Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers change companies

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

> Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
> www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask
> the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers
> change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push
> last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless
> industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies
>
> www.EscapeCellHell.org

Customers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) could
benefit from this.

---

› See More: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers change companies

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:

> Customers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) could
> benefit from this.

Verizon doesn't have the same policy.

I've used other CDMA carriers' phones on Verizon before.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
S. Bennett
[email protected]


"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Customers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) could
> > benefit from this.
>
> Verizon doesn't have the same policy.
>
> I've used other CDMA carriers' phones on Verizon before.
>
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP:
0xE3AE35ED
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
[email protected]
> Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
> "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out
and buy
> slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows
98/2000/2003

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

> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.

There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Stephan Bennet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>
> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.

Let me explain it for you, idiot.

The policy does not aid Verizon customers at all. You said it would benefit
both Verizon and Sprint customers.

Once again, talking out your anal cavity about something you know nothing
about. (Specifically, Verizon's service and network, which I've been using
for over three and a half years now.)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Stephan Bennet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> > Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>=20
> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would=
=20
> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.
>=20

"Many", huh? I'm curious, do you have a number, with some kind of=20
factual backing to it?

And there won't be any reports in the reverse. SPCS has the openly=20
stated policy that we will not activate a phone we don't sell.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Topguy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
> > www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask
> > the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers
> > change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push
> > last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless
> > industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies
> >
> > www.EscapeCellHell.org
>
> Customers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) could
> benefit from this.

It would be a logistical nightmare. Who would handle the warranty?
If I take Verizon wireless phone that is tested and rated for
Verizon's network, there is no guarantee that it will work just as
well on Sprint's and vice versa.

What about accessories or testing? Sprint's equipment isn't set up to
rest, update, or troubleshoot Verizon phones. None of the stores sell
the accessories for the other carriers.

Also, Sprint's system won't allow a non-Sprint phone to be ativated,
so we'd have to request each ESN to be entered into the system.

The carriers would all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
subsidized phone with no chance of getting your money back), and get
less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).

You'd also have people in stores yelling and complaining why can't
their GSM phone be activated on a CDMA network and vice versa.

Honestly, if that passed, it could possibly plunge the entire wireless
market into chaos. Everyone would lose, but I think the one who would
lose the least would be Congular, since they now have a virtual
monopoly on the GSM market in the US.

On 10 Apr 2004 21:13:22 -0700, TechGeek wrote:

> The carriers would all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
> subsidized phone with no chance of getting your money back), and get
> less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).

This is one reason the "early contract cancellation" fee is applied.
They would not lose money on the phones.

In article <BC9EC0D4.5B4B%[email protected]>,
Steve Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

> To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be the
> same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.

Thats the excuse SprintPCS gives now for poor warranty service. "Sanyo
won't pay us back for a bleeding screen".

On 10 Apr 2004 21:13:22 -0700, [email protected] (TechGeek) wrote:

>Honestly, if that passed, it could possibly plunge the entire wireless
>market into chaos. Everyone would lose, but I think the one who would
>lose the least would be Congular, since they now have a virtual
>monopoly on the GSM market in the US.

Wasn't this same argument used when wireless number portability was
planned?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

"JRW" <no_addy@no_.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> O/Siris wrote:
>
> > "Many", huh? I'm curious, do you have a number, with some kind of
> > factual backing to it?
>
> Uh oh...you said the "F" word - factual. A word that is not in
> Phillipe's vocabulary.
>

Yep- Rob's about ready to be accused of hurling childish obscenities.

Traveling Man <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 10 Apr 2004 21:13:22 -0700, TechGeek wrote:
>
> > The carriers would all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
> > subsidized phone with no chance of getting your money back), and get
> > less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).
>
> This is one reason the "early contract cancellation" fee is applied.
> They would not lose money on the phones.

Sign up for a new plan, get the phone at a discounted price, then
cancel within two weeks.

You could also port your number out at that time, too.

Steve Johnson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BC9EC0D4.5B4B%[email protected]>...
>
> To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be the
> same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.
>
While I do agree with that, you know how many people blame the carrier
for their faulty equipment? The service provider didn't make the
phone, they were handed some unites fomr the manufacturer, they tested
out those few, said OK, then the mfg mass produced them. If the
manufacturer cuts back on quality immediatly, or later, to cut costs,
by the time it's noticed, that model was discontionued and something
new is out.

How is that the carriers fault? I'm sure it's the same across the
baord with all wireless carriers, customers with faulty equipment
blaming the provider that their phone is faulty, or that they have to
wait for testing / a replacement, they lost their phonebook etc.. The
carrier can't test the tens to hundereds of thousands of phones that
they sell, it would delay the release of phones even more (which
people are already complaining about).

Do you really think the average user on any wireless netowrk would be
willing to ship their phone to a repair facility somewhere just
because it's droping calls or it has an issue? Each Sprint store that
has service has a tester made by Agilent Tech (formerly known as HP),
which costs roughly $45,000-$60,000 just for the hardware (although
we've seen some new ones that cost uder $20,000, but not many are in
the stores). I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap to re-engineer the
software to test all the other model phones that could work on the
network (since every phone is different, every phone has a different
set of protocols for testing, the biggest difference is how the tester
itself communicates with the phone).

What about doing software and PRL updates? Right now we have roughly
25-30 different cables just for Sprint phones, plus about another
10-15 we very rarely use. Some stores just got in another 15-25
"competitive" cables so they can attempt to do phonebook swaps from
other carrier's phones. Right now, we're up to 50-70 cables in a
store, now let's add in all the others for all the phones that aren't
included, we could easily go over 100 cable sjust for updates, and the
QA departments of each carrier would have to make sure that their own
PRL versions would work with the phones.

Not only that, if this did change (and it looks like the FCC wants it
to change overnight), the stores would remain the same, so would
Sprint really be able to warrant a phone that Verizon says works, and
would Verizon care about this person who is not one of their
customers, they just have one of their phones?

What about features? If someone took a Sprint vision phone to
Verizon, the people in Verizon would have to re-write the entire
browser softwar eonto that phone. Same with ReadyLink / Push to Talk.
SMS, short mail, and many other features.

OK, what if we go to the point of phones being sold like house phones
are now. That means that the stores wouldn't have reps trained on
them, they'd just sell them and go onto the next person. I'm sure a
lot would sell a GSM phone for Sprint, or a CDMA phone for Cingular.
Where is the activation handled?

Comparing this to landline phones and the whole MaBell breakup really
isn't a good comparison. Your phone line jack in your house will be
the same (you know what I mean) to your neighbors, to the person's
down the street, to someone's across the county (and I'm talking
standard 4-wire jacks, none of the special voicemail systems / digital
phone systems in commercial settings). What comes though those wires
will also be the same all over. I can take my landline phone and plug
it into my parent's house, into a co-worker's across the country, even
your house, and it will work. Wireless networks aren't the same.
This isn't the same with wireless phones. You plug in a landline
phone, it has one place to go, though the wire. A wireless phone has
an infinite number of "places" it can go, and each system communicates
with the phones differently (roaming is only possible because phones
are programmed to adapt). Also, when the landlines broke up, it
wasn't overnight to what we had today, it took years to get it all
settled. Who knows, maybe 30 years from now we'll be in the same
situation with wireless phones, but it won't happen over night.

Honestly, I do think this would be a good idea (threw you a curve
didn't I?). It would allow the customers more variety, and IF
warranties were handled so the manufacturers were responsible for
their products as much as they should be, it would be great. BUT..
With all the abuse, fraud etc.. going on, it would be utter chaos, and
not only that, I don't think the average wireless user would be able
to handle this right now. Don't forget, wireless communications is
still in it's infancy, being popular for less than 10 years (yes I
know it's been available to the civilian public for what, 20-25
years?). It took people decades to be able to handle the landline
phones, who knows, maybe in another 10 years, it could be handled.

As for the FCC, I've started to dislike that organization a lot
working with Sprint. I've worked wiht them directly on several
occasions, and their consistent response is "We just say you have to
do it, we don't do anyhting with how it can be done". We've seen
numbers try to be ported to other carriers, and the number gets stuck
in limbo because of that. We checked with the FCC on how to resolve
issues like that, we got the same response. They set up the
regulations and a seadline, wether it's possible or not, is irrelevant
to them.

How could it be done?

First, to maximise this, we'd have to have all the carriers on one
common technology, which we're striving for, but we're still 5-10
years away from that. This would also include the above mentioned
features, such as web, SMS, ReadyLink / Push-To-Talk etc..

Second, educate the consumers and manufacturers to work together, so
that there are no middlemen involved (does this mean we'll see cel
phone repair shops like we see electronics repair shops?). This will
probabaly be the hardest part on both ends. Let the providers
concentrate on their networks.

Third, we'd have to get rid of the provider retail stores as they are
today, and get rid of the ESN limitations that some providers have in
place. This is being worked on, and to maximise on this I know Sprint
stores, and I'm sure Verizon wireless does, too, sell the parent
company's landline service together. Cingular also does it with Bell
South.

Other pointers that would make this easier for the consumers:

Universal accessories. Most phones take 2.5mm headjacks (I said most,
not all). Leather cases and holsters would be impossible, but
chargers can,and are, being done.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:12:27 -0500, Steven J Sobol <[email protected]>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Stephan Bennet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>>
>> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
>> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.
>
>Let me explain it for you, idiot.
>
>The policy does not aid Verizon customers at all. You said it would benefit
>both Verizon and Sprint customers.
>
>Once again, talking out your anal cavity about something you know nothing
>about. (Specifically, Verizon's service and network, which I've been using
>for over three and a half years now.)

Temper, temper, Steven.

The way I read it, he meant it would benefit Verizon customers who want to
switch to Sprint, since Sprint would be forced to let them use their
current phone, and it would benefit Sprint customers who want to switch to
Verizon, since Sprint would be forced to unlock their current phone for
them (and Verizon would be forced to allow it even though it's not
"approved" by them).

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Imagine waking up with someone and you're in that spooning, cuddly mode.
No one's spoken. You take the chance of saying that first sweet nothing.
And as you take that first breath and utter maybe one syllable, the person
turns to you and says, 'Not yet.' That's pretty ... funny. I think that's
sexy." - Lara Flynn Boyle on her relationship with Jack Nicholson

Steve Johnson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BC9ECEDE.5BE2%[email protected]>...
> And why are they able to do that? Because there's no/little competition in
> the handset business when you only have one consumer seller--your service
> provider. If manufacturers had to compete with other manufacturers for
> actual consumer business, rather than the few service providers' business, I
> think this situation would improve as manufacturers got the blame for poor
> h/w rather than the service provider. Sure companies have reputations now
> for their h/w, but how much so for the service of that h/w since we have to
> go to the cellular provider to obtain that service.

But they do compete with each other.

I used to see Samsung phone commercials on TV. I still see full page
ads for them all in my latest computer magazines.

Look at the commercials from the providers, get this SAMSUNG phone for
$29.99.

The manufactuers do have competition between each other, all the
carriers (except Nextel, I think) carry more than one brand of phone,
and people do shop based on reputation. I see it all the time.

"I don't want a Samsung phone because my friend had one and it was
horrible".
"I don't want anything other than a Sanyo because my friends have them
and they say their great".
"I want the Palm phone because Palm has bene in the game for a long
time, and I've owned several Palm Pilots".

and the manufactuers do (or at least put up the act that they do) want
to take responsibility for faulty products. Each provider has their
own staff who just communicate with one manufacturer, even if they
don't carry any of their phones (Sprint still had a Nokia product
manager when they didn't have any Nokias, and they still have an LG
product manager etc.).

How many brands does Sprint currently offer?
Sanyo
Samsung
Audiovox / Toshiba / Curitel
Nokia
Hitachi
Palm

Though limited chains (Telematics etc.) there's also
Sony / Ericcons
Motorola

And we used to carry:
Kyocera / Qualcomm
LG
NeoPoint
Denso

and I know there are others that I'm forgetting, but the bottom line
is that there is plenty of competition between the brands.