NEWS: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 22:40:39 GMT, Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Sep 2003
>> 18:39:19 GMT, Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The thing is, over in England where portability has been around for a
>> >while, the AVERAGE business discount is 50%, because of the willingness
>> >of businesses to change carriers.
>>
>> The big difference is that in England, businesses can change carriers while
>> keeping the same phones (just issue new SIMs), whereas here in the USA it
>> often takes all-new phones.
>
>I thought the carriers were "locking" phones so simple SIM swaps
>wouldn't work?

They do, but many except AT&T will give out the unlocking codes after
a period and there are unlocking services where you can get it done
for a relatively small fee. They exist in many major cities and
through the mail.

---

› See More: NEWS: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

On 8 Sep 2003 08:55:37 -0700, [email protected]
(Frederick) wrote:

>1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
>supposed to.)

DSL is indeed delivered over regular copper pairs. Depending on the
DSL you have it is very often delivered over the *same* copper pair as
your voice service. All DSL delivered from local telcos such as
Verizon, SBC, Qwest, etc. are for the most part delivered over the
same line you have for voice and in fact requires you to have voice
service on that line in order to serve you. Other companies offer DSL
and don't have voice service with it such as offered by Covad.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

Yes, my dsl is through Covad and like yesterday when my voice line
through sbc was having "trouble", my dsl still worked.


Group Special Mobile wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2003 08:55:37 -0700, [email protected]
> (Frederick) wrote:
>
>
>>1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
>>supposed to.)
>
>
> DSL is indeed delivered over regular copper pairs. Depending on the
> DSL you have it is very often delivered over the *same* copper pair as
> your voice service. All DSL delivered from local telcos such as
> Verizon, SBC, Qwest, etc. are for the most part delivered over the
> same line you have for voice and in fact requires you to have voice
> service on that line in order to serve you. Other companies offer DSL
> and don't have voice service with it such as offered by Covad.
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To send an email reply send to
> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

In article <[email protected]>,
DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
>did ramble:
>>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
>>> the DSL to work.
>>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
>>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
>>service.
>No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
>doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
>you need to pay for that.

Jer, I have to agree with this guy. The loop cost should be absorbed
in the cost of DSL. It is just a way for landline carriers to protect
their voice revenues from further erosion. On the other hand, DSL is down
to $29.95 plus $10.80 for basic voice service. A base price of around
$40.75. After taxes, my bill is about $54. Not a bad deal to get high
speed internet bundled with voice. But I still think that DSL should be a
standalone service.

RDT
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
> >did ramble:
> >>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service
for
> >>> the DSL to work.
> >>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
> >>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
> >>service.
> >No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
> >doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
> >you need to pay for that.
>
> Jer, I have to agree with this guy. The loop cost should be absorbed
> in the cost of DSL. It is just a way for landline carriers to protect
> their voice revenues from further erosion. On the other hand, DSL is down
> to $29.95 plus $10.80 for basic voice service. A base price of around
> $40.75. After taxes, my bill is about $54. Not a bad deal to get high
> speed internet bundled with voice. But I still think that DSL should be a
> standalone service.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>

I have Sloserv for DSL and it's always crapping out. It's $45 just for DSL
alone. But I'd NEVER go back to dial up unless I absolutely had no
alternative.

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

>
> ""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
> > >did ramble:
> > >>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service
> for
> > >>> the DSL to work.
> > >>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
> > >>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
> > >>service.
> > >No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
> > >doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
> > >you need to pay for that.
> >
> > Jer, I have to agree with this guy. The loop cost should be absorbed
> > in the cost of DSL. It is just a way for landline carriers to protect
> > their voice revenues from further erosion. On the other hand, DSL is down
> > to $29.95

not really. The $29.95 price from SBC is for 12 months only, after which
it reverts to $39.95 or $49.95 / month depending on what speed you want.



> plus $10.80 for basic voice service.


That equals $20 + /month after taxes, fees and long distance connect
charges are added.



> A base price of around
> > $40.75. After taxes, my bill is about $54.

Just wait till your 12 months are up.

> Not a bad deal to get high
> > speed internet bundled with voice. But I still think that DSL should be a
> > standalone service.
> >
> > RDT
> > --
> > "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> > inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> > --- Sir Winston Churchill
> >
>
> I have Sloserv for DSL and it's always crapping out. It's $45 just for DSL
> alone. But I'd NEVER go back to dial up unless I absolutely had no
> alternative.

CommieCast charges $39.95 for cable internet if you got cable TV with them,
otherwise $54.95.
""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
> >did ramble:
> >>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service
for
> >>> the DSL to work.
> >>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
> >>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
> >>service.
> >No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
> >doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
> >you need to pay for that.
>
> Jer, I have to agree with this guy. The loop cost should be absorbed
> in the cost of DSL. It is just a way for landline carriers to protect
> their voice revenues from further erosion. On the other hand, DSL is down
> to $29.95 plus $10.80 for basic voice service. A base price of around
> $40.75. After taxes, my bill is about $54. Not a bad deal to get high
> speed internet bundled with voice. But I still think that DSL should be a
> standalone service.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>

Not true. I called to inquire about activating an Audiovox CDM-9155
GPX. Verizon offers that phone. The version I have is from one of
thier competitors. I do have the Master Subsidiary Lock. Verizon
claims the phone will be incompatible with its PRL software.

Paul J. Lucas wrote:
> In alt.cellular.verizon norelpref <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:48:35 GMT, "Paul J. Lucas"
>><[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> But, at least with Sprint, they won't activate a phone they
>>> didn't originally sell for their service on their network.
>>
>
> Verizon will activate any tri-mode phone.
>
> - Paul

It is true. Don't tell them its not their phone. Do an esn change and make
sure the MSL has been changed to 000000. Then do *22801, *22802, *22803 and
so on till you hit Verizon and press 1 to program the phone and your all
done.


About Dakota wrote:
> Not true. I called to inquire about activating an Audiovox CDM-9155
> GPX. Verizon offers that phone. The version I have is from one of
> thier competitors. I do have the Master Subsidiary Lock. Verizon
> claims the phone will be incompatible with its PRL software.
>
> Paul J. Lucas wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.verizon norelpref <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:48:35 GMT, "Paul J. Lucas"
>>> <[email protected]> said:
>>>
>>>> But, at least with Sprint, they won't activate a phone they
>>>> didn't originally sell for their service on their network.
>>>
>>
>> Verizon will activate any tri-mode phone.
>>
>> - Paul

Actually, SBC DSL is an add-on service. If you don't have QUALIFYING phone
service from SBC then you can't ADD-ON the DSL!

I've had 3 different DSL lines installed, the PacBell/SBC, a Northpoint and
a Covad line. The Northpoint and the Covad lines were installed parallel to
the SBC line and didn't require phone numbers. The SBC line comes on the
same copper as the regular phone and is split outside at the demarcation
point and enters the apartment as 2 separate lines.

So the insistence of SBC that you have a telephone number is not technical
since all three lines connected to the same CO. It's strictly marketing to
the existing telephone base and it's smart marketing too. By requiring
telephone service you get twice as much income out of the same pair of
copper wires!

James

--
YES on Recall - YES on Tom McClintock!! www.helptom.com

"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption. The heart of
the Democratic Party and its activist core is made up of government unions,
government dependent professions (teachers, social workers, civil servants);
special interest and special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good
example) that feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies,
African Americans being the most prominent, who are disproportionately
invested in government jobs and in programs that government provides. The
Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically
feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as
possible'. Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda. Consequently,
Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz

"jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brian peterson wrote:
> > I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
> > the DSL to work.
>
> True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
> service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
> service.
>
> --
> jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
> "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
> what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
>
>

GSM phones dont use ESN... they specifically use fixed IMEI, which yes
can be "changed"... but there are limits, and legalities....


"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> It is true. Don't tell them its not their phone. Do an esn change and make
> sure the MSL has been changed to 000000. Then do *22801, *22802, *22803 and
> so on till you hit Verizon and press 1 to program the phone and your all
> done.
>
>
> About Dakota wrote:
> > Not true. I called to inquire about activating an Audiovox CDM-9155
> > GPX. Verizon offers that phone. The version I have is from one of
> > thier competitors. I do have the Master Subsidiary Lock. Verizon
> > claims the phone will be incompatible with its PRL software.
> >
> > Paul J. Lucas wrote:
> >> In alt.cellular.verizon norelpref <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:48:35 GMT, "Paul J. Lucas"
> >>> <[email protected]> said:
> >>>
> >>>> But, at least with Sprint, they won't activate a phone they
> >>>> didn't originally sell for their service on their network.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Verizon will activate any tri-mode phone.
> >>
> >> - Paul
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

John Andrews wrote:
> GSM phones dont use ESN... they specifically use fixed IMEI, which yes
> can be "changed"... but there are limits, and legalities....

We weren't talking about GSM phones.

I called SBC about DSL service last week. They told me that their billing is
done against the landline, which I don't have. I told them we couldn't do
business in that case. It used to be that TimeWarner charged an additional
$10 if you had cablemodem standalone. Maybe SBC will wise up and drop this
demand as well. If they'd give up their demand for a "contract" I'd switch
to DSL and install the landline. Cost is the same as cablemodem and I gain
the home phone. However, I'm completely against this contract ideology. It
removes their motivation to provide good service and I prefer to stop paying
for a service when I stop wanting it.

""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In message <<[email protected]>> jer <[email protected]>
> >did ramble:
> >>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service
for
> >>> the DSL to work.
> >>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
> >>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
> >>service.
> >No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
> >doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
> >you need to pay for that.
>
> Jer, I have to agree with this guy. The loop cost should be absorbed
> in the cost of DSL. It is just a way for landline carriers to protect
> their voice revenues from further erosion. On the other hand, DSL is down
> to $29.95 plus $10.80 for basic voice service. A base price of around
> $40.75. After taxes, my bill is about $54. Not a bad deal to get high
> speed internet bundled with voice. But I still think that DSL should be a
> standalone service.
>
> RDT
> --
> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
> inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
> --- Sir Winston Churchill
>