At 26 Jun 2011 17:05:35 +0000 tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> I'm surprised to note my new "smartphone" apparently won't be a
telephone
> unless it has bars, ie, I can't talk over WiFi. Is that standard?
If you want to add VoIP, add it. "WiFi calling" is fairly standard on T-
Mobile smartphones, because T-Mobile supports routing cellular packets
over the internet in addition to over cellular. They originally deployed
this a few years ago to help compensate for their comparatively limited
coverage.
In article <iu7v4d$mh9$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > I'm surprised to note my new "smartphone" apparently won't be a
> > telephone unless it has bars, ie, I can't talk over WiFi. Is that standard?
>
> If you want to add VoIP, add it. "WiFi calling" is fairly standard on T-
> Mobile smartphones, because T-Mobile supports routing cellular packets
> over the internet in addition to over cellular. They originally deployed
> this a few years ago to help compensate for their comparatively limited
> coverage.
don't they charge extra for that?
if cellphone companies were smart they'd offer it for free.
> If you want to add VoIP, add it. "WiFi calling" is fairly standard on T-
> Mobile smartphones, because T-Mobile supports routing cellular packets
> over the internet in addition to over cellular. They originally deployed
> this a few years ago to help compensate for their comparatively limited
> coverage.
It's still a big help for T-Mobile in some rural areas where they have
no coverage since typically you'll still have Wi-Fi available in
restaurants, hotels, etc.. Especially in the San Francisco Bay Area
where T-Mobile lost vast amounts of voice coverage when roaming
agreements with AT&T lapsed.
Standard Disclaimers
--------------------
1. Not everyone has internet access at work.
2. Not everyone lives in a city or country that has free wi-fi as
ubiquitous as what is available in most metro areas in the U.S..
3. There is a small percentage of users that use vastly more data than
the mode, mean, or median, for a good reason.
At 26 Jun 2011 12:31:58 -0700 nospam wrote:
> In article <iu7v4d$mh9$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm surprised to note my new "smartphone" apparently won't be a
> > > telephone unless it has bars, ie, I can't talk over WiFi. Is that
standard?
> >
> > If you want to add VoIP, add it. "WiFi calling" is fairly standard
on T-
> > Mobile smartphones, because T-Mobile supports routing cellular packets
> > over the internet in addition to over cellular. They originally
deployed
> > this a few years ago to help compensate for their comparatively
limited
> > coverage.
>
> don't they charge extra for that?
Not really. The only "charge" is that the call counts as cellular minutes.
(So "free" calls like N&W or in-network are also free over WiFi, but
"charged" minutes reduce your minute bucket just as if you called via
cellular.
You might be recalling that T-Mo used to sell an add-on package for
$10/month that offered unlimited WiFi calls, rather than having them
count the same as a cell call. That plan was optional.
Another advantage is that WiFi calls placed or received overseas are free
of roaming charges, since they count as regular (domestic) cell calls,
without the hassles of dealing with call forwarding, or giving everyone a
new number like you'd need to do with VoIP or using a local SIM.
> if cellphone companies were smart they'd offer it for free.
At 26 Jun 2011 12:59:14 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 6/26/2011 11:51 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > If you want to add VoIP, add it. "WiFi calling" is fairly standard
on T-
> > Mobile smartphones, because T-Mobile supports routing cellular packets
> > over the internet in addition to over cellular. They originally
deployed
> > this a few years ago to help compensate for their comparatively
limited
> > coverage.
>
> It's still a big help for T-Mobile in some rural areas where they have
> no coverage since typically you'll still have Wi-Fi available in
> restaurants, hotels, etc.
I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since I'm
roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero Wireless)
is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
> Especially in the San Francisco Bay Area where T-Mobile lost vast
> amounts of voice coverage when roaming agreements with AT&T lapsed.
What roaming agreements? T-Mo has native coverage in the Bay Area they
acquired from Cingular's divestiture during the AT&T merger. T-Mo took
the old Cingular/PacBell "Orange" network, and Cingular kept the "Blue"
network they acquired from the old AT&T Wireless. Where did T-Mo roam in
SF? The Blue network was mostly 800 Mhz, so T-Mo would've had no
historical reason to enter into a roaming agreement with AT&T (at the time,
T-Mo phones were 1900MHz-only) and didn't need to "roam" on Cingular,
since the two already shared the California network as parry of the
agreement that allowed Cingular to shareT-Mo's NYC network.
So what/where did this roaming cover?
I googled a little, figuring there should be a ton of complaints if T-Mo
recently lost coverage in one the largest cities in the country.
Strangely, the only references I found to T-Mo losing coverage in the Bay
Area were newsgroup posts from you that were scraped by web "forums" like
Cell Banter.
More interestingly, however, I found a bunch of complaints (mostly from
Howard Forums) from California _AT&T_customers_ that they lost coverage
because they could no longer roam on T-Mo! That actually makes more sense,
because Cingular and AT&T had extensive reciprocal roaming agreements
which presumably would've included Cingular's orange network, that
neither party would need to renew after the transfer of the Orange
network from Cingular/AT&T to T-Mo.
In article <iu86ar$8h4$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > don't they charge extra for that?
>
> Not really. The only "charge" is that the call counts as cellular minutes.
> (So "free" calls like N&W or in-network are also free over WiFi, but
> "charged" minutes reduce your minute bucket just as if you called via
> cellular.
they charge you minutes when you are using your own wifi and your own
data line (which you're paying for too) instead of their cell towers?
> You might be recalling that T-Mo used to sell an add-on package for
> $10/month that offered unlimited WiFi calls, rather than having them
> count the same as a cell call. That plan was optional.
optional, and an extra charge. it should be free.
hell they should be *paying* customers to use wifi since it reduces the
load on the cell system as well as have coverage in places that aren't
worth covering.
> Another advantage is that WiFi calls placed or received overseas are free
> of roaming charges, since they count as regular (domestic) cell calls,
> without the hassles of dealing with call forwarding, or giving everyone a
> new number like you'd need to do with VoIP or using a local SIM.
At 26 Jun 2011 14:03:07 -0700 nospam wrote:
> In article <iu86ar$8h4$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > don't they charge extra for that?
> >
> > Not really. The only "charge" is that the call counts as cellular
minutes.
> > (So "free" calls like N&W or in-network are also free over WiFi, but
> > "charged" minutes reduce your minute bucket just as if you called via
> > cellular.
>
> they charge you minutes when you are using your own wifi and your own
> data line (which you're paying for too) instead of their cell towers?
Yep. I agree it should be completely free as well, but it's their
service; you can chose to use it or not use it. To be fair, there are
still infrastructure and termination costs T-Mo has to deal with, but
they're minimal. Presumably T-Mo wants to prevent customers from moving
to lower minute (and lower revenue) rate plans if suddenly a large
portion of their calls became "free."
> > You might be recalling that T-Mo used to sell an add-on package for
> > $10/month that offered unlimited WiFi calls, rather than having them
> > count the same as a cell call. That plan was optional.
>
> optional, and an extra charge. it should be free.
Yep. The hook T-Mo's marketing department used was this was a way to get
unlimited "home phone" calling for $10/month, and that $10 would be
offset by moving to a lower rate plan if the unlimited WiFi calling
allowed it.
> hell they should be *paying* customers to use wifi since it reduces the
> load on the cell system as well as have coverage in places that aren't
> worth covering.
Tell that to every other carrier charging for femtocel calls! WiFi
calling is essentially just moving the Femtocell concept from an outboard
unit into a smartphone, which cleverly removes the geographic limitations
Femtos have to deal with, and leverages features (WiFi) many phones
already have on board, rather than have too supply customers with an
expensive chunk of auxiliary equipment.
> I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since I'm
> roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
> Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero Wireless)
> is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't renew
the roaming agreements, you're safe. The problem out here was that the
roaming agreements between T-Mobile and AT&T started as roaming
agreements between AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile, not as roaming agreements
between Cingular (which owned the 1900 MHz spectrum now owned by
T-Mobile) and T-Mobile. When Cingular bought AT&T Wireless they didn't
renew those roaming agreements.
The other problem is that AT&T was buying up their partner carriers like
Edge Wireless, though last time I checked the roaming agreement between
T-Mobile and Edge Wireless had not yet expired.
T-Mobile out here never sold 1900 MHz only GSM phones. Cingular, which
originally operate the 1900 MHz network now owned by T-Mobile did start
with 1900 Mhz only phones, or tri-band (900/1800/1900). By the time
T-Mobile started service out here they were selling dual band phones.
At 26 Jun 2011 14:53:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 6/26/2011 1:54 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since
I'm
> > roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
> > Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero
Wireless)
> > is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
>
> As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't
> renew the roaming agreements, you're safe.
A moot point with the looming merger. Iff it happens, T-Mobike is history,
if it doesn't, T-Mo its granted roaming access to AT&T's entire network
as a penalty clause.
> The problem out here was
> that the roaming agreements between T-Mobile and AT&T started as
> roaming agreements between AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile, not as roaming
> agreements between Cingular (which owned the 1900 MHz spectrum now
> owned by T-Mobile) and T-Mobile.
If you read my post, those roaming agreements seemed to be more for (old)
AT&T's benefit, not T-Mo's. Back in the day, AT&T was a TDMA carrier
converting to GSM, and was buying roaming capability from virtually every
GSM carrier in the country to try and get their new GSM network footprint
as large as possible as quickly as possible since the superior coverage
of their much older TDMA network gave users very little incentive to
switch.
> When Cingular bought AT&T Wireless
> they didn't renew those roaming agreements.
Right, because the "new" AT&T no longer needed them. What I'm setting
is that those roaming agreements in California were mostly one-way- (old)
AT&T was buying coverage from Cingular, obligations which T-Mo
"inherited" with the orange network.
There was nothing T-Mo needed from old AT&T, whose GSM coverage at the
time was inferior to the orange PacBell/Cingular/T-Mo network.
> The other problem is that AT&T was buying up their partner carriers
> like Edge Wireless, though last time I checked the roaming agreement
> between T-Mobile and Edge Wireless had not yet expired.
That's a real problem, as is the potential loss of roaming on the now
Verizon-owned Western Wireless GSM network, but again it'll all be moot
in a year one way or another.
> T-Mobile out here never sold 1900 MHz only GSM phones. Cingular, which
> originally operate the 1900 MHz network now owned by T-Mobile did start
> with 1900 Mhz only phones, or tri-band (900/1800/1900). By the time T-
> Mobile started service out here they were selling dual band phones.
T-Mobile invaded California in summer 2002, shortly after rebranding
themselves from Voicestream.
IIRC, T-Mo's first 850Mhz-capable handset, the Nokia 3595, didn't debut
until late '03 or early '04, and it was at least 2005 before most of
their handsets included 850. They were still dumping 1900-only handsets
in prepaid kits for at least a year after that, and although there was
some 850 roaming available at the time, T-Mo kept it sort of quiet so as
to not devalue their non-850 phones in customer's eyes.
So, as I said, the ability to roam on AT&T Blue would've had very little
value to T-Mo at the time, leading me to the conclusion that the expired
roaming agreement in your area was for AT&T's coverage benefit, not T-
Mobile's, and therefore long obsolete.
On 6/26/2011 3:42 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Jun 2011 14:53:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
>> On 6/26/2011 1:54 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since
> I'm
>>> roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
>>> Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero
> Wireless)
>>> is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
>>
>> As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't
>> renew the roaming agreements, you're safe.
>
> A moot point with the looming merger. Iff it happens, T-Mobike is history,
> if it doesn't, T-Mo its granted roaming access to AT&T's entire network
> as a penalty clause.
I like that. Now will AT&T continue the $10/year prepaid on T-Mobile?
Unlikely.
> If you read my post, those roaming agreements seemed to be more for (old)
> AT&T's benefit, not T-Mo's.
I know, but things changed to benefit T-Mobile subscribers. AT&T
Wireless's migration to 800 MHz GSM (originally they had GSM on 1900 and
TDMA/analog on 800) meant that T-Mobile began to benefit more than AT&T
Wireless.
Cingular's purchase of AT&T meant that T-Mobile customers now could roam
onto AT&T's very good 800 MHz GSM network. Of
> Right, because the "new" AT&T no longer needed them. What I'm setting
> is that those roaming agreements in California were mostly one-way- (old)
> AT&T was buying coverage from Cingular, obligations which T-Mo
> "inherited" with the orange network.
> There was nothing T-Mo needed from old AT&T, whose GSM coverage at the
> time was inferior to the orange PacBell/Cingular/T-Mo network.
Yep, it all reversed later on. And suddenly those of us that kept a
prepaid T-Mobile phone active wondered why our coverage was getting
poorer. Well except for one person of course!
At 26 Jun 2011 16:59:58 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 6/26/2011 3:42 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 26 Jun 2011 14:53:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
> >> On 6/26/2011 1:54 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> >>
> >>> I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since
> > I'm
> >>> roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
> >>> Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero
> > Wireless)
> >>> is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
> >>
> >> As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't
> >> renew the roaming agreements, you're safe.
> >
> > A moot point with the looming merger. Iff it happens, T-Mobike is
history,
> > if it doesn't, T-Mo its granted roaming access to AT&T's entire
network
> > as a penalty clause.
>
> I like that. Now will AT&T continue the $10/year prepaid on T-Mobile?
Unlikely.
Agreed. That's why in my opinion, the best possible outcome is that the
merger is blocked, and T-Mo gets AT&T's coverage and the $6 billion
golden handshake from AT&T the penalty clause includes.
> > If you read my post, those roaming agreements seemed to be more for
(old)
> > AT&T's benefit, not T-Mo's.
>
> I know, but things changed to benefit T-Mobile subscribers. AT&T
> Wireless's migration to 800 MHz GSM (originally they had GSM on 1900
> and TDMA/analog on 800) meant that T-Mobile began to benefit more than
> AT&T Wireless.
>
> Cingular's purchase of AT&T meant that T-Mobile customers now could
> roam onto AT&T's very good 800 MHz GSM network.
"Very good?" This from the same SMS who write in the Verizon NG today
"in my area (N. California) Verizon is the only carrier with coverage in
many locations..
"
You've been telling us for years how piss poor AT&T is in your area, but
now T-Mo is suddenly disadvantaged by losing this alleged ability to roam
on them?
> > Right, because the "new" AT&T no longer needed them. What I'm
setting
> > is that those roaming agreements in California were mostly one-way-
(old)
> > AT&T was buying coverage from Cingular, obligations which T-Mo
> > "inherited" with the orange network.
> > There was nothing T-Mo needed from old AT&T, whose GSM coverage at the
> > time was inferior to the orange PacBell/Cingular/T-Mo network.
>
> Yep, it all reversed later on. And suddenly those of us that kept a
> prepaid T-Mobile phone active wondered why our coverage was getting
> poorer. Well except for one person of course!
Apparently also the only person to have noticed in any cell forum I follow.
T-Mo certainly lost some AT&T coverage in late 2009, but most the
kvetching I've ever read came from some coverage losses in New England
from AT&T's purchase of Unicell, and a bunch in the midwest (MN, OK, MO.)
I don't recall seeing any complaints from California. I'm not saying
there was no coverage lost there, but it seemingly wasn't a big deal,
comparitively.
In a decade with T-Mo I've only roamed on AT&T a few times; most of mine
has been on regional GSMs like Viaero, iWireless, Plateau, Longlines,
Commnet, Kansas Cellular, and a lot of Western Wireless (eventually Alltel,
now Verizon.) Most places I've wanted to roam on AT&T, I couldn't, and
this was long before the end of the roaming agreements we're discussing.
On 6/26/2011 5:57 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Jun 2011 16:59:58 -0700 SMS wrote:
>> On 6/26/2011 3:42 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 26 Jun 2011 14:53:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2011 1:54 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I typically get some of my best "T-Mo" coverage in rural areas since
>>> I'm
>>>>> roaming on regional carriers usually using legacy 800MHz networks.
>>>>> Ironically, for example, rural Nebraska coverage (using Viaero
>>> Wireless)
>>>>> is better than T-Mo's native networks in Omaha and Lincoln.
>>>>
>>>> As long as AT&T doesn't buy out those smaller carriers and doesn't
>>>> renew the roaming agreements, you're safe.
>>>
>>> A moot point with the looming merger. Iff it happens, T-Mobike is
> history,
>>> if it doesn't, T-Mo its granted roaming access to AT&T's entire
> network
>>> as a penalty clause.
>>
>> I like that. Now will AT&T continue the $10/year prepaid on T-Mobile?
> Unlikely.
>
> Agreed. That's why in my opinion, the best possible outcome is that the
> merger is blocked, and T-Mo gets AT&T's coverage and the $6 billion
> golden handshake from AT&T the penalty clause includes.
I read that the Obama administration will likely push it through in an
attempt to appear business friendly prior to the 2012 election. OTOH,
AT&T seems extremely worried about it not going through and is
soliciting support from various non-profit groups to which it donates money.
I suspect that T-Mobile's recent worsening of its plans is because they
want to "prove" that less competition will not increase costs, they can
increase costs even without the acquisition.
> "Very good?" This from the same SMS who write in the Verizon NG today
> "in my area (N. California) Verizon is the only carrier with coverage in
> many locations..
> "
Everything is relative. Compared to the abysmal Cingular nee Pacific
Bell Mobile GSM coverage and capacity, AT&T was indeed "very good" once
they put GSM onto both 800 and 1900. And AT&T's TDMA/AMPS system rivaled
Verizon for coverage until the GSM conversion.
It was the Cingular/Pacific Bell Mobile disaster that led to more state
regulations in California (even though the carriers claimed that the
state has no authority over them), and that led to the 30 day return
policy offered by carriers
<http://www.informationweek.com/blog/229216457>. I did not terminate
service in-contract, I suffered for a year then canceled, even though if
I had canceled I could have later recovered the ETF (but of course I
didn't know that at the time).
smartphones and WiFi 
WiFi
Linear Mode
