AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract. Discuss AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract, on Wireless Forums.
AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
Updated 3d 5h ago
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their
AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device and software
application from any maker -- think smartphones, e-mail and music
downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract.
"You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la
Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even
police it."
AT&T's push to give consumers maximum control of their wireless worlds
is being driven, in part, by Google. The tech giant is a monster in
the Internet search business for personal computers, and is hoping to
replicate that success in the wireless market.
Google (GOOG) recently announced plans to link arms with more than two
dozen wireless companies, including Sprint (S), with the goal of
developing an operating system that lets consumers use any application
on mobile devices, much as they now do on PCs. Other partners include
Japanese cellphone giant DoCoMo and handset maker Samsung.
Everything that Google has promised to bring to the wireless market a
year from now AT&T is doing today, de la Vega says. "We are the most
open wireless company in the industry."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Google | AT | AT | Verizon | Ralph de la Vega
AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the
option of using devices and applications other than those offered by
AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that
consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase.
The AT&T wireless chief won't say whether AT&T plans to launch a
marketing campaign to push "open" platforms, but allows that might be
a possibility.
Despite its bear hug of "open" standards, one AT&T device, for now,
will remain tightly closed: the Apple iPhone.
AT&T has a deal with Apple to be the exclusive U.S. distributor for
the next five years. To get the device, consumers must sign a two-year
contract.
AT&T has no plans to change that arrangement, de la Vega says. "The
iPhone is a very special, innovative case."
Google's siren call for openness has stuck a finger in the eye of the
U.S. cellphone industry, which for years has kept consumers on a short
leash. Until recently, contracts were standard, and applications were
largely limited to those endorsed (sold) by carriers.
That's changing. Verizon (VZ), regarded as one of the most restrictive
carriers in terms of devices and applications, recently announced
plans to let customers use any device and application they want. [As
long as they sign a two year contract with Verizon and pay $1.99 per
MB data or add a high dollar unlimited data plan.]
The mobile Web is still considered an open -- and largely untapped --
frontier. That's one reason companies such as Google, which has little
traction there, are so nervous about getting left behind.
--
That is a bummer about the iPhone being the only exception to no
contract required. At least AT&T will prorate the early termination
fee. You could always set the iPhone up as a GO phone on AT&T which
would be no contract.
The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder
how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have
to live with them for 24 months!
> AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had
the
> option of using devices and applications other than those
offered by
> AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure
that
> consumers "know all their options" before making a final
purchase.
>
Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than
one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
years about.
Larry
--
It's the standing in front of them KNOWING he's lying through his
teeth to you that pisses me off.
> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T.
It all means nothing because their network is the same ol' Cingular
network with poor coverage and spotty service on PCS it always was,
at least where I live. Once outside the city, you'd better have
that engine trouble within 2 miles of the major interstates or
you'll be begging the farmers to use their telephones.
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
* Larry wrote:
> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
> 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T.
>
> It all means nothing because their network is the same ol' Cingular
> network with poor coverage and spotty service on PCS it always was,
> at least where I live. Once outside the city, you'd better have
> that engine trouble within 2 miles of the major interstates or
> you'll be begging the farmers to use their telephones.
>
> Larry
1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From
Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead.
2) I used a non-AT&T unlocked Nokia 6260 on their network for 3 years
without difficulty, but was told that I could only have one sim card,
therefore only one operational phone at a time -- of course, the sims
could be transferred to another phone without difficulty -- as I did a
few times when the 6260 was down.
3) Finally gave up with AT&T last July because they did not have a
vacation leave policy. I traveled out of the States about 4 months
this year and why should I waste $50/mo. Since my contract had expired a
year prior and I hadn't ever asked for a phone from them, simply
cancelled. Upon return calculated cost and discovered for the small
number of monthly minutes, it cost 20 cents/minute. So bought a sim
from T-Mobile and paid $50 for prepaid card and now the cost is 10
cents/minute. Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west
of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major
arteries. Guess that's how it works with smaller companies that can't
afford millions of antennas! Also discovered that with a prepaid card
cannot have internet coverage; therefore I cannot call overseas from the
cell phone. This is almost sufficient to force me back to AT&T.
Miles
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
4phun wrote:
> AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
> Updated 3d 5h ago
Old news (in interent time). It was out last week
> NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their
> AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device
Totally misleading as it gives clear impression that a Sprint or Verizon
CDMA phone can be used on a AT&T's GSM network.
> AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the
> option of using devices and applications other than those offered
Its been no secrete that you could use your own technology compatible
(GSM and TDMA) phone on AT&T's network.
> But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that
> consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase.
And loose a commission on a sale? Riiiight....
> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder
> how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
> must feel right now
Where is the need for a compelling switch? The love (and hate) for a
particular carrier is pretty much even across the board for all the
carriers.
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
Miles wrote:
> * Larry wrote:
>> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
>> 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T.
>>
>> It all means nothing because their network is the same ol' Cingular
>> network with poor coverage and spotty service on PCS it always was, at
>> least where I live. Once outside the city, you'd better have that
>> engine trouble within 2 miles of the major interstates or you'll be
>> begging the farmers to use their telephones.
>>
>> Larry
>
> 1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From
> Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead.
Nope, I've used Verizon extensively in those areas, from Fairfax out to
Point Reyes, along Lucas Valley Road, etc. However I'm sure some of that
coverage was on AMPS.
Also, if you go north on the coast towards Mendocino and up to Crescent
City, there are long stretches where the only coverage is AMPS, so
you're s.o.l. unless you a tri-mode phone on Sprint or Verizon.
<snip>
> Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west
> of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major
> arteries. Guess that's how it works with smaller companies that can't
> afford millions of antennas! Also discovered that with a prepaid card
> cannot have internet coverage; therefore I cannot call overseas from the
> cell phone. This is almost sufficient to force me back to AT&T.
You can always go onto a prepaid plan that uses the AT&T network, such
as 7-11 SpeakOut. It's 15¢/minute not 10¢/minute like T-Mobile, but the
coverage is much better. All airtime purchases last 365 days, just like
T-Mobile "Gold". For light use, the better network outweighs the higher
per-minute cost.
However for your area, you might want to look into PagePlus, which uses
Verizon's network, which is much better than the AT&T network in your area.
The real question is what's going to happen to all the coastal AMPS
coverage in 2008. Will the carriers turn it off and leave vast stretches
of 1 with no coverage, believing (probably correctly) that the limited
number of tri-mode phones is now small enough that the roaming revenue
is not worth maintaining the network.
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
4phun wrote:
> AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
> Updated 3d 5h ago
>
> By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
>
> NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their
> AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device and software
> application from any maker -- think smartphones, e-mail and music
> downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract.
> "You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la
> Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even
> police it."
>
> AT&T's push to give consumers maximum control of their wireless worlds
> is being driven, in part, by Google. The tech giant is a monster in
> the Internet search business for personal computers, and is hoping to
> replicate that success in the wireless market.
>
> Google (GOOG) recently announced plans to link arms with more than two
> dozen wireless companies, including Sprint (S), with the goal of
> developing an operating system that lets consumers use any application
> on mobile devices, much as they now do on PCs. Other partners include
> Japanese cellphone giant DoCoMo and handset maker Samsung.
>
> Everything that Google has promised to bring to the wireless market a
> year from now AT&T is doing today, de la Vega says. "We are the most
> open wireless company in the industry."
>
> FIND MORE STORIES IN: Google | AT | AT | Verizon | Ralph de la Vega
> AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the
> option of using devices and applications other than those offered by
> AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that
> consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase.
>
> The AT&T wireless chief won't say whether AT&T plans to launch a
> marketing campaign to push "open" platforms, but allows that might be
> a possibility.
>
> Despite its bear hug of "open" standards, one AT&T device, for now,
> will remain tightly closed: the Apple iPhone.
>
> AT&T has a deal with Apple to be the exclusive U.S. distributor for
> the next five years. To get the device, consumers must sign a two-year
> contract.
>
> AT&T has no plans to change that arrangement, de la Vega says. "The
> iPhone is a very special, innovative case."
>
> Google's siren call for openness has stuck a finger in the eye of the
> U.S. cellphone industry, which for years has kept consumers on a short
> leash. Until recently, contracts were standard, and applications were
> largely limited to those endorsed (sold) by carriers.
>
> That's changing. Verizon (VZ), regarded as one of the most restrictive
> carriers in terms of devices and applications, recently announced
> plans to let customers use any device and application they want. [As
> long as they sign a two year contract with Verizon and pay $1.99 per
> MB data or add a high dollar unlimited data plan.]
>
> The mobile Web is still considered an open -- and largely untapped --
> frontier. That's one reason companies such as Google, which has little
> traction there, are so nervous about getting left behind.
>
> --
>
> That is a bummer about the iPhone being the only exception to no
> contract required. At least AT&T will prorate the early termination
> fee. You could always set the iPhone up as a GO phone on AT&T which
> would be no contract.
>
> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder
> how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
> must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have
> to live with them for 24 months!
>
Lol AT&T is behind verizon again!
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
bdog wrote:
> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
> 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
>>Updated 3d 5h ago
>>
>
>
> So what happens to existing contracts?
>
> bdog
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
On Dec 9, 1:39 pm, Jon <J...@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> 4phun wrote:
> > AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
> > Updated 3d 5h ago
>
> > By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
>
> > NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their
> > AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device and software
> > application from any maker -- think smartphones, e-mail and music
> > downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract.
> > "You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la
> > Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even
> > police it."
>
> > AT&T's push to give consumers maximum control of their wireless worlds
> > is being driven, in part, by Google. The tech giant is a monster in
> > the Internet search business for personal computers, and is hoping to
> > replicate that success in the wireless market.
>
> > Google (GOOG) recently announced plans to link arms with more than two
> > dozen wireless companies, including Sprint (S), with the goal of
> > developing an operating system that lets consumers use any application
> > on mobile devices, much as they now do on PCs. Other partners include
> > Japanese cellphone giant DoCoMo and handset maker Samsung.
>
> > Everything that Google has promised to bring to the wireless market a
> > year from now AT&T is doing today, de la Vega says. "We are the most
> > open wireless company in the industry."
>
> > FIND MORE STORIES IN: Google | AT | AT | Verizon | Ralph de la Vega
> > AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the
> > option of using devices and applications other than those offered by
> > AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that
> > consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase.
>
> > The AT&T wireless chief won't say whether AT&T plans to launch a
> > marketing campaign to push "open" platforms, but allows that might be
> > a possibility.
>
> > Despite its bear hug of "open" standards, one AT&T device, for now,
> > will remain tightly closed: the Apple iPhone.
>
> > AT&T has a deal with Apple to be the exclusive U.S. distributor for
> > the next five years. To get the device, consumers must sign a two-year
> > contract.
>
> > AT&T has no plans to change that arrangement, de la Vega says. "The
> > iPhone is a very special, innovative case."
>
> > Google's siren call for openness has stuck a finger in the eye of the
> > U.S. cellphone industry, which for years has kept consumers on a short
> > leash. Until recently, contracts were standard, and applications were
> > largely limited to those endorsed (sold) by carriers.
>
> > That's changing. Verizon (VZ), regarded as one of the most restrictive
> > carriers in terms of devices and applications, recently announced
> > plans to let customers use any device and application they want. [As
> > long as they sign a two year contract with Verizon and pay $1.99 per
> > MB data or add a high dollar unlimited data plan.]
>
> > The mobile Web is still considered an open -- and largely untapped --
> > frontier. That's one reason companies such as Google, which has little
> > traction there, are so nervous about getting left behind.
>
> > --
>
> > That is a bummer about the iPhone being the only exception to no
> > contract required. At least AT&T will prorate the early termination
> > fee. You could always set the iPhone up as a GO phone on AT&T which
> > would be no contract.
>
> > The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder
> > how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
> > must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have
> > to live with them for 24 months!
>
> Lol AT&T is behind verizon again!
WRONG - Verizon still has contracts.
Verzion is not yet open, it is planned for 2008 and then it is only
CDMA.
There are a hell of a lot more unlocked neat GSM phones then CDMA
overpriced where the manufacturer has to pay the Qualcom royalty on
each and ever CDMA set he produces.
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> 4phun wrote:
>> downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract.
>
> Lol AT&T is behind verizon again!
I don't quite see how. AT&T has always allowed you to bring your
own phone to their network (I bought a plan without buying a phone
several years ago); Verizon says they'll allow the same thing sometime
next year.
What is new here is that if you bring your own phone to AT&T they
won't make you agree to a contract (and they're doing it now, so
it isn't just at the press-release-ware stage). Verizon hasn't said
anything about this yet, that I've noticed, so at this point we can only
hope that Verizon follows AT&T.
In fact, for Verizon to match AT&T's flexibility with equipment they'd
also need to move to phones with a SIM (okay, R-UIM) slot. I assume
they'll eventually want to do this anyway if they're going to deploy
LTE; maybe they'll follow AT&T on this sooner rather than later.
I'm actually quite happy to see the carriers getting all competitive
about this particular topic. I really hope they keep it up.
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
On 09 Dec 2007 19:03:22 GMT, bdog wrote:
> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
> 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
>> Updated 3d 5h ago
>>
>
> So what happens to existing contracts?
>
> bdog
>
> Verzion is not yet open, it is planned for 2008 and then it is only
> CDMA.
What other network do they have that you'd like them to open, retard?
>
> There are a hell of a lot more unlocked neat GSM phones then CDMA
> overpriced where the manufacturer has to pay the Qualcom royalty on
> each and ever CDMA set he produces.
You might want to look at some of the Asian carriers and the phones
available before you make that statement, Oxturd.
> Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to
have
> voice communication over one of the established cellular
telephone
> networks?
>
>
>
Sure. Do you? What a stupid question....
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
Miles <mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote in news:uUT6j.3709
$NY.2283@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west
> of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along
the major
> arteries.
All the PCS carriers in SC are like this....little strips of
coverage only along interstates connecting the major cities.
They never built out their systems for their license areas
because the damned FCC doesn't do its job and force them to, like
FCC does broadcasters.
It's a real shame, too, because smaller carriers could provide
service to rural areas if the big guns didn't have the
territorial licensing all sewed up to keep them out. Seems like
they should be given a time limit on coverage before that license
is revoked for non-conformance or non-service to the public for
use of its airwaves...then some other carrier could bid on the
license.
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
* SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Miles wrote:
>> * Larry wrote:
>>
>> 1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From
>> Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead.
>
> Nope, I've used Verizon extensively in those areas, from Fairfax out to
> Point Reyes, along Lucas Valley Road, etc. However I'm sure some of that
> coverage was on AMPS.
>
> Also, if you go north on the coast towards Mendocino and up to Crescent
> City, there are long stretches where the only coverage is AMPS, so
> you're s.o.l. unless you a tri-mode phone on Sprint or Verizon.
Since I only have GSM 800, 1800 and 1900 which is all that is needed for
AT&T and the overseas countries to which I visit, forgot about AMPS,
CDMA, Sprint, Nextel, and Verizon. Not in the mood to buy another phone
-- combo gsm/cdma -- for the few calls I make to/from the coast.
Incidentally I have a friend who lives in Lucas Valley and has Verizon
but reception is quite poor.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west of here and
>> almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major
>> arteries. Guess that's how it works with smaller companies that can't
>> afford millions of antennas! Also discovered that with a prepaid card
>> cannot have internet coverage; therefore I cannot call overseas from
>> the cell phone. This is almost sufficient to force me back to AT&T.
>
> You can always go onto a prepaid plan that uses the AT&T network, such
> as 7-11 SpeakOut. It's 15¢/minute not 10¢/minute like T-Mobile, but the
> coverage is much better. All airtime purchases last 365 days, just like
> T-Mobile "Gold". For light use, the better network outweighs the higher
> per-minute cost.
Not overly interested in returning to AT&T which provided the worst
customer service I've ever experienced -- (and that includes DSL!) And
must mention that my residence land line must be maintained for fax and
currently is with AT&T with DSL splitting. perhaps I'll find a method
to get rid of that line and it's cost.
>
> However for your area, you might want to look into PagePlus, which uses
> Verizon's network, which is much better than the AT&T network in your area
..
Again, don't want to purchase another phone just to cover the Marin
coast. Read that Sprint is attempting to plant a tree above Lagunitas
which should cover most of the valley. And have been told that T-Mobile
intends to build towers in west Marin -- but nothing in writing that I
can find. I've always wondered why the towns and counties don't build
their own antennas and rent them out for sharing amongst the carriers.
Then only one tower is needed in an area, not a half a dozen, and the
governments might make more money as opposed to simply licensing a tower
which may be on private property with rent being paid to someone else.
>
> The real question is what's going to happen to all the coastal AMPS
> coverage in 2008. Will the carriers turn it off and leave vast stretches
> of 1 with no coverage, believing (probably correctly) that the limited
> number of tri-mode phones is now small enough that the roaming revenue
> is not worth maintaining the network.
Guess we will soon see! Hopefully they will continue because I doubt
anyone will build multitudes of towers to cover the entire coastal
region, only the major towns.
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?=
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:475c32da$0$84220
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> The real question is what's going to happen to all the coastal
AMPS
> coverage in 2008. Will the carriers turn it off and leave vast
stretches
> of 1 with no coverage, believing (probably correctly) that the
limited
> number of tri-mode phones is now small enough that the roaming
revenue
> is not worth maintaining the network.
>
See? Here's another example of FCC not ENFORCING compliance, as
it is tasked to do by its charter.
You give this giant corporation a license to provide service to
this area (run your finger around the map of California). They
promise, in accepting the license, that they will provide the
service licensed for.
But, then the accountants get in the way. The company wants to
provide coverage to only the most profitable crowded areas on the
license map, but want to forget the areas over MOST of the
coverage map, those areas you find dead or spotty, which saves
them from spending profits converted to infrastructure required
to cover the license.
After a reasonable length of time, which is NOT 25 years now, FCC
needs to hand them an NAL (FCC's equivalent to a parking ticket)
demanding to know why they have not fulfilled their end of the
bargain to get the license. Not satisfied with, "this costs us
money", FCC then issues the appropriate fines and gives them X
months to COMPLETE the project before more seriously damaging
fines are levied for non-compliance. That's exactly how it works
for a broadcast station. The station has to do a "proof-of-
performance" by an outside auditing engineering firm to prove to
the FCC that, "Hey! We have this much signal at these points as
measured by Diaphram, Foam and Condom, LLC, our engineering
firm....Please renew our station license.", at which point THEY
are begging US to let them use OUR airwaves for X more years
until the cycle repeats.
Here's information on proof-of-performance for cable TV operators
controlled by FCC, too: http://proofingtheproof.com/html/fccPOPrules.htm
They, too are required to provide a certain level of service to
you at your cable tap, by Federal regulation. They must measure
the various parameters for every 12,500 subscribers.
Why not SELLular licensees? What bribery makes them exempt? Why
is NO SERVICE anywhere in the licensed area acceptable. It's not
on the other FCC-regulated services.
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
At 09 Dec 2007 02:31:06 -0800 4phun wrote:
> AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
> Updated 3d 5h ago
>
> By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
....and AT&T comes full Circle.
Cingular always offered no-contract plans up until 2005 or 2006. Obviously
the customer still had to pass a credit check, and didn't receive a
subsidized handset, but they always offered a month-to-month option until
fairly recently.
They've always allowed any compatible hanset on their network as well- they
just didn't brag about it.
> "You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la
> Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even
> police it."
>
True- being SIM based, they've never really cared what handset you stuck
your AT&T SIM into.
> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T.
Again, nothing really has changed except the re-introduction of month-to-
month postpaid plans.
> I wonder
> how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
> must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have
> to live with them for 24 months!
That's up to the consumers who chose them- Sprint has always offered no-
contract plans (for a $5/month surcharge and, again, no handset subsidy.)
T-Mo started offering no-contract plans (they call "Flexpay") a few months
ago- unlike AT&T, or Sprint, T-Mo's Flexpay doesn't even require a credit
check- to protect themselves, T-Mo simply shuts off the phone if you run
out of minutes, rather than let you run up overages charges. (They let you
setup a prepaid "slush fund" if you choose, to cover overages, rather than
face a shutoff.)
Again, the press is treating this like a "new age in cellular" because the
writers apparently do no research into their stories beyond retyping the
press releases they're handed.
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
At 09 Dec 2007 14:25:48 +0000 Larry wrote:
> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>
> Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than
> one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
> years about.
While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and authorization
systems used by the major carriers simply don't allow for it, so they're
telling a half-truth- they can't do it because it's not worth it to them to
overhaul their systems to allow it. Using a two-phone family plan with
forwarding set from one to the other is a cheap way to accomplish the same
thing.
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:07:17 GMT, Miles
<mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote:
>I've always wondered why the towns and counties don't build
>their own antennas and rent them out for sharing amongst the carriers.
>Then only one tower is needed in an area, not a half a dozen, and the
>governments might make more money as opposed to simply licensing a tower
>which may be on private property with rent being paid to someone else.
Because they would be competing with private companies that do the
same thing. How would you like to be the owner of a tower leasing
company that happened to live in such a place and know your tax money
was being used to take business away from you? Carriers seldom own
the towers on which they operate. Sharing them with other carriers is
already the norm.
> No, it's not. Not the way you keep talking about "SELLphones".
I'd
> think that you simply stay out of the whole thing that you
disparage so
> readily and constantly.
>
>
>
SELLphone more accurately describes the devices' functions, to
SELL you some "function" the phone already had in it before the
SELLphone carrier locked it out in hopes of SELLing it back to
you.
Wouldn't you agree?
Case in point....We all now have GPS receivers built into our
phones so the Illuminati's government bureaucrats can track us
more accurately, even if we don't make a call to 911, the cover
story.
Can you see your GPS' most basic data, latitude and longitude on
your SELLphone's display? Why not? You already paid for that
receiver and should be able to at least read its basic output,
right? No, not in the eyes of the SELLphone company. You need
to pay us $10/month to have access to YOUR receiver's data.
What a pure line of bullshit! SELLphone didn't provide the data,
the US Taxpayers did! The phone's MINE...as pointed out to me
every time it stops working! Why can't I use MY phone's GPS
receiver....FOR FREE?! Why doesn't my phone's GPS receiver
Bluetooth pair with my computer so IT can use MY GPS receiver's
data? I had to buy ANOTHER GPS receiver for that. Why??
Gee, Elmo, I'm sorry if my pointing these things the assholes at
SELLphone companies do to their paying customers like this. But,
alas, I don't think I'm the only one this pisses off, am I?
If you don't like it.....FUCK OFF!
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:4a_6j.7263$061.3779@fe117.usenetserver.com:
> Again, the press is treating this like a "new age in cellular"
because
> the writers apparently do no research into their stories beyond
> retyping the press releases they're handed.
>
>
That's not correct. The "press" does what it must to satisfy its
paying advertisers. "Press" sells advertising "packages", which
include certain promotional reviews to help the client sell more
products...and buy more "press" advertising...a sweet deal for
both of them.
Pick up any boat/car/motorcycle/truck/airplane/house magazine
that sells advertising, virtually all of them. Read any review
you like about any product the magazine is SELLING with ad space.
See any reviews that say, "This thing sucks and is so dangerous
it should be recalled and buried because it's gonna kill
someone!" See any reviews that say some product NOT advertised
in the magazine is better than one that buys the back two covers?
Of course not. Magazines, newspapers, TV, radio are all just
billboards selling products. Everything about any advertiser's
product is just WONDERFUL as long as that advertiser keeps buying
more ads next month. It's a ponzy scheme...
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:9i_6j.7264$061.5664@fe117.usenetserver.com:
> At 09 Dec 2007 14:25:48 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>>
>> Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more
than
>> one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
>> years about.
>
>
> While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and
> authorization systems used by the major carriers simply don't
allow
> for it, so they're telling a half-truth- they can't do it
because it's
> not worth it to them to overhaul their systems to allow it.
Using a
> two-phone family plan with forwarding set from one to the other
is a
> cheap way to accomplish the same thing.
Nonsense. It's not done to SELL you more SELLphone
product...another number, another account, another charge.
The phones aren't tied to your cell number. They each have a MAC
address, just like your Ethernet card. They can each be
addressed, all at once, unless we can force you to pay more
money.
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:ausol3pbjqogga6tbrnhras7tu9p12j3ms@4ax.com:
> Because they would be competing with private companies that do
the
> same thing. How would you like to be the owner of a tower
leasing
> company that happened to live in such a place and know your tax
money
> was being used to take business away from you? Carriers seldom
own
> the towers on which they operate. Sharing them with other
carriers is
> already the norm.
>
>
That wouldn't be anything new. Towns have been selling their
citizens water, sewer, electricity, gas, etc. for hundreds of
years. It works quite well in many places.....
I wish towns and cities would erect whole SELLular systems, not
just the towers. The people have the RIGHT to compete with the
corporations, if they so choose.....while they CAN still choose,
that is.
I hope WiMax will be a public utility project, too. That will
keep the corporations from fucking us, again.
Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:28:28 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
>news:ausol3pbjqogga6tbrnhras7tu9p12j3ms@4ax.com :
>
>> Because they would be competing with private companies that do
>the
>> same thing. How would you like to be the owner of a tower
>leasing
>> company that happened to live in such a place and know your tax
>money
>> was being used to take business away from you? Carriers seldom
>own
>> the towers on which they operate. Sharing them with other
>carriers is
>> already the norm.
>>
>>
>
>That wouldn't be anything new. Towns have been selling their
>citizens water, sewer, electricity, gas, etc. for hundreds of
>years. It works quite well in many places.....
Water, sewer, and in very few instances, electricity, are provided by
government entities because they are necessary utilities which cannot
be served efficiently by multiple providers. It's not efficient to
have multiple sets of power lines or sewer lines serving a street.
That's also why government entities offer franchise protection to and
the SCPSC regulates privates utilities, so that a necessary service
can be provided at a reasonable cost. And AFAIK, Fountain Inn is the
only town in this area which sells natural gas, and they purchase it
from Piedmont Natural Gas, the private company which serves the rest
of the county. So it's not like the town is pumping it out of the
ground themselves. But none of this has anything at all to do with
cellular towers. Apples and oranges.
>I wish towns and cities would erect whole SELLular systems, not
>just the towers. The people have the RIGHT to compete with the
>corporations, if they so choose.....while they CAN still choose,
>that is.
Why? You would still bitch about it. You bitch about cell companies.
You bitch about government. Now you want to merge the two? Your
irrationality never ceases to amaze me.
>I hope WiMax will be a public utility project, too. That will
>keep the corporations from fucking us, again.
When the Greenville County Library system offered free dial-up
internet access circa 1994-95, private providers sued to end the
practice. It won't happen in this state unless private companies
provide it to/on behalf of governments at a profit. That's what
happened in Laurens, and last I heard, it was not going that well.
Too much infrastructure expense, not enough coverage, and not many
people using it.
> Only Verizon. Not so with anything Cingular/AT&T has ever
sold.
>
>
Is that why iPhones:
Don't act like USB hard drives so you can copy songs, videos,
pictures to them and PLAY THEM because they're YOURS?
Don't allow external software to run on them so we can sell you
some web-based subscription crapware that STILL won't let you run
the songs, videos and pictures you finally got copied to them?
Don't have common browser plugins used to STREAM video to
computers over the internet for free?
What you say may have been true before iPhone....but no more.
iPhone prevents bandwidth usage on ATT, and is hobbled to do so.
> and you'll find that AT&T has never restricted features on
phones only
> to SELL those features back to you for a monthly fee.
>
Notice I didn't say anything about it was ATT. It's iTunes, in
this case. Stevie Jobs thinks that you should pay HIM for ever
tune you ever play on HIS equipment.
Appleware has a long history of PROPRIETARY built into it....
Look at the connectors...(c;
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
At 10 Dec 2007 00:02:31 +0000 Larry wrote:
> SELLphone more accurately describes the devices' functions, to
> SELL you some "function" the phone already had in it before the
> SELLphone carrier locked it out in hopes of SELLing it back to
> you.
>
> Wouldn't you agree?
No, not really. That might be the M.O. of Verizon or maybe Alltel, but it
isn't an industrywide thing.
Of course you already know that, and choose to use a more restrictive
company because they provide better coverage in your neck of the woods.
That's the free market in action- you're free to choose the "open" company
with less coverage, or the restrictive company with more.
> Case in point....We all now have GPS receivers built into our
> phones so the Illuminati's government bureaucrats can track us
> more accurately, even if we don't make a call to 911, the cover
> story.
No- you have a GPS-like system relying, in part, on proprietary data that
belongs to the cell company that they paid for to comply with a federal
regulation.
> Can you see your GPS' most basic data, latitude and longitude on
> your SELLphone's display? Why not? You already paid for that
> receiver and should be able to at least read its basic output,
> right?
No, because it doesn't have a "real" GPS. It has a limited-view (small #
of channels) GPS radio receiver that's data gets sent to the carrier and is
combined with tower location data to compute your position OUTSIDE the
handset. Unlike a real GPS, your handset doesn't "know" where it is. The
carrier knows where it is.
> No, not in the eyes of the SELLphone company. You need
> to pay us $10/month to have access to YOUR receiver's data.
No, you pay $10 for the licensed map data and their service computing your
location.
If you used an "open" provider, you could buy a cellphone with a real GPS
in it (some Blackberries, Nokias or WinMo phones,) and use your choice of
free or commercial software with it.
> What a pure line of bullshit! SELLphone didn't provide the data,
> the US Taxpayers did! The phone's MINE...as pointed out to me
> every time it stops working! Why can't I use MY phone's GPS
> receiver....FOR FREE?!
Because it doesn't have one!
> Why doesn't my phone's GPS receiver
> Bluetooth pair with my computer so IT can use MY GPS receiver's
> data?
Because it doesn't have one!
> I had to buy ANOTHER GPS receiver for that. Why??
>
Because it doesn't have one.
> I don't think I'm the only one this pisses off, am I?
Nope- there's certainly hobbl9ng going on, but your "GPS" isn't part of it.
> If you don't like it.....FUCK OFF!
Ironically, that's exactly how your cellular carrier feels about you (or
any of us...)
Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-12-09, Miles <mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote:
> 2) I used a non-AT&T unlocked Nokia 6260 on their network for 3 years
> without difficulty, but was told that I could only have one sim card,
> therefore only one operational phone at a time -- of course, the sims
> could be transferred to another phone without difficulty -- as I did a
> few times when the 6260 was down.
Uh? Wasn't the 6260 a TDMA phone? Back in the 90's it was pretty easy to
identify Nokia technology by the last two digits of the model number, and
xx60 used to be 850MHz TDMA.
AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract 