phone as modem

mikeyhsd wrote:
> its very simnple, I prefer to run a MODERN compuer instead of a
> teletype that cannot interpret HTML.
>

Please excuse my amusement over the fact that your "MODERN compuer"
can't deal with a modern cellphone using readily available drivers. XP
64? BTDT months-ago. Now, if I was feeling grouchy I might point out
that anyone running XP 64 who couldn't figure out this ridiculously
easy-to-diagnose issue on their own should back away from the computer
and use WebTV. But I'm in a good mood so won't do that.

Oh yea, anyone, using almost any OS still running today, can choose to
post in HTML. Or they can choose not to. As most people can tell within
a few moments that posting in HTML is not the norm in a given NG this is
obviously just a case of PEBKAM. Alas, this seems to be the norm for the
"Web forum" generation--with their 100 KB avatars and 500 KB garish--but
animated!--signatures.


--
Mike

---

› See More: phone as modem

Tell us what you really think, Mike.

FWIW wrote:
> Tell us what you really think, Mike.

Well I did trim the profanity before sending, as it occurred to me Mikey
might be a minor.


--
Mike | Last words of Thomas Grasso, executed in 1995:
| "I did not get my Spaghetti-O's, I got spaghetti.
| I want the press to know this."

FWIW wrote:
> Eventually it will be an almost compeltely 64 bit world. Maybe in 5
> years.

Just think how much faster we'll be able to reply to posts on Usenet!


--
da
~~

Donkey Agony wrote:
>
> FWIW wrote:
> > Eventually it will be an almost compeltely 64 bit world. Maybe in 5
> > years.
>
> Just think how much faster we'll be able to reply to posts on Usenet!
>

Or ignore others! <g>

Notan

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >I'm curious, are you talking about the first rep you spoke to, or to an
> >actual Vision tech?
>
> "Teir 1 Technical Support". Whatever that is.

That's an actual Vision Tech. Like I said. I was just curious.

>
> >I once went three days straight where pulling the battery from a Vision
> >phone fixed every call that came to me. You have to consciously remind
> >yourself to actually pay attention to the phone model when you get into
> >a rut like that.
>
> Well, yeah. And when a phone has a non-removable battery, and you have
> no support ideas other than "remove the battery", then support for such
> people pretty much ends. Like I said, nobody ever called me back, but
> someone on a forum was able to help me.

As I recall, you continuously stopped describing the call at the point
of the battery mixup. If they really did give up the call at that
point, that's assinine.

If you'll humor me for a bit, do you happen to recall the precise nature
of the problem?

>
> That's exactly why I said that Sprint Tech support IS "remove the
> battery" ... because if that doesn't work, you may be SOL as far as
> Sprint is concerned. At least I was.

Not while I was there. But, having said that, some Vision techs have
been doing this since the days of the Treo 300. It's battery, too, was
integrated.

>
> >Doesn't excuse the error, but I can still understand where it might
> >happen. Once is not a trend.
>
> I agree, it's not a trend. But the promised call back never occured
> either (phone cals were working fine). So, I only tried Sprint
> "support" twice, and they batted .000

Can't say I blame you.

>
> Now, I don't buy a product I can't support myself, or that the
> manufacturer or someone other than Sprint can support.
>
> Screw me once it's your fault, twice it's mine.
>
> In order for Sprint to support a hardware device, it has to have a
> removable battery. Which a data cable doesn't have. So I don't know
> what quality of service these guys are going to get, which is why they
> should probably figure it out before they put a whole lot of money into
> the tethering solution.

Now you're getting facetious. Why exaggerate beyond all touch with
reality? You've already made your point. Now you're losing it. First
of all, it's a different level of support dealing with issues like that.
Tier 1 is (or was, when I worked there) strictly limited ot making sure
the phone itself works. Data cables would be handled by Tier II.
Second of all, a promised callback has nothing to do with how much the
techs do or don't know. It has to do with diligence.

You're cutting yourself with your own blade swinging wildly like that.

>
> ""Or what?" Or they really *do* open themselves up to legal action. "
>
> Except that they make you sign your rights away to a class action or
> jury trial (and from what I can tell ... for good reason). So they
> really don't have to do much of anything, unless you want to argue
> before the court that the arbitration clause is unconciounable, etc,
> etc.

If an entire class of customers is wrongly affected, I think that steps
outside the bounds of arbitration.

>
> Most people just want something that works out of the box.

I don't think that's true in this context. This use as a modem is,
almost by definition, stepping outside "out of the box" functionality.


--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

"As I recall, you continuously stopped describing the call at the point
of the battery mixup. If they really did give up the call at that
point, that's assinine."


Yes, I thought so.


"If you'll humor me for a bit, do you happen to recall the precise
nature
of the problem? "


This was almost a year and a half ago, but when trying to access vision
it returned an error code, something like (Cannot connect to vision
Error: XX0123 - Please contact your service provider) ... or something
of that nature. This went on for 3 days.

Tech support did not know the error code, and had no idea why it was
happening.

Promised a call back. Never did.

Posted the issue to a phone forum. Had it answered in about 90
minutes.

So, in theory, Sprint should have paid that guy for my support.

Never again have I (or will I) get a Sprint device that I cannot
readily find support for other than Sprint.

>From my personal experience, I will be left sitting by the phone (18
months later, and I'm still waiting for that callback).


"Now you're getting facetious. Why exaggerate beyond all touch with
reality? You've already made your point. Now you're losing it."

In what way? That is my official position on the matter based on first
hand experience, and the policy has served me extremely well.

" First of all, it's a different level of support dealing with issues
like that."

And I did't get the apparopriate level of support because ............
?

"Tier 1 is (or was, when I worked there) strictly limited ot making
sure
the phone itself works. Data cables would be handled by Tier II."


And my issue should have been handled by ........... ?


"Second of all, a promised callback has nothing to do with how much the
techs do or don't know. It has to do with diligence. "


Fine. So they just didn't give a ****.

I'm not sure that this makes me feel better.

I didn't receive support not because someone didn't know the answer, I
didn't receive support because nobody cared. Six of one, half dozen of
the other in my book. You either get support or you don't.

To date, I haven't (at least not from Sprint).


"If an entire class of customers is wrongly affected, I think that
steps
outside the bounds of arbitration. "


No. It doesn't. Read the contract. The only way to pave such a
lawsuit would be for someone (most likely a lawyer) to have a judge
declare the contract "unconcionable". They may be able to, they may
not.

But if all you want is a working data cable, this is tall order.


"I don't think that's true in this context. This use as a modem is,
almost by definition, stepping outside "out of the box" functionality.
"

???

Really?? Then I must be a ****ing genius. I have done it with other
carriers and have been running within 3 minutes, and most of that time
was spent cuting through that horrid plastic safe that they packaged
the cable in.

I have no idea why people think this is rocket science, if you have the
drivers, and the appropriate cable for the appropriate phone, arguable
nothing could be easier.

People have been setting up DUN since Windows 3.1.

Granted that most people who use this solution are indeed tech savvy
people (Most AOL users wouldn't know how to set this up, and Mom
wouldn't try it), but anyone who can set up dialup networking shouldn't
have a great problem.

While not as simple as creating an email in Outlook, I wouldn't call
this "out of the box".

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> And my issue should have been handled by ........... ?
>

Look again at the title of this thread. That's what I mean by this
would be handled by a different level of support.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "If an entire class of customers is wrongly affected, I think that
> steps
> outside the bounds of arbitration. "
>
>
> No. It doesn't. Read the contract. The only way to pave such a
> lawsuit would be for someone (most likely a lawyer) to have a judge
> declare the contract "unconcionable". They may be able to, they may
> not.

Maybe. I gave an opinion. That's what "I think..." means. If you know
more legal information than I, you're welcome to it.

>
> But if all you want is a working data cable, this is tall order.
>
>
> "I don't think that's true in this context. This use as a modem is,
> almost by definition, stepping outside "out of the box" functionality.
> "
>
> ???
>
> Really?? Then I must be a ****ing genius. I have done it with other
> carriers and have been running within 3 minutes, and most of that time
> was spent cuting through that horrid plastic safe that they packaged
> the cable in.

It's that easy, usually, with Sprint phones, too. I'm curious, how many
phones advertise their ability to be used as a modem? So far as I'm
aware, none of them. Thus, it is not an "out of the box" functionality.

It may work (i.e. Samsungs), it may not (i.e. Sanyos). Whatever the
cause of either, you will not find any claims by the respective
manufacturers that this is a designed functionality of the phones. Or,
to be more precise, I've not found any.

>
> I have no idea why people think this is rocket science, if you have the
> drivers, and the appropriate cable for the appropriate phone, arguable
> nothing could be easier.

You're exaggerating. Again. I said NOTHING like this. Look, maybe if
we take the conversation outside cell phones for a moment, you'll
understand what I'm saying: a U.S. football. If you use it as a pillow,
it's not difficult to do, but you're not going to find any makers of
footballs (at least the pigskin kind) advertising that they can be used
as a pillow. This use is, therefore, not an "out of the box
functionality".

I realize that analogy falls short in several ways. But the core points
are the same as my point about cell phones. It isn't harmful, or
difficult, or "new", or ANYTHING except not a use for which the
manufacturer advertises of its product.

You are reading WAY more into what I posted than I actually said.

>
> People have been setting up DUN since Windows 3.1.

So? People have been making phones calls even longer than that, and we
still get the same sorts of "how do I make a call?" support calls that
date all the way back to then. How long it's been around isn't
relevant.

>
> Granted that most people who use this solution are indeed tech savvy
> people (Most AOL users wouldn't know how to set this up, and Mom
> wouldn't try it), but anyone who can set up dialup networking shouldn't
> have a great problem.

And this denies that the manufacturers don't advertise this... how?

>
> While not as simple as creating an email in Outlook, I wouldn't call
> this "out of the box".

You're changing your own definition. I said it's NOT "out of the box".
By the very context *you set*, it's not. It's not an intended use of
the phone in the sense that any manufacturer advertises this kind of
use. Thus, it's not an "out of the box" functionality. Do you see the
"not" there this time?


--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

"It may work (i.e. Samsungs), it may not (i.e. Sanyos). Whatever the
cause of either, you will not find any claims by the respective
manufacturers that this is a designed functionality of the phones. Or,
to be more precise, I've not found any."


There are at least two I know that advertise the functionality. I
don't want to post them, because I don't want everyone to clamor for
them and haev Sprint clamp down on it. (not that they would be terribly
hard to find)

But two on the Sprint network do, indeed, advertise this.



"You're exaggerating. Again. I said NOTHING like this. Look, maybe
if
we take the conversation outside cell phones for a moment, you'll
understand what I'm saying: a U.S. football. If you use it as a
pillow,
it's not difficult to do, but you're not going to find any makers of
footballs (at least the pigskin kind) advertising that they can be used
as a pillow. This use is, therefore, not an "out of the box
functionality".



A couple of phones sold by Sprint have this out of the box (and work
quite well I may add).

They work out of the box with Bluetooth only, though.

A $25 cable will get you tethered in 3 minutes.


"I realize that analogy falls short in several ways. But the core
points
are the same as my point about cell phones. It isn't harmful, or
difficult, or "new", or ANYTHING except not a use for which the
manufacturer advertises of its product."


But Rob, surely you know that people have been doing this ever since
"Vision" started.

It may not be the most obvious thing, but even a dolt can figure out
how to do it with a web browser and an hour of time.




"So? People have been making phones calls even longer than that, and
we
still get the same sorts of "how do I make a call?" support calls that
date all the way back to then. How long it's been around isn't
relevant."



Yes, there are some (lots actually) of idiots in the world. By that
rational we could say that EVERYTHING is beyong the scope of many
people, and the statement would probably hold up to scruntiny.

However, the audience we are talking about ... people who need or
really, really want mobile web access - are likely to be able to figure
it out fairly quickly.

The people who are asking "how do I make a phone call" are most likely
on AOL or Web TV, and don't even know that wireless web access exists.



"And this denies that the manufacturers don't advertise this... how?"


It is advertised on the tech specs of a couple of phones. I don't know
how we keep getting back to this.

Is it in the big, fat print? No.

Is it in the technical specs? Yes.




"You're changing your own definition. I said it's NOT "out of the
box".
By the very context *you set*, it's not. It's not an intended use of
the phone in the sense that any manufacturer advertises this kind of
use. Thus, it's not an "out of the box" functionality. Do you see the
"not" there this time? "



I know at least a dozen people who are using it directly "out of the
box" via bluetooth.

They purchased nothing other than the phone.

You're just assuming DUN requires a cable.

For some people it does, for some, it doesn't.

It completely depends on your laptop/phone capabilities.

You can have DUN working on a couple of models with nothing but a phone
and a modern laptop.

No drivers. No cables. Just the phone and computer.

Straight outta the box .....

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "So? People have been making phones calls even longer than that, and
> we
> still get the same sorts of "how do I make a call?" support calls that
> date all the way back to then. How long it's been around isn't
> relevant."
>
>
>
> Yes, there are some (lots actually) of idiots in the world. By that
> rational we could say that EVERYTHING is beyong the scope of many
> people, and the statement would probably hold up to scruntiny.
>

It really, really confuses me the way you'll distort the discussion this
way. So I'm just not going to bother with you any more. My point was
that how long it's been around isn't relevant to whether the
functionality is "out of the box" available. NOT about whether it's
beyond the scope of people (no matter which people are the subject of
the discussion).

This is a point you brought up in the first place. About wanting
something to function out of the box. Since no one who manufacturers
for Sprint places any kind of "phone as modem" use claim on their
materials, this isn't something would get included as deserving to work
that way.

It doesn't matter that it's in fact easy to do. It doesn't matter
that's been done for three years (more if you count circuit-switched
data, which I don't). What matters is that you have no right to it
because no one making these phones is including this in the materials
available with phones sold for Sprint service.

That's the point. The point YOU RAISED IN THE FIRST PLACE. When you
can stick to your own conversations, then I'll reconsider. Until then,
you're worthy of nothing but being ignored.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

"It really, really confuses me the way you'll distort the discussion
this
way. So I'm just not going to bother with you any more."



You *ALWAYS* say that in every thread, just before proceeding to
"bother with me".







"My point was"


See I told you.


"that how long it's been around isn't relevant to whether the
functionality is "out of the box" available. NOT about whether it's
beyond the scope of people (no matter which people are the subject of
the discussion)."



It works out of the box! Either you can't read, or you don't believe
it.


"This is a point you brought up in the first place. About wanting
something to function out of the box."


It does!!!!


"Since no one who manufacturers
for Sprint places any kind of "phone as modem" use claim on their
materials, this isn't something would get included as deserving to work
that way."


Are you high or just stupid?

There are two phones that have EXACTLY this in their materials. And it
works beuatifully I might add. Set up DUN via Bluetooth, bam, you're
surfing the net. Takes 3 maybe 4 minutes. No additional purchase
necessary as long as you have a blutooth capable laptop.




"It doesn't matter that it's in fact easy to do. It doesn't matter
that's been done for three years (more if you count circuit-switched
data, which I don't). What matters is that you have no right to it
because no one making these phones is including this in the materials
available with phones sold for Sprint service."



Yes they do!!!!!!!



"That's the point. The point YOU RAISED IN THE FIRST PLACE. When you
can stick to your own conversations, then I'll reconsider. Until then,
you're worthy of nothing but being ignored. "


You said that in the first paragraph of this post before you carried on
with a 3 paragraph reply.

Is that the type of "sticking to my own conversations" you are talking
about there Mr. Consistency?

mikeyhsd wrote:
> sprint now says no, we do not support using any of our phones as a modem.
>
> only PDA type devices or plug in cards.
>
>
>
> time tolook for a different carrier.
Intresting as Nextel supports using their phones as modems. You do need
a data plan though. Supports either circuit switched or packet switched
modes.

You can change from Sprint to Nextel without an early termination fee.

I wouldn't worry so much about whether they "support" it, as I would
worry about whether they "allow" it.

If the phone can get vision, there is ample "support" online to teach
you how to set it up.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> It works out of the box! Either you can't read, or you don't believe
> it.
>

Since you're now back on subject, I'll respond. No, actually, it
doesn't. You have to purchase additional hardware. The data cable.
You need drivers that are not provided in-box.

All of which may be easy to obtain, but that's still not out-of-the-box
functionality.

Which, again, was the point of my response. You said you expected it to
work out of the box. It doesn't, even if it's not hard to achieve
afterwards. Thus, it's not a relevant point to the *original*
discussion, which was about whether Sprint supports this or not.

> There are two phones that have EXACTLY this in their materials.

And yet you won't list them. Why is that again? If it's in the
advertising, or in the manual, you can BET that Sprint has read it. So
what makes you think it's such an all-fired secret?

Perhaps because it's NOT in the phones' materials, but in third party
ones? Sure seems so, based on your baseless reticence.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+