Metro PCS Question

Question:

Can a Metro PCS user in the Bay Area retrieve their voicemail
via an 800 number or other landline? Or must they do it
on-air from their phone (and, hence, be within coverage range)?

Thanks much

Steve

---

› See More: Metro PCS Question

Steve Pope wrote:
> Question:
>
> Can a Metro PCS user in the Bay Area retrieve their voicemail
> via an 800 number or other landline? Or must they do it
> on-air from their phone (and, hence, be within coverage range)?

You can call your MetroPCS phone number to access voice-mail. It isn't
toll free.

One thing good about some carriers, i.e. Verizon, is that you can call a
special number to access your voice mail, and it comes out of your
in-network minutes, rather than your peak minutes. I program these into
my phone. It's more effort since you have to enter your phone number
when you call, rather than just your access code.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Can a Metro PCS user in the Bay Area retrieve their voicemail
>> via an 800 number or other landline? Or must they do it
>> on-air from their phone (and, hence, be within coverage range)?

>You can call your MetroPCS phone number to access voice-mail. It isn't
>toll free.

Thanks, the subject in question was able to retrieve his messages
this way.

Steve

SMS wrote:

> One thing good about some carriers, i.e. Verizon, is that you can call a
> special number to access your voice mail, and it comes out of your
> in-network minutes, rather than your peak minutes.

Really? Did that change? It only used to be true in some markets, and then
IIRC, they changed the rule so it wasn't M2M anywhere.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Steve Sobol wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> One thing good about some carriers, i.e. Verizon, is that you can call
>> a special number to access your voice mail, and it comes out of your
>> in-network minutes, rather than your peak minutes.
>
> Really? Did that change? It only used to be true in some markets, and
> then IIRC, they changed the rule so it wasn't M2M anywhere.

Hmm, I should check to see if this has changed or not. It was always
M2M, and I assumed that it hadn't changed since the number didn't
change. I'll have to check that out. I can always call from a land line.

SMS wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> One thing good about some carriers, i.e. Verizon, is that you can
>>> call a special number to access your voice mail, and it comes out of
>>> your in-network minutes, rather than your peak minutes.
>>
>> Really? Did that change? It only used to be true in some markets, and
>> then IIRC, they changed the rule so it wasn't M2M anywhere.
>
> Hmm, I should check to see if this has changed or not. It was always
> M2M, and I assumed that it hadn't changed since the number didn't
> change. I'll have to check that out. I can always call from a land line.

At one time in the pre-Cingular days SBC would not allow to to access
voice mail from another phone due to "security reasons". Somehow a $5
extra monthly fees negated those concerns.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

SMS wrote:

> Hmm, I should check to see if this has changed or not. It was always
> M2M, and I assumed that it hadn't changed since the number didn't
> change. I'll have to check that out. I can always call from a land line.

It was never true in my old market (Ohio/Michigan).

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 05 Dec 2005
05:57:53 GMT, George Grapman <[email protected]> wrote:

> At one time in the pre-Cingular days SBC would not allow to to access
>voice mail from another phone due to "security reasons". Somehow a $5
>extra monthly fees negated those concerns.

Actually just the difference between Basic Voice Mail and Enhanced Voice Mail.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

George Grapman wrote:

> At one time in the pre-Cingular days SBC would not allow to to access
> voice mail from another phone due to "security reasons". Somehow a $5
> extra monthly fees negated those concerns.

Argh, I remember that. I wanted to check my voice-mail from Taiwan, and
I called Pacific Bell and got the $5 story. Of course that was the least
of their problems back then.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> George Grapman wrote:
>
> > At one time in the pre-Cingular days SBC would not allow to to access
> > voice mail from another phone due to "security reasons". Somehow a $5
> > extra monthly fees negated those concerns.
>
> Argh, I remember that. I wanted to check my voice-mail from Taiwan, and
> I called Pacific Bell and got the $5 story. Of course that was the least
> of their problems back then.

In the PacBell Mobile Services days, the only identifier for voicemail
was CID. They did not use an email password. They also did not check
that the call was coming from an MTSO switch (much less the IMEI
number), so it was possible to spoof CID with a PRI and enter
unauthorized PBMS voicemail boxes.

Some years ago, I called PBMS and complained about this insecurity and
they laughed at me. So I demonstrated the technique (by entering the
setup/retrieval menu of the vm box of their choosing right then and
there) and all hell broke loose. Their first line of defense was to
threaten me and treat me like a criminal. When that didn't work, they
added passwords to the mailboxes.

Adding those passwords made it possible to allow VM checking from a
phone other than the customer's mobile. Since it a service not
originally specified, they considered it an "enhanced feature" and
charged $5/month for it. Seemed fair to me.

Now, the system has to see a matching mobile number/IMEI pair to allow
access to the box without using the password from the customer's phone.

--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid
+1 408 266 4400 | Sana Zay, CA

John Higdon wrote:

> Adding those passwords made it possible to allow VM checking from a
> phone other than the customer's mobile. Since it a service not
> originally specified, they considered it an "enhanced feature" and
> charged $5/month for it. Seemed fair to me.

Except that the other carriers weren't charging for this "enhanced feature."

As I said, that was the least of their problems back then, though it was
annoying. Amusingly, when I called them from Taiwan and I declined the
$5 per month option, the customer-service person offered to check my
voice-mail for me!

I still shudder when I think of my year of hell with Cingular.

SMS <[email protected]> writes:

>As I said, that was the least of their problems back then, though it was
>annoying. Amusingly, when I called them from Taiwan and I declined the
>$5 per month option, the customer-service person offered to check my
>voice-mail for me!

>I still shudder when I think of my year of hell with Cingular.

As soon as I called to cancel, they offered to reduce the $5 monthly
charge only $2 per month or so.

Another odd thing. After I declined the above offer, and they cancelled
my account, my Motorola mobile instantly erased all its phonebook
entries. What a malicious way to get rid of a customer.
--
Rahul

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> As I said, that was the least of their problems back then, though it was
>> annoying. Amusingly, when I called them from Taiwan and I declined the
>> $5 per month option, the customer-service person offered to check my
>> voice-mail for me!
>
>> I still shudder when I think of my year of hell with Cingular.
>
> As soon as I called to cancel, they offered to reduce the $5 monthly
> charge only $2 per month or so.

I wouldn't pay that $5, as I only needed it a few times a year when I
was traveling outside the U.S.. Even though my company would have paid
for it, it was just too outrageous.

> Another odd thing. After I declined the above offer, and they
> cancelled my account, my Motorola mobile instantly erased all its
> phonebook entries. What a malicious way to get rid of a customer.

My phone book wasn't erased when I canceled, I didn't know that was even
possible. They weren't nasty when I canceled, they explained why the
coverage was so bad compared to Verizon and AT&T (TDMA at the time),
which I thought was a pretty honest thing to do (kind of like when the
waitress at Applebee's explained to my wife that they couldn't change
any of the ingredients in what she ordered because it all came
pre-packaged and the just heated it up at the restaurant).

[email protected] (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

>Another odd thing. After I declined the above offer, and they cancelled
>my account, my Motorola mobile instantly erased all its phonebook
>entries. What a malicious way to get rid of a customer.

I assume that you had completed your contract and the phone belonged to
you, and that, in any case, the phonebook entries were your property,
not the phone companys.

So how is that different from some script kiddie deleting a file from
someone else's computer?

Also, can phone companies download address books, or just delete them?

--
On street parking is a blight on the urban landscape.
John P. Serafin | Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
jps at pobox com | Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 4 Feb 2006 02:15:54 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

>Another odd thing. After I declined the above offer, and they cancelled
>my account, my Motorola mobile instantly erased all its phonebook
>entries. What a malicious way to get rid of a customer.

Surely you're smart enough to that had nothing to do with Cingular.

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