil field
> service companies in the Jacksboro area were left high and dry with no
> coverage outside of Jacksboro.
>
>> Carriers should be chosen by where they have coverage.
>
> I choose sprint because they DID in fact have coverage (albeit with a
> roaming partner) where Cingular was marginal (at that time) and Verizon
> has no local POP numbers in my area and T-Mobile has no rural coverage.
>
>> If you really need service where they do not have coverage...more than
>> one phone from more than one carrier is prudent
>> than one phone from more than one carrier is prudent.
>
> Often considered that. In fact thats what I did many years ago with SW
> Bell's IMTS mobile phone service.
>
>> A fair sized portion of the triangle on the map was white indicating no
>> service from any carrier.
>
> Actually, Verizon and Cingular have coverage there now from personal
> experience, although the maps may not indicate coverage.

Steve wrote:
> Why argue the point in the newsgroup and have Jerome consistently tell you
> that there is nothing that can be done.
>
> Present your case to the Better Business Bureau. www.bbb.org. Trust me,
> SprintPCS will respond quickly (and generally fairly) to complaints lodged
> with the BBB. SprintPCS at one time was listed as unacceptable for years
> with the BBB.

I have the obligatory trouble ticket opened for them to "check out for
any tower issues" and he wanted street intersections and zip codes. I
kept telling the tech support rep to just LOOK at the coverage map to
see there isn't any coverage.

Steve wrote:
> Why argue the point in the newsgroup and have Jerome consistently tell you
> that there is nothing that can be done.

Oh well...Cingular has John Navis and Sprint NG has Jerome.

DecTxCowboy wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> Why argue the point in the newsgroup and have Jerome consistently
>> tell you that there is nothing that can be done.
>
> Oh well...Cingular has John Navis and Sprint NG has Jerome.

That's cuz we got first pick! <g>

Happy Thanksgiving to all!


--
Mike

Every newsgroup has their "Shills". Why should this one be any different?
:-)

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DecTxCowboy wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>> Why argue the point in the newsgroup and have Jerome consistently
>>> tell you that there is nothing that can be done.
>>
>> Oh well...Cingular has John Navis and Sprint NG has Jerome.
>
> That's cuz we got first pick! <g>
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to all!
>
>
> --
> Mike
>

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Every newsgroup has their "Shills". Why should this one be any different?
> :-)

Yeah...the self-proclaimed experts that get all their info from the web
and not from real life experiences.

Navis keeps ranting and he's not even a professional in the business.

DecTxCowboy wrote:
>
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
> > Every newsgroup has their "Shills". Why should this one be any different?
> > :-)
>
> Yeah...the self-proclaimed experts that get all their info from the web
> and not from real life experiences.
>
> Navis keeps ranting and he's not even a professional in the business.

1) I think you missed it on "Shill."

Shill: One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe
bystanders into participating in a swindle.


2) As far as Navas goes, whether you agree with him or not, he *has* been around:

http://navasgrp.home.att.net

Notan

Paul Miner wrote:
> If he's using the same or
> similar tool, he won't have an easy time of converting coverage gaps

My gawd...the area is 60 miles across and 20 miles wide, I hope he can
notice that!