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

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.

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

* 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.

=?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

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.

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

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.

["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.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol