Leave Cingular for Verizon?

SMS wrote:
> klugja@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> I also like the fact that Verizon still supports analog. I have had
>>> analog coverage where neither popular digital cell phone standard
>>> (CDMA or GSM) will work. My V60s and V325 can make calls in the
>>> strangest places sometimes.
>> I am switching from Cingular Analog/TDMA, because of poor GSM coverage
>> in places where I normally roam off their network. I decided to try
>> Sprint first because the current AC plan has no coverage at our cabin
>> (national single rate shows analog), and Sprint shows analog coverage.
>> So if you don't pay for national single rate, is there really any
>> analog coverage, except maybe on Verizon at long distances from their
>> towers?
>>
>> I just got a Sprint phone, set it up, and am waiting for an antenna
>> adapter, and then I activate and try for two weeks.
>
> It sucks what Verizon did with AC2. They did it because of complaints
> about off-extended-network roaming charges, but surely they could have
> made such roaming an option that subscribers had to call to have
> enabled, expressly agreeing (again) to pay the roaming charges. Of
> course this might look bad in terms of their marketing.

I know a few people who got no objections when they renewed and asked
that their plan be kept on AC1.

In article <45a36559$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:

> Are you saying no coverage, or no native coverage?

I'm saying no native coverage. People don't always have nationwide
plans or want to pay $0.69 per minute to roam.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:00:18 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>It depends on the area, but in the west, including California, Nevada,
>Oregon, and Washington, Verizon is magnitudes better than Cingular.
>Also, in Alaska, the CDMA and AMPS coverage is much better than the GSM
>coverage. I guess there are some areas where Cingular is better, but in
>the west, Cingular is hemorrhaging subscribers that are moving to Verizon.

Skagway, AK is probably the exception to the rule. My wife visited
there last June and her Stinkular GSM phone worked there, but my
brother in law's Sprint CDMA phone did not. I assume there is no CDMA
there, unless his phone didn't have a PRL that allowed roaming on
whatever local carrier was there.

Dave

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:58:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>It's a huge advantage, though once Cingular turns off their AMPS
>network, part of the advantage will disappear. It's rather amusing that
>as a Verizon customer I can make calls on Cingular's network, in areas
>where 95% of Cingular's customers can't use the only available Cingular
>network, i.e. in the Florida Everglades.

This is VERY true! Surprisingly when I was there 2 weeks ago, my phone
roamed on SID 24 (Cingular analog) and the call did go through. It
bounced between Stinkular and Verizon (SID 4152 or 4192).

Florida is not that great for Verizon considering all native coverage
is in the PCS band Some areas of the Keys aren't that great
(Sugarloaf Key is one example) but places like Key West and Key Largo
are just fine.

>A few minutes ago my nephew called me from Gainesville, FL, reminding me
>to watch the BCS game at 5:00 p.m. PST. He was calling from his cell
>phone, and I could barely decode what he was saying the quality of the
>call was bad. I told him, "let me guess, you have Cingular." He laughed,
>and told me that he was changing soon, to either Alltel or Verizon, as
>the Cingular coverage in Gainesville is terrible.

In Florida, I'd go with Alltel if it were available, since it roams on
Verizon in the rest of the country and is in the 800 MHz band in
Florida.

Like I've said before, VZW is the best IMHO, but Alltel is a close
second.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:23:35 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:50:46 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I know a few people who got no objections when they renewed and asked
>>that their plan be kept on AC1.
>
>We stayed on AC1 when we renewed some time ago...no problem.

I should have done so, but unfortunately I was changing from an
individual plan to a family plan. I'm sure that VZW wouldn't have
liked it if my phone was on AC1 and the wife and step daughter's
phones were on AC2.

Dave

Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:58:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's a huge advantage, though once Cingular turns off their AMPS
>> network, part of the advantage will disappear. It's rather amusing that
>> as a Verizon customer I can make calls on Cingular's network, in areas
>> where 95% of Cingular's customers can't use the only available Cingular
>> network, i.e. in the Florida Everglades.
>
> This is VERY true! Surprisingly when I was there 2 weeks ago, my phone
> roamed on SID 24 (Cingular analog) and the call did go through. It
> bounced between Stinkular and Verizon (SID 4152 or 4192).
>
> Florida is not that great for Verizon considering all native coverage
> is in the PCS band

That's what I would have thought, but I've had no problems in south
Florida with Verizon, despite being only at 1900 MHz. Verizon was
top-rated for the Miami metro area by Consumer Reports, which surprised
me. Maybe because it's so flat, the negative aspects of 1900 MHz aren't
as readily apparent.

Some areas of the Keys aren't that great
> (Sugarloaf Key is one example) but places like Key West and Key Largo
> are just fine.

> In Florida, I'd go with Alltel if it were available, since it roams on
> Verizon in the rest of the country and is in the 800 MHz band in
> Florida.
>
> Like I've said before, VZW is the best IMHO, but Alltel is a close
> second.

No Alltel where I live, though I still see their national advertising on
TV. Kind of surprising that they spend so much on national advertising
considering that much of the country can't even sign up with them.

Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:00:18 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It depends on the area, but in the west, including California, Nevada,
>> Oregon, and Washington, Verizon is magnitudes better than Cingular.
>> Also, in Alaska, the CDMA and AMPS coverage is much better than the GSM
>> coverage. I guess there are some areas where Cingular is better, but in
>> the west, Cingular is hemorrhaging subscribers that are moving to Verizon.
>
> Skagway, AK is probably the exception to the rule. My wife visited
> there last June and her Stinkular GSM phone worked there, but my
> brother in law's Sprint CDMA phone did not. I assume there is no CDMA
> there, unless his phone didn't have a PRL that allowed roaming on
> whatever local carrier was there.

The GSM coverage in Alaska is improving greatly. When I first visited
there about three years ago, there was no GSM at all, just a lot of TDMA
and AMPS, and CDMA in the larger towns.

SMS wrote:
> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>> In article <45a2db6d$0$69006$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, if you look at all the independent studies, there are
>>> better and poorer providers. Verizon tends to be the best provider in
>>> the most parts of the country. You may find an isolated area where
>>> another provider is better, but overall, you need to go by the survey
>>> results.
>>
>> You and Mij are both right. But try to find native VZW coverage in
>> Arkansas or Oklahoma, including the large cities, like Little Rock and
>> Oklahoma City. Nothing.
>
> Are you saying no coverage, or no native coverage? Most users just want
> coverage, and don't care all that much about which carrier is providing
> it, occasional non-native coverage is no biggie. In the past two weeks
> I've roamed, with a Verizon phone, onto Golden State Cellular, both CDMA
> and AMPS, and onto Cingular AMPS. I wasn't thrilled about roaming onto
> Cingular, as I think I will be charged for it, but since there was no
> CDMA or GSM in the area I was, at least I was doing better than 95% or
> so or Cingular's own subscribers that can't use Cingular's AMPS network
> at all.

I know people in Arkansas and a small part of the reason why I haven't
gone to visit them is the fact I'll be stuck on Alltel (locally known as
"Aww hell") the entire time I am there. Their service is almost
acceptable for voice coverage but, at least in Texas, getting a 14.4k
switched data call out of their network requires anywhere from 3 to 20
redial attempts, and of course 1xRTT/EVDO doesn't work. The local
Alltel buildout is 1xRTT capable, but no @vzw3g.com roaming.

I will say Alltel's CDMA service beats the crap out of the jokers
Verizon chooses to roam onto when you travel up US 287 from Wichita
Falls to Amarillo. Absolutely no data services, text messages, or vmail
notification. Qualcomm should de-license these carriers for their own
image's sake.

JS

Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:0978q2hi9ko7ggdcp6ttmq77b88el5ga45@4ax.com:

> In Florida, I'd go with Alltel if it were available, since it roams on
> Verizon in the rest of the country and is in the 800 MHz band in
> Florida.
>
>

Alltel's coverage is on the WEST coast of Florida, but roams on the East.
They got the whole West coast covered very well. They also have great
coverage in SC and NC, especially here in coastal SC and NE of Charleston
where Verizon only bought up a little PCS carrier in the lucrative Myrtle
Beach market where Alltel is the 800B carrier very built out.

Above Clinton, SC, NW of Columbia, Alltel allows their PRL to roam onto
Verizon in any dead spots, which gives them nice coverage across Alltel,
Verizon 800 and Sprint PCS...the last time I was up.

In the last week I just switched to Verizon after many years with Cingular.
My reason for changing was that Cingular never did improve their coverage in
several spots I needed it. So far, I seem to have solved my coverage
problem, but 39.99 is double my 19.95 plan cost of Cingular. Ya gets what
ya pays for...

The switchover was perfection. One minute the Cingular phone was working
and the next the Verizon phone had my phone number that had been at
Cingular.

When I found that the free Verizon phone came without a belt holder, I
called for phone insurance. The woman told me I had a $50 deductible and
signed me up. Last night I went through the paperwork they sent me and
discoverred an extended warrantee that has no deductible for phone damage or
loss. I called again and got the upgrade for $1 more per month.

I don't care for the free ringtones that come with the phone. At least one
of them should be a basic traditional phone ringing sound. I guess they
want to force you to pay for a ringtone.

I tried to leave an outgoing message on the voicemail that was longer than
they allow. Oh well....

There were problems processing my order. Verizon did not phone me about
them. I had to call Verizon twice to get things resolved. Then Verizon
Fed-Ex'd the phone overnight at no charge. So, there was a week of
stupidity, and one day of instant service. (I had changed my home phone
number. I had notified my credit card company, but the credit bureau did
not yet know my new home number. Thus, my Verizon service was held up.
Credit bureaus do not accept phone number changes from the public. It has
to come through creditors.) Verizon should have called me about the credit
verification problem.

That is about all I can gripe about, so far.


"Malathan" <malathan@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s6l2q2t7v9kuogg6ottga6mq1e8ssi5u7t@4ax.com...
> Wanting feedback from those who switched from Cingular to Verizon and
> your experiences regarding the two companies.
>
>
> I am a cingular customer who is tired of their cr@p and am looking at
> switching to Verizon. Unfortunately in switching (either to Verizon
> or renewing contract with Cingular), I will lose my 7pm evenings and
> lose 200 minutes (family plan). I am an AT&T grandfathed customer.
>
> If I renew with Cingular, I will get rollover minutes, which will
> offset the lost minutes and calling time. Verizon doesn't have that.
>
>
> Currently I have a Sony Ericson 637 phone (both family lines) and have
> notices over past 6 months to get increasingly dropped calls and
> static when calling between them. The phones, while over 2 years old,
> support blue tooth. I recently got a headset and find I get static on
> it quite a bit. I suspect the phone is the primary culprit, but also
> believe a lot of the dropped calls, voice echos, and static are due to
> Cingular as well.
>
>
> So for those who have switched from Cingular to Verizon, what is your
> experience? Better/worse call quality? Areas of service that are not
> as strong as Cingular (I am in Portland OR)? Should I bite the bullet
> and stay with Cingular given the lack of promotional offers with
> regards to rollover minutes or early call times with Verizon?
>
>
>
> - Clayton

I should add that I'm in The Silicon Valley. The Cingular GSM dead spots
were the Southeast Hills of San Jose, the city of Mountain View near Moffet
Field, and the ritzy golf communities of La Quinta, California.

"Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote in message
news68ph.13521$ZT3.12797@newssvr19.news.prodigy. com...
> In the last week I just switched to Verizon after many years with
> Cingular. My reason for changing was that Cingular never did improve their
> coverage in several spots I needed it. So far, I seem to have solved my
> coverage problem, but 39.99 is double my 19.95 plan cost of Cingular. Ya
> gets what ya pays for...
>
> The switchover was perfection. One minute the Cingular phone was working
> and the next the Verizon phone had my phone number that had been at
> Cingular.
>
> When I found that the free Verizon phone came without a belt holder, I
> called for phone insurance. The woman told me I had a $50 deductible and
> signed me up. Last night I went through the paperwork they sent me and
> discoverred an extended warrantee that has no deductible for phone damage
> or loss. I called again and got the upgrade for $1 more per month.
>
> I don't care for the free ringtones that come with the phone. At least
> one of them should be a basic traditional phone ringing sound. I guess
> they want to force you to pay for a ringtone.
>
> I tried to leave an outgoing message on the voicemail that was longer than
> they allow. Oh well....
>
> There were problems processing my order. Verizon did not phone me about
> them. I had to call Verizon twice to get things resolved. Then Verizon
> Fed-Ex'd the phone overnight at no charge. So, there was a week of
> stupidity, and one day of instant service. (I had changed my home phone
> number. I had notified my credit card company, but the credit bureau did
> not yet know my new home number. Thus, my Verizon service was held up.
> Credit bureaus do not accept phone number changes from the public. It has
> to come through creditors.) Verizon should have called me about the
> credit verification problem.
>
> That is about all I can gripe about, so far.
>
>
> "Malathan" <malathan@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:s6l2q2t7v9kuogg6ottga6mq1e8ssi5u7t@4ax.com...
>> Wanting feedback from those who switched from Cingular to Verizon and
>> your experiences regarding the two companies.
>>
>>
>> I am a cingular customer who is tired of their cr@p and am looking at
>> switching to Verizon. Unfortunately in switching (either to Verizon
>> or renewing contract with Cingular), I will lose my 7pm evenings and
>> lose 200 minutes (family plan). I am an AT&T grandfathed customer.
>>
>> If I renew with Cingular, I will get rollover minutes, which will
>> offset the lost minutes and calling time. Verizon doesn't have that.
>>
>>
>> Currently I have a Sony Ericson 637 phone (both family lines) and have
>> notices over past 6 months to get increasingly dropped calls and
>> static when calling between them. The phones, while over 2 years old,
>> support blue tooth. I recently got a headset and find I get static on
>> it quite a bit. I suspect the phone is the primary culprit, but also
>> believe a lot of the dropped calls, voice echos, and static are due to
>> Cingular as well.
>>
>>
>> So for those who have switched from Cingular to Verizon, what is your
>> experience? Better/worse call quality? Areas of service that are not
>> as strong as Cingular (I am in Portland OR)? Should I bite the bullet
>> and stay with Cingular given the lack of promotional offers with
>> regards to rollover minutes or early call times with Verizon?
>>
>>
>>
>> - Clayton
>
>

George wrote:

> I know a few people who got no objections when they renewed and asked
> that their plan be kept on AC1.

I kept AC1. But a lot of customers, I'd say the vast majority, have no
comprehension of the differences beyond what Verizon marketing tells
them. I.e., one relative, who got switched from AC1 to AC2 when she
changed to a family plan (no choice about switching to AC2), didn't
realize that a) she lost 8 p.m. nights, and b) she lost a lot of
coverage in non-Verizon AMPS areas, where AMPS is the only coverage
available.

Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> In article <45a36559$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>
>> Are you saying no coverage, or no native coverage?
>
> I'm saying no native coverage. People don't always have nationwide
> plans or want to pay $0.69 per minute to roam.

No, Verizon's extended network includes roaming at no charge. The main
coverage that was lost with AC2, was non-Verizon AMPS roaming. With AC2,
there is no roaming off the extended network, and there are very few
CDMA networks that are not part of the extended network.

In my experiences, Cingular does have some flaky technology. A client
put his cingular broadband card into a Sony Vaio laptop and caused a
complete system failure. Hard drive reformat required.

The downside is that Verizon technology is solidly pro-verizon.
There's very little you can do to change a verizon phone to another
carrier. From what I've seen, Cingular phones provide much more
flexibility with international roaming and adapting to the local
networks.

Dan

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 12:22:06 -0800, Malathan <malathan@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Wanting feedback from those who switched from Cingular to Verizon and
>your experiences regarding the two companies.
>
>
>I am a cingular customer who is tired of their cr@p and am looking at
>switching to Verizon. Unfortunately in switching (either to Verizon
>or renewing contract with Cingular), I will lose my 7pm evenings and
>lose 200 minutes (family plan). I am an AT&T grandfathed customer.
>
>If I renew with Cingular, I will get rollover minutes, which will
>offset the lost minutes and calling time. Verizon doesn't have that.
>
>
>Currently I have a Sony Ericson 637 phone (both family lines) and have
>notices over past 6 months to get increasingly dropped calls and
>static when calling between them. The phones, while over 2 years old,
>support blue tooth. I recently got a headset and find I get static on
>it quite a bit. I suspect the phone is the primary culprit, but also
>believe a lot of the dropped calls, voice echos, and static are due to
>Cingular as well.
>
>
>So for those who have switched from Cingular to Verizon, what is your
>experience? Better/worse call quality? Areas of service that are not
>as strong as Cingular (I am in Portland OR)? Should I bite the bullet
>and stay with Cingular given the lack of promotional offers with
>regards to rollover minutes or early call times with Verizon?
>
>
>
>- Clayton

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45a5175f$0$69031$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>> In article <45a36559$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>
>>> Are you saying no coverage, or no native coverage?
>>
>> I'm saying no native coverage. People don't always have nationwide
>> plans or want to pay $0.69 per minute to roam.
>
> No, Verizon's extended network includes roaming at no charge. The main
> coverage that was lost with AC2, was non-Verizon AMPS roaming. With AC2,
> there is no roaming off the extended network, and there are very few CDMA
> networks that are not part of the extended network.

So why would I want to give up the AC1 plan?

"Boomer" wrote
>
> "SMS" wrote
>> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>>> SMS wrote:
>>>> Are you saying no coverage, or no native coverage?
>>>
>>> I'm saying no native coverage. People don't always have nationwide
>>> plans or want to pay $0.69 per minute to roam.
>>
>> No, Verizon's extended network includes roaming at no charge. The main
>> coverage that was lost with AC2, was non-Verizon AMPS roaming. With AC2,
>> there is no roaming off the extended network, and there are very few CDMA
>> networks that are not part of the extended network.
>
> So why would I want to give up the AC1 plan?

Because some other VZW incentive requiring that switch trumps it.

Boomer wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45a5175f$0$69031$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>>> In article <45a36559$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying no coverage, or no native coverage?
>>> I'm saying no native coverage. People don't always have nationwide
>>> plans or want to pay $0.69 per minute to roam.
>> No, Verizon's extended network includes roaming at no charge. The main
>> coverage that was lost with AC2, was non-Verizon AMPS roaming. With AC2,
>> there is no roaming off the extended network, and there are very few CDMA
>> networks that are not part of the extended network.
>
> So why would I want to give up the AC1 plan?

I think that there may be some CDMA networks that are paid roaming on
AC1 but included on AC2.

On 2007-01-12, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Boomer wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:45a5175f$0$69031$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>>>> In article <45a36559$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying no coverage, or no native coverage?
>>>> I'm saying no native coverage. People don't always have nationwide
>>>> plans or want to pay $0.69 per minute to roam.
>>> No, Verizon's extended network includes roaming at no charge. The main
>>> coverage that was lost with AC2, was non-Verizon AMPS roaming. With AC2,
>>> there is no roaming off the extended network, and there are very few CDMA
>>> networks that are not part of the extended network.
>>
>> So why would I want to give up the AC1 plan?
>
> I think that there may be some CDMA networks that are paid roaming on
> AC1 but included on AC2.

I'm pretty sure there are some AMPS networks that are paid roaming with
AC1 but included with AC2. Look at the coverage east of San Angelo, TX.

Dennis Ferguson

Hi all,

besides 'better coverage', 'more minutes', I did by chance fall into a
very different trap going to t-mobile (this concerns only t-mobile USA
which was acquired, but the old clueless idiots are still running the
show so it seems: no 'German quality' here!):

this is something everybody should also check when going to a
different/first mobile service:

they do have Internet features.
nice if it works.

simplest services that use the Intenet:
picture emails
sms (email between providers)

I found out the hard way:
no use of t-mobile for really professional stuff:
I cannot send screen shots supporting people, to most of them
I cannot, e.g., send sms to alltel

I found out why:

t-mobile has a grossly mosconfigured Internet communication setup
(t-mobile US ! what was that before? is still the same, the majority
share holder seems to have no influence):

trying to send pic emails:

getting on the phone: 'message sent'

Well no, on the other end, the message was actually refused:
for NXDOMAIN

t-mobile pic messages come from tmomail.net .

That domain is registered, has DNS servers listed, but, oh my:
the listed DNS servers don't know about tmomail.net.
And here the 'hammer': contacting their email support:
their support replies from t-mobilesupport.com:
and those emails are refused for NXDOMAIN

I guess the same issue arises when I try to send text messages to
alltel customers:
they don't get anything, I get 'messgae sent'.

Yes, this 'works' with attglobal.net, yahoo, hotmail, and probably most
'pay for volume/mbox size' providers as the receipient of t-mobile
messages from tmomail.net or t-mobilesupport.com.
That's because they do accept any unchecked email. At the end I explain
that part, not necessary for this here.

So if you need to really communicate, and not just send porn to a
hotmail address, but, e.g., a screenshot to a supported customer, then
you need to make sure that this works (oh yes, the picmails from
t-mobile don't render correctly either: while IE shows the embedded
picture, but not the framing around it, other mailers don't open
anything and just show a lot of unresolved attachments because their
email mime stuff is totally wrong!).

For 'real' people: don't go to t-mobile.
Not that I did not work with them:
clueless support: 'it is the other end' (of course, what was I
thinking!)
next level technical: understands the issue but no correction.

the t-mobile US Internec communication is originating from two
misconfigured domains:
no DNS service.

t-mobile support case #: 3255401

Now before I decide if I either terminate the contract for deception
(they seem to intentionally refuse to correct that, this is just a
'pretend' service that won't work for real, just with spam friendly
providers), and ask my money back for all messages ever sent, or sue
them for fulfillment of the contract (correct mime pic mail format,
correct misconfigured DNS), and sue on behalf of all people who ever
paid for this service while it is not working,
I will check other providers how they are configured.

Besides coverage, minutes: a handy is not just a phone, but a
communication device.
t-mobile does not seem to understand that all has to work, also the DNS
service.

Check with the provider you eye:
after cost
after minutes
after plans
:
when sending messages from a phone of your prospect next provider:
is the message format correct (for mime: does it render correctly, not
just the pic)
is the email configuration correct (their email server: do emails from
there pass normal header checks for correct HELO/EHLO, does the sending
domain exist (this means not just registered, but do the name servers
know about it)

if not: it will very probably not interoperate with other providers for
email and sms.

My .02 on how to chose a mobile communication provider, not just some
phone.

Mike


----here is a 'what about DNS'------
email:
98% of spam comes from 'bots', i.e. some SW slipped into someone's
computer.
It is not sent from an 'email' system. The messages are 'canned',
including some fake header.
This makes that normal email headers don't match: the sending IP is not
associated with the sending domain.
Also, 90% of all spam use fake sending system identification. That is
sent from the sending mail server to the receiving mail server or
client (called HELO/EHLO). Most spam has no matter what in there.
So just by not doing anything on a mail server, letting it verify
HELO/EHLO, existence of the pretended sending domain, and match that
the sending IP is part of that domain: you do reduce spam by 98%: only
spam from real mail servers will still get through. All the bots' (a
bot is an idiot's unprotected computer working for spammers and
scammers, willfully provided by directly connecting it unprotected to
the Internet, and with 'unprotected' I mean useless or misconfigured
firewalls ...) traffic will not get through.

Now why does, e.g., attglobal.net, yahoo, aol not do just that?

$$$

I found that all 'pay for volume' email providers do the same:

you get a 'free' account, or a 'cheap' one, with a pretty small
mailbox.
there is spam filtering
but you cannot configure automatic spam deletion, they all just 'mark'
some mark even in a form that a filter won't 'see' the mark so you
cannot just put up your filter to delete all messages where the subject
line starts with <<potential spam>>, because the system actually does
not contain the mark.
With 'normal' spam, that little mailbox will be full within a day or
two.
So if you don't go in and delete all spam, or if you don't download all
your spam (your bandwidth....) all the time and delete it then from
your computer, your mailbox will flag 'mailbox full' for the couple of
'real' emails that come in for you.
You need either to upgrade from the free service to a pay for with
larger mailbox (so you only need to do spam deletion or download every
5 days instead of every 2), or on your pay for service 'upgrade' for
the next higher cost bracket with a larger mail box.

So it is totally intentional that you get misconfigured spam messages
that sport very obviously fake headers.

different for corporations, professionals:

most corporations I deal with do not open their mail servers to let
everything in unchecked.
They do the 'normal' HELO/EHLO verification (e.g. some spam just sends
a '|; sign, that's forbidden in a HELO/EHLO string and there is no real
use for it), eliminating most spam.
They do the 'normal' sending system address verification (is it part of
the domain and is it congruent with the HELO/EHLO info received).
These two checks reduce spam by 98%.

However, a 'company' like t-mobile, with a misconfigured DNS, will not
be able to send mail to a 'real' or 'just configured, not even using
blacklists, no fascist exaggerations email system.

check for yourself:

t-mobile phone emails/sms come from tmomail.net.

whois says about tmomail.net:
Domain servers in listed order:
PDNS3.ULTRADNS.ORG
PDNS6.ULTRADNS.CO.UK
PDNS5.ULTRADNS.INFO
PDNS2.ULTRADNS.NET
PDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET
PDNS4.ULTRADNS.ORG

all of these return:
hquer:~ # for i in PDNS3.ULTRADNS.ORG PDNS6.ULTRADNS.CO.UK
PDNS5.ULTRADNS.INFO PDNS2.ULTRADNS.NEt PDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET
PDNS4.ULTRADNS.ORG; do nslookup tmomail.net $i ; done
Server: PDNS3.ULTRADNS.ORG
Address: 199.7.68.1#53

*** Can't find tmomail.net: No answer

Server: PDNS6.ULTRADNS.CO.UK
Address: 204.74.115.1#53

*** Can't find tmomail.net: No answer

Server: PDNS5.ULTRADNS.INFO
Address: 204.74.114.1#53

*** Can't find tmomail.net: No answer

Server: PDNS2.ULTRADNS.NEt
Address: 204.74.109.1#53

*** Can't find tmomail.net: No answer

Server: PDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET
Address: 204.74.108.1#53

*** Can't find tmomail.net: No answer

Server: PDNS4.ULTRADNS.ORG
Address: 199.7.69.1#53

*** Can't find tmomail.net: No answer

..... and trying to contact t-mobile support: bad luck!
t-mobile support sends from
t-mobilesupport.com

which has DNS servers listed, but no DNS service either:

from whois:
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET
PRODNS03.VOICESTREAM.COM

and trying to check if the domain has service:

hquer:~ # for i in NS1-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET PRODNS03.VOICESTREAM.COM ;
do nslookup t-mobilesupport.com $i; done
Server: NS1-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET
Address: 206.228.179.10#53

*** Can't find t-mobilesupport.com: No answer

;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
(I tried a couple of times, one of them is currently down).


there are DNS tool sites available from where you can check if the
originating domains from our provider do even exist (i.e. name servers
do know about it).

here is t-mobile.com: now that works (but that's not done by the
acuired idiots at t-mobile US):
hquer:~ # for i in NS1-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET PRODNS03.VOICESTREAM.COM ;
do nslookup t-mobile.com $i; done
Server: NS1-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET
Address: 206.228.179.10#53

Name: t-mobile.com
Address: 65.161.188.152

;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached


Besides minutes, plans, etc:
check the history of the corporation

if the corporation had been acquired or changed majority share holding:
how was the service before?
did people like it?

in this case, nothing did change: the new t-monile label on the set of
failing/ailing/nonperforming mobile companies acquired is still run by
the same people!

My choices are:
sue for contract fulfillment (promised services not rendered, pretended
to be rendered, deception),
or sue for termination (we all know now why they do 2 year
contracts.... it is more expensive to sue for early termination than
just leave it unused on the side and not renew)


My advice: stay with verizon (have someone check their originating
email domains and message format for pic/email/sms from that provider,
look for one who does it right)!

I had cingular......

Mike



Peter Pan schrieb:

> theguy@whatever.net wrote:
>
> > seems to depend on where you live. in the pacific northwest, cingular
> > is a ton better than verizon. not even close. out here, people are
> > leaving verizon wireless by the droves and the best coverage is with
> > cingular. verizon wireless has very very poor coverage in the west
> > and their customer non support is worthless.
>
> You may want to rephrase that and eliminate the bold faced lie(S).. I live
> in the PNW (rathdum Idaho), and while cingular has stores about 15 miles
> away, and will gladly sell you a phone, it will **NOT** work in this area,
> AT ALL! Funny, but verizon works great here, yet cingular/sprint/etc don't
> work at all! I was vacationing in Las Vegas (that's out west), using my
> verizon phone, and it not only worked great but switched to high speed evdo
> mode..
>
> So much for that c*** about the pacific northwest (lie #1), and the other
> c*** about out west (lie #2)......

I have both and prefer Cingular. The Cingular rollover minutes and not
having a phone with half the features blocked is worth it for me.

I don't live near a major city and Cingular seems to have the better
coverage in my area. My verizon phone has the most dropped calls and worse
signal.


"Malathan" <malathan@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s6l2q2t7v9kuogg6ottga6mq1e8ssi5u7t@4ax.com...
> Wanting feedback from those who switched from Cingular to Verizon and
> your experiences regarding the two companies.
>
>
> I am a cingular customer who is tired of their cr@p and am looking at
> switching to Verizon. Unfortunately in switching (either to Verizon
> or renewing contract with Cingular), I will lose my 7pm evenings and
> lose 200 minutes (family plan). I am an AT&T grandfathed customer.
>
> If I renew with Cingular, I will get rollover minutes, which will
> offset the lost minutes and calling time. Verizon doesn't have that.
>
>
> Currently I have a Sony Ericson 637 phone (both family lines) and have
> notices over past 6 months to get increasingly dropped calls and
> static when calling between them. The phones, while over 2 years old,
> support blue tooth. I recently got a headset and find I get static on
> it quite a bit. I suspect the phone is the primary culprit, but also
> believe a lot of the dropped calls, voice echos, and static are due to
> Cingular as well.
>
>
> So for those who have switched from Cingular to Verizon, what is your
> experience? Better/worse call quality? Areas of service that are not
> as strong as Cingular (I am in Portland OR)? Should I bite the bullet
> and stay with Cingular given the lack of promotional offers with
> regards to rollover minutes or early call times with Verizon?
>
>
>
> - Clayton

"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in
news:FY6dnXDp9fcdmCnYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@insightbb.co m:

> I don't live near a major city and Cingular seems to have the better
> coverage in my area. My verizon phone has the most dropped calls and
> worse signal.
>
>

Oh, oh.....This thread’s about to get nasty.......(c;

Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

I think John lavas will ring in soon.


Larry wrote:
> "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:FY6dnXDp9fcdmCnYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@insightbb.co m:
>
>> I don't live near a major city and Cingular seems to have the better
>> coverage in my area. My verizon phone has the most dropped calls and
>> worse signal.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, oh.....This thread’s about to get nasty.......(c;
>
> Larry

That should be John Navas.


Kevin Weaver wrote:
> I think John lavas will ring in soon.
>
>
> Larry wrote:
>> "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in
>> news:FY6dnXDp9fcdmCnYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@insightbb.co m:
>>> I don't live near a major city and Cingular seems to have the better
>>> coverage in my area. My verizon phone has the most dropped calls and
>>> worse signal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, oh.....This thread’s about to get nasty.......(c;
>>
>> Larry

No Larry - it probably won't (get nasty).

Her statement was based in fact for her - what works best in her area.
No completely unnecessary, snarky negativity - and no BS. Just facts.

We all know that every carrier has places where the others work better.
It's the nature of RF propagation, NIMBYs, better site placement and
frankly, sometimes it's $$.

Sure, some of certainly think that VZW just may be better overall.

Just maybe not everywhere.



"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns98BFEB55883D7noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:FY6dnXDp9fcdmCnYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@insightbb.co m:
>
>> I don't live near a major city and Cingular seems to have the better
>> coverage in my area. My verizon phone has the most dropped calls and
>> worse signal.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, oh.....This thread’s about to get nasty.......(c;
>
> Larry
> --
> Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
> Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
newsLedncwY8a6cwCnYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@giganews.com :

> No Larry - it probably won't (get nasty).
>
> Her statement was based in fact for her - what works best in her area.
> No completely unnecessary, snarky negativity - and no BS. Just facts.
>
>

Isn't it time for the Verizon Apologist Calvary to come riding hard over
the horizon to defend the company?

Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns98C07B2B191B1noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> newsLedncwY8a6cwCnYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@giganews.com :
>
>> No Larry - it probably won't (get nasty).
>>
>> Her statement was based in fact for her - what works best in her area.
>> No completely unnecessary, snarky negativity - and no BS. Just facts.
>>
>>
>
> Isn't it time for the Verizon Apologist Calvary to come riding hard over
> the horizon to defend the company?
>
> Larry
> --
> Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
> Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

Why did you snip the last half of my post?

>We all know that every carrier has places where the others work better.
>It's the nature of RF propagation, NIMBYs, better site placement and
>frankly, sometimes it's $$.
>
>Sure, some of certainly think that VZW just may be better overall.
>
>Just maybe not everywhere.