t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
Back on Dec. 29 my Nokia 6610 handset spit out the "File format unknown" error when trying to access t-zones. The tech CC rep who wrote up a ticket on that issue never did get back to me with any status, as he'd promised.
But this evening about 90 minutes ago t-zones was working again, seemingly, offering access to, among other things, My Account, and from there also Bill Summary, Current Activity, Plan and Services, etc.
Trouble is, the My Account data is for someone else's T-Mobile account, not mine! What's more, it changes from one access to the next. First, it showed 1181 minutes remaining, with New Minute Start of 01-11-11; the next time it showed 1013 minutes remaining, with New Minute Start of 01-20-11. The Plan and Services descriptions also had nothing to do either with each other or with my actual T-Mo plan.
A call to T-Mo CC to resolve *that* question resulted in an agent finally coming on line after I'd been on hold for 58.5 minutes; after getting "the picture," said agent in turn put me on hold while consulting someone/something and, 10 minutes later, my music on hold went dead -- no, the PBX hadn't quite dropped the connection to a fresh dial tone -- and 10 minutes after that I gave up on the possibility that my call was still in a live T-Mo queue and just hung up.
Known T-Mo New Year's issue? other? TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
At 02 Jan 2011 22:19:44 -0500 tlvp wrote:
> Trouble is, the My Account data is for someone else's T-Mobile account,
> not mine! What's more, it changes from one access to the next. First,
> it showed 1181 minutes remaining, with New Minute Start of 01-11-11;
> the next time it showed 1013 minutes remaining, with New Minute Start
> of 01-20-11. The Plan and Services descriptions also had nothing to do
> either with each other or with my actual T-Mo plan...
>
>...Known T-Mo New Year's issue? other? TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
>
My phone (not a 6610) is showing the correct info as of this moment- I
hadn't tried it in a while, however.
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 00:57:36 -0500, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@anoospaml.com> wrote:
> At 02 Jan 2011 22:19:44 -0500 tlvp wrote:
>
>> Trouble is, the My Account data is for someone else's T-Mobile account,
>> not mine! What's more, it changes from one access to the next. First,
>> it showed 1181 minutes remaining, with New Minute Start of 01-11-11;
>> the next time it showed 1013 minutes remaining, with New Minute Start
>> of 01-20-11. The Plan and Services descriptions also had nothing to do
>> either with each other or with my actual T-Mo plan...
>>
>
>> ...Known T-Mo New Year's issue? other? TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
>>
>
> My phone (not a 6610) is showing the correct info as of this moment- I
> hadn't tried it in a while, however.
I swapped my SIM over into a 2006-era LG cu400 (unSIMlocked from Cingular),
set up a wap.voicestream.com Access Point, and found the MyAccount info now
to be completely as it should be.
Must have been the old Nokia not knowing how to respond to a too-new-fangled
browser-sniffing snatch of the [X]HTML of the page it was trying to load --
or the querying page not knowing what to make of the response :-) .
[Maintaining browser-dependent web-page coding is a *huge* PITA -- one that
I avoid at *all* costs in my own work :-) .]
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:16:27 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> In article <op.vos9m40titl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>> [Maintaining browser-dependent web-page coding is a *huge* PITA -- one
> that
>> I avoid at *all* costs in my own work :-) .]
>
> I avoid it too.
>
> The problem is that the WAP browsers don't understand XHTML. XHTML pages
> display properly in any web browser that understands XHTML. :-P
Agreed. And the T-Mo t-zones engineers ought to know that too, and realize
that if they've got Nokia 6100 handsets out there whose WAP browsers really
are .WML-literate only (no other, non-WML, XHTML), they must do their browser
sniffing in a way that even those handsets can respond to meaningfully.
(Sigh!)
At least, that LG cu400 runs a mean instance of Opera Mini hi-fi v. 4.2 :-)
(jar of 2010.11.22).
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:10:06 -0500, tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:16:27 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <op.vos9m40titl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
>> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>> [Maintaining browser-dependent web-page coding is a *huge* PITA -- one
>> that
>>> I avoid at *all* costs in my own work :-) .]
>>
>> I avoid it too.
>>
>> The problem is that the WAP browsers don't understand XHTML. XHTML pages
>> display properly in any web browser that understands XHTML. :-P
>
> Agreed. And the T-Mo t-zones engineers ought to know that too, and realize
> that if they've got Nokia 6100 ...
Correction: 6610, I meant to write. Pardon the mistyping! Though 6100s may suffer similarly aged browsers :-) .
> ... handsets out there whose WAP browsers really
> are .WML-literate only (no other, non-WML, XHTML), they must do their browser
> sniffing in a way that even those handsets can respond to meaningfully.
>
> (Sigh!) ...
Another PITA is the widely accepted browsers that can't cope with .wml. Certainly IE 6 was wholly WML-illiterate. In those days, Opera 9.* was by far the best web browser with native WML-rendering support.
By my lights, it still is, though today it may have stronger coompetition on that score. But it's certainly still the best for inherent WML validation purposes :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> > The problem is that the WAP browsers don't understand XHTML. XHTML
pages
> > display properly in any web browser that understands XHTML. :-P
>
> Agreed. And the T-Mo t-zones engineers ought to know that too, and realize
> that if they've got Nokia 6100 handsets out there whose WAP browsers really
> are .WML-literate only (no other, non-WML, XHTML), they must do their browser
> sniffing in a way that even those handsets can respond to meaningfully.
As a web developer, there are certain old browsers that I won't support,
like IE versions earlier than 7. Key functionality does not exist, there
isn't a big enough userbase, etc.
So, from that point of view, I can understand T-Mo not supporting WAP
browsers.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
At 04 Jan 2011 22:22:06 -0800 Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <op.votne4xlitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > The problem is that the WAP browsers don't understand XHTML. XHTML
> pages
> > > display properly in any web browser that understands XHTML. :-P
> >
> > Agreed. And the T-Mo t-zones engineers ought to know that too, and
realize
> > that if they've got Nokia 6100 handsets out there whose WAP browsers
really
> > are .WML-literate only (no other, non-WML, XHTML), they must do their
browser
> > sniffing in a way that even those handsets can respond to meaningfully.
>
>
> As a web developer, there are certain old browsers that I won't
support,
> like IE versions earlier than 7. Key functionality does not exist,
there
> isn't a big enough userbase, etc.
I read not too long ago (probably on CNet) that the installed base of IE6
was huge, mostly from Enterprise upgrade apathy; many of those businesses
still clinging to XP haven't deployed IE7 or 8 systemwide. Do you find
that to be the case?
> So, from that point of view, I can understand T-Mo not supporting WAP
> browsers.
I suspect that carriers just assume "everyone" upgrades their handsets
every two years. Folks like tvlp and I, enjoying grandfathered plans,
tend to upgrade infrequently and outside of T-Mobile, as to not
inadvertently agree to a new plan or TOS.
I typically buy used non-Android smartphones a year or two removed from
the state of the art (to take advantage of lower unsubsidized prices), to
continue to use my grandfathered $6 T-Zones unlimited data. (T-Mo
apparently forces all T-Mo-branded Android phones onto $25-30 smartphone
data plans regardless of how they were purchased, but only forces non-
Android smartphones onto smartphone data plans if purchased with a subsidy.
Microsoft gave me a T-Mo-branded HTC WP7 phone gratis a few months back
and it works fine with my old GF'd data plan.)
> I read not too long ago (probably on CNet) that the installed base of
IE6
> was huge, mostly from Enterprise upgrade apathy; many of those businesses
> still clinging to XP haven't deployed IE7 or 8 systemwide. Do you find
> that to be the case?
There's probably still a large number of people using IE 6. You can't
upgrade at all if you're using anything earlier than XP. Win2000 users
can install Firefox or Chrome, so I don't feel any urgent need to
continue supporting IE 6.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:22:06 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> In article <op.votne4xlitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > The problem is that the WAP browsers don't understand XHTML. XHTML
> pages
>> > display properly in any web browser that understands XHTML. :-P
>>
>> Agreed. And the T-Mo t-zones engineers ought to know that too, and realize
>> that if they've got Nokia 6100 handsets out there whose WAP browsers really
>> are .WML-literate only (no other, non-WML, XHTML), they must do their browser
>> sniffing in a way that even those handsets can respond to meaningfully.
>
>
> As a web developer, there are certain old browsers that I won't support,
> like IE versions earlier than 7. Key functionality does not exist, there
> isn't a big enough userbase, etc.
>
> So, from that point of view, I can understand T-Mo not supporting WAP
> browsers.
From *that* point of view, yes. From the perspective of the T-Mobile customer
using a T-Mobile-issued phone, OtOH, such non-support is tantamount to desertion,
and does ... umm ... little to ... err .. maintain customer good-will :-)
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> From *that* point of view, yes. From the perspective of the T-Mobile customer
> using a T-Mobile-issued phone, OtOH, such non-support is tantamount to desertion,
> and does ... umm ... little to ... err .. maintain customer good-will :-)
I do understand that. However, there is a point where you have to draw
the line.
At the company I used to work for full-time, we didn't support Outlook
Express, for example. Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird, yes, Outlook
Express, no. We also didn't officially support Mac.
(Even Microsoft no longer supports Outlook Express, and I can offer many
good reasons to stop using it immediately.)
IE6 is bug-ridden and has security holes. If people give a damn about
making sure their computers are stable and secure, they'll upgrade from
IE6. Microsoft doesn't even support IE6 anymore.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:28:06 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> In article <ig22bk$vgu$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
> elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com says...
>
>> I read not too long ago (probably on CNet) that the installed base of
> IE6
>> was huge, mostly from Enterprise upgrade apathy; many of those businesses
>> still clinging to XP haven't deployed IE7 or 8 systemwide. Do you find
>> that to be the case?
>
>
> There's probably still a large number of people using IE 6. You can't
> upgrade at all if you're using anything earlier than XP. Win2000 users
> can install Firefox or Chrome, so I don't feel any urgent need to
> continue supporting IE 6.
Actually, I find that any HTML that *validates* correctly (at validator.w3.org)
displays the same in IE6, IE7, IE8, FF, Opera, old Netscape 7.*, and Safari -- no
need on my part to sniff for -- or take any special pains to support -- anything :-) .
And, if it's not using frames, it'll even render acceptably on cellular handsets
running Opera Mini.
Cheers,
-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> Actually, I find that any HTML that *validates* correctly (at validator.w3.org)
> displays the same in IE6, IE7, IE8, FF, Opera, old Netscape 7.*, and Safari -- no
> need on my part to sniff for -- or take any special pains to support -- anything :-) .
and... CSS and Javascript?
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
In message <MPG.278f07b2b42efb93989711@news.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article <op.vovad6wwitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
>tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>> Actually, I find that any HTML that *validates* correctly (at validator.w3.org)
>> displays the same in IE6, IE7, IE8, FF, Opera, old Netscape 7.*, and Safari -- no
>> need on my part to sniff for -- or take any special pains to support -- anything :-) .
>
>and... CSS and Javascript?
>
For the most part, CSS is the same if it validates.
JavaScript gets a bit more complicated since JavaScript implementations
still vary slightly, but many of the JavaScript libraries out there
smooth over the rough edges and give developers a common set of features
to work with. Even so, unless you're doing anything "weird", well
written JavaScript tends to work across browsers.
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 01:57:41 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> In article <op.vovad6wwitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>> Actually, I find that any HTML that *validates* correctly (at validator.w3.org)
>> displays the same in IE6, IE7, IE8, FF, Opera, old Netscape 7.*, and Safari -- no
>> need on my part to sniff for -- or take any special pains to support -- anything :-) .
>
> and... CSS and Javascript?
I do only inline styling, and use no .js as I assume that, like me, everyone's got that turned off :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:19:20 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> In article <op.vou91eceitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>> From *that* point of view, yes. From the perspective of the T-Mobile customer
>> using a T-Mobile-issued phone, OtOH, such non-support is tantamount to desertion,
>> and does ... umm ... little to ... err .. maintain customer good-will :-)
>
>
> I do understand that. However, there is a point where you have to draw
> the line.
>
> At the company I used to work for full-time, we didn't support Outlook
> Express, for example. Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird, yes, Outlook
> Express, no. We also didn't officially support Mac.
Ah, but did you ever once provide either OE or Mac to your customers as a "Welcome!" spiff?
T-Mobile did give me the handset they now seem no longer to support, when I began with them.
> (Even Microsoft no longer supports Outlook Express, and I can offer many
> good reasons to stop using it immediately.)
I have *no* reason to *stop* using it, as I never previously ever *started* using it:
I was never prepared to touch it even with the proverbial ten-foot pole :-) .
> IE6 is bug-ridden and has security holes. If people give a damn about
> making sure their computers are stable and secure, they'll upgrade from
> IE6. Microsoft doesn't even support IE6 anymore.
At least MS offers free replacements for the IE versions they no longer support :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
In article <hmrai6t6p1mierprnulcojc3aocdg69sdi@4ax.com>, Still-Just-A- Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net says...
>
> In message <MPG.278f07b2b42efb93989711@news.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>
> >In article <op.vovad6wwitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> >tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >> Actually, I find that any HTML that *validates* correctly (at validator.w3.org)
> >> displays the same in IE6, IE7, IE8, FF, Opera, old Netscape 7.*, and Safari -- no
> >> need on my part to sniff for -- or take any special pains to support -- anything :-) .
> >
> >and... CSS and Javascript?
> >
>
> For the most part, CSS is the same if it validates.
IE, particularly older versions of IE, have some obnoxious glitches in
their implementation of CSS,
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
In article <op.vowknyohitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>, tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:19:20 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.vou91eceitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> > tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >> From *that* point of view, yes. From the perspective of the T-Mobile customer
> >> using a T-Mobile-issued phone, OtOH, such non-support is tantamount to desertion,
> >> and does ... umm ... little to ... err .. maintain customer good-will :-)
> >
> >
> > I do understand that. However, there is a point where you have to draw
> > the line.
> >
> > At the company I used to work for full-time, we didn't support Outlook
> > Express, for example. Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird, yes, Outlook
> > Express, no. We also didn't officially support Mac.
>
> Ah, but did you ever once provide either OE or Mac to your customers as a "Welcome!" spiff?
> T-Mobile did give me the handset they now seem no longer to support, when I began with them.
We didn't, at least not when I worked there. We never officially
supported Macs.
> > IE6 is bug-ridden and has security holes. If people give a damn
about
> > making sure their computers are stable and secure, they'll upgrade from
> > IE6. Microsoft doesn't even support IE6 anymore.
>
> At least MS offers free replacements for the IE versions they no longer support :-) .
If you have a new enough operating system. IE7 and friends will only
install on XP or newer. If you have Windows 2000, you're stuck with IE6
or (preferably) you need to upgrade to Chrome, Safari or Firefox.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, but did you ever once provide either OE or Mac to your
> customers as a "Welcome!" spiff? T-Mobile did give me the handset
> they now seem no longer to support, when I began with them.
I suspect they *sold* you the handset but concealed the cost in a two
or three year contract.
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:03:41 -0500, XS11E <xs11eNO@spamyahoo.com> wrote:
> tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, but did you ever once provide either OE or Mac to your
>> customers as a "Welcome!" spiff? T-Mobile did give me the handset
>> they now seem no longer to support, when I began with them.
>
> I suspect they *sold* you the handset but concealed the cost in a two
> or three year contract.
Well, of course :-; . Only a 1-year contract, but who's counting?
My point is, if *they* provided the handset, it should be *their*
responsibility to keep supporting it, or to provide an alternative.
Contrast SMS's Mac example: his company never provided its customers
Mac systems, hence feels no responsibility to support any Mac systems.
That's perfectly reasonable, in my view; but T-Mobile's pulling out
the support rug from under equipment that they themselves provided,
and are not proposing to replace, is not.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> Well, of course :-; . Only a 1-year contract, but who's counting?
> My point is, if *they* provided the handset, it should be *their*
> responsibility to keep supporting it, or to provide an alternative.
It costs money and requires resources to provide support. To use
Microsoft as an example again... MS actually supports their products for
longer than many of their competitors. But try to get support for
Windows 2000. Or Office 2000 or 97, etc.
> That's perfectly reasonable, in my view; but T-Mobile's pulling out
> the support rug from under equipment that they themselves provided,
> and are not proposing to replace, is not.
How old is the phone in question?
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
At 06 Jan 2011 16:42:16 -0800 Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <op.voww37m2itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> > Well, of course :-; . Only a 1-year contract, but who's counting?
> > My point is, if *they* provided the handset, it should be *their*
> > responsibility to keep supporting it, or to provide an alternative.
>
> It costs money and requires resources to provide support. To use
> Microsoft as an example again... MS actually supports their products
for
> longer than many of their competitors. But try to get support for
> Windows 2000. Or Office 2000 or 97, etc.
>
>
> > That's perfectly reasonable, in my view; but T-Mobile's pulling out
> > the support rug from under equipment that they themselves provided,
> > and are not proposing to replace, is not.
>
> How old is the phone in question?
By tech standards, the Nokia 6610 is old enough to be powered by steam!
Circa 2003-ish, IIRC. I think that's when I bought my wife hers. Cute,
tiny handset for its day, and even had infrared for contacts sync and
internet tethering.
A bigger issue than the crummy browser, IMO, is the lack of 850MHz support.
Not a good roaming phone for the US, but works fine globally (its a
900/1800/1900 tri-band.) I stopped using my non-850 phones on T-Mobile
quite awhile ago, but I travel in the midwest quite a bit where T-Mo
roams onto several 850MHz GSM carriers, including, ironically, Verizon
Wireless (who absorbed Alltel's small GSM network that Alltel acquired
from Western Wireless.)
While I appreciate tvlp's frustration that something that used to work
stopped working, sadly T-Mo's contracts don't guarantee account
information via WAP browser.
If that feature is that important to him, there are plenty of low-cost T-
Mo prepaid phones with more modern XHTML browsers handing on pegs at the
local SprawlMarts and their ilk he could buy without extending his
contract or changing plans, though I suspect this is really one of those
"it's the principal" things, rather than the cost.
In the grand scheme, I'm thankful enough that T-Mo hasn't pulled the rug
out from under my grandfathered plan that I tend to overlook small
transgressions like these.
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
In message <MPG.278fc4bee1a6016a989714@news.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article <hmrai6t6p1mierprnulcojc3aocdg69sdi@4ax.com>, Still-Just-A-
>Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net says...
>>
>> In message <MPG.278f07b2b42efb93989711@news.justthe.net> Steve Sobol
>> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>> >In article <op.vovad6wwitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
>> >tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Actually, I find that any HTML that *validates* correctly (at validator.w3.org)
>> >> displays the same in IE6, IE7, IE8, FF, Opera, old Netscape 7.*, and Safari -- no
>> >> need on my part to sniff for -- or take any special pains to support -- anything :-) .
>> >
>> >and... CSS and Javascript?
>> >
>>
>> For the most part, CSS is the same if it validates.
>
>IE, particularly older versions of IE, have some obnoxious glitches in
>their implementation of CSS,
Supported versions tend to work fairly well. It's not 100% across the
board, but you generally have to go out of your way to find things that
don't work.
Similarly, little HTML5 content works in Netscape 4.
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:03:41 -0500, XS11E <xs11eNO@spamyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, but did you ever once provide either OE or Mac to your
>>> customers as a "Welcome!" spiff? T-Mobile did give me the
>>> handset they now seem no longer to support, when I began with
>>> them.
>>
>> I suspect they *sold* you the handset but concealed the cost in a
>> two or three year contract.
>
> Well, of course :-; . Only a 1-year contract, but who's counting?
> My point is, if *they* provided the handset, it should be *their*
> responsibility to keep supporting it, or to provide an
> alternative.
You're correct, I'll raise hell with those Ford people who won't
support my Model T anymore.....
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:42:16 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> In article <op.voww37m2itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>> Well, of course :-; . Only a 1-year contract, but who's counting?
>> My point is, if *they* provided the handset, it should be *their*
>> responsibility to keep supporting it, or to provide an alternative.
>
> It costs money and requires resources to provide support. To use
> Microsoft as an example again... MS actually supports their products for
> longer than many of their competitors. But try to get support for
> Windows 2000. Or Office 2000 or 97, etc.
It costs money and requires resources also to *remove* support where it
once was an inherent part of the resource-sniffing code of a web page.
Why *remove* support for a once-supported handset just because you must
add support for newer handsets?
>> That's perfectly reasonable, in my view; but T-Mobile's pulling out
>> the support rug from under equipment that they themselves provided,
>> and are not proposing to replace, is not.
>
> How old is the phone in question?
As Todd said (he beat me to it :-) ), it dates from 2003.
No matter; T-Mo's not going to budge on this one :-{ . And little by
little they're going to alienate me out of remaining their customer.
And then, if I'm to believe the J.D. Power reports, that T-Mo has
the highest customer satisfaction levels of any US cellular carriers,
I'll probably just have to swear off cellular telephony entirely :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 23:04:57 -0500, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@anoospaml.com> wrote:
> At 06 Jan 2011 16:42:16 -0800 Steve Sobol wrote:
>> In article <op.voww37m2itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
>> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>
>> > Well, of course :-; . Only a 1-year contract, but who's counting?
>> > My point is, if *they* provided the handset, it should be *their*
>> > responsibility to keep supporting it, or to provide an alternative.
>>
>> It costs money and requires resources to provide support. To use
>> Microsoft as an example again... MS actually supports their products
> for
>> longer than many of their competitors. But try to get support for
>> Windows 2000. Or Office 2000 or 97, etc.
>>
>>
>> > That's perfectly reasonable, in my view; but T-Mobile's pulling out
>> > the support rug from under equipment that they themselves provided,
>> > and are not proposing to replace, is not.
>>
>> How old is the phone in question?
>
> By tech standards, the Nokia 6610 is old enough to be powered by steam!
If that's so, how do you characterise the old Moto TimePort P-7389 class phones?
Or even the not quite so antique P-280 or T-250? The 6610 is downright modern in
comparison with those three TimePorts :-) .
> Circa 2003-ish, IIRC. I think that's when I bought my wife hers. Cute,
> tiny handset for its day, and even had infrared for contacts sync and
> internet tethering.
>
> A bigger issue than the crummy browser, IMO, is the lack of 850MHz support.
>
> Not a good roaming phone for the US, but works fine globally ...
Fine in my experience for US roaming, and for EurAsian roaming, but
worthless in such 850-only regions as parts of Ecuador (notably: Galapagos).
> ... (its a
> 900/1800/1900 tri-band.) I stopped using my non-850 phones on T-Mobile
> quite awhile ago, but I travel in the midwest quite a bit where T-Mo
> roams onto several 850MHz GSM carriers, including, ironically, Verizon
> Wireless (who absorbed Alltel's small GSM network that Alltel acquired
> from Western Wireless.)
Interesting. I was lucky never to encounter such situations.
> While I appreciate tvlp's frustration that something that used to work
> stopped working, sadly T-Mo's contracts don't guarantee account
> information via WAP browser.
Yeah. T-Mo brags about it, but doesn't guarantee it.
> If that feature is that important to him, there are plenty of low-cost T-
> Mo prepaid phones with more modern XHTML browsers handing on pegs at the
> local SprawlMarts and their ilk he could buy without extending his
> contract or changing plans, though I suspect this is really one of those
> "it's the principal" things, rather than the cost.
Actually, both a Moto SLVR L2 and an LG cu400 salvaged (at no cost) from
Cingular dustbins and unSIMlocked with at&t/ws's help handle that sort of
WAP-interfaced account info. But neither of those seems to have the storage
capacity for the number of contacts the Nokia handles for me.
> In the grand scheme, I'm thankful enough that T-Mo hasn't pulled the rug
> out from under my grandfathered plan that I tend to overlook small
> transgressions like these.
Yup; something to be said for that :-) -- though they are starting to yank
and tug a bit at the corners of that rug :-{ .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> It costs money and requires resources also to *remove* support where
it
> once was an inherent part of the resource-sniffing code of a web page.
> Why *remove* support for a once-supported handset just because you must
> add support for newer handsets?
You're a web developer, right?
Have you ever been called in to do a complete overhaul of a website?
I suspect that instead of removing support for WAP devices, T-Mobile may
have just done a completely new website and may or may not have included
WAP support.
> >> That's perfectly reasonable, in my view; but T-Mobile's pulling out
> >> the support rug from under equipment that they themselves provided,
> >> and are not proposing to replace, is not.
> >
> > How old is the phone in question?
>
> As Todd said (he beat me to it :-) ), it dates from 2003.
Close to eight years old.
> No matter; T-Mo's not going to budge on this one :-{ . And little by
> little they're going to alienate me out of remaining their customer.
I think you're being totally unreasonable. Again, call Microsoft's tech
support and ask if they'll help you solve a problem with Windows 2000.
They won't, even if you're willing to pay them.
> And then, if I'm to believe the J.D. Power reports, that T-Mo has
> the highest customer satisfaction levels of any US cellular carriers,
> I'll probably just have to swear off cellular telephony entirely :-) .
Well, I've had problems with Verizon lying to me about problems with
their network, and I've had post-merger Sprint CSR's say anything just
to get me off the phone.
T-Mobile's far from perfect, I have some issues with them, but where
customer service is involved, I do believe they're much better than the
alternatives.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
Re: t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown")
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:44:50 -0500, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> In article <op.voysrbnhitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com says...
>
>> It costs money and requires resources also to *remove* support where
> it
>> once was an inherent part of the resource-sniffing code of a web page.
>> Why *remove* support for a once-supported handset just because you must
>> add support for newer handsets?
>
>
> You're a web developer, right?
In my small way, yes.
> Have you ever been called in to do a complete overhaul of a website?
Thank goodness, no :-) .
> I suspect that instead of removing support for WAP devices, T-Mobile may
> have just done a completely new website and may or may not have included
> WAP support.
Yeah, that might well be the case, with the new developer(s) having not the
foggiest inkling of what the old site was doing, or how it was doing it.
>> ... > How old is the phone in question?
>>
>> As Todd said (he beat me to it :-) ), it dates from 2003.
>
> Close to eight years old.
Yup. My Volvo's twice as old as that, but the local dealership still supports it :-) .
>> No matter; T-Mo's not going to budge on this one :-{ . And little by
>> little they're going to alienate me out of remaining their customer.
>
> I think you're being totally unreasonable. Again, call Microsoft's tech
> support and ask if they'll help you solve a problem with Windows 2000.
Microsoft has never been willing to help me with with any problem with any
of their OSes, because I've always had OEM editions of those OSes, and it's
the OEM's responsibility, in cases like that, not MS's ...
> They won't, even if you're willing to pay them.
.... and that's as true for W2000 as it was for Win 3.1 and is for Win XP and Vista :-) .
>> And then, if I'm to believe the J.D. Power reports, that T-Mo has
>> the highest customer satisfaction levels of any US cellular carriers,
>> I'll probably just have to swear off cellular telephony entirely :-) .
>
> Well, I've had problems with Verizon lying to me about problems with
> their network, and I've had post-merger Sprint CSR's say anything just
> to get me off the phone.
>
> T-Mobile's far from perfect, I have some issues with them, but where
> customer service is involved, I do believe they're much better than the
> alternatives.
My point exactly. If T-Mo *is* indeed much better than the alternatives
(and I have no reason to doubt it), I *certainly* won't want to do business
with those alternatives, if I find myself giving up on T-Mo, will I? :-)
Well, let's give it a rest for now; thanks for your sympathy in trying to
straighten out my expectations -- and Happy New Year!
And cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> > I suspect that instead of removing support for WAP devices, T-Mobile may
> > have just done a completely new website and may or may not have included
> > WAP support.
>
> Yeah, that might well be the case, with the new developer(s) having not the
> foggiest inkling of what the old site was doing, or how it was doing it.
I suspect that IF that's what happened, it was a conscious decision on
T-Mobile's part.
I'm speaking both as someone who gets paid to do tech support, and
someone who gets paid to write computer programs and create websites (I
do all three). There is a point of diminishing returns, where it makes
little sense to continue supporting certain hardware and software
configurations, certain products, etc.
> Microsoft has never been willing to help me with with any problem with
any
> of their OSes, because I've always had OEM editions of those OSes, and it's
> the OEM's responsibility, in cases like that, not MS's ...
Really? Because you can pay for support in situations like that.
> > They won't, even if you're willing to pay them.
>
> ... and that's as true for W2000 as it was for Win 3.1 and is for Win XP and Vista :-) .
well, actually, no, Windows XP and Vista haven't reached end-of-life
yet.
> My point exactly. If T-Mo *is* indeed much better than the
alternatives
> (and I have no reason to doubt it), I *certainly* won't want to do business
> with those alternatives, if I find myself giving up on T-Mo, will I? :-)
Look, I'm not telling you what to do. You will do what you feel is right
for you. Which is exactly what you SHOULD do. I'm just trying to make a
point.
> Well, let's give it a rest for now; thanks for your sympathy in trying to
> straighten out my expectations -- and Happy New Year!
<sigh> Happy new year to you too
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/Web Dev/IT Support
Apple Valley, CA sjsobol@JustThe.net
t-zones home error revisited (was: "File format unknown") 
Linear Mode
