Re: Verizon locks their phones?

Not true no more! Sprint has significantly improved service in the Chicago
area. They are now better than Verizon, but I don't expect anyone on this
newsgroup to admit it because it is full-of Verizon Shills that have been
brainwashed with the "It's the Network BS" of the Verizon Marketing Machine.


"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-69C9CB.10223516082007@individual.net...
> In article <osRwi.47514$xx1.25333@newsfe09.phx>,
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Sprint always works great for me in the Chicago area. He must have had a
>> bad
>> phone or maybe he is just a putz.
>> One of the Chicago TV stations did independent testing last year and
>> found
>> sprint to be the best in the Chicago area.
>
> i was one of sprints first customers in the 518 area code. i dropped
> sprint some years ago and switched to verizon when i lived in chicago
> and none of the 8 or 9 sprint phones they gave me for free would work
> in my chicago apartment. presidential towers, 47th floor. i could see
> the sprint sign from my window, but not make or receive a call.
> verizon was significantly better in all areas of chicago, including
> airports.
>
> --
> get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

Jim Dubya wrote:
> Not true no more! Sprint has significantly improved service in the Chicago
> area. They are now better than Verizon, but I don't expect anyone on this
> newsgroup to admit it because it is full-of Verizon Shills that have been
> brainwashed with the "It's the Network BS" of the Verizon Marketing Machine.

Unfortunately, their reputation isn't good, I don't know any Sprint
customers, and it would cost me at least a one-year hitch to find out
whether they have indeed improved.

As for being a Verizon shill, you obviously haven't seen my recent a.c.v
articles.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

* usenet-illiterate top post reformatted as a convenience to readers

In article <ed1xi.121348$zz2.18491@newsfe12.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-69C9CB.10223516082007@individual.net...
> > In article <osRwi.47514$xx1.25333@newsfe09.phx>,
> > "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sprint always works great for me in the Chicago area. He must have had a
> >> bad
> >> phone or maybe he is just a putz.
> >> One of the Chicago TV stations did independent testing last year and
> >> found
> >> sprint to be the best in the Chicago area.
> >
> > i was one of sprints first customers in the 518 area code. i dropped
> > sprint some years ago and switched to verizon when i lived in chicago
> > and none of the 8 or 9 sprint phones they gave me for free would work
> > in my chicago apartment. presidential towers, 47th floor. i could see
> > the sprint sign from my window, but not make or receive a call.
> > verizon was significantly better in all areas of chicago, including
> > airports.

> Not true no more! Sprint has significantly improved service in the Chicago
> area. They are now better than Verizon, but I don't expect anyone on this
> newsgroup to admit it because it is full-of Verizon Shills that have been
> brainwashed with the "It's the Network BS" of the Verizon Marketing Machine.


do you think your wailing that has more substance then the personal
experiences of people who have had a chance to see what the facts are?

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-2390BE.16044516082007@individual.net...
>* usenet-illiterate top post reformatted as a convenience to readers
>
> In article <ed1xi.121348$zz2.18491@newsfe12.phx>,
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-69C9CB.10223516082007@individual.net...
>> > In article <osRwi.47514$xx1.25333@newsfe09.phx>,
>> > "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sprint always works great for me in the Chicago area. He must have had
>> >> a
>> >> bad
>> >> phone or maybe he is just a putz.
>> >> One of the Chicago TV stations did independent testing last year and
>> >> found
>> >> sprint to be the best in the Chicago area.
>> >
>> > i was one of sprints first customers in the 518 area code. i dropped
>> > sprint some years ago and switched to verizon when i lived in chicago
>> > and none of the 8 or 9 sprint phones they gave me for free would work
>> > in my chicago apartment. presidential towers, 47th floor. i could see
>> > the sprint sign from my window, but not make or receive a call.
>> > verizon was significantly better in all areas of chicago, including
>> > airports.
>
>> Not true no more! Sprint has significantly improved service in the
>> Chicago
>> area. They are now better than Verizon, but I don't expect anyone on this
>> newsgroup to admit it because it is full-of Verizon Shills that have been
>> brainwashed with the "It's the Network BS" of the Verizon Marketing
>> Machine.
>
>
> do you think your wailing that has more substance then the personal
> experiences of people who have had a chance to see what the facts are?

Yes I do. There are many putzes here that are brain-washed by the Verizon
Marketing Machine that are almost in a hypnotic trance regarding the
"Verizon, It's the Network" crap. They are drinking the koolaid by the
gallons. If they were to do some reserach. they would find that Sprint can
be forced into roaming mode and therefore can roam on Verizon, in the very
unlikely circumstance that you have a Verizon signal but not a sprint
signal. If the folks on the Verizon newsgroup would stop drinking the
kool-aid that Verizon is serving them, they would see the truth!

I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is actually
quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from me
because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
them. I went around like you guy do bashing Sprint at every opportunity and
then I moved to an area where there is no Verizon service and was forced to
switch to Sprint. It has been three years and I have never looked-back! I
travel nationally quite frequently and the folks that I travel with are
always borrowing my Sprint phone because they don't have usable signal on
their Verizon phones. Listen up all of you Verizon Shills and put down your
glass of Verizon Kool-aid because I speak the truth and you will learn by
listening to me! If you have any questions, then fire-away and I will give
you the truth from an unbiased point-of-view. Remember that I was with
Verizon for 10 years and was trained to be a "Sprint Basher" just like most
of the shills in this newsgroup.

P.S. Next time you don't get a signal on Verizon and have to borrow a Sprint
phone, don't forget to say to yourself "It's the Network!" :-) Doh!




>
> --
> get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

> Yes I do. There are many putzes here that are brain-washed by the Verizon
> Marketing Machine that are almost in a hypnotic trance regarding the
> "Verizon, It's the Network" crap. They are drinking the koolaid by the
> gallons. If they were to do some reserach. they would find that Sprint can
> be forced into roaming mode and therefore can roam on Verizon, in the very
> unlikely circumstance that you have a Verizon signal but not a sprint
> signal. If the folks on the Verizon newsgroup would stop drinking the
> kool-aid that Verizon is serving them, they would see the truth!

And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
Sprint wasn't even available where I ma so I got Cingular and couldn't
make/receive a call outside my city limits. Went to Altell, better but
no joy and they kept my bill screwed up. Verizon works every day
everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!

I say YOU are the shill or maybe the real putz here for pushing Sprint
in a Verizon group or maybe even worse, a troll. I don't care what you
think of my story any more than I care about your story, different area
different coverage. See we can all make it personal, how hard is that?!

Point is, no one cell company is always better so give that part of it a
rest ok? I don't care what's written on the d*mn phone or the bill as
long as the phone works at a price I can live with paying. With or
without cameras, MP3 players, web browsers, fancy pictures and
videos...all that is gravy if the d*mn phone works! My Verizon phone
never lets me down and where I'm at it's MY phone they're borrowing.

Drum--

In article <AQ2xi.78601$kK1.30360@newsfe14.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-2390BE.16044516082007@individual.net...

> > do you think your wailing that has more substance then the personal
> > experiences of people who have had a chance to see what the facts are?
>
> Yes I do.

obstinately ignorant is far, far worse then simply ignorant you know.

[...]

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

"Drumstick" <no_thanks@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.212ea9c38955d63498978e@newsgroups.bellsou th.net...
>
> And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
> Sprint wasn't even available where I ma so I got Cingular and couldn't
> make/receive a call outside my city limits. Went to Altell, better but
> no joy and they kept my bill screwed up. Verizon works every day
> everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!
>
>

..
>
> Drum--

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.

"Drumstick" <no_thanks@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.212ea9c38955d63498978e@newsgroups.bellsou th.net...
>> If the folks on the Verizon newsgroup would stop drinking the
>> kool-aid that Verizon is serving them, they would see the truth!
>
> And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
>...Verizon works every day
> everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!
>
>... I don't care what you
> think of my story any more than I care about your story, different area
> different coverage. See we can all make it personal, how hard is that?!
>
> Point is, no one cell company is always better so give that part of it a
> rest ok? I don't care what's written on the d*mn phone or the bill as
> long as the phone works at a price I can live with paying. With or
> without cameras, MP3 players, web browsers, fancy pictures and
> videos...all that is gravy if the d*mn phone works! My Verizon phone
> never lets me down and where I'm at it's MY phone they're borrowing.
>
Amen to this post, the one that's made the most sense so far in the entire
thread!

In article <AQ2xi.78601$kK1.30360@newsfe14.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:


> I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is actually
> quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from me
> because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
> them....

Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
them for ten years?

What else are you fabricating?



--Mike

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.

--
"You know the difference between cannibals and liberals? Cannibals only eat
their enemies." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson

In article <jambc3h1ireeaaphj3777h4ceptkjrnrr0@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
> >them for ten years?
>
> Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
> PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
> the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
> lines he was thinking.


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.


Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

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.



--Mike

At 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been
with
> them for ten years?

Verizon didn't get created out of the aeither- I assume he's counting
their predecessors in his tenure. T-Mobile thanks me for being with
them since "October 2000" everytime I call CS, despite the fact the
first two or three years t eycalled themselves "Voicestream." My ten-
year tenure (1993 through 2003) with Cingular included six years or
so when they were "Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems."



--

"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 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

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

>> Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
>> PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
>> the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
>> lines he was thinking.
>
>
> 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.

SBC bought all of AT&T, actually.

> Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
> customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
> host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

I thought part of PacBell Wireless spun off and became AirTouch. But I'm
not 100% sure.

--
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

In article <slrnfcc7qf.ibp.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:


> >> Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
> >> PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
> >> the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
> >> lines he was thinking.
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> SBC bought all of AT&T, actually.

I'm aware of that, but for purposes related to this thread; I mentioned
only the relevant cellular aspect.

>
> > Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
> > customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
> > host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> > part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
>
> I thought part of PacBell Wireless spun off and became AirTouch. But I'm
> not 100% sure.


That certainly wasn't the case in NorCal.



--Mike

In article <LHoxi.127$Dg.98@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> 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,...


Are you sure about that? My recollection from that time frame is that
Cingular was merely a rebranded name for the cellular service which SBC
implemented shortly after the SBC/Bell South merger. They may have been
considered independent (much in the same way VZW is technically
independent from Verizon...but in reality it was the same company with
the same board members.


> 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... ;-)


ATTWS existed long before SBC bought AT&T. I know, because from about
1994-1999 (or perhaps 1998) I and the company (Wired Magazine) I managed
IT and landline/wireless service for used the A-side carrier Cellular
One (SF Bay Area market). AT&T incorporated C1 and rebranded as ATTWS.
During that time, I also had accounts with Pac Bell Wireless, Nextel,
and GTE Wireless (Wired wanting me to stay on top of who had the best
coverage).

I'm aware of the logistical hassles incurred after the by all the sign
changes, but the company was known as Cingular before it became ATTWS.




> > 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?


Because, at least in the SF Bay Area, C1 (which ATTWS later acquired)
was already using the 800 MHz TDMA and GTE Wireless was using the 800
MHz CDMA freqs.


> 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.)

I don't know of anytime when Pac Bell offered any sort of cellular in
the Chicagoland (where our thread curmudgeon suggests he lives).
>
> (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!")


Isn't America great?! ; )



--Mike

In article <IHoxi.124$Dg.7@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
> > Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been
> with
> > them for ten years?
>
> Verizon didn't get created out of the aeither- I assume he's counting
> their predecessors in his tenure.


Perhaps, but Pac Bell cellular was not a predecessor to VZW.



--Mike

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

>> (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!")
>
> Isn't America great?! ; )

Feh. That's why I get my landline telephone and Internet access from the
cable company, and my wireless phone service from a company that doesn't
do US landlines. US telcos suck ass; they're monolithic monsters that
employ large numbers of obnoxious bureaucratic jerkoffs.

--
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

In article <slrnfccde9.r4b.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
> On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> (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!")
> >
> > Isn't America great?! ; )
>
> Feh. That's why I get my landline telephone and Internet access from the
> cable company, and my wireless phone service from a company that doesn't
> do US landlines. US telcos suck ass; they're monolithic monsters that
> employ large numbers of obnoxious bureaucratic jerkoffs.


True, but the cable companies are not much better.



--Mike

At 17 Aug 2007 16:29:24 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> > Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and
BellSouth)
> > bought AT&T Wireless,...
>
>
> Are you sure about that? My recollection from that time frame is
that
> Cingular was merely a rebranded name for the cellular service which
SBC
> implemented shortly after the SBC/Bell South merger.

The SBC/BellSouth merger was relatively recent- it happened only last
year. Cingular was a joint venture of the two companies (SBC owned a
little more- it was 55/45 or 60/40, IIRC) and merged three cellular
systems- SBC's SBMS, BellSouth (both TDMA), and PacBell's GSM system
out west. Cingular has operated under that name since 2000.

Cingular bought AT&T Wireless in 2004 just before ATTWS was about to
lose their name- when they were originally spun off from AT&T back in
2001, they had a license to operate under the AT&T name for a certain
time period.

Ironically, just before SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company),
they (AT&T) had planned to get back into wireless as a reseller of
Sprint. (The licensing deal that let AT&T Wireless use the AT&T name
also kept AT&T LD out of the wireless biz for the same timeframe.)
One can only imagine what confusion would've happened in the
marketplace if Cingular hadn't bought AT&T Wireless- ATTWS would've
quickly had to take on a new name, followed shortly by a DIFFERENT
AT&T wireless company being launched by a different company with
different equipment!


> They may have been
> considered independent (much in the same way VZW is technically
> independent from Verizon...but in reality it was the same company
with
> the same board members.

Sort of- just like with Verizon, however, there was another partner,
in this case BellSouth, with a major interest- (Verizon Wireless is
45% owned by Vodaphone, 55% by Verizon) After the SBC/BS merger,
Cingular now has one parent.


> ATTWS existed long before SBC bought AT&T.

Yes. ATTWS was, for a long time, part of AT&T (the LD company.)

> I know, because from about
> 1994-1999 (or perhaps 1998) I and the company (Wired Magazine) I
managed
> IT and landline/wireless service for used the A-side carrier
Cellular
> One (SF Bay Area market). AT&T incorporated C1 and rebranded as
ATTWS.


> During that time, I also had accounts with Pac Bell Wireless, Nextel,


> and GTE Wireless (Wired wanting me to stay on top of who had the
best
> coverage).
>
> I'm aware of the logistical hassles incurred after the by all the
sign
> changes, but the company was known as Cingular before it became
> ATTWS.


Cingular and ATTWS were two completly separate, unrelated companies.
At least until they "merged" (Cingular acquired them) in 2004. Then
SBC (Cingular's 1/2 owner) bought AT&T (LD- not the wireless company
Cingular already bought)in 2005, followed by SBC (now called AT&T)
merging with BS in '06. (Phew!)


> > > No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> > > part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
> >
> > I believe you're right.

Actually we were both wrong! (Explained below!)

> > how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-MHz?
>
>
> Because, at least in the SF Bay Area, C1 (which ATTWS later
acquired)
> was already using the 800 MHz TDMA and GTE Wireless was using the
800
> MHz CDMA freqs.

You're missing my point- PacBell originally had the 800MHz B license
by default (the one Verizon now owns), just for being the local
Telco. That's how it worked in the early 80s- two licenses, one for
the local Bell, and the other to the highest bidder. PacBell either
was involved with Verizon's earliest predecessor or sold their
license to them. ATTWS bought the "A" license holder there.
(Cellular One?)
>
> > 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.)
>
> I don't know of anytime when Pac Bell offered any sort of cellular
in
> the Chicagoland (where our thread curmudgeon suggests he lives).


Dont be so sure! According to Wikipedia:

"The cellular and paging unit of Pacific Telesis, PacTel Cellular,
was spun off in 1994 into a new company called AirTouch
Communications (AirTouch), leaving Pacific Telesis with only the
landline telephone company. Senior Pacific Telesis management moved
to the new company, thus leaving a new corporate culture to run the
old Pacific Telesis. In 1999, Airtouch merged with Britain's Vodafone
Group Plc to become Vodafone Airtouch Plc. In 2000, its U.S. wireless
assets were merged with those of Bell Atlantic Corp. to form the
joint venture Verizon Wireless..."

So PacTel Wireless was spun off of Pacific Telephone and became
Airtouch, then Verizon, leaving the local Telco to start again with
PacBell who eventually became Cingular then (the new) AT&T!

Apparenty there's more inbreeding in the cellular biz than there is
in the Appalachians!


--

"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 2007-08-17, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>> 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! ;-)

I think it went like this. The PacTel Cellular unit of Pacific Telesis
was the B-side AMPS operator in its area. It also supported and funded
Qualcomm's development of CDMA, which it ended up deploying. The wireless
unit was spun out of PacTel in about 1994, along with most of PacTel's
senior management, to become part of Airtouch Communications, which in
turn was acquired by (merged with?) Vodafone, which in turn was merged
with the wireless assets of Verizon (i.e. Bell Atlantic plus GTE) to
become Verizon Wireless.

Meanwhile the landline company left behind at PacTel, with their new
managers, decided to get back into the wireless business in 1996 or
1997 with the 1900 MHz GSM network, which they called Pacific Bell
Wireless. That network became part of Cingular, and then got sold
to T-Mobile after the AT&T Wireless acquisition.

> 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.)

That's correct, except it was only a couple of years between the
spinoff of the cellular network and the construction of the PCS
network. I think the old management at PacTel decided that they'd
get richer in the spunoff, mostly-unregulated wireless business,
then the new managers at PacTel decided the wireless business was
good enough that they should get back in and compete in it too.

Dennis Ferguson

At 18 Aug 2007 02:08:00 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

<Snip excellent history lesson>


Thanks! That cleared it up and filled in the blanks.

Back when I was a Cingular TDMA customer out of Kansas City, I always
found it ironic that I had to roam on either Verizon or AT&T while in
California, despite the fact that Cingular had plenty of perfectly
good, yet incompatible, service buzzing all around me!

--

"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 17 Aug 2007 23:34:59 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:


> Feh. That's why I get my landline telephone and Internet access
from the
> cable company, and my wireless phone service from a company that
doesn't
> do US landlines. US telcos suck ass; they're monolithic monsters
that
> employ large numbers of obnoxious bureaucratic jerkoffs.


As opposed to the non-monopolistic altruistic cable companies, and
Germany's non-monopolistic altruistic landline provider?

Yep, like the songsays, you're a rebel and you'll never ever be any
good, Steve! ;-)



--

"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 my house in Laguna Niguel California. Verizon admits that they don't work
there. Sprint has full signal.

"Boomer" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:-YSdnTix29R_61jbnZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Drumstick" <no_thanks@you.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.212ea9c38955d63498978e@newsgroups.bellsou th.net...
>>
>> And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
>> Sprint wasn't even available where I ma so I got Cingular and couldn't
>> make/receive a call outside my city limits. Went to Altell, better but
>> no joy and they kept my bill screwed up. Verizon works every day
>> everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!
>>
>>
>
> .
>>
>> Drum--
>
> 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 was with Airtouch Cellular before they were acquired by Verizon. Now play
nice and go drink some more Verizon Kool-Aid.


"Michael Wise" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:no-DCD710.10083917082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <AQ2xi.78601$kK1.30360@newsfe14.phx>,
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is
>> actually
>> quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from
>> me
>> because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
>> them....
>
> Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
> them for ten years?
>
> What else are you fabricating?
>
>
>
> --Mike

In article <XBvxi.39652$Vk6.34260@newsfe07.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> I was with Airtouch Cellular before they were acquired by Verizon. Now play
> nice and go drink some more Verizon Kool-Aid.

So then you admit that you weren't a VZW customer for 10 years as you
earlier claimed?

--Mike

>
>
> "Michael Wise" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:no-DCD710.10083917082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> > In article <AQ2xi.78601$kK1.30360@newsfe14.phx>,
> > "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is
> >> actually
> >> quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from
> >> me
> >> because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
> >> them....
> >
> > Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
> > them for ten years?
> >
> > What else are you fabricating?
> >
> >
> >
> > --Mike

On 2007-08-18, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> True, but the cable companies are not much better. >

Depends on which one. Charter Cable, in this area, has been great (the
former High Desert Cablevision - Charter is currently a patchwork of
smaller systems that they bought; I understand they're working on bringing
everything under the same umbrella).

Adelphia in Cleveland was great when I used them a few years ago. Much better
than Cablevision, before they downsized to only serve greater New York City.
Of course, they went bankrupt and got sold off to Time Warner. No idea
how Time Warner is out there.

The cable companies have also been much better about opening up their networks
to competitors and not subsequently trying to screw said competitors.

--
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

On 2007-08-18, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> As opposed to the non-monopolistic altruistic cable companies

My cable company has much more of a clue about decent customer service than
any phone company. SBC tried to screw me out of $200 after they broke my
dialtone and DSL in Ohio, for two months, saying they couldn't refund any of
my money for the DSL and only $5 for the landline since I had a dialtone
(which I did, but still was unablee to make calls).

Verizon isn't as evil as SBC, but they're stupid, and I've had problems with
them out here.

And yes, I believe cable companies are less prone to screwing people over
than telcos.

> Germany's non-monopolistic altruistic landline provider?

OK, you got me there. Their customer service, however, has proven MUCH
better than either of the wireless carriers I've used between 2000 and now.

--
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

Contrary to the header, and since this is crossposted to both groups,
verizon does *NOT* lock their phones, however, sprint *DOES*

At 18 Aug 2007 17:16:41 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> Verizon isn't as evil as SBC, but they're stupid, and I've had
problems with
> them out here.

I'm mostly just having fun with you- and pointing out how little
choice we all actually have!

I've had both good and bad experiences with telcos and cable cos.

My experiences with Qwest here in Denver sEem like your experiences
with Verizon- more stupid than malicious. A good number of billing
errors that take many phone calls to get corrected, but eventually do
get corrected. Tech support for DSL is polite and means well, but
often I seem to know more than the guy I'm talking to.


> And yes, I believe cable companies are less prone to screwing
people over
> than telcos.


Perhaps, but I'll suggest that's a recent phenomenon due to
competition- DBS for video and DSL for net. In the good ol' days,
the cable cos had the same "take it or leave it" hubris the telcos
made famous.


> > Germany's non-monopolistic altruistic landline provider?
>
> OK, you got me there. Their customer service, however, has
proven MUCH
> better than either of the wireless carriers I've used between 2000
and now.


Agreed. In my seven years with T-Mo, I've been constantly amazed by
the level of CS they provide, particularly compared to my previous
experiences with cellcos!



--

"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