> Perhaps, but Pac Bell cellular was not a predecessor to VZW.
No, but apparently, as Dennis posted, PacTel, Pacific Telephone's
first cellular service was! PacTel spun off PacTel Cellular as a
separate compny, and it became Airtouch (and eventually part of
Verizon). Then PacTel (the landline company left behind after the
spinoff) started PacBell Wireless- the GSM operator who eventually
became part of Cingular.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
There are large areas of WI that to not have verizon service, but
verizon phones will have the "free" roaming in those areas. A
considerable part of those areas will be roaming on uscellular.
clifto wrote:
> Boomer wrote:
>> I'm not trying to stir this argument but just where do Verizon phones NOT
>> work? I'm a satisfied Verizon customer for the last 3 years & have yet to
>> find a location without signal. I suppose I haven't traveled to those areas
>> yet but from NJ to Florida they seem to have it covered.
>
> I've been told there are large areas in Wisconsin where there's no coverage.
>
I believe the "B" stood for "Bearer" referring to whomever the
local phone company was, Bell or not.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
>> Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless
>> became
>> SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
>> bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.
>
>
> Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and BellSouth)
> bought AT&T Wireless, which at that point in time was an independent
> company spun off from AT&T (the long distance company left over by
> the Ma Bell breakup,) months before, and lost the right to use the
> AT&T name, which required spending millions on new signage and untold
> gallons of orange paint rebranding hundreds of AT&T stores as
> Cingular stores.
>
> Then SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company,) and started
> renaming themselves AT&T, and of course getting the right to use the
> AT&T name for wireless, but BellSouth wasn't interested in putting
> another company's name on their half of Cingular, until...
>
> ...AT&T (SBC) merged with BellSouth and became one happy
> dysfunctional company, and started spending untold millions
> rebranding the Cingular stores as AT&T stores... ;-)
>
>
>> No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
>> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
>
> I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
> MHz? Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
> (which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
> they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
> whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)
> (US West, now Qwest, sold most of their original licenses so here in
> Denver, Verizon is the B carrier, and AT&T is the "A" or "A"lternate
> carrier.
>
>> Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a customer of
>> one
>> of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was not
>> VZW.
>
>
> Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
> bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
> with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
> cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
> them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
> midwest.)
>
> (You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
> a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
> then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
> consumers by the "economies of scale!")
>
> --
>
> "I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
> or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
> all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
> ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
>
>
At 19 Aug 2007 04:18:15 +0000 Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> I believe the "B" stood for "Bearer" referring to whomever the
> local phone company was, Bell or not.
I pulled the definition out of my old Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems
training manual, but as a baby Bell (and B carrier,) they certainly
could've been biased! ;-)
FWIW, a quick Google search found a couple of references to B
carriers as "Bell" carriers, a few that didn't define what the B
stood for, but I didn't find any that referred to B-block carriers as
"Beareer."
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
On 2007-08-19, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 19 Aug 2007 04:18:15 +0000 Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>
>> I believe the "B" stood for "Bearer" referring to whomever the
>> local phone company was, Bell or not.
>
>
> I pulled the definition out of my old Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems
> training manual, but as a baby Bell (and B carrier,) they certainly
> could've been biased! ;-)
>
> FWIW, a quick Google search found a couple of references to B
> carriers as "Bell" carriers, a few that didn't define what the B
> stood for, but I didn't find any that referred to B-block carriers as
It may be that A and B are just letters? The PCS band has A, B, C, D,
E and F, as in
At 20 Aug 2007 04:22:19 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> It may be that A and B are just letters?
That's what I always thought until I became an SBMS dealer.
However, the SBMS manual's definitions make sense, because contrary
to how the alphabet is ordinarily used, the B-block (wireline carrier)
licenses were issued first, and automatically, to the local telco in
each market. The A-block (non-wireline carrier) licenses were
awarded afterwards. If A & B were just letters, it'd seem likely
that the first letter would equate to the first license issued.
(The cellular license rules, BTW, were drafted in 1981, before the
AT&T breakup was completed in 1984.)
Of course, A & B might have started out by just being letters, until
someone at the FCC got cute and decided to define them during the
process, otherwise why wouldn't the FCC have originally just issued
"W" and "N" blocks to "wireline" and "non-wireline" carriers, instead
of "B" and "A"?)
True. However, that was over a decade later. I suspect at that
point they were just going with sequential letters. Perhaps by then,
the origin of the cellular A & B-block nomenclature was already lost
in antiquity... ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
Perhaps they were "bearers" because they "bore" the traffic from
both their own (earer license and the (A)lternate license on their
wires to the called party. I do not know if there were any way back
then, but maybe there were a few "Bearer" or "Wire-line" companies that
added wireless service that were not "Bell" companies, like GTE. I
guess the FCC, with their "bearer" designation, did not leave room for a
case where neither wireless carrier was a wireline carrier. Were there
any?
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 19 Aug 2007 04:18:15 +0000 Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>
>> I believe the "B" stood for "Bearer" referring to whomever the
>> local phone company was, Bell or not.
>
>
> I pulled the definition out of my old Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems
> training manual, but as a baby Bell (and B carrier,) they certainly
> could've been biased! ;-)
>
> FWIW, a quick Google search found a couple of references to B
> carriers as "Bell" carriers, a few that didn't define what the B
> stood for, but I didn't find any that referred to B-block carriers as
> "Beareer."
>
>
> --
>
> "I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
> or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
> all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
> ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
>
>
At 21 Aug 2007 09:38:46 -0500 Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Perhaps they were "bearers" because they "bore" the traffic
> from both their own (earer license and the (A)lternate license on
> their wires to the called party. I do not know if there were any
way
> back then, but maybe there were a few "Bearer" or "Wire-line"
> companies that added wireless service that were not "Bell" companies,
> like GTE. I guess the FCC, with their "bearer" designation, did not
> leave room for a case where neither wireless carrier was a wireline
> carrier. Were there any?
>
Yes and no.
Wireline companies were under no obligation to use the B-block
license they were granted- they could sell them to someone else if
they chose, but they were all granted one. These were the days
before spectrum auctions- wireline carriers received a license for
their market by default, and anyone who was interested applied for
the remaining license, which was then issued to the company that the
FCC chose based on their criteria at the time (who they felt would
better serve the market.) License holders had 5 years, IIRC, to
build out their system or forfeit the license.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
Sprint does not "cripple" there phones, Verizon *DOES*
"This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs... Any questions?"
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:9_mdnePBxLEG2FrbnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Contrary to the header, and since this is crossposted to both groups,
> verizon does *NOT* lock their phones, however, sprint *DOES*
>
> Sprint does not "cripple" there phones, Verizon *DOES*
True, but look at the subject. The claim was that Verizon subsidy locks
their phones, which they do not; Sprint does.
> "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs... Any questions?"
Don't be stupid.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
Idiot, learn how to read.... the subject line and the comment was to
"LOCK", and yes SPRINT subsidy locks all their phones, but verizon
doesn't....
There's a MAJOR difference between lock and cripple... you do know they are
two seperate things right?
Jim Dubya wrote:
> Sprint does not "cripple" there phones, Verizon *DOES*
>
> "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs... Any questions?"
>
>
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:9_mdnePBxLEG2FrbnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Contrary to the header, and since this is crossposted to both groups,
>> verizon does *NOT* lock their phones, however, sprint *DOES*
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:15:02 -0700, "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Sprint does not "cripple" there phones, Verizon *DOES*
>
>"This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs... Any questions?"
>
>
>"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:9_mdnePBxLEG2FrbnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com ...
>> Contrary to the header, and since this is crossposted to both groups,
>> verizon does *NOT* lock their phones, however, sprint *DOES*
>>
>
This may be true but Sprint sucks and screws everybody.
I am still waiting on a refund from last year. I dont want to be on
hold another 2 hours just to get a yoyo to talk to.
"Pete" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:6e7oc3plh568md2qr71d0ffuurhqtb9849@4ax.com...
>>
> This may be true but Sprint sucks and screws everybody.
> I am still waiting on a refund from last year. I dont want to be on
> hold another 2 hours just to get a yoyo to talk to.
I've been with them 2 years, coming from AT&T TDMA (bought out by Cingular).
Cingular started playing with TDMA towers, delaying the time it took to
connect, roaming no longer working properly, then assessing an additional
$5.00/month penalty for anyone that did not switch to a new Cingular 2-year
GSM contract. I was a long-time Sprint Business Long Distance customer, and
they called me and offered up to 5 lines with no activation fees and free
phones. I bailed out of Cingular.
Sprint's phones arrived 3 days later via UPS. They came with temporary
phone numbers so I could use the phones until the porting was completed from
Cingular. Sprint even set up the phones to display the names of the
individual users of the phones, rather than my company name. Reps were very
pleasant each time I called.
I'm not suggesting that they don't have their problems, but I have not
experienced any service or billing issues with them. Their coverage here in
Philly is excellent, and I can roam onto Verizon if need be, so I DO have
acess to Verizon's well-touted "network." And I pay Sprint LESS per month
than I was paying AT&T/Cingular!
All I want are for my calls to go through, and they do.
I think Sprint is pretty strong in most of Pa, so unless you travel, that's
all that matters
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:BIqpj.45919$K%.24976@trnddc04...
> "Pete" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:6e7oc3plh568md2qr71d0ffuurhqtb9849@4ax.com...
>>>
>> This may be true but Sprint sucks and screws everybody.
>> I am still waiting on a refund from last year. I dont want to be on
>> hold another 2 hours just to get a yoyo to talk to.
>
>
> I've been with them 2 years, coming from AT&T TDMA (bought out by
> Cingular). Cingular started playing with TDMA towers, delaying the time it
> took to connect, roaming no longer working properly, then assessing an
> additional $5.00/month penalty for anyone that did not switch to a new
> Cingular 2-year GSM contract. I was a long-time Sprint Business Long
> Distance customer, and they called me and offered up to 5 lines with no
> activation fees and free phones. I bailed out of Cingular.
>
> Sprint's phones arrived 3 days later via UPS. They came with temporary
> phone numbers so I could use the phones until the porting was completed
> from Cingular. Sprint even set up the phones to display the names of the
> individual users of the phones, rather than my company name. Reps were
> very pleasant each time I called.
>
> I'm not suggesting that they don't have their problems, but I have not
> experienced any service or billing issues with them. Their coverage here
> in Philly is excellent, and I can roam onto Verizon if need be, so I DO
> have acess to Verizon's well-touted "network." And I pay Sprint LESS per
> month than I was paying AT&T/Cingular!
>
> All I want are for my calls to go through, and they do.
>
same with me have had sprint since december 06 with no problems.
--
AL'S COMPUTERS
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:BIqpj.45919$K%.24976@trnddc04...
> "Pete" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:6e7oc3plh568md2qr71d0ffuurhqtb9849@4ax.com...
>>>
>> This may be true but Sprint sucks and screws everybody.
>> I am still waiting on a refund from last year. I dont want to be on
>> hold another 2 hours just to get a yoyo to talk to.
>
>
> I've been with them 2 years, coming from AT&T TDMA (bought out by
> Cingular). Cingular started playing with TDMA towers, delaying the time it
> took to connect, roaming no longer working properly, then assessing an
> additional $5.00/month penalty for anyone that did not switch to a new
> Cingular 2-year GSM contract. I was a long-time Sprint Business Long
> Distance customer, and they called me and offered up to 5 lines with no
> activation fees and free phones. I bailed out of Cingular.
>
> Sprint's phones arrived 3 days later via UPS. They came with temporary
> phone numbers so I could use the phones until the porting was completed
> from Cingular. Sprint even set up the phones to display the names of the
> individual users of the phones, rather than my company name. Reps were
> very pleasant each time I called.
>
> I'm not suggesting that they don't have their problems, but I have not
> experienced any service or billing issues with them. Their coverage here
> in Philly is excellent, and I can roam onto Verizon if need be, so I DO
> have acess to Verizon's well-touted "network." And I pay Sprint LESS per
> month than I was paying AT&T/Cingular!
>
> All I want are for my calls to go through, and they do.
>
I know alot of people that have Sprint without problems. One of my
friends is a truck driver and has had very few problems with Sprint
around the country. Sometimes she has to roam, but since its included
in her plan, she can. They've never complained about her roaming and
she tries to use the Sprint network whenever possible.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:28:31 -0600, mindfrost82 <mindfrost82.34bkf3@no-mx.mindfrost82.com> wrote:
>I know alot of people that have Sprint without problems. One of my
>friends is a truck driver and has had very few problems with Sprint
>around the country. Sometimes she has to roam, but since its included
>in her plan, she can. They've never complained about her roaming and
>she tries to use the Sprint network whenever possible.
wow. You know someone. Who uses sprint.
That's a lot of person.
Re: Verizon locks their phones? 
earer license and the (A)lternate license on their
Linear Mode
