PDA

View Full Version : Re: "10 Things Your Cell Phone Service Won't Tell You" News Article


Stu707
June 23rd 03, 01:19 AM
"AL" > wrote in news:B7pIa.47912$fh7.32242
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

> Here's a link to a true news article. Old news for most of you.
>
> AL
> "http://www.wjactv.com/money/2276817/detail.html"
>
>



> 1. "Our coverage area has more dead zones than a cemetery."

I am a Cingular subscriber in the LA area and have not found that to be a
problem.



> In the vicinity of the city, there are nearly 200 "dead zones" —
areas of heavy interference, frequent dropped calls and failed
connections — according to the office of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-
N.Y.).

If Chuckie says so, it most likey isn't so. I have used my phone while
visiting NYC with few problems.

> 4. "Our bills will annoy you — but you still gotta pay 'em."

I have contacted Cingular about billing on a few occasions. Most of the
time I was in error. The one time the bill was wrong they credited me and
apologized.

> 7. "Good luck getting your voice mail messages."

Neither I nor the other two members on my family plan have had any
problems with voicemail in the years we have been subscribers to Cingular
and its predecssor Pac Bell.


> 10. "Family plans aren't too friendly."

The cost is reasonable--an additional 9.99 per phone. Cingular offers an
option for about $7 a month (they may have increased the price recently)
that allows you unlimited calls any other Cingular subscriber.

Yazzan Gable
June 23rd 03, 06:46 AM
In article >,
Stu707 > wrote:

> "AL" > wrote in news:B7pIa.47912$fh7.32242
> @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
> > Here's a link to a true news article. Old news for most of you.
> >
> > AL
> > "http://www.wjactv.com/money/2276817/detail.html"
> >
> >
>
>
>
> > 1. "Our coverage area has more dead zones than a cemetery."
>
> I am a Cingular subscriber in the LA area and have not found that to be a
> problem.

Well, on behalf of all the cingular victims in San Francisco, there are
more holes in coverage than in a block of Swiss cheese...

Coverage is crap in San Francisco, so Chuckie has a point.

And when I'm in LA, I get more dropped calls that typical (especially in
the San Gabriel Valley)...


> > 7. "Good luck getting your voice mail messages."
>
> Neither I nor the other two members on my family plan have had any
> problems with voicemail in the years we have been subscribers to Cingular
> and its predecssor Pac Bell.
>

Except for a 4 month period when VM would have a 7 to 24 hour delay
getting messages from the system.

John Navas
June 23rd 03, 09:54 PM
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In > on Sun, 22 Jun 2003
22:46:09 -0700, Yazzan Gable > wrote:

>In article >,
> Stu707 > wrote:
>
>> "AL" > wrote in news:B7pIa.47912$fh7.32242
>> @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>>
>> > Here's a link to a true news article. Old news for most of you.
>> >
>> > AL
>> > "http://www.wjactv.com/money/2276817/detail.html"

>> > 1. "Our coverage area has more dead zones than a cemetery."
>>
>> I am a Cingular subscriber in the LA area and have not found that to be a
>> problem.
>
>Well, on behalf of all the cingular victims in San Francisco, there are
>more holes in coverage than in a block of Swiss cheese...
>
>Coverage is crap in San Francisco, so Chuckie has a point.

I personally find the coverage in San Francisco to be pretty good.

>And when I'm in LA, I get more dropped calls that typical (especially in
>the San Gabriel Valley)...
>
>> > 7. "Good luck getting your voice mail messages."
>>
>> Neither I nor the other two members on my family plan have had any
>> problems with voicemail in the years we have been subscribers to Cingular
>> and its predecssor Pac Bell.
>
>Except for a 4 month period when VM would have a 7 to 24 hour delay
>getting messages from the system.

I've never had that problem.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Spammay Blockay
June 24th 03, 07:55 AM
In article >,
John Navas > wrote:
>>
>>Coverage is crap in San Francisco, so Chuckie has a point.
>
>I personally find the coverage in San Francisco to be pretty good.

Are you kidding? Noe Valley is one big black hole. Going over
Twin Peaks I *always* lose my connections (and it's not like
Twin Peaks is in the boonies). Even driving up and down Hwy 280 from
San Francisco to Palo Alto, I'll lose the signal quite often.

You must have some wonderful phone that you don't have these problems!

- Tim

--

Strontium
June 24th 03, 08:58 AM
A phone can make the 'difference'.

-
Spammay Blockay stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

> In article >,
> John Navas > wrote:
>>>
>>> Coverage is crap in San Francisco, so Chuckie has a point.
>>
>> I personally find the coverage in San Francisco to be pretty good.
>
> Are you kidding? Noe Valley is one big black hole. Going over
> Twin Peaks I *always* lose my connections (and it's not like
> Twin Peaks is in the boonies). Even driving up and down Hwy 280 from
> San Francisco to Palo Alto, I'll lose the signal quite often.
>
> You must have some wonderful phone that you don't have these problems!
>
> - Tim

--
I'm sorry. Apparently, I'm feeling a little too psychotic this morning.

-The main character in Postal 2

John Navas
June 24th 03, 07:34 PM
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In > on Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:55:26 GMT,
(Spammay Blockay) wrote:

>In article >,
>John Navas > wrote:
>>>
>>>Coverage is crap in San Francisco, so Chuckie has a point.
>>
>>I personally find the coverage in San Francisco to be pretty good.
>
>Are you kidding? Noe Valley is one big black hole. Going over
>Twin Peaks I *always* lose my connections (and it's not like
>Twin Peaks is in the boonies). Even driving up and down Hwy 280 from
>San Francisco to Palo Alto, I'll lose the signal quite often.

I'm not kidding -- in the places I go, which may well be different from the
places you go, I find the coverage to be pretty good.

>You must have some wonderful phone that you don't have these problems!

I do have a wonderful phone: Ericsson T39m.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Yazzan Gable
June 26th 03, 12:42 AM
In article >,
John Navas > wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:55:26 GMT,
> (Spammay Blockay) wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >John Navas > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Coverage is crap in San Francisco, so Chuckie has a point.
> >>
> >>I personally find the coverage in San Francisco to be pretty good.
> >
> >Are you kidding? Noe Valley is one big black hole. Going over
> >Twin Peaks I *always* lose my connections (and it's not like
> >Twin Peaks is in the boonies). Even driving up and down Hwy 280 from
> >San Francisco to Palo Alto, I'll lose the signal quite often.
>
> I'm not kidding -- in the places I go, which may well be different from the
> places you go, I find the coverage to be pretty good.
>
> >You must have some wonderful phone that you don't have these problems!
>
> I do have a wonderful phone: Ericsson T39m.

Well, I have a wonderful phone too: Ericsson R520m with the IAT-10. =P

And coverage in the Richmond beyond Geary St. is gawd-awful. Noe Valley
is a black hole, the Sunset, especially around Noriega /30th is marginal
at best...and how about that hole around the sewage plant off of Great
Highway just past the Zoo?

If you spend all your time downtown or along the freeways, it's not too
bad.

But in the residential areas, it's not good. It's ****e. And there's a
lot of residential in San Fran.

Steven Scharf
June 26th 03, 02:13 AM
The Bay Area is NOT the place to get Cingular or AT&T GSM.
You may get lucky and only go to the areas with coverage, but
coverage in general is very poor, at least in San Francisco,
the peninsula, Silicon Valley, Marin, and the East Bay.

BTW, I was on vacation in Alaska last week. No GSM. No iDEN.
TDMA and CDMA in the medium to large towns, TDMA in the
small towns, AMPS in the boonies and just about everywhere
I went except the national parks. I ran into several unhappy
GSM users on the train who saw me talking and wanted to know
which carrier I had, and one unhappy Nextel user at the
Anchorage airport. Fortunately, everywhere that I had CDMA
coverage it was on the Verizon Extended Network, and I was
careful to not make many calls while roaming on AMPS.

The locals in Alaksa mostly use TDMA. You can still buy and
activate AMPS only phones too (including 3W lunchbox style
phones and the MicroTac flip phone). I suspect that Alaska's
TDMA carriers will not bother to move to GSM because there
are so few AMPS+GSM handsets available, and no one in Alaska
would buy a phone without AMPS.

You may never go to Alaska, you may never go out into rural
areas while on vacation, or you may rationalize that you don't
want to be bothered with cellular interruptions while on vacation,
or while in the rural parts of the bay area, but it was very
useful for me to be able to call hotels and tour companies and
be able to have them call me back. I could call the hotels
from the train and they'd have the shuttle waiting when I
arrived. We were travelling with another family, and often
we were able to coordinate logistics via cellular.

Steve
"http://www.sfbacell.com"

"Yazzan Gable" > wrote in message ...

<snip>

> And coverage in the Richmond beyond Geary St. is gawd-awful. Noe Valley
> is a black hole, the Sunset, especially around Noriega /30th is marginal
> at best...and how about that hole around the sewage plant off of Great
> Highway just past the Zoo?
>
> If you spend all your time downtown or along the freeways, it's not too
> bad.
>
> But in the residential areas, it's not good. It's ****e. And there's a
> lot of residential in San Fran.

John Navas
June 26th 03, 02:56 PM
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In > on Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:49:06
-0700, Joseph > wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:50:58 GMT, John Navas
> wrote:
>>
>>In > on 25 Jun 2003 18:13:54
>>-0700, (Steven Scharf) wrote:
>>
>>>The Bay Area is NOT the place to get Cingular or AT&T GSM.
>>>You may get lucky and only go to the areas with coverage, but
>>>coverage in general is very poor, at least in San Francisco,
>>>the peninsula, Silicon Valley, Marin, and the East Bay.
>>
>>Not true.
>
>Good answer John! I'm sure that answer will placate anyone who cares.
>Sheesh!

I've actually covered this in considerable detail in the past. "Google is
your friend." I just don't have the time to go around again with Steven,
whose anti-GSM vendetta still seems to be going strong.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Steven Scharf
June 26th 03, 05:46 PM
John Navas > wrote in message news:<hYCKa.5704$%+> >>Not true.
> >
> >Good answer John! I'm sure that answer will placate anyone who cares.
> >Sheesh!
>
> I've actually covered this in considerable detail in the past.

No you haven't. You have never provided a coherent reply
with backup for your claims. Every independent study on
carriers, including ones from Consumer Reports and the
Bay Area Consumer Checkbook, contradict your claims.

> "Google is
> your friend." I just don't have the time to go around again with Steven,
> whose anti-GSM vendetta still seems to be going strong.

I own a GSM phone (three in fact). I use GSM when travelling to
Asian countries that have it (Taiwan & China). However GSM is in
its infancy in the U.S. and the poor coverage (and in some areas
the complete lack of coverage) is not acceptable. I had GSM in
the Bay Area for a year, as did my wife. The day our contracts
were over we dumped it.

Michael Lynch
June 26th 03, 08:19 PM
"Joseph" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:50:58 GMT, John Navas
> > wrote:
> >
> >Not true.
>
> Good answer John! I'm sure that answer will placate anyone who cares.
> Sheesh!
>

Hey, it's better than his, equally ridiculous, single-word, "rubbish"
replies.


--
Mike

Jerome Zelinske
June 26th 03, 10:54 PM
Of course a lot can happen in four years, but by then those amps
phones will be useless. And those dual mode phones will no longer have
backup.


Steven Scharf wrote:
> The Bay Area is NOT the place to get Cingular or AT&T GSM.
> You may get lucky and only go to the areas with coverage, but
> coverage in general is very poor, at least in San Francisco,
> the peninsula, Silicon Valley, Marin, and the East Bay.
>
> BTW, I was on vacation in Alaska last week. No GSM. No iDEN.
> TDMA and CDMA in the medium to large towns, TDMA in the
> small towns, AMPS in the boonies and just about everywhere
> I went except the national parks. I ran into several unhappy
> GSM users on the train who saw me talking and wanted to know
> which carrier I had, and one unhappy Nextel user at the
> Anchorage airport. Fortunately, everywhere that I had CDMA
> coverage it was on the Verizon Extended Network, and I was
> careful to not make many calls while roaming on AMPS.
>
> The locals in Alaksa mostly use TDMA. You can still buy and
> activate AMPS only phones too (including 3W lunchbox style
> phones and the MicroTac flip phone). I suspect that Alaska's
> TDMA carriers will not bother to move to GSM because there
> are so few AMPS+GSM handsets available, and no one in Alaska
> would buy a phone without AMPS.
>
> You may never go to Alaska, you may never go out into rural
> areas while on vacation, or you may rationalize that you don't
> want to be bothered with cellular interruptions while on vacation,
> or while in the rural parts of the bay area, but it was very
> useful for me to be able to call hotels and tour companies and
> be able to have them call me back. I could call the hotels
> from the train and they'd have the shuttle waiting when I
> arrived. We were travelling with another family, and often
> we were able to coordinate logistics via cellular.
>
> Steve
> "http://www.sfbacell.com"
>
> "Yazzan Gable" > wrote in message ...
>
> <snip>
>
>>And coverage in the Richmond beyond Geary St. is gawd-awful. Noe Valley
>>is a black hole, the Sunset, especially around Noriega /30th is marginal
>>at best...and how about that hole around the sewage plant off of Great
>>Highway just past the Zoo?
>>
>>If you spend all your time downtown or along the freeways, it's not too
>>bad.
>>
>>But in the residential areas, it's not good. It's ****e. And there's a
>>lot of residential in San Fran.
>

Jerome Zelinske
June 27th 03, 11:06 AM
Interesting. cingular here is all 800 MHz tdma, tmobile is all
1900 MHz everywhere.


wrote:
> Since TMobile uses Cingular towers and service, if you live in the
> bay area stay far away from TMobile. I got Tmobile in August 2002.
> Immediately I realized the service was poor. I called up the company
> to try to cancel the service and they gave me a bs story that service
> is improving and dont worry.
>
> It never gotr any better and only used the phone when out of town or
> the area. Average 50 minutes a month out of 1000.
>
> The final blow was when I lent my son the phone because he was going
> out with his friends in a car. You guessed it there was an accident
> and he attempted to call 911. No signal.!!!!
>
> I called up Tmobile and they stated they know about 6 major areas in
> my city (Fremont, Ca) that has no service. They did not say when or if
> they will improve services. At that point I told them I wanted out of
> their contract and they said no way. I stated that a comtract is a 2
> party agreement for services. In their case they did not deliever so I
> stated I want to get out of the contract. They refused and stated
> there will be a large penalty. After spending an hour with their csr
> and alleged supervisor I got no where. I went on their on line site
> and spent loads of time just listening to the corporate bs.
>
> The bottom line is I just shut off the phone, sent them a letter and
> told them I am refusing to pay.
>
> I dare them to try to sue me
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:27 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Of course a lot can happen in four years, but by then those amps
>>phones will be useless. And those dual mode phones will no longer have
>>backup.
>>
>>
>>Steven Scharf wrote:
>>
>>>The Bay Area is NOT the place to get Cingular or AT&T GSM.
>>>You may get lucky and only go to the areas with coverage, but
>>>coverage in general is very poor, at least in San Francisco,
>>>the peninsula, Silicon Valley, Marin, and the East Bay.
>>>
>>>BTW, I was on vacation in Alaska last week. No GSM. No iDEN.
>>>TDMA and CDMA in the medium to large towns, TDMA in the
>>>small towns, AMPS in the boonies and just about everywhere
>>>I went except the national parks. I ran into several unhappy
>>>GSM users on the train who saw me talking and wanted to know
>>>which carrier I had, and one unhappy Nextel user at the
>>>Anchorage airport. Fortunately, everywhere that I had CDMA
>>>coverage it was on the Verizon Extended Network, and I was
>>>careful to not make many calls while roaming on AMPS.
>>>
>>>The locals in Alaksa mostly use TDMA. You can still buy and
>>>activate AMPS only phones too (including 3W lunchbox style
>>>phones and the MicroTac flip phone). I suspect that Alaska's
>>>TDMA carriers will not bother to move to GSM because there
>>>are so few AMPS+GSM handsets available, and no one in Alaska
>>>would buy a phone without AMPS.
>>>
>>>You may never go to Alaska, you may never go out into rural
>>>areas while on vacation, or you may rationalize that you don't
>>>want to be bothered with cellular interruptions while on vacation,
>>>or while in the rural parts of the bay area, but it was very
>>>useful for me to be able to call hotels and tour companies and
>>>be able to have them call me back. I could call the hotels
>>>from the train and they'd have the shuttle waiting when I
>>>arrived. We were travelling with another family, and often
>>>we were able to coordinate logistics via cellular.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>"http://www.sfbacell.com"
>>>
>>>"Yazzan Gable" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>And coverage in the Richmond beyond Geary St. is gawd-awful. Noe Valley
>>>>is a black hole, the Sunset, especially around Noriega /30th is marginal
>>>>at best...and how about that hole around the sewage plant off of Great
>>>>Highway just past the Zoo?
>>>>
>>>>If you spend all your time downtown or along the freeways, it's not too
>>>>bad.
>>>>
>>>>But in the residential areas, it's not good. It's ****e. And there's a
>>>>lot of residential in San Fran.
>>>
>


--
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with [email protected]!
http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Michael Lynch
June 27th 03, 07:14 PM
"Steven M. Scharf" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
> "Michael Lynch" > wrote in message
> t.net...
> >
> > "Joseph" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:50:58 GMT, John Navas
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Not true.
> > >
> > > Good answer John! I'm sure that answer will placate anyone who cares.
> > > Sheesh!
> > >
> >
> > Hey, it's better than his, equally ridiculous, single-word, "rubbish"
> > replies.
>
> Not true. It's the same number of characters and uses the same amount
> of bandwidth. The only advantage of "Not true" versus "Rubbish" is that
> if you are printing out his replies then "Not true" uses less ink than
> "Rubbish."
>
>

At least you supplied an argument to backup your "not true" assertion. And
the argument seems logical, on the surface.

However, you failed to take into consideration the desired effect of each
retort. "Not true," as best as I can interpret, is meant as: "You're wrong
and I'm so arrogant I don't need to supply anything else to prove my point."

"Rubbish" is quite a bit different: it means the other party is not only
wrong, but in addition their post is equated to garbage of some kind.

In closing, I stand by my original comment that "Not true" is at least
better than "rubbish." ^_^


--
Mike
(Fully prepared for a "rubbish" reply."

Google