TOTAL flip-flop by Cingular

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-7CD897.08152519112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Fri, 19 Nov
2004 14:15:26 GMT, FUDMEISTER Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Monday if you went to the ATTWIRLESS website and signed up for a phone
>and service you were forwarded to Cingular.com, and could only sign up
>for a Cingular plan, in accord with the November 15 integration date.

Actually not in accord with anything -- all Cingular had announced was that
ATTWS would be able to migrate to Cingular, which they could.

>Also on that date FREE Mobile to Mobile plans were to allow ATTWIRELESS
>to Cingular and vice versa. Haven't heard anywhere if thats really in
>force, and if so, how completely.

[yawn]

>[SNIP silliness]
>By Tuesday ATT's web site was back signing folks up to buy ATT phones
>and plans.

Yep -- web site transition was a bit bumpy.

>By Thursday and continuing web ads for "Cingular" forwarded you to AT&T
>Wireless to get a "Free" flip-phone and AT&T Wireless plan.
>
>MORAL: ...

Pay no attention to rants from FUDMEISTER Jack Zwick.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:15:26 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>MORAL: Hurry up and buy an AT&T phone with an AT&T plan, so when you
>want rollover, Cingular can sell you a second phone (a Cingular phone
>with a Cingular plan and an $18 "upgrade" fee and a new contract
>expiration date 2 years off). Of course the new AT&T customers are not
>told that.

Actually, I wanted to switch from ATT to Cingular this week. The
different rules, plans, & web sites for Cingular and ATT left me
confused ... but in the end, would cost me more! So I'm just staying
with ATT until the dust settles.

Too much confusion for me, just too much. I'm staying close to this
newsgroup until I get a clearer picture.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:5iAnd.6390$_3.81739@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <k7mdnSu0OI9TEgPcRVn-oA@adelphia.com> on Fri, 19 Nov 2004
17:29:16 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:jzwick3-7CD897.08152519112004@news1.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >> Monday if you went to the ATTWIRLESS website and signed up for a phone
> >> and service you were forwarded to Cingular.com, and could only sign up
> >> for a Cingular plan, in accord with the November 15 integration date.
> >
> >I'm sorry- they are integrated, and were on the 15th. This is a
rebranding
> >issue and has nothing to do with integration. Please stop being such a
> >twit.
>
> They aren't integrated -- still separate networks, rate plans, and billing
> systems. All that's changed so far is superficial branding and roaming.
>

OK, let me rephrase- from a customer's perspective and from the outside,
they are integrated- all stores are being rebranded, the networks operate as
one to users of both phones, and the Cingular name is now attached to
everything ATTW. What happens behind the scenes is inconsequential to users
at this point and particularly the troll and his fantasies.

Remember- as late as last year many Verizon customers were still on their
legacy billing system, and all of the conglomerate networks are still
registered to the original entities that won the licenses and appear as such
everywhere but on the phone. Many of the legacy (pre-Verizon) price plans
are still honored. Does that make the customers anything but Verizon
customers?

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <vO2dnWiGxbav8QLcRVn-vQ@adelphia.com> on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:09:36 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:5iAnd.6390$_3.81739@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> They aren't integrated -- still separate networks, rate plans, and billing
>> systems. All that's changed so far is superficial branding and roaming.
>
>OK, let me rephrase- from a customer's perspective and from the outside,
>they are integrated- all stores are being rebranded, the networks operate as
>one to users of both phones, and the Cingular name is now attached to
>everything ATTW. What happens behind the scenes is inconsequential to users
>at this point and particularly the troll and his fantasies.

I don't mean to split hairs, but there is a significant difference to users
between free roaming (as exists now) and integrated networks (hopefully in the
future). With an integrated network your handset will always use the best
possible signal. With roaming your handset will use the Home network even
when the non-Home network has much better signal and/or capacity; i.e., an
ATTWS SIM will work better in certain areas than a Cingular SIM, and vice
versa. ENS can overcome that issue, but most users don't have ENS. It's not
a big issue in most areas and for most users, but it is still a significant
difference until real integration occurs. What we have now is half-a-loaf (or
perhaps 80% of a loaf .

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:_eKnd.6440$_3.82571@typhoon.sonic.net...

>
> I don't mean to split hairs, but there is a significant difference to
users
> between free roaming (as exists now) and integrated networks (hopefully in
the
> future). With an integrated network your handset will always use the best
> possible signal. With roaming your handset will use the Home network even
> when the non-Home network has much better signal and/or capacity; i.e., an
> ATTWS SIM will work better in certain areas than a Cingular SIM, and vice
> versa. ENS can overcome that issue, but most users don't have ENS. It's
not
> a big issue in most areas and for most users, but it is still a
significant
> difference until real integration occurs. What we have now is half-a-loaf
(or
> perhaps 80% of a loaf .
>
> --
I'd give it a 90 or 95% loaf- the situaiton you describe is valid, but going
to be restricted to a very small number of users.

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

John Navas wrote:
....
>>OK, let me rephrase- from a customer's perspective and from the outside,
>>they are integrated- all stores are being rebranded, the networks operate as
>>one to users of both phones, and the Cingular name is now attached to
>>everything ATTW. What happens behind the scenes is inconsequential to users
>>at this point and particularly the troll and his fantasies.
>
>
> I don't mean to split hairs, but there is a significant difference to users
> between free roaming (as exists now) and integrated networks (hopefully in the
> future). With an integrated network your handset will always use the best
> possible signal. With roaming your handset will use the Home network even
> when the non-Home network has much better signal and/or capacity; i.e., an
> ATTWS SIM will work better in certain areas than a Cingular SIM, and vice
> versa. ENS can overcome that issue, but most users don't have ENS. It's not
> a big issue in most areas and for most users, but it is still a significant
> difference until real integration occurs. What we have now is half-a-loaf (or
> perhaps 80% of a loaf .
>

Wait a minute ... just yesterday I said I was thinking of switching from
ATT to Cingular partly because of better coverage. You commented:

"Coverage is the same -- Cingular has free roaming on ATTWS, and vice
versa."

Now you're admitting that there is a subtle but significant difference.
See, I can nit pick as well as you can split hairs!

BTW, I can't say if Cingular EDGE will roam on ATT, but I did prove (and
verify with customer support) that non-EDGE mMode will not roam on
Cingular - at least this Summer in New England.

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <9KydnanHNJ3M6gLcRVn-2w@comcast.com> on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:56:44 -0500,
Jeff Morris <jeffmo@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> I don't mean to split hairs, but there is a significant difference to users
>> between free roaming (as exists now) and integrated networks (hopefully in the
>> future). With an integrated network your handset will always use the best
>> possible signal. With roaming your handset will use the Home network even
>> when the non-Home network has much better signal and/or capacity; i.e., an
>> ATTWS SIM will work better in certain areas than a Cingular SIM, and vice
>> versa. ENS can overcome that issue, but most users don't have ENS. It's not
>> a big issue in most areas and for most users, but it is still a significant
>> difference until real integration occurs. What we have now is half-a-loaf (or
>> perhaps 80% of a loaf .
>
>Wait a minute ... just yesterday I said I was thinking of switching from
> ATT to Cingular partly because of better coverage. You commented:
>
>"Coverage is the same -- Cingular has free roaming on ATTWS, and vice
>versa."
>
>Now you're admitting that there is a subtle but significant difference.
> See, I can nit pick as well as you can split hairs!

Coverage *is* the same. What can differ (prior to integration and without
ENS) is service quality in a given location. How much this matters depends on
several factors, including the quality of your handset. With my Z600, it's
mostly (but not entirely) a non-issue.

>BTW, I can't say if Cingular EDGE will roam on ATT, ...

I can and it does (here in Northern California at least).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;