Questions From A Cingular Customer

I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major
complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to
switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend
and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New
Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs
up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if I
was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for
opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be
interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. TIA.

"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:OJ1Dh.20$PZ2.17@newsfe10.lga...
> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major
> complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to
> switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend
> and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New
> Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs
> up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if
> I was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for
> opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be
> interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general.
> TIA.
>

Best network and service-- but highest prices...

Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as well.
It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change.

Ric wrote:
> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major
> complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to
> switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend
> and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New
> Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs
> up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if I
> was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for
> opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be
> interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. TIA.
>
>

"kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net" <kevinkeithweaver1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:X93Dh.8$P47.3@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as well.
> It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change.

Don't I wish...but her whole family is on Verizon and that's not happening.

Martin Kallikak, Jr. wrote:
> "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:OJ1Dh.20$PZ2.17@newsfe10.lga...
>> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major
>> complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to
>> switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend
>> and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New
>> Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs
>> up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if
>> I was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for
>> opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be
>> interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general.
>> TIA.
>>
>
> Best network and service-- but highest prices...
>
>
Agreed, but not about the prices. Both VZW and Cingular have the same
exact cost for 3 plans I just compared:

450 min $40
900 min $60
1,350 min $80

At 21 Feb 2007 18:43:16 -0500 George wrote:

> Agreed, but not about the prices. Both VZW and Cingular have the same
> exact cost for 3 plans I just compared:
>
> 450 min $40
> 900 min $60
> 1,350 min $80

Except Cingular's minutes "rollover" while VZW's do not. Theoretically,
if your usage varies a bit from month-to-month, you could take a cheaper
plan on Cingular than you would on VZW, since you then "bank" your
leftover Cingular minutes each month, to be used for future overages.

Most of us, I suspect, have a slightly higher plan than we need, because
the overage penalties are so steep.

Your opinion of any current, "full-featured" Verizon phone will be largely
dependent on how much of a "power user" you are. Verizon has taken the
stance, with many phones, of not including, or disabling, features that
other providers' versions of the "same" model phone include. Then they
substitute their own version of the same features for an extra charge. What
I'm saying is that the KRZR for Verizon, compared to someone else's version,
will probably operate exactly the same as a telephone instrument, and quite
possibly better, however you will likely find quite a few features on, say,
Cingular's version, missing on the VZW piece.

You'll find many discussions about these features on this group.
One of the most common is "full Bluetooth functionality". Verizon has
stripped just about the whole range of Bluetooth capability from their
phones, with the exception of using wireless headsets.

Fact is, though, I happen to be a "power phone CALLER". No
pix/flix/get-it-now/games/iPod phone/garage door opener. I can only speak
for myself, but Verizon's mix of excellent network coverage, Bluetooth
headset capability, and unlimited "IN-network" minutes is enough for me. I
don't disagree with other opinions, but I will not trade coverage for any
other capability at this point. I don't need rollover minutes, I burn over
1000 "IN-network" minutes most months.

I sincerely hope that other carriers improve their coverage, as I am firm in
the belief that like-quality competition will benefit us all.

I have been with Verizon since the Bell Atlantic Mobile days (12-13 years)
and have consistently found them to be on par, if not better, than friends'
and relatives' experiments with other carriers.
A close friend lives in Brooklyn NYC, and works in Manhattan. She should
have excellent coverage virtually all the time. She recently dropped
Cingular in favor of Verizon, and notes that her coverage improved
noticeably.

Good luck in your search.




"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:OJ1Dh.20$PZ2.17@newsfe10.lga...
> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major
> complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to
> switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend
> and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New
> Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs
> up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if
> I was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for
> opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be
> interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general.
> TIA.
>

Ric wrote:
> "kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net" <kevinkeithweaver1@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote in message news:X93Dh.8$P47.3@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as
>> well. It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change.
>>
>
> Don't I wish...but her whole family is on Verizon and that's not
> happening.

Have you considered just getting the cheapest plan/phone etc from verizon
and keep the cingular for other stuff, and just use the verizon phone for
the free calls to your GF?

Hate to be negative, but consider what it would be like if you changed
providers for her, and then broke up?

I used to have 5 lines with V. I now have 4 and one with Cingular. I will
soon be all Cingular (maybe all T-Mo) but for sure no more V. I am tired of
the crippling of my phones (3 E815s) features being crippled. I am sick of
the fact that I cannot get a BT headset from Motorola to work effectively
thanks to this. (Told so by a Motorola tech). It seems their heavy handed
profit schmeing causes other issues they don't care to address. Are you
landline free? If so do you ever call overseas? If so you won't like those
prices on V either. Bend over and grab the jar of Vaseline cause you'll need
it!
"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:OJ1Dh.20$PZ2.17@newsfe10.lga...
> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major
> complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to
> switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend
> and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New
> Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs
> up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if
> I was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for
> opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be
> interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general.
> TIA.
>

In all fairness. Cingular also cripples there phones. One I know about
is the I7-I Can't transfer ring tones. No bluetooth headset (Stereo) for
listening to the built in Ipod. Can't save videos to the mini-sd card.

I've got another week with verizon then I'm out. Not going to cingular
because of the ringtone's. looks like t-mobile.



jdoe wrote:
> I used to have 5 lines with V. I now have 4 and one with Cingular. I will
> soon be all Cingular (maybe all T-Mo) but for sure no more V. I am tired of
> the crippling of my phones (3 E815s) features being crippled. I am sick of
> the fact that I cannot get a BT headset from Motorola to work effectively
> thanks to this. (Told so by a Motorola tech). It seems their heavy handed
> profit schmeing causes other issues they don't care to address. Are you
> landline free? If so do you ever call overseas? If so you won't like those
> prices on V either. Bend over and grab the jar of Vaseline cause you'll need
> it!
> "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:OJ1Dh.20$PZ2.17@newsfe10.lga...
>> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major
>> complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to
>> switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend
>> and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New
>> Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs
>> up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if
>> I was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for
>> opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be
>> interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general.
>> TIA.
>>
>
>

Peter Pan wrote:
> Ric wrote:
>> "kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net" <kevinkeithweaver1@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote in message news:X93Dh.8$P47.3@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as
>>> well. It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change.
>>>
>> Don't I wish...but her whole family is on Verizon and that's not
>> happening.
>
> Have you considered just getting the cheapest plan/phone etc from verizon
> and keep the cingular for other stuff, and just use the verizon phone for
> the free calls to your GF?
>
> Hate to be negative, but consider what it would be like if you changed
> providers for her, and then broke up?
>
>

But he also said "just about everybody else I know uses Verizon..."

Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon
disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones. Thanks
for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why so
many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.

Ric Wrote:
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon
> disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones.
> Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me
> wonder why so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.

Not everybody uses all the phones "features". Most people just want a
phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cell
phone is for.


--
fdcom3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cellu...-customer.html

"jdoe" <jdoe@msn.com> wrote in
news:UfadnXqLV-E44EDYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@insightbb.com:

> Are you
> landline free?
Yes....(c;

>If so do you ever call overseas? If so you won't like
> those prices on V either. Bend over and grab the jar of Vaseline cause
> you'll need it!
>
http://www.skype.com/
$US0.021/min, not $1.49/min
get Skype installed at overseas location and it's FREE, even from your
cellphone!
No Vaseline or KY-jelly necessary...save more money.

Call 'em from your cellphone on Skype:
http://www.voxlib.com/ and Skype In number (which is really cheap)
You call your Skype In number, Voxlib on your desktop answers, recognizes
your caller ID and talks to you. Dial European number through Voxlib and
pay airtime you'd pay anyways plus 3.9c connect + 2.1c/min to Skype Out
precharged account. Over 7 hours for $10...not 10 minutes. Load your
Skype In number into the phone's contact list and only dial the Euro
number manually on touchtones after Vox answers at home. It's like
owning your own telephone long distance company!...(c; If the European
you're calling has Skype on his computer, call him skype-to-skype for
free from your Skype contact list Vox reads to you. You enter the first
3 letters of his Skype Name on your cellphone pad. If HE has Skype set
to forward his calls to his cell...you both can talk from US to Europe
for just cellular airtime on both ends....Skype to Skype is FREE, with
color video from your computer to his if you wait until everyone is home.

Get a separate European phone number on Skype In so they can call you!
Skype lets you buy up to 10 Skype In phone numbers anywhere they provide
Skype In service. I have numbers in Charleston, SC and London, UK.
Local call in for them...Skype In call for you ($US38/YEAR, not
month/number!) If someone in London calls my London number, Skype In
forwards the call to my cellphone if I'm not on Skype....much cheaper for
everyone. Here's the country list for Skype In:

"You can get up to 10 SkypeIn numbers in total from United States, United
Kingdom, Brazil, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong,
Poland, Sweden and Switzerland."

Hmm...I've never had an Estonian phone number....(c;

Don't believe the bullshit that Skype sounds awful. It's codec is
BROADBAND, much wider and faster than your cellphone codec. Skype is
hifi compared to cellular's 8K or 11Kbps. Music on hold sound fine on
Skype. Skype REQUIRES a broadband connection...no dialups. That's why.

Screw that paying VZW to call Europe...(shudder)...Yecch!



Larry
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmc...elated&search=

"fdcom3" <fdcom3.2meuo1@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:fdcom3.2meuo1@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> Ric Wrote:
>> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon
>> disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones.
>> Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me
>> wonder why so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.
>
> Not everybody uses all the phones "features". Most people just want a
> phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cell
> phone is for.
>
>
> --
> fdcom3
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
> View this thread:
> http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cellu...-customer.html
>

Or like the other post, power users just re-enable those features by a
little work on the internet (and a lot of work by nice people out there with
time and skill). For example the last Windows Mobile 5.0 AKU available for
my phone (XV6700) through verizon and HTC is the 2.2 ROM but I am actually
using a 3.3 ROM right now that some enterprising users at PPC Geeks enabled
for our phone. You take your own risks of course. Also using Windows
Mobile Phones as appose to others allow you to do almost anything through
your computer.

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

>
> Not everybody uses all the phones "features". Most people just want a
> phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cell
> phone is for.

What you say is true for many, but I'm a big fan of convergence. I'm
anxiously waiting to see if the Nokia N95 will ever be available in the U.S.
Phone, 5MP cam and full GPS ! I'm making do with a Treo for now...it's huge,
but I'm addicted to all the things I can do with it. I keep a full medical
reference library in the thing...and if I can't get my answer there, I go to
the web.

"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:EmqDh.34$8w5.17@newsfe12.lga...
>
>>
>> Not everybody uses all the phones "features". Most people just want a
>> phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cell
>> phone is for.
>
> What you say is true for many, but I'm a big fan of convergence. I'm
> anxiously waiting to see if the Nokia N95 will ever be available in the
> U.S. Phone, 5MP cam and full GPS ! I'm making do with a Treo for
> now...it's huge, but I'm addicted to all the things I can do with it. I
> keep a full medical reference library in the thing...and if I can't get my
> answer there, I go to the web.
>

I'm with you man, I love everything I can do with my XV6700. I think I saw
some statistics recently that the majority of people don't like convergence
either, but there is definitely a market for it, and you can surely charge a
premium for it.

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ric,

Put yourself in my place. I'm very happy with the coverage. A majority of
the people I call are "IN-network", and overage hasn't been an issue, even
though I'm on a 450 minute plan and use 1200-1600 minutes a month. We travel
mainly on weekends, when calls are free. My phone works from Provincetown to
Key West, with a side trip to Phoenix. (Yeah, somebody can't wait to jump on
THAT one----the wife and I love P'town, and Key West was a one-time
sightseeing tour LOL). We get a group discount, and my bill is about $38 per
month total. I get a new phone every 10 months at little or no out-of-pocket
cost.

I own a digital camera, and I use it to take pictures. If an "emergency
photo-op" arises, I can use my phone/camera and transfer the picture to my
computer via micro-SD card. I can't use an iPod at work, it's unsafe to use
one while driving, and I have no need for one at home.

While I can't deny the "cool" factor of the newer crop of multi-tasking
phones, I'm not a huge fan, for much the same reason I wouldn't buy a
combination clothes washer/clothes dryer. (break one machine and lose
everything).

I just wanted a phone that worked, and didn't cost me a fortune. My VZW
service gives me that. I don't particularly like the fact that they disable
features to make money, but for my purposes, where's my complaint? And if I
have nothing to complain about, does that make me irrationally loyal?

Dean



"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message newsHfDh.23$IC1.4@newsfe12.lga...
>
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon
> disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones. Thanks
> for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why
> so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.
>

A point that needs to be made.

You get a cell phone to MAKE and GET CALLS.
Which requires a good SYSTEM to do the above.
General consensus is that Verizon has the best overall.
Sure YRMV, but generally this holds true.

People that make a decision based on the phone itself are
being extremely short sighted and stupid. Find the best SYSTEM for
your needs, THEN choose a phone.

Now, as to the phones. With very little effort, people are able
to restore whatever functionality they want to their phones. 815, V3C,
V3m - all are easily made to do whatever you want.

Sure, I also agree that the hobbling of phones is crap. But, again, I just
do a little research, then follow the instructions and I have the best system
AND a phone that does what I want.

"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message newsHfDh.23$IC1.4@newsfe12.lga...
>
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon disabling some features that manufacturers
> build into their phones. Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why so many
> customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.
>

"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S7rDh.40$8w5.34@newsfe12.lga...
> Ric,
>
> Put yourself in my place. I'm very happy with the coverage. A majority of
> the people I call are "IN-network", and overage hasn't been an issue, even
> though I'm on a 450 minute plan and use 1200-1600 minutes a month. We
> travel mainly on weekends, when calls are free. My phone works from
> Provincetown to Key West, with a side trip to Phoenix. (Yeah, somebody
> can't wait to jump on THAT one----the wife and I love P'town, and Key West
> was a one-time sightseeing tour LOL). We get a group discount, and my bill
> is about $38 per month total. I get a new phone every 10 months at little
> or no out-of-pocket cost.
>
> I own a digital camera, and I use it to take pictures. If an "emergency
> photo-op" arises, I can use my phone/camera and transfer the picture to my
> computer via micro-SD card. I can't use an iPod at work, it's unsafe to
> use one while driving, and I have no need for one at home.
>
> While I can't deny the "cool" factor of the newer crop of multi-tasking
> phones, I'm not a huge fan, for much the same reason I wouldn't buy a
> combination clothes washer/clothes dryer. (break one machine and lose
> everything).
>
> I just wanted a phone that worked, and didn't cost me a fortune. My VZW
> service gives me that. I don't particularly like the fact that they
> disable features to make money, but for my purposes, where's my complaint?
> And if I have nothing to complain about, does that make me irrationally
> loyal?


A lot of what you say has merit for many people, but as another poster said,
some do like convergence. For example, I enjoy candid photography. I don't
leave the house without a camera and I'm grateful that digital cams are now
available with great resolution, but I'd never attempt to take a photo I
intended to keep with the current crop of phone-cams. My all my phones have
had built in cameras...never used any of them. When they get to five MP and
above with a real flash, I'll consider it. I also work out at the gym pretty
much every day. A built in MP3 player sure does come in handy...for me. So,
if my dream phone comes on the market, it will be nice to carry one device
instead three or four.

Sorry Skype blows pondwater imo. I have tried to talk on it and recieve
calls from people using it. It blows big time.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98DF8179CF4AAnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "jdoe" <jdoe@msn.com> wrote in
> news:UfadnXqLV-E44EDYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@insightbb.com:
>
>> Are you
>> landline free?
> Yes....(c;
>
>>If so do you ever call overseas? If so you won't like
>> those prices on V either. Bend over and grab the jar of Vaseline cause
>> you'll need it!
>>
> http://www.skype.com/
> $US0.021/min, not $1.49/min
> get Skype installed at overseas location and it's FREE, even from your
> cellphone!
> No Vaseline or KY-jelly necessary...save more money.
>
> Call 'em from your cellphone on Skype:
> http://www.voxlib.com/ and Skype In number (which is really cheap)
> You call your Skype In number, Voxlib on your desktop answers, recognizes
> your caller ID and talks to you. Dial European number through Voxlib and
> pay airtime you'd pay anyways plus 3.9c connect + 2.1c/min to Skype Out
> precharged account. Over 7 hours for $10...not 10 minutes. Load your
> Skype In number into the phone's contact list and only dial the Euro
> number manually on touchtones after Vox answers at home. It's like
> owning your own telephone long distance company!...(c; If the European
> you're calling has Skype on his computer, call him skype-to-skype for
> free from your Skype contact list Vox reads to you. You enter the first
> 3 letters of his Skype Name on your cellphone pad. If HE has Skype set
> to forward his calls to his cell...you both can talk from US to Europe
> for just cellular airtime on both ends....Skype to Skype is FREE, with
> color video from your computer to his if you wait until everyone is home.
>
> Get a separate European phone number on Skype In so they can call you!
> Skype lets you buy up to 10 Skype In phone numbers anywhere they provide
> Skype In service. I have numbers in Charleston, SC and London, UK.
> Local call in for them...Skype In call for you ($US38/YEAR, not
> month/number!) If someone in London calls my London number, Skype In
> forwards the call to my cellphone if I'm not on Skype....much cheaper for
> everyone. Here's the country list for Skype In:
>
> "You can get up to 10 SkypeIn numbers in total from United States, United
> Kingdom, Brazil, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong,
> Poland, Sweden and Switzerland."
>
> Hmm...I've never had an Estonian phone number....(c;
>
> Don't believe the bullshit that Skype sounds awful. It's codec is
> BROADBAND, much wider and faster than your cellphone codec. Skype is
> hifi compared to cellular's 8K or 11Kbps. Music on hold sound fine on
> Skype. Skype REQUIRES a broadband connection...no dialups. That's why.
>
> Screw that paying VZW to call Europe...(shudder)...Yecch!
>
>
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmc...elated&search=

I'm not loyal I am a "hostage"
"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message newsHfDh.23$IC1.4@newsfe12.lga...
>
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon
> disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones. Thanks
> for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why
> so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.
>

May be "easy" to you. But I don't care to chance hosing my phone, or having
to go through all the work just so I can have a properly functioning BT set.
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
news:ff6dnbLIS9Rx2UPYnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>A point that needs to be made.
>
> You get a cell phone to MAKE and GET CALLS.
> Which requires a good SYSTEM to do the above.
> General consensus is that Verizon has the best overall.
> Sure YRMV, but generally this holds true.
>
> People that make a decision based on the phone itself are
> being extremely short sighted and stupid. Find the best SYSTEM for
> your needs, THEN choose a phone.
>
> Now, as to the phones. With very little effort, people are able
> to restore whatever functionality they want to their phones. 815, V3C,
> V3m - all are easily made to do whatever you want.
>
> Sure, I also agree that the hobbling of phones is crap. But, again, I just
> do a little research, then follow the instructions and I have the best
> system
> AND a phone that does what I want.
>
> "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message newsHfDh.23$IC1.4@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon
>> disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones.
>> Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me
>> wonder why so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.
>>
>
>

Ric wrote:
>
> A lot of what you say has merit for many people, but as another poster said,
> some do like convergence. For example, I enjoy candid photography. I don't
> leave the house without a camera and I'm grateful that digital cams are now
> available with great resolution, but I'd never attempt to take a photo I
> intended to keep with the current crop of phone-cams. My all my phones have
> had built in cameras...never used any of them. When they get to five MP and
> above with a real flash, I'll consider it. I also work out at the gym pretty
> much every day. A built in MP3 player sure does come in handy...for me. So,
> if my dream phone comes on the market, it will be nice to carry one device
> instead three or four.
>
>

When I first heard of cell phones with a integrated camera I thought the
idea was just about the worst idea of all time. When I saw the pictures
take with a cell phone then I was sure that a camera cell phone was the
worst idea.

Then I finally found the *perfect* use for a camera phone no matter how
bad the picture quality is...

When you park in a large ramp with many many many levels it is often
hard to remember exactly what level/area where you parked. Just use the
phone cam to take a pic of the sign that states what level and space
your parked in.

There you go...the perfect use for a camera cell phone.

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:26:26 -0600, tdstr <tdstr@foadspammer.com> wrote:

>When you park in a large ramp with many many many levels it is often
>hard to remember exactly what level/area where you parked. Just use the
>phone cam to take a pic of the sign that states what level and space
>your parked in.
>
>There you go...the perfect use for a camera cell phone.

Perhaps -- but totally useless if you always have a digital camera in your
pocket, as I do. 8

-- Larry

"jdoe" <jdoe@msn.com> wrote in
news:sPOdncMldJk4UUPYnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@insightbb.co m:

> Sorry Skype blows pondwater imo. I have tried to talk on it and recieve
> calls from people using it. It blows big time.
> "

Joe, do you get internet service from MSN? You have a bandwidth and
latency issue on your internet connection.

I have Skype installed, with full motion color video, on a laptop at a
local electronics warehouse store linked through the store's open
wireless router, 24/7 because they never shut any computer off when they
close.

I got into a conversation about Skype with another customer as we were
standing there and he had had similar results as you long ago. I logged
the little laptop onto Skype with my username, not the freebie I
installed at the store when noone was looking, so we'd have
POTS/Cellphone access on my Skype In and Out for calling his cellphone.

I gave him my Skype In local phone number and he dialed it on his
cellphone. We could hear the combination short delay of his digital
cellphone and the Skype system by listening to our own echo. Then, I had
him call my Alltel cellphone in my pocket for comparison. Cellular to
Skype had LESS delay, very noticibly less delay, than listening to our
own echos from cellphone to cellphone! The call was clearer on Skype as
we were only using one slow codec, his cellphone.

I called a local number from the Skype laptop that always puts music-on-
hold on the line while you wait and wait to talk to the lady at the
electric company. We listened to the elevator music..yecch..on Skype and
noted its fidelity. Then we called it from his Cingular cellphone and my
Alltel cellphone, both on different digital schemes to compare. The
Skype rendition of the same music-on-hold was MUCH better. That stands
to reason because as anyone knows music on digital cellular just SUCKS
because of the awful slow codec cellular uses to increase traffic. The
nice HP speakers in this store laptop sounded really hifi for a telephone
music machine.

What do your traceroutes look like to www.skype.com or some other IP
address outside your ISP's system? What are the ping times and how many
pings are lost? How busy is your system processor when you're using
Skype? Is this an old machine with a slow processor? Skype warns it
will not work properly on slow machines as they add a lot of local
latency processing Skype's encryption and AtoD/DtoA conversions.
Encrypting your audio takes quite a bit of computer power. Unlike your
cellphone, government bureaucrats aren't listening to what you say on
Skype, to another computer, until it comes out into the POTS phone system
or to another cellular user.

Something is wrong with your setup. Skype to my buds in Iraq in a tent
sound just like they're sitting in the room with me....I can even hear
the MORTARS and RPGs go off!

Larry
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmc...elated&search=

I do not have a bandwidth issue as VOIP works crystal clear for me. As good
as a reguular landline.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98E0E369C4011noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "jdoe" <jdoe@msn.com> wrote in
> news:sPOdncMldJk4UUPYnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@insightbb.co m:
>
>> Sorry Skype blows pondwater imo. I have tried to talk on it and recieve
>> calls from people using it. It blows big time.
>> "
>
> Joe, do you get internet service from MSN? You have a bandwidth and
> latency issue on your internet connection.
>
> I have Skype installed, with full motion color video, on a laptop at a
> local electronics warehouse store linked through the store's open
> wireless router, 24/7 because they never shut any computer off when they
> close.
>
> I got into a conversation about Skype with another customer as we were
> standing there and he had had similar results as you long ago. I logged
> the little laptop onto Skype with my username, not the freebie I
> installed at the store when noone was looking, so we'd have
> POTS/Cellphone access on my Skype In and Out for calling his cellphone.
>
> I gave him my Skype In local phone number and he dialed it on his
> cellphone. We could hear the combination short delay of his digital
> cellphone and the Skype system by listening to our own echo. Then, I had
> him call my Alltel cellphone in my pocket for comparison. Cellular to
> Skype had LESS delay, very noticibly less delay, than listening to our
> own echos from cellphone to cellphone! The call was clearer on Skype as
> we were only using one slow codec, his cellphone.
>
> I called a local number from the Skype laptop that always puts music-on-
> hold on the line while you wait and wait to talk to the lady at the
> electric company. We listened to the elevator music..yecch..on Skype and
> noted its fidelity. Then we called it from his Cingular cellphone and my
> Alltel cellphone, both on different digital schemes to compare. The
> Skype rendition of the same music-on-hold was MUCH better. That stands
> to reason because as anyone knows music on digital cellular just SUCKS
> because of the awful slow codec cellular uses to increase traffic. The
> nice HP speakers in this store laptop sounded really hifi for a telephone
> music machine.
>
> What do your traceroutes look like to www.skype.com or some other IP
> address outside your ISP's system? What are the ping times and how many
> pings are lost? How busy is your system processor when you're using
> Skype? Is this an old machine with a slow processor? Skype warns it
> will not work properly on slow machines as they add a lot of local
> latency processing Skype's encryption and AtoD/DtoA conversions.
> Encrypting your audio takes quite a bit of computer power. Unlike your
> cellphone, government bureaucrats aren't listening to what you say on
> Skype, to another computer, until it comes out into the POTS phone system
> or to another cellular user.
>
> Something is wrong with your setup. Skype to my buds in Iraq in a tent
> sound just like they're sitting in the room with me....I can even hear
> the MORTARS and RPGs go off!
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmc...elated&search=

On 2007-02-24, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> own echos from cellphone to cellphone! The call was clearer on Skype as
> we were only using one slow codec, his cellphone.
>
> I called a local number from the Skype laptop that always puts music-on-
> hold on the line while you wait and wait to talk to the lady at the
> electric company. We listened to the elevator music..yecch..on Skype and
> noted its fidelity. Then we called it from his Cingular cellphone and my
> Alltel cellphone, both on different digital schemes to compare. The
> Skype rendition of the same music-on-hold was MUCH better. That stands
> to reason because as anyone knows music on digital cellular just SUCKS
> because of the awful slow codec cellular uses to increase traffic.

If you look in the Advanced section in Skype Preferences (on my Mac at
least, I don't know the PC equivalent) and tick of "Display Call Technical
Info", then when you make a Skype call it will pop open a window which
tells you, among other things, the codec being used. For SkypeIn and
SkypeOut calls the codec is always listed as G.729, the same as all VoIP
providers, as it must be since this is the standard used by the operators
who deliver Skype calls to the PSTN. If you look at the overview here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.729

you'll find that this is an 8 kbps codec, compared to the 12 kbps codec
used for GSM and the up to 12 kbps codec used for CDMA. I'm not sure
what this codec does to music, but note that that DTMF tones can't be
sent through this codec with sufficient fidelity to be reliably decoded
and instead need special-case handling (a complexity which I suspect
is the source of the periodic griping on Skype forums about DTMF not
working reliably). There's nothing "fast" about this codec, the "fast"
codec (iSAC) is only used for Skype-Skype calls.

Despite this, I too have noticed that Skype-PSTN calls seem to me to
sound better at both ends than cell phone-cell phone calls. For what
it is worth my current theory is that this is because the quality of
PC audio hardware is sufficiently higher than the audio hardware in
a typical handset for you to hear the difference. It certainly has
nothing to do with the codec in use, even if one accepted the premise
that using a better codec for only part of the connection would improve
anything.

> Encrypting your audio takes quite a bit of computer power.

While encryption can consume lots of CPU cycles at high data rates, the
data rate for a voice call is tiny. I suspect most of the CPU is
consumed by the codec, since squeezing even phone-quality voice down
into 8 kbps with reasonable fidelity takes some work.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:slrneu28fs.le.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com:

> but note that that DTMF tones can't be
> sent through this codec with sufficient fidelity to be reliably decoded
> and instead need special-case handling (a complexity which I suspect
> is the source of the periodic griping on Skype forums about DTMF not
> working reliably). There's nothing "fast" about this codec, the "fast"
> codec (iSAC) is only used for Skype-Skype calls.
>

If that were true, Vox for Skype would be unable to control it remotely
from my calling Skype from my crappy cellphone. DTMF controls VOX and
Skype perfectly from my cellphone. Skype sounds better than my cellphone
on any occasion. Maybe it's the better fidelity of my Netgear SPH101
Skype wifi phone or Linksys CIT200 wireless Skype phone plugged into my
laptop's USB port.

Noone is forcing anyone to use Skype. I'm simply pointing out this
outstanding, FREE, alternative to calling on cellular. It's really hard
to argue with FREE, or even nearly FREE (Skype out ($30/year) + Skype In
($38/year)), when compared to my $46x12=$552/year, 700 min/mo cellular
phone service.

Of course, I must be attacked for even THINKING the unthinkable...calling
on something much cheaper or free....right?

Do you think cellular sounds 8.11 times as good as Skype? (price/price)
Which is better at home?...cellular's barely useable signal inside the
house...or Skype's full scale signal from my powerful wifi router on the
Netgear SPH101?
Everything is a compromise....One is better here, the other is better in
the car.

Larry
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmc...elated&search=

Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:slrneu28fs.le.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com:

> While encryption can consume lots of CPU cycles at high data rates, the
> data rate for a voice call is tiny. I suspect most of the CPU is
> consumed by the codec, since squeezing even phone-quality voice down
> into 8 kbps with reasonable fidelity takes some work.
>
>

Don't tell Verizon, but we're using Skype on some laptops through Verizon's
aircards on EVDO with great results.

As to the data-audio audio-data conversions, that doesn't take much of a
modern PCs CPU capacity. Look at how easily you can play a 328Kbps MP3
with Winamp in full stereo. It hardly bothers the processor's free time to
do other things. I suppose it depends on how complex the encryption scheme
is once the data conversion has been done. I talk on Skype on my Athelon
desktop through a USB headset at the same time I'm watching a DivX movie
with VLC and downloading from Usenet more movies and nothing balks. That
wouldn't have been true 5 years ago on Win98SE...(c;

Larry
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmc...elated&search=