Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATT vs. Verizon

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 7:28:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if I
should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better. But
I'm not impressed with the phones they have available. I'm also thinking of
getting a Smart or PDA phone and AT&T just announced the Audiovox PPC4100,
but I was reading that Verizon will be carrying the Audiovox PPC 5050
although Verizon hasn't and won't make any announcement on it yet.

So I was wondering how people like Verizon, and if anyone has any thoughts
on either of the Audiovox's?

tia - Brian

More about : att verizon

Anonymous
June 16, 2004 8:29:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

> When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
> Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?

Yes.

> And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
> with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
> to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?

Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

> And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
> Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
> wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?

I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
products or services for the long term.

--Ed

--
Ed Swierk
eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 8:54:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Hello Brian-

It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
the basic issue is that each company has its merits.

Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.
Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.

I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
choice.

Some biased info/opinion:

CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).
COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
which works best for you]
DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
they charge something for it.
ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
indication don't generally work when roaming.
PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
something like the T616, I'd change my mind.
Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.
COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
what you pay for.

-Dan

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu


"Brian Grigg" <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote in message
news:e8mdnbFtkMfVAk3dRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if I
> should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better.
But
> I'm not impressed with the phones they have available. I'm also thinking
of
> getting a Smart or PDA phone and AT&T just announced the Audiovox PPC4100,
> but I was reading that Verizon will be carrying the Audiovox PPC 5050
> although Verizon hasn't and won't make any announcement on it yet.
>
> So I was wondering how people like Verizon, and if anyone has any thoughts
> on either of the Audiovox's?
>
> tia - Brian
>
>
Related resources
June 16, 2004 11:49:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Brian Grigg" <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote in message
news:e8mdnbFtkMfVAk3dRVn-hg@comcast.com...

> My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if I
> should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better.

Come about August, and AT&T Wireless Services will be absorbed into
Cingular. If your contract has expired, I urge you to hold off on
re-upping.

The "Original" AT&T announced plans to reenter the wireless market, using
the SPRINT PCS Network, beginning the day after the merger is complete, as
the AT&T Logos and Trademarks will then revert back to AT&T Corporation.

My contract with AT&T Wireless has expired, and I am planning to wait until
the reborn AT&T starts up before making any decision.

My major issue with the present AT&T Wireless is that there is too much
uncertainty. First customers were urged to "upgrade" to GSM, only to find,
in many cases, that the service on GSM was worse than TDMA. There were
complaints about the quality and competence of the customer service reps.
Now we're wondering what life will be like under Cingular.

Frankly, I'm ready to bail, but I am expecting major incentives to get new
customers on board the new AT&T, and the Sprint network is already up and
running, so there won't be that uncertainty while AT&T builds a new network.

I was perfectly happy with TDMA. I could care less about surfing the
Internet from my wireless phone. I just want a phone that works when I need
it to work.

Of all the options available to you right now, the least desirable one is to
re-sign with the current AT&T Wireless.
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 11:49:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Yeah, I was thinking about the merger as well, and not sure how things will
pan out with Cingular. Was unaware of AT&T starting back up again with
Sprint though. If I do sign another contract it'll probably be with
Verizon, unless I wait until the merger goes through but I'm not sure I want
to wait that long...heard it was going to be next year some time.

thx

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:8v1Ac.2003$bs4.492@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Brian Grigg" <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote in message
> news:e8mdnbFtkMfVAk3dRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
> > My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if
I
> > should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better.
>
> Come about August, and AT&T Wireless Services will be absorbed into
> Cingular. If your contract has expired, I urge you to hold off on
> re-upping.
>
> The "Original" AT&T announced plans to reenter the wireless market, using
> the SPRINT PCS Network, beginning the day after the merger is complete, as
> the AT&T Logos and Trademarks will then revert back to AT&T Corporation.
>
> My contract with AT&T Wireless has expired, and I am planning to wait
until
> the reborn AT&T starts up before making any decision.
>
> My major issue with the present AT&T Wireless is that there is too much
> uncertainty. First customers were urged to "upgrade" to GSM, only to
find,
> in many cases, that the service on GSM was worse than TDMA. There were
> complaints about the quality and competence of the customer service reps.
> Now we're wondering what life will be like under Cingular.
>
> Frankly, I'm ready to bail, but I am expecting major incentives to get new
> customers on board the new AT&T, and the Sprint network is already up and
> running, so there won't be that uncertainty while AT&T builds a new
network.
>
> I was perfectly happy with TDMA. I could care less about surfing the
> Internet from my wireless phone. I just want a phone that works when I
need
> it to work.
>
> Of all the options available to you right now, the least desirable one is
to
> re-sign with the current AT&T Wireless.
>
>
June 16, 2004 11:49:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:8v1Ac.2003$bs4.492@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Brian Grigg" <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote in message
> news:e8mdnbFtkMfVAk3dRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
> > My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if
I
> > should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better.
>
> Come about August, and AT&T Wireless Services will be absorbed into
> Cingular. If your contract has expired, I urge you to hold off on
> re-upping.

I just renewed my VZW contract because the "new" Cingular has nothing to
offer in my area. Cingular has no native coverage here and AT&T is lame. So
putting the 2 together is still lame here.


>
> The "Original" AT&T announced plans to reenter the wireless market, using
> the SPRINT PCS Network, beginning the day after the merger is complete, as
> the AT&T Logos and Trademarks will then revert back to AT&T Corporation.
>
> My contract with AT&T Wireless has expired, and I am planning to wait
until
> the reborn AT&T starts up before making any decision.

It isn't going to add anything to Sprints' network so there is no reason to
wait.

>
> My major issue with the present AT&T Wireless is that there is too much
> uncertainty. First customers were urged to "upgrade" to GSM, only to
find,
> in many cases, that the service on GSM was worse than TDMA. There were
> complaints about the quality and competence of the customer service reps.
> Now we're wondering what life will be like under Cingular.
>
> Frankly, I'm ready to bail, but I am expecting major incentives to get new
> customers on board the new AT&T, and the Sprint network is already up and
> running, so there won't be that uncertainty while AT&T builds a new
network.

But unless Sprint has decent coverage where you use it the "new" AT&T won't
be any better.

>
> I was perfectly happy with TDMA. I could care less about surfing the
> Internet from my wireless phone. I just want a phone that works when I
need
> it to work.
>
> Of all the options available to you right now, the least desirable one is
to
> re-sign with the current AT&T Wireless.
>
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 12:05:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Thanks for the input. Boston, btw.

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
news:jo2dnalJ2_U4QE3dRVn2sQ@comcast.com...
> Hello Brian-
>
> It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
> better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is
better,
> the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
>
> Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
> where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
> coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.
> Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
> native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides
completely
> seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.
>
> I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
> depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
> choice.
>
> Some biased info/opinion:
>
> CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).
> COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
> is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
> available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner
is
> which works best for you]
> DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
> good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
> they charge something for it.
> ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still
place
> and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like
voicemail
> indication don't generally work when roaming.
> PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
> never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
> something like the T616, I'd change my mind.
> Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
> I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
> phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.
> COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
> what you pay for.
>
> -Dan
>
> --
> Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>
>
> "Brian Grigg" <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote in message
> news:e8mdnbFtkMfVAk3dRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if
I
> > should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better.
> But
> > I'm not impressed with the phones they have available. I'm also
thinking
> of
> > getting a Smart or PDA phone and AT&T just announced the Audiovox
PPC4100,
> > but I was reading that Verizon will be carrying the Audiovox PPC 5050
> > although Verizon hasn't and won't make any announcement on it yet.
> >
> > So I was wondering how people like Verizon, and if anyone has any
thoughts
> > on either of the Audiovox's?
> >
> > tia - Brian
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 12:29:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I just moved my wife over to Verizon, which I have had for several
years. Trying to call during the 5 pm time was a real hit and miss.
Manly miss. Never had that problem with Verizon yet.



On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:05:29 -0400, "Brian Grigg" <bgrigg@ursinfo.com>
wrote:

>Thanks for the input. Boston, btw.
>
>"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
>news:jo2dnalJ2_U4QE3dRVn2sQ@comcast.com...
>> Hello Brian-
>>
>> It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
>> better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is
>better,
>> the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
>>
>> Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
>> where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
>> coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.
>> Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
>> native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides
>completely
>> seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.
>>
>> I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
>> depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
>> choice.
>>
>> Some biased info/opinion:
>>
>> CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).
>> COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
>> is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
>> available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner
>is
>> which works best for you]
>> DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
>> good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
>> they charge something for it.
>> ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still
>place
>> and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like
>voicemail
>> indication don't generally work when roaming.
>> PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
>> never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
>> something like the T616, I'd change my mind.
>> Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
>> I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
>> phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.
>> COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
>> what you pay for.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> --
>> Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
>> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>>
>>
>> "Brian Grigg" <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e8mdnbFtkMfVAk3dRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>> > My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if
>I
>> > should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better.
>> But
>> > I'm not impressed with the phones they have available. I'm also
>thinking
>> of
>> > getting a Smart or PDA phone and AT&T just announced the Audiovox
>PPC4100,
>> > but I was reading that Verizon will be carrying the Audiovox PPC 5050
>> > although Verizon hasn't and won't make any announcement on it yet.
>> >
>> > So I was wondering how people like Verizon, and if anyone has any
>thoughts
>> > on either of the Audiovox's?
>> >
>> > tia - Brian
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
June 17, 2004 2:10:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.attws Brian Grigg <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote:
: My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if I
: should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better. But
: I'm not impressed with the phones they have available. I'm also thinking of
: getting a Smart or PDA phone and AT&T just announced the Audiovox PPC4100,
: but I was reading that Verizon will be carrying the Audiovox PPC 5050
: although Verizon hasn't and won't make any announcement on it yet.

: So I was wondering how people like Verizon, and if anyone has any thoughts
: on either of the Audiovox's?

I moved from AT&T to Verizon in December mostly because of TDMA
service that had badly deteriorated since I started in the summer of
2000. Verizon has great coverage. I have never regretted switching.
If you can hold out a bit longer, perhaps you can wait for the new
Audiovox phone?

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
June 17, 2004 2:10:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in message news:<hjlaacaxc20963033609@bizaveMYSHOES.com>...
> In alt.cellular.attws Brian Grigg <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote:
> : My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if I
> : should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better. But
> : I'm not impressed with the phones they have available. I'm also thinking of
> : getting a Smart or PDA phone and AT&T just announced the Audiovox PPC4100,
> : but I was reading that Verizon will be carrying the Audiovox PPC 5050
> : although Verizon hasn't and won't make any announcement on it yet.
>
> : So I was wondering how people like Verizon, and if anyone has any thoughts
> : on either of the Audiovox's?
>
> I moved from AT&T to Verizon in December mostly because of TDMA
> service that had badly deteriorated since I started in the summer of
> 2000. Verizon has great coverage. I have never regretted switching.
> If you can hold out a bit longer, perhaps you can wait for the new
> Audiovox phone?

I was looking at a coverage map here of CA and Verizon had pathetic
coverage outside of major metropolitan areas, compared to ATT. Yes?
No? Better check coverage maps depending upon where you live?
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 2:24:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

>Hello Brian-
>
>It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
>better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
>the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
>
>Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
>where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
>coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.

It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
(non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
able to make calls.

>Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
>native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
>seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.

Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
last year.

>I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
>depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
>choice.
>
>Some biased info/opinion:
>
>CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).

Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

>COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
>is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
>available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
>which works best for you]

Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
use it.

>DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
>good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
>they charge something for it.

I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
(basically, weather and email).

>ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
>and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
>indication don't generally work when roaming.

That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
between All-digital and everything else.

>PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
>never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
>something like the T616, I'd change my mind.

No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

>Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
>I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
>phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.

I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

>COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
>what you pay for.

It's about the same for me.


==
Jack Hamilton
jfh@acm.org

==
In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
Edward Gibbons
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 2:35:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?

And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?

And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 3:25:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
> (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
> coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
> able to make calls.
--> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


> Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
> last year.
-> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
you. Check it now, and see what you think.


> Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.
--> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

> Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.
--> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

> Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
> as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
> (basically, weather and email).
--> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

> That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
> the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
> States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
> between All-digital and everything else.
--> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

> No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
> much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.
--> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
happening there).

> I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.
--> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
say five years ago.
June 17, 2004 5:50:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.verizon zach <victorthecleaner@netscape.net> wrote:
: usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in message news:<hjlaacaxc20963033609@bizaveMYSHOES.com>...
: > In alt.cellular.attws Brian Grigg <bgrigg@ursinfo.com> wrote:
: > : My plan with AT&T expired and I'm looking to renew but was wondering if I
: > : should switch to Verizon as I've heard they're coverage is much better. But
: > : I'm not impressed with the phones they have available. I'm also thinking of
: > : getting a Smart or PDA phone and AT&T just announced the Audiovox PPC4100,
: > : but I was reading that Verizon will be carrying the Audiovox PPC 5050
: > : although Verizon hasn't and won't make any announcement on it yet.
: >
: > : So I was wondering how people like Verizon, and if anyone has any thoughts
: > : on either of the Audiovox's?
: >
: > I moved from AT&T to Verizon in December mostly because of TDMA
: > service that had badly deteriorated since I started in the summer of
: > 2000. Verizon has great coverage. I have never regretted switching.
: > If you can hold out a bit longer, perhaps you can wait for the new
: > Audiovox phone?

: I was looking at a coverage map here of CA and Verizon had pathetic
: coverage outside of major metropolitan areas, compared to ATT. Yes?
: No? Better check coverage maps depending upon where you live?

More importantly, before trying any new cell service including
Verizon, use the trial period (14-days for Verizon) to test the phone
in the places you will most likely use it. So far, I've not had any
coverage problems in Portland or along the Oregon Coast, but I admit
I've not traveled in rural areas much.

Are you sure the map you saw wasn't just the "extended features" map
or something, not the true "Verizon Coverage" map?

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
June 17, 2004 6:01:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
news:caqhuk01jvi@news1.newsguy.com...

> When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
> Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?
>

We will all become Cingular customers. I have fulfilled my 12-month Digital
One Rate contract, so I can either stay with the new company or I can walk
away. Frankly, I am sick and tired of waiting for GSM to finally work out.
And my TDMA service appears to be not as good as before.

I am happy with the price--$29.99/mo. 500 anytime minutes, unlimited n/w,
huge home area, NO roaming charges anywhere within that area, ability to be
handed off to analog carriers in some rural areas I travel through, free
incoming text messages.

But, if history is any indication, we can expect an aggressive campaign from
the new AT&T to sign on new customers--and this time, we won't have to wait
while they build out their network, like I did in 1999 when there were major
gaps in their TDMA coverage around where I live (Phila).

So I think I'll just have a look at what the new AT&T Wireless has to offer.
If that does not work out, I may just go with Verizon--primarily because
they have a mature network, not 2 networks like ATT/Cingular will have.

I have no plans to upgrade to GSM, so that pretty much knocks Cingular off
of my short list. For me it is only a matter of how soon I switch out.


> And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
> with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
> to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?
>
> And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
> Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
> wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 11:27:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

An interesting rant. 4 phones seems a bit much, but my partner carries
ATTWS and Verizon just to balance low cost time versus increased coverage.
I get fair ATTWS Digital (TDMA) coverage in Los Angeles, and really poor
voice quality in San Francisco, Sonoma and today in Carmel. I uneasy about
ATTWS GSM, and we've had serious trouble with Cingular and Sprint in the
past.

I share you concerns. All I want is a company with good customer service
and reliable signal. There's one phone I can use Verizon and Globalstar on.
And Globalstar rates are hi but affordable in the US. Ever think of that
versus 4 phones?



"* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
news:YNrAc.74193$Hh1.59769@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> "Jack Hamilton" <jfh@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:iq92d0t6quqfkq1ev3dj55bg6kh6l9sg66@4ax.com...
> > "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
> <snip>
>
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 8:53:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:44:24 GMT, "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>When I'm in the middle of Indiana or Illinois, people ask me
>what service I have because "Nobody's phones work out
>here.".

Where in Illinois does ATT work and VZW not work?

BTW, off the topic of this thread, I have a friend who has had ATT for 25
months and I'm wondering whether his phone is TDMA or GSM (I assume TDMA).
All he knows is that it's a Nokia. Chicago market.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"One special form of contact, which consists of mutual approximation of the
mucous membranes of the lips in a kiss, has received a sexual value among
the civilized nations, though the parts of the body do not belong to the
sexual apparatus and merely form the entrance to the digestive tract."
- Sigmund Freud, _The Sexual Aberrations_
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 8:53:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:25:03 -0700, "Dan Albrich"
<junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> chose to add this to the great equation of
life, the universe, and everything:

>> Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
>> last year.

>-> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
>name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
>you. Check it now, and see what you think.

The point being, coverage can change a lot in a year. December, 2002, I
drove from Chicago to Peoria on I-80. Once I left the Chicago market, it
was analog until I entered the Peoria market. Same trip in October, 2003,
was all digital except for about 1 mile as I left the Chicago market.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"We're proud of our restaurant. The public is invited to inspect at any
time. Keep out!" - sign on kitchen door of a New York City restaurant
(collected by Cindy Adams, New York Post, June 23, 1997)
June 20, 2004 12:34:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"George" <George@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:gsOdnVfuwLCJLk3dRVn_iw@adelphia.com...
>
>
> It isn't going to add anything to Sprints' network so there is no reason
to
> wait.
>

But I am thinking that the "new" ATTWS may offer plans that do not charge
for roaming--just like they did back in the TDMA heyday. I still have a
Digital One Rate Plan from back when the "real" AT&T operated ATTWS, and I
am NEVER charged a roaming fee, as long as my phone is on the air within amy
(very large) home rate area.

What good is a phone that runs up unanticipated roaming charges? How can
one possible keep one's sanity when one does not know what the wireless bill
will be? What if one makes lots of "free" night & weekend calls, only to
discover that they are billed at a roaming rate?

I have always valued the freedom from roaming charges as AT&T's most
important feature--and that is why I have remained on my old TDMA plan. I'm
not switching until they take my phone out of my cold, dead fingers!

But if the "new" AT&T offers a roamfree solution, and unlimited n/w, I'd
switch if only to stay with AT&T. Who the hell wants to go with Cingular,
anyway?


>
> But unless Sprint has decent coverage where you use it the "new" AT&T
won't
> be any better.
>

If AT&T adds tons of customers, the revenue will help Sprint add additional
area to their network. And, if gaps in coverage are patched with roaming
agreements why should I care what carrier handles my call, just as long as
"THE CALL GOES THROUGH," as the old Bell Atlantic Mobile ads used to say?
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 7:43:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:34:15 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>If AT&T adds tons of customers, the revenue will help Sprint add additional
>area to their network. And, if gaps in coverage are patched with roaming
>agreements why should I care what carrier handles my call, just as long as
>"THE CALL GOES THROUGH," as the old Bell Atlantic Mobile ads used to say?

If AT&T adds tons of customers, Sprint will need to spend the money on
increasing capacity in their existing footprint (which will probably have
the effect of filling in many of the holes that happen to be there in
various places -- every carrier has them).

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Toby! Come quick! Sam's gettin' his ass kicked by a girl." - Josh Lyman
"Ginger, get the popcorn." - Toby Ziegler
June 21, 2004 5:55:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
news:6qlbd0l8v7um9ublj9vd3q18klhim7muqr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:34:15 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com>
chose
> to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
> >If AT&T adds tons of customers, the revenue will help Sprint add
additional
> >area to their network. And, if gaps in coverage are patched with roaming
> >agreements why should I care what carrier handles my call, just as long
as
> >"THE CALL GOES THROUGH," as the old Bell Atlantic Mobile ads used to say?
>
> If AT&T adds tons of customers, Sprint will need to spend the money on
> increasing capacity in their existing footprint (which will probably have
> the effect of filling in many of the holes that happen to be there in
> various places -- every carrier has them).
>


Exactly! Sprint will be able to internally finance their network buildout.
What is significant for AT&T is that they will have a ready-made network on
day #1. If they can arrange for roaming agreements to patch up the holes,
they can offer a really competitive service--especially if AT&T does not
charge roaming fees with their customers' home rate areas.

That is what they did when they began building their TDMA digital network.
I often was handed off to other carriers, but I really didn't care, because
my calls went through. As time progressed, I began seeing the AT&T
indicator on my phone more than I saw "Extended Area" or "Roam."

I think it was the GSM conversion that was one of the final nails in their
coffin--it was one thing for customers to put up with spotty service when
there were no alternatives--like in the analog days--but now customers could
simply go to another carrier like Verizon and get the coverage they needed,
while AT&T continued building their GSM network. I'll consider GSM after
the network is fully built.

AT&T had the right idea by reselling Sprint, rather than starting from
scratch. Had they built their own network, they would be worse off than the
current ATTWS is now, with their GSM rollout.
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 7:50:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <1NBBc.21127$Y3.12724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>
> "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
> news:6qlbd0l8v7um9ublj9vd3q18klhim7muqr@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:34:15 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com>
> chose
> > to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
> >
> > >If AT&T adds tons of customers, the revenue will help Sprint add
> additional
> > >area to their network. And, if gaps in coverage are patched with roaming
> > >agreements why should I care what carrier handles my call, just as long
> as
> > >"THE CALL GOES THROUGH," as the old Bell Atlantic Mobile ads used to say?
> >
> > If AT&T adds tons of customers, Sprint will need to spend the money on
> > increasing capacity in their existing footprint (which will probably have
> > the effect of filling in many of the holes that happen to be there in
> > various places -- every carrier has them).
> >
>
>
> Exactly! Sprint will be able to internally finance their network buildout.
> What is significant for AT&T is that they will have a ready-made network on
> day #1. If they can arrange for roaming agreements to patch up the holes,
> they can offer a really competitive service--especially if AT&T does not
> charge roaming fees with their customers' home rate areas.

Holes? Most of Sprint's Network is Verizon Analog coverage. The rest is
a spider web of digital coverage.
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 10:20:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-7E9943.10504921062004@news02.east.earthlink.net>,
Røbert M. <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
>Holes? Most of Sprint's Network is Verizon Analog coverage. The rest is
>a spider web of digital coverage.

Doesn't SPCS now roam digitally where possible? They used to disable
cellular (850MHz) CDMA roaming on their phones (so they could set up
an "analog static" strawman, I would think), even if roaming partners
had perfectly good cellular CDMA in addition to the analog coverage.
But now I think most SPCS phones support cellular CDMA, and the SPCS
PRL will use it.
June 21, 2004 10:59:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-7E9943.10504921062004@news02.east.earthlink.net...

If they can arrange for roaming agreements to patch up the holes,
> > they can offer a really competitive service--especially if AT&T does not
> > charge roaming fees with their customers' home rate areas.
>
> Holes? Most of Sprint's Network is Verizon Analog coverage. The rest is
> a spider web of digital coverage.


What choice did AT&T have? Either they went with an established provider or
they built their own new network from the ground up.

I do not know why they chose Sprint, but that might have been the only
alternative if they wanted to hit the ground running.

What would be the chance that any new wireless company could start up today,
with no network, and be able to take on any but the least demanding
customers? Even if AT&T intends to build their own network, this plan
affords them 5 years to build it. Meanwhile their customers can get service
right now. If AT&T can use Verizon as a backup, and can do it without
charging roaming fees whenever a call is handled by a non-AT&T network, they
can add a ton of customers right at the outset.

I'm betting that they will be aggressive in offering competitive packages to
get people to try them. How else could they do it?
June 21, 2004 10:59:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:59:03 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com>
wrote:

>I do not know why they chose Sprint, but that might have been the only
>alternative if they wanted to hit the ground running.

Sprint PCS has the capacity that's why it's being used for virtual
networks such as Virgin Mobile and the new AT&T Wireless/AT&T PCS (if
that's what it's going to be called.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 3:40:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I doubt the 2g gsm network will ever be fully built, before it is
switched to 3G WCDMA. I think the AT&T heads finally saw the light and
cut their losses with the 2g gsm network and will be much better off
with the 3G CDMA of Sprint PCS and Verizon.


Jeremy wrote:
> "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
> news:6qlbd0l8v7um9ublj9vd3q18klhim7muqr@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:34:15 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com>
>
> chose
>
>>to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>>
>>
>>>If AT&T adds tons of customers, the revenue will help Sprint add
>
> additional
>
>>>area to their network. And, if gaps in coverage are patched with roaming
>>>agreements why should I care what carrier handles my call, just as long
>
> as
>
>>>"THE CALL GOES THROUGH," as the old Bell Atlantic Mobile ads used to say?
>>
>>If AT&T adds tons of customers, Sprint will need to spend the money on
>>increasing capacity in their existing footprint (which will probably have
>>the effect of filling in many of the holes that happen to be there in
>>various places -- every carrier has them).
>>
>
>
>
> Exactly! Sprint will be able to internally finance their network buildout.
> What is significant for AT&T is that they will have a ready-made network on
> day #1. If they can arrange for roaming agreements to patch up the holes,
> they can offer a really competitive service--especially if AT&T does not
> charge roaming fees with their customers' home rate areas.
>
> That is what they did when they began building their TDMA digital network.
> I often was handed off to other carriers, but I really didn't care, because
> my calls went through. As time progressed, I began seeing the AT&T
> indicator on my phone more than I saw "Extended Area" or "Roam."
>
> I think it was the GSM conversion that was one of the final nails in their
> coffin--it was one thing for customers to put up with spotty service when
> there were no alternatives--like in the analog days--but now customers could
> simply go to another carrier like Verizon and get the coverage they needed,
> while AT&T continued building their GSM network. I'll consider GSM after
> the network is fully built.
>
> AT&T had the right idea by reselling Sprint, rather than starting from
> scratch. Had they built their own network, they would be worse off than the
> current ATTWS is now, with their GSM rollout.
>
>
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 3:52:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

All of Sprint PCS' network is PCS CDMA. They do not have a analog
network. None of Sprint PCS's network is cellular. Nationwide the
number of people living where there is actual Verizon coverage, both PCS
and cellular, is about the same as the number of people living where
there is actual Sprint PCS coverage.


CharlesH wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-7E9943.10504921062004@news02.east.earthlink.net>,
> Røbert M. <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
>
>>Holes? Most of Sprint's Network is Verizon Analog coverage. The rest is
>>a spider web of digital coverage.
>
>
> Doesn't SPCS now roam digitally where possible? They used to disable
> cellular (850MHz) CDMA roaming on their phones (so they could set up
> an "analog static" strawman, I would think), even if roaming partners
> had perfectly good cellular CDMA in addition to the analog coverage.
> But now I think most SPCS phones support cellular CDMA, and the SPCS
> PRL will use it.
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 4:42:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:34:15 GMT, Jeremy wrote:

> But I am thinking that the "new" ATTWS may offer plans that do not charge
> for roaming--just like they did back in the TDMA heyday. I still have a
> Digital One Rate Plan from back when the "real" AT&T operated ATTWS, and I
> am NEVER charged a roaming fee, as long as my phone is on the air within amy
> (very large) home rate area.
>
> What good is a phone that runs up unanticipated roaming charges? How can
> one possible keep one's sanity when one does not know what the wireless bill
> will be? What if one makes lots of "free" night & weekend calls, only to
> discover that they are billed at a roaming rate?
>
> I have always valued the freedom from roaming charges as AT&T's most
> important feature--and that is why I have remained on my old TDMA plan. I'm
> not switching until they take my phone out of my cold, dead fingers!
>
> But if the "new" AT&T offers a roamfree solution, and unlimited n/w, I'd
> switch if only to stay with AT&T. Who the hell wants to go with Cingular,
> anyway?

VZW has a National Single Rate plan like AT&Ts DOR.
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 4:42:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.verizon Traveling Man <none@none.com> wrote:

>> But if the "new" AT&T offers a roamfree solution, and unlimited n/w, I'd
>> switch if only to stay with AT&T. Who the hell wants to go with Cingular,
>> anyway?
>
> VZW has a National Single Rate plan like AT&Ts DOR.

AT&T was just the pioneer in that area. Verizon, Alltel, Cingular all have
similar plans.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
June 22, 2004 7:18:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Traveling Man" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:hznby77z44vy.of7wh0ggs30r.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> VZW has a National Single Rate plan like AT&Ts DOR.

I did see that, but it is higher than my $29.99/month rate from ATTWS. I
get 500 anytime minutes, free n/w and free long distance. It is not a
national plan, but my home area is huge--I'm in Philly, and the home area
stretches from NH south to Northern VA, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the
PA-OH border.

My previous analog home area, by comparison, (Comcast Metrophone, later
Cellular One) stretched only about 15 miles beyond the Philadelphia city
line in any direction.

I'd rate no roaming hassles and network reliability as the two most
important criteria for me in selecting a wireless provider.

With regard to Verizon, I've read that their customers often do not get the
PCS feature delivery when they are out of their local area. No Voicemail
indicator, no text message delivery, etc. If that is true, it is a real
bummer.

Only time I've lost those features is when I've been handed off to an analog
system in rural areas, and as soon as I returned to a digital area--whether
AT&T's or someone else's--I got all my PCS features back. I had assumed
that all the other carriers were the same. Apparently that is not always
the case.
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 9:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <nUUBc.13940$Wr.6284@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I doubt the 2g gsm network will ever be fully built, before it is
>switched to 3G WCDMA. I think the AT&T heads finally saw the light and
>cut their losses with the 2g gsm network and will be much better off
>with the 3G CDMA of Sprint PCS and Verizon.

Well, UMTS isn't exactly the 3G CDMA of Sprint/Verizon...

UMTS phones will all fall back to GSM for voice. Right now, given all the
congestion problems on VZW, my AT&T GSM phone is actually working better
than my VZW phone (it isn't the phone, I've tried several)

Sprint - well, they don't have the coverage I need, so they aren't in
the running for my business. I wish the CDMA carriers would get 1xRTT
data roaming going. Right now, lack of 1xRTT data roaming is one
thing that is keeping data coverage on Sprint and Verizon behind in
terms of overall data coverage.
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 10:29:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <nUUBc.13940$Wr.6284@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I doubt the 2g gsm network will ever be fully built, before it is
>switched to 3G WCDMA. I think the AT&T heads finally saw the light and
>cut their losses with the 2g gsm network and will be much better off
>with the 3G CDMA of Sprint PCS and Verizon.

AT&T Corporation, which is launching the "new" AT&T wireless as a Sprint
reseller, is a completely unrelated to the current "AT&T Wireless" company
which is merging with Cingular. Until the Sprint initiative launches,
AT&T Corporation is not in the wireless business at all. "AT&T Wireless"
simply licenses the "AT&T" name from AT&T Corporation. At one time they
were the same company, but several years ago AT&T Corporation got rid
of the wireless operation, as they did the cable TV operation.

And they are really going to be able to explain this to the public??
All of the the "old" AT&T Wireless customers, with their TDMA/GSM phones
are going to be absorbed into Cingular, and the "new" <whatever it will
be called> will sell Sprint-compatible PCS CDMA phones to its all-new
customers. :-(
June 23, 2004 12:33:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
news:cb9tqn02t0r@news3.newsguy.com...

> And they are really going to be able to explain this to the public??
> All of the the "old" AT&T Wireless customers, with their TDMA/GSM phones
> are going to be absorbed into Cingular

One article I read quoted an AT&T executive as predicting that many of the
current ATTWS customers will cancel with Cingular, after the merger, and
will come back to their carrier of choice--AT&T.

I just might be one of them. I'm waiting to see how the market shapes up.

I have declined every ATTWS offer to switch me into a GSM plan (with its
accompanying 2-year contractual requirement). I am on month-to-month,
having fulfilled my one-year Digital One Rate Plan as of 12/31/03. There
must be millions of ATTWS customers that are in the same position as I
am--free to cancel without penalty whenever they please.

I am sick of waiting for the GSM network to be finished, and I plan to stay
with TDMA if I stay with Cingular. If I move to another carrier, it'll be
Sprint (or ATT reselling Sprint) or Verizon. They are free to focus on
improving their existing networks, not on replacing them. That leaves
Cingular and T-Mobile off my short list.

The only reason I stay with ATTWS now is that I have a good
price--$29.99/line per month, with never a roaming charge. I could get a
Verizon national one rate-type plan, but it is more expensive, would require
purchase of new phones, and probably would entail a new two-year agreement.
I think I'll just wait and see before I jump ship. What I've got works fine
for right now.

I am not at all pleased that ATTWS is being absorbed into Cingular. I
thought ATTWS was really good before AT&T spun them off, and I am unhappy
with the way that the new management has put such a low priority on customer
service. They can blame the GSM buildout for only so much--the rest of
their problems are self-inflicted.
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 6:40:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:18:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:

> "Traveling Man" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hznby77z44vy.of7wh0ggs30r.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>> VZW has a National Single Rate plan like AT&Ts DOR.
>
> I did see that, but it is higher than my $29.99/month rate from ATTWS. I
> get 500 anytime minutes, free n/w and free long distance. It is not a
> national plan, but my home area is huge--I'm in Philly, and the home area
> stretches from NH south to Northern VA, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the
> PA-OH border.

My wife still keeps her VZW Single Rate East plan, which is similar to
yours, for the same reason. She also gets 3500 minutes of free nights and
weekends. VZW doesn't offer it anymore.

> My previous analog home area, by comparison, (Comcast Metrophone, later
> Cellular One) stretched only about 15 miles beyond the Philadelphia city
> line in any direction.
>
> I'd rate no roaming hassles and network reliability as the two most
> important criteria for me in selecting a wireless provider.

Me too. That's why I went to VZW's National Single Rate. More money, but
no suprises! Since I travel a lot this is important. If I was a casual
traveler I'd switch to the AC plan.

> With regard to Verizon, I've read that their customers often do not get the
> PCS feature delivery when they are out of their local area. No Voicemail
> indicator, no text message delivery, etc. If that is true, it is a real
> bummer.

In some areas this is true, but I don't have any problems just about
everywhere I travel through the USA's midwest, northeast, south through the
Carolinas, and into Ontario.
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 6:40:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:28:54 -0500, Steven J Sobol wrote:

> In alt.cellular.verizon Traveling Man <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> But if the "new" AT&T offers a roamfree solution, and unlimited n/w, I'd
>>> switch if only to stay with AT&T. Who the hell wants to go with Cingular,
>>> anyway?
>>
>> VZW has a National Single Rate plan like AT&Ts DOR.
>
> AT&T was just the pioneer in that area. Verizon, Alltel, Cingular all have
> similar plans.

Yes, I know. I started with an AT&T DOR plan several years ago while they
were still all TDMA, but switched to VZW since their coverage was better for
me. Also, the closest AT&T cell number I could get was still a local toll
call, whereas VZW had local numbers. It cost me money everytime my wife
called me or my office phone forwarded to my AT&T cell phone <G>.
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 8:17:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.


Mark Henderson wrote:

> In article <nUUBc.13940$Wr.6284@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I doubt the 2g gsm network will ever be fully built, before it is
>>switched to 3G WCDMA. I think the AT&T heads finally saw the light and
>>cut their losses with the 2g gsm network and will be much better off
>>with the 3G CDMA of Sprint PCS and Verizon.
>
>
> Well, UMTS isn't exactly the 3G CDMA of Sprint/Verizon...
>
> UMTS phones will all fall back to GSM for voice. Right now, given all the
> congestion problems on VZW, my AT&T GSM phone is actually working better
> than my VZW phone (it isn't the phone, I've tried several)
>
> Sprint - well, they don't have the coverage I need, so they aren't in
> the running for my business. I wish the CDMA carriers would get 1xRTT
> data roaming going. Right now, lack of 1xRTT data roaming is one
> thing that is keeping data coverage on Sprint and Verizon behind in
> terms of overall data coverage.
>
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 9:49:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.

Motorola A845. Dual mode GSM tri-band/WCDMA. Check it out on
phonescoop. It's a _big_ phone - weighs 155g.

This is apparently one of the phone choices AT&T Wireless will be
launching UMTS with this summer.
June 23, 2004 10:20:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Traveling Man wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:18:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:

> My wife still keeps her VZW Single Rate East plan, which is similar to
> yours, for the same reason. She also gets 3500 minutes of free nights and
> weekends. VZW doesn't offer it anymore.

I have Single Rate East also (Pgh., PA) No roaming charges period in the
northeast. I won't switch till I have to travel outside the area.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 8:18:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 22 Jun 2004 18:29:43 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>In article <nUUBc.13940$Wr.6284@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I doubt the 2g gsm network will ever be fully built, before it is
>>switched to 3G WCDMA. I think the AT&T heads finally saw the light and
>>cut their losses with the 2g gsm network and will be much better off
>>with the 3G CDMA of Sprint PCS and Verizon.
>
>AT&T Corporation, which is launching the "new" AT&T wireless as a Sprint
>reseller, is a completely unrelated to the current "AT&T Wireless" company
>which is merging with Cingular. Until the Sprint initiative launches,
>AT&T Corporation is not in the wireless business at all. "AT&T Wireless"
>simply licenses the "AT&T" name from AT&T Corporation. At one time they
>were the same company, but several years ago AT&T Corporation got rid
>of the wireless operation, as they did the cable TV operation.
>
>And they are really going to be able to explain this to the public??
>All of the the "old" AT&T Wireless customers, with their TDMA/GSM phones
>are going to be absorbed into Cingular, and the "new" <whatever it will
>be called> will sell Sprint-compatible PCS CDMA phones to its all-new
>customers. :-(

Wait a minute -- is Sprint PCS still related to Sprint (the long distance
company)? Or has it been spun off the same way as ATTWS?

If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
one of its biggest rivals?

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"You know, I was supposed to be a flash in the pan. I'm the longest flash
Hollywood's ever seen." - Whoopi Goldberg, accepting a career achievement
award at the Santa Barbara Film Festival
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 8:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

David,
Not only are Sprint and Sprint PCS still related, they have been combined
back into one company! The reason they did that was the same reason (old)
AT&T is considering a wireless service. All the large carriers want to
'bundle' communications services, especially for their larger customers.
Wireless is the future, wireline is old school.

AT&T wants to offer its customers a wireless service, and they're not really
concerned about competing with the other wireless carriers. They are just
creating added value for their data and business customers. When accounts
are 'bundled', customers tend to be more loyal, and it is a bigger hassle to
change your data, LD and wireless services all it once. They are more
willing to stay with a company if only part of their service has a problem.

Qwest, Verizon, Sprint and SBC are already offering these 'bundles', and
Qwest's wireless is also handled by Sprint. AT&T does not care who supplies
the wireless network, they just want to hand over some wireless phones for
their big customers to use. In some areas of the country, the phones they
offer may be Nextel. So far most of these bundled services haven't made
that much difference.

Bill Radio
Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com


"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
news:2h3jd0h9bh9cgj47dgni10tj8q1otb52pl@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jun 2004 18:29:43 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) chose to
add
> >
> Wait a minute -- is Sprint PCS still related to Sprint (the long distance
> company)? Or has it been spun off the same way as ATTWS?
>
> If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
> one of its biggest rivals?
June 24, 2004 9:58:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:24:29 GMT, "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com>
wrote:

>All I need is a phone that works like my old fashioned
>desktop phones that I use in my office.

I'm afraid you'll be disappointed then. There's no wireless service
that even hopes to guarantee you that you'll get the same level of
service you get with a fixed wireline service (even in areas that were
served by the former GT&E.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 1:03:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
news:5ujld0l3qqm1pr53qfio9nvopagtro2ohu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:24:29 GMT, "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >All I need is a phone that works like my old fashioned
> >desktop phones that I use in my office.

Check out the Phonecell (or just click on products) at www.telular.com they
make a whole slew of boxes that are basically a cell phone inside a box that
also has a switching system equivalent in it (like you would find in a motel
or small business, dial 9 for an outside line, that happens to be the cell),
and allows you to use all your normal phones (even your old fashioned
desktop phones, almost any phone with an rj11 plug, but on the cellular
system. Lets you use fax or alarms too, but not high speed data modems in
computers at all times (in 1X areas yes, but in analog only areas can only
do lower speed).

Sorry, I don't sell em, just been using one for over a year and am very
happy.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 6:18:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:49:01 GMT, mch@darkhunger.com (Mark Henderson) chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>In article <F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
>> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
>>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
>>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
>>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.
>
>Motorola A845. Dual mode GSM tri-band/WCDMA. Check it out on
>phonescoop. It's a _big_ phone - weighs 155g.
>
>This is apparently one of the phone choices AT&T Wireless will be
>launching UMTS with this summer.

A friend of mine, currently living in Japan (cellular service from Docomo),
just bought a Sony 505i (I think). I haven't checked it out on the web yet,
but he says it's GSM with built in CDMA (he's better than the average Joe,
but I can't claim 100% certainty that he is correct about this) and it has
a pretty darn good camera. He says it also does video, but he hasn't sent
me any yet.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"ONE is too many zucchinis." - Dave Barry
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 6:19:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:40:37 GMT, Traveling Man <none@none.com> chose to
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

> Also, the closest AT&T cell number I could get was still a local toll
>call, whereas VZW had local numbers. It cost me money everytime my wife
>called me or my office phone forwarded to my AT&T cell phone <G>.

For the wife, tell her to hang up after 1 ring, then you call her back. You
use the same minutes either way, and since the outbound call didn't
connect, there's no charge on the landline.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And
so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused
and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
- Rush Limbaugh, Oct. 5, 1995
June 24, 2004 7:55:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
news:1dwCc.76871$Qr.56950@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

> >
> > Well, some of us only want a decent phone with good
> service and don't
> > care about the gadgets.

I agree completely with your sentiments, but customers like us do not drive
profits for wireless companies. Now it's internet browsing and data
transmission by wireless (with the accompanying charges for the amount of
data sent or received).

Verizon seems to be the carrier that most conforms to the "Universal
Reliable Service" model. But it does seem frustrating to have all these
incompatible transmission systems. Life was easier when they had the "A"
and "B" analog systems.
June 24, 2004 8:08:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
>
> If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
> one of its biggest rivals?
>

Sprint has excess capacity that it can sell to AT&T.

Sprint will derive revenue from wholesaling to AT&T, rather than see AT&Ts
customers making their calls on some other network.

Sprint will have a 5-year deal where AT&T will not switch their customers to
any other network, AT&T's or anyone else's.

Sprint will earn revenue with which to continue building out their existing
network.

Sprint is already in the wireless wholesale business (they provide service
for Virgin Mobile). If Sprint declined AT&T's business, chances are that
some other carrier would take it--and Sprint would see the revenues go to
someone else.

Sprint will ensure that AT&T does not become an outright competitor for at
least 5 years. Better for Sprint to get SOME of the revenue from AT&T's
customers than to get NONE of it.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 1:31:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> GTE?????? Sorry, but wrong!
> Can you say..... Verizon?
>
> Check your facts.

Sprint works fine for my family... I'm actually in the process of switching
because they're better than Verizon in this area right now... (Victor Valley...
Victorville, Apple Valley, Hesperia and vicinity in Southern California)


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 7:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
> wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
> be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
> the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.

All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.

A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
quickly -- it is a very complex process.

Regards,
Jatian
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:54:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


JatJatIan wrote:

> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
>> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
>>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
>>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
>>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.
>
>
> All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
> as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
> and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
> have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
> some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
> The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.
>
> A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
> some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
> quickly -- it is a very complex process.
>
> Regards,
> Jatian
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 9:58:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <s0oDc.14804$w07.3415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
>wcdma.

AT&T Wireless hasn't launched yet. However, UMTS the network is up
and working in a few markets. Should launch very soon in those
markets.

I expect to be using EDGE for most of my data needs for the next year
or so. Then we'll see, maybe I'll end up switching to EV-DO or maybe
I'll go with UMTS. Right now, EDGE is the fastest data network
available in most places I travel to.
!