Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So how good/bad is Cingular?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 12:41:16 AM

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

I've been a Verizon customer for several years and while the service is
pretty good, they have been playing an increasingly hardball version of
"take-away" the last year or so. No more free detail billing, no more free
calls to voicemail, soon no free holidays, increasing costs for various
auxiliary services/text messaging, no more $50 swap-out for a DOA phone off
warranty, etc.

I've been thinking about switching to Cingular but am concerned about the
high number of complaints (highest among all cell carriers according to a
recent FCC complaint data), and many independent reviews saying there are a
higher percentage of dropped calls, busy circuits, dead spots in too many
markets compared to the other carriers.

So what say you all-- happy or not?

X

More about : good bad cingular

Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:11:39 AM

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

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

In <e6idnWcoeMQ23X3fRVn-rw@comcast.com> on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:41:16 -0400,
"Expert Witness" <x@nospamcourt> wrote:

>I've been a Verizon customer for several years and while the service is
>pretty good, they have been playing an increasingly hardball version of
>"take-away" the last year or so. No more free detail billing, no more free
>calls to voicemail, soon no free holidays, increasing costs for various
>auxiliary services/text messaging, no more $50 swap-out for a DOA phone off
>warranty, etc.
>
>I've been thinking about switching to Cingular but am concerned about the
>high number of complaints (highest among all cell carriers according to a
>recent FCC complaint data), and many independent reviews saying there are a
>higher percentage of dropped calls, busy circuits, dead spots in too many
>markets compared to the other carriers.
>
>So what say you all-- happy or not?

"Google is your friend." That way you won't have to ask the same question
over again. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
July 22, 2005 11:37:03 AM

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:08:54 -0500, "BBB" <hotel@jay.com> wrote:

>I'm in a relatively rare situation where I can
>test two Nokia 3100 phones side by side on the Cingular network. One is a
>850/1900 phone, the other is a 900/1800/1900 phone.
>
>One moron actually seemed to think that you "may" get different reception
>with two such phone. My dear cupcake, you do get different reception. It's
>night and day.

You seem to think that your experience is the only one that counts.
Here's a news flash for you: You're not the only person with wireless
service in the world.

- -
Related resources
July 22, 2005 12:10:29 PM

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

Per Expert Witness:
>I've been thinking about switching to Cingular but am concerned about the
>high number of complaints ... and many independent reviews saying there are a
>higher percentage of dropped calls, busy circuits, dead spots in too many
>markets compared to the other carriers.

From personal experience and reading other threads, I think which carrier works
best depends a lot on where you are.

I'm in Southeastern Penna (Paoli, about 23 miles west of Phila...) and recently
switched from Cingular to tMobile. For my use, there's no comparison in signal
strength/reliability. Cingular was head and shoulders above tMobile. Under
Cingular, I didn't even have the concept of zero bars. With tMobile, it's a
daily/hourly occurrance.

OTOH, Cingular's customer interface was miserable and tMobile's isn't all that
bad so far.

OTOOH, with Cingular I was on TDMA and with tMobile I'm on GSM.

OTOOOH, I've heard that there's some technical consideration with the two
company's signal frequency. Something about shorter wavelengths (Cingular)
having better building penetration.

--
PeteCresswell
July 22, 2005 12:10:30 PM

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:10:29 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid>
wrote:

> I've heard that there's some technical consideration with the two
>company's signal frequency. Something about shorter wavelengths (Cingular)
>having better building penetration.

A real world situation trumps any "I've heard." People talk about
800/850 like it's the best thing since sliced bread. It may have
advantages in some situations but it's far from 800/850 trumps
everything else.

- -
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:07:55 PM

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

"Expert Witness" <x@nospamcourt> wrote in message
news:e6idnWcoeMQ23X3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> I've been a Verizon customer for several years and while the service is
> pretty good, they have been playing an increasingly hardball version of
> "take-away" the last year or so. No more free detail billing, no more free
> calls to voicemail, soon no free holidays, increasing costs for various
> auxiliary services/text messaging, no more $50 swap-out for a DOA phone
> off warranty, etc.
>
> I've been thinking about switching to Cingular but am concerned about the
> high number of complaints (highest among all cell carriers according to a
> recent FCC complaint data), and many independent reviews saying there are
> a higher percentage of dropped calls, busy circuits, dead spots in too
> many markets compared to the other carriers.
>
> So what say you all-- happy or not?
>
> X

I switched from Verizon to a Cingular Nation GSM plan. I can't possibly be
happier. Cingular has better coverage for less money. Also, I don't put up
with constant billing errors like I had to deal with while I was a Verizon
customer. -Dave
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 4:11:39 PM

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

> Which is why you see problems. Cingular sells only 850/1900 mobiles,
not
> 900/1800/1900 mobiles.
>

I am not very technical, but I want to follow up on this. I have a
Motorola V400. I thought it was a 4-band phone. Am I incorrect? I as
because I am planning a trip to Latin America, and I want to be able to
use the phone down there. I have determined that the phone is unlocked.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 6:23:20 PM

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

Works fine in Raleigh, nc
"Expert Witness" <x@nospamcourt> wrote in message
news:e6idnWcoeMQ23X3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> I've been a Verizon customer for several years and while the service is
> pretty good, they have been playing an increasingly hardball version of
> "take-away" the last year or so. No more free detail billing, no more free
> calls to voicemail, soon no free holidays, increasing costs for various
> auxiliary services/text messaging, no more $50 swap-out for a DOA phone
> off warranty, etc.
>
> I've been thinking about switching to Cingular but am concerned about the
> high number of complaints (highest among all cell carriers according to a
> recent FCC complaint data), and many independent reviews saying there are
> a higher percentage of dropped calls, busy circuits, dead spots in too
> many markets compared to the other carriers.
>
> So what say you all-- happy or not?
>
> X
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:17:44 PM

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

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

In <8q22e1toofre921a1to95i48ie7om8du48@4ax.com> on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:10:29
-0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote:

>OTOOOH, I've heard that there's some technical consideration with the two
>company's signal frequency. Something about shorter wavelengths (Cingular)
>having better building penetration.

Longer, but it's not that simple, since shorter wavelengths penetrate openings
(e.g., windows) better. In other words, mostly another Internet Myth.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:22:49 PM

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

Ted B. wrote:
> I switched from Verizon to a Cingular Nation GSM plan. I can't possibly be
> happier. Cingular has better coverage for less money. Also, I don't put up
> with constant billing errors like I had to deal with while I was a Verizon
> customer. -Dave
>
>

I'm switching to Cingular from Verizon but not because of billing
errors. The fact of the matter is that there will always be billing
errors for all carriers because there is a significant portion of the
customer base who either doesn't check for errors or doesn't care. Even
when they lose a suit, the company is still way ahead financially.

I have two stories. The first is from personal experience. Verizon made
a $1500 billing error on my bill. It took 2 months and many hours on the
phone to get it corrected.

The second story is from a friend. He's on a Verizon family plan. The
father is in charge of the plan and everything. My friend was told that
the plan has unlimited nights and weekends. I suspect that they either
aren't on unlimited nights and weekends or they've had several huge
billing errors. The father automatically blames the other members of the
family instead of checking to see if it's Verizon's error.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:22:50 PM

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

> I'm switching to Cingular from Verizon but not because of billing
> errors. The fact of the matter is that there will always be billing errors
> for all carriers because there is a significant portion of the customer
> base who either doesn't check for errors or doesn't care. Even when they
> lose a suit, the company is still way ahead financially.
>
> I have two stories. The first is from personal experience. Verizon made a
> $1500 billing error on my bill. It took 2 months and many hours on the
> phone to get it corrected.
>
> The second story is from a friend. He's on a Verizon family plan. The
> father is in charge of the plan and everything. My friend was told that
> the plan has unlimited nights and weekends. I suspect that they either
> aren't on unlimited nights and weekends or they've had several huge
> billing errors. The father automatically blames the other members of the
> family instead of checking to see if it's Verizon's error.

Well now for my story. I had -delayed- billing errors while I was with
Verizon. That is, (for example) calls in January were billed in May,
causing overage charges IN MAY, while not all of January's anytime minutes
(when the calls were actually made) were used. All calls were made on the
Verizon network, within my home area. I wasn't "roaming" and wasn't out of
my home area, either. Verizon admitted that the error was on their end.
They refused to correct it, claiming (and I quote), "but all carriers do
that". If all carriers do that, it is odd that Verizon is the ONLY carrier
I've had that problem with, out of the half dozen I've tried. How it worked
(for example):

January, use 498 anytime minutes (of 500 included plan anytime minutes), get
detailled billing for 210 minutes. Note that there are gobs of "anytime"
minutes that were NOT USED in January.

May, use 450 minutes, get detailled billing for 738 minutes, INCLUDING 238
minutes of OVERAGE charges for 288 minutes of calls that were made IN
JANUARY. (ouch!)

This happened a few times. Each time, Verizon refused to correct their
error.

After what you wrote, I'm wondering how many people got hit with these
overage charges from Verizon and weren't observant enough to realize that
the overage charges were from previous months when not all of their anytime
minutes were used?

In any case, since Verizon wasn't willing to correct the error, I corrected
it for them. I'm now a Cingular customer, so Verizon isn't making any more
billing errors on my cell phone bill. See how easy that was? :)  -Dave
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:03:54 PM

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

"Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote in message
news:42e0efab$0$47059$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Expert Witness" <x@nospamcourt> wrote in message
> news:e6idnWcoeMQ23X3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>> I've been a Verizon customer for several years and while the service is
>> pretty good, they have been playing an increasingly hardball version of
>> "take-away" the last year or so. No more free detail billing, no more
>> free calls to voicemail, soon no free holidays, increasing costs for
>> various auxiliary services/text messaging, no more $50 swap-out for a DOA
>> phone off warranty, etc.
>>
>> I've been thinking about switching to Cingular but am concerned about the
>> high number of complaints (highest among all cell carriers according to a
>> recent FCC complaint data), and many independent reviews saying there are
>> a higher percentage of dropped calls, busy circuits, dead spots in too
>> many markets compared to the other carriers.
>>
>> So what say you all-- happy or not?
>>
>> X
>
> I switched from Verizon to a Cingular Nation GSM plan. I can't possibly
> be happier. Cingular has better coverage for less money. Also, I don't
> put up with constant billing errors like I had to deal with while I was a
> Verizon customer. -Dave

I don't know Dave. I switched to Cingular and I have some intense billing
problems. They arbitrarily drop a dollop of charges even they cannot
explain onto my monthly and then threaten to cancel me if I don't pay them.
Talk about some confusing and frightening stuff. I've never had that with
my previous carriers and I've used cells for 15 years.

Reception is not that great with GSM for me. I am constantly asking people
to repeat themselves. They sound like they are talking through a juice
harp. Analog or TDMA was ALOT better for me. No comparision. I DO like
the long standby times and rollover minutes, but then again, I probably need
them to re-call the people dropped during important calls. Am I totally
pissed at them??? No because I figure they are building and improving a
very large network and I hope to see constant improvement over the next 6
months. BUT, I do expect to see improvement. If not, I will really push my
consumer rights.

Selling and billing.................... Selling and
billing................... Selling and billing.................you better
hope you only taste these two operations and not need to go through customer
service for problems. It could be an easy fix or a deep maze.
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 11:50:43 PM

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

Ted B. wrote:
>> I'm switching to Cingular from Verizon but not because of billing
>> errors. The fact of the matter is that there will always be billing errors
>> for all carriers because there is a significant portion of the customer
>> base who either doesn't check for errors or doesn't care. Even when they
>> lose a suit, the company is still way ahead financially.
>>
>> I have two stories. The first is from personal experience. Verizon made a
>> $1500 billing error on my bill. It took 2 months and many hours on the
>> phone to get it corrected.
>>
>> The second story is from a friend. He's on a Verizon family plan. The
>> father is in charge of the plan and everything. My friend was told that
>> the plan has unlimited nights and weekends. I suspect that they either
>> aren't on unlimited nights and weekends or they've had several huge
>> billing errors. The father automatically blames the other members of the
>> family instead of checking to see if it's Verizon's error.
>
> Well now for my story. I had -delayed- billing errors while I was with
> Verizon. That is, (for example) calls in January were billed in May,
> causing overage charges IN MAY, while not all of January's anytime minutes
> (when the calls were actually made) were used. All calls were made on the
> Verizon network, within my home area. I wasn't "roaming" and wasn't out of
> my home area, either. Verizon admitted that the error was on their end.
> They refused to correct it, claiming (and I quote), "but all carriers do
> that". If all carriers do that, it is odd that Verizon is the ONLY carrier
> I've had that problem with, out of the half dozen I've tried. How it worked
> (for example):
>
> January, use 498 anytime minutes (of 500 included plan anytime minutes), get
> detailled billing for 210 minutes. Note that there are gobs of "anytime"
> minutes that were NOT USED in January.
>
> May, use 450 minutes, get detailled billing for 738 minutes, INCLUDING 238
> minutes of OVERAGE charges for 288 minutes of calls that were made IN
> JANUARY. (ouch!)
>
> This happened a few times. Each time, Verizon refused to correct their
> error.
>
> After what you wrote, I'm wondering how many people got hit with these
> overage charges from Verizon and weren't observant enough to realize that
> the overage charges were from previous months when not all of their anytime
> minutes were used?
>
> In any case, since Verizon wasn't willing to correct the error, I corrected
> it for them. I'm now a Cingular customer, so Verizon isn't making any more
> billing errors on my cell phone bill. See how easy that was? :)  -Dave
>
>

Not sure it is an easy solution! :)  I've found that on a regular basis I
have to contact (either by phone or email) some company for a credit. If
I don't get the credit, I contact them again. I've only given up once
because it didn't seem like I would get the credit. However, after that
time, I tried 5 times for one credit and finally got the credit.

Every company makes billing errors. I'm sure Cingular will be no
different. The more they can get away with it (legal fees are less than
what they steal from customers) the more they will continue to do it.
Take the credit card company Providian. They get sued over and over
again but never change their practices.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:07:53 AM

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

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

In <rei7r2-ig6.ln1@turf.coleman.com> on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:11:39 -0400, "Buck
Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Which is why you see problems. Cingular sells only 850/1900 mobiles,
>> not 900/1800/1900 mobiles.
>
>I am not very technical, but I want to follow up on this. I have a
>Motorola V400. I thought it was a 4-band phone. Am I incorrect? I as
>because I am planning a trip to Latin America, and I want to be able to
>use the phone down there. I have determined that the phone is unlocked.

My point, which I can now see wasn't all that clear (sorry), was that Cingular
only sells mobiles with the GSM 850 and GSM 1900 bands, no matter what other
GSM bands (900 and/or 1800) may also included.

So yes, Cingular does sell quad-band (850/900/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g.,
Motorola V400), along with dual-band (850/1900) mobiles (e.g., Samsung X427M)
and tri-band (850/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g., Audiovox SMT 5600).

What Cingular doesn't sell are dual-band or tri-band mobiles that lack the GSM
850 band (i.e., 900/1800/1900) like the Sony Ericsson Z600.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
July 23, 2005 10:54:19 AM

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

> I am not very technical, but I want to follow up on this. I have a
> Motorola V400. I thought it was a 4-band phone. Am I incorrect? I as
> because I am planning a trip to Latin America, and I want to be able to
> use the phone down there. I have determined that the phone is unlocked.
>

You are correct. The M V400 is a 4-band phone: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz.



"Buck Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rei7r2-ig6.ln1@turf.coleman.com...
>
>> Which is why you see problems. Cingular sells only 850/1900 mobiles,
> not
>> 900/1800/1900 mobiles.
>>
>
> I am not very technical, but I want to follow up on this. I have a
> Motorola V400. I thought it was a 4-band phone. Am I incorrect? I as
> because I am planning a trip to Latin America, and I want to be able to
> use the phone down there. I have determined that the phone is unlocked.
>
>
July 23, 2005 11:02:43 AM

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

Not strictly true John. Cingular doesn't really sell phones. It sells
cellular service, and a phone is usually included as part of the service
agreement.


That's what started my tirade against Cingular. If you want to buy a
phone, for example, to replace a broken phone, Cingular will not sell you
just "a phone." You must buy a service plan, or you cannot get a phone,
even if you are an existing customer.




"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:Z6eEe.5285$p%3.29832@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <rei7r2-ig6.ln1@turf.coleman.com> on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:11:39 -0400,
> "Buck
> Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which is why you see problems. Cingular sells only 850/1900 mobiles,
>>> not 900/1800/1900 mobiles.
>>
>>I am not very technical, but I want to follow up on this. I have a
>>Motorola V400. I thought it was a 4-band phone. Am I incorrect? I as
>>because I am planning a trip to Latin America, and I want to be able to
>>use the phone down there. I have determined that the phone is unlocked.
>
> My point, which I can now see wasn't all that clear (sorry), was that
> Cingular
> only sells mobiles with the GSM 850 and GSM 1900 bands, no matter what
> other
> GSM bands (900 and/or 1800) may also included.
>
> So yes, Cingular does sell quad-band (850/900/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g.,
> Motorola V400), along with dual-band (850/1900) mobiles (e.g., Samsung
> X427M)
> and tri-band (850/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g., Audiovox SMT 5600).
>
> What Cingular doesn't sell are dual-band or tri-band mobiles that lack the
> GSM
> 850 band (i.e., 900/1800/1900) like the Sony Ericsson Z600.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:14:00 PM

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

Buck Turgidson wrote:
>>Which is why you see problems. Cingular sells only 850/1900 mobiles,
>
> not
>
>>900/1800/1900 mobiles.
>>
>
>
> I am not very technical, but I want to follow up on this. I have a
> Motorola V400. I thought it was a 4-band phone. Am I incorrect?

Cingular does in fact sell quad band phones. The V3 is quad band as is
the V551. Not sure about the V400, but I would imagine so.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:38:34 PM

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

Ed Buffey wrote:

> I have two stories. The first is from personal experience. Verizon made
> a $1500 billing error on my bill. It took 2 months and many hours on the
> phone to get it corrected.

I have you beat: Try $2700 with Verizon (or Bell Atalnatic Mobile, as
the side I was on was called back then) took me over a yer to get it
straightened, and even then they would occasionally add it back to my
credit report and I'd have to start the process over again, even though
I hadn't been a customer in over seven years.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 4:15:49 PM

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

BBB wrote:

> That's what started my tirade against Cingular. If you want to buy a
> phone, for example, to replace a broken phone, Cingular will not sell you
> just "a phone." You must buy a service plan, or you cannot get a phone,
> even if you are an existing customer.

Haven't tried it myself with Cingular, but regardless, it's fortunate
that you at least CAN get a Cingular phone without a plan at Amazon.com,
often for a rather reasonable price. Just look at any listing for a
Cingular phone: on the right hand side there's a section for "other
buying options" and one of those options should be "buy this phone
without a plan."

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 4:23:48 PM

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

Ted B. wrote:
> I wasn't "roaming" and wasn't out of
> my home area, either. Verizon admitted that the error was on their end.
> They refused to correct it, claiming (and I quote), "but all carriers do
> that".

Utter B.S. Sprint never oncedid this in the 7 years I had them. Nextel
never did it either. Cinguar doesn't appear to be doing it, and I know
T-mobile doesn't.

the "all carriers do this" line was the same bull they fed me back in
'98 when Verizon wireless was the only cellular carrier that was charing
a "landline interconnect fee" of 5 cents per minute, on top of any
airtime charges. Yes, even for local calls. The claim was that
Verizon, the phone company, was charging Verizon, the wireless company,
a per minute fee for the "privilege" of handling the call. 'Course that
fee was eliminated after it became clea that they were the only carrier
doing this.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
July 23, 2005 4:51:47 PM

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

Right. Same goes for www.cellhut.com


"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:11e4r9m5kjdudbf@corp.supernews.com...
> BBB wrote:
>
>> That's what started my tirade against Cingular. If you want to buy a
>> phone, for example, to replace a broken phone, Cingular will not sell
>> you just "a phone." You must buy a service plan, or you cannot get a
>> phone, even if you are an existing customer.
>
> Haven't tried it myself with Cingular, but regardless, it's fortunate that
> you at least CAN get a Cingular phone without a plan at Amazon.com, often
> for a rather reasonable price. Just look at any listing for a Cingular
> phone: on the right hand side there's a section for "other buying options"
> and one of those options should be "buy this phone without a plan."
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
July 23, 2005 10:42:31 PM

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

"BBB" <hotel@jay.com> wrote in message
news:c72dnf3725d6rH_fRVn-vA@giganews.com...
: Not strictly true John. Cingular doesn't really sell phones. It sells
: cellular service, and a phone is usually included as part of the service
: agreement.
:
:
: That's what started my tirade against Cingular. If you want to buy a
: phone, for example, to replace a broken phone, Cingular will not sell you
: just "a phone." You must buy a service plan, or you cannot get a phone,
: even if you are an existing customer.

Just purchased a new Moto V3 Razr (blk) from a Cingular store ($299) and did
not have to buy "a service plan" for that phone. Maybe Texas is a better
place to buy a Cingular Phone.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 10:27:09 AM

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

John Navas wrote:

> That's not been my experience, which is that the great majority of
> Cingular Customer Service folks genuinely try to be helpful. Of course
> much depends on how you approach them. ;) 

I agree with your statement above. The problem is that the majority of
Customer Service reps haven't been properly trained by Cingular to give
knowledgable answers. Yes, there are a few that really do know what's
going on - it's the luck of the draw if you get one though.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:31:36 PM

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

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:11e4r9m5kjdudbf@corp.supernews.com...
> BBB wrote:
>
>> That's what started my tirade against Cingular. If you want to buy a
>> phone, for example, to replace a broken phone, Cingular will not sell
>> you just "a phone." You must buy a service plan, or you cannot get a
>> phone, even if you are an existing customer.
>
> Haven't tried it myself with Cingular, but regardless, it's fortunate that
> you at least CAN get a Cingular phone without a plan at Amazon.com, often
> for a rather reasonable price. Just look at any listing for a Cingular
> phone: on the right hand side there's a section for "other buying options"
> and one of those options should be "buy this phone without a plan."
>

Exactly. I've gotten a spare phone from Amazon and I have previously gotten
one off Ebay. Another good place is http://www.myworldphone.com/ if you
wanted the latest and greatest.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 11:46:09 AM

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

"Expert Witness" <x@nospamcourt> wrote in message
news:e6idnWcoeMQ23X3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> I've been a Verizon customer for several years and while the service is
> pretty good, they have been playing an increasingly hardball version of
> "take-away" the last year or so. No more free detail billing, no more free
> calls to voicemail, soon no free holidays, increasing costs for various
> auxiliary services/text messaging, no more $50 swap-out for a DOA phone
> off warranty, etc.
>
> I've been thinking about switching to Cingular but am concerned about the
> high number of complaints (highest among all cell carriers according to a
> recent FCC complaint data), and many independent reviews saying there are
> a higher percentage of dropped calls, busy circuits, dead spots in too
> many markets compared to the other carriers.
>
> So what say you all-- happy or not?
>

I personally am growing tired of the piss poor reception and dropped calls
in the Virginia Beach area.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 1:41:21 PM

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:48:09 -0400, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever>
wrote:

>Well now for my story. I had -delayed- billing errors while I was with
>Verizon.

Same experience here (every month) but just one of several reasons why
Verizon was the worst carrier I ever had.

No delayed billing with Omnipoint/Voicestream/T-Mobile, AT&T, Nextel
or Cingular.

The closest thing was delayed international outbound roaming minutes
with Voicestream but that did not impact the bucket and none of the
inbound minutes were billed for a few years so I came out way ahead.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 1:57:06 PM

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:53 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <rei7r2-ig6.ln1@turf.coleman.com> on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:11:39 -0400, "Buck
>Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which is why you see problems. Cingular sells only 850/1900 mobiles,
>>> not 900/1800/1900 mobiles.
>>
>>I am not very technical, but I want to follow up on this. I have a
>>Motorola V400. I thought it was a 4-band phone. Am I incorrect? I as
>>because I am planning a trip to Latin America, and I want to be able to
>>use the phone down there. I have determined that the phone is unlocked.
>
>My point, which I can now see wasn't all that clear (sorry), was that Cingular
>only sells mobiles with the GSM 850 and GSM 1900 bands, no matter what other
>GSM bands (900 and/or 1800) may also included.
>
>So yes, Cingular does sell quad-band (850/900/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g.,
>Motorola V400), along with dual-band (850/1900) mobiles (e.g., Samsung X427M)
>and tri-band (850/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g., Audiovox SMT 5600).
>
>What Cingular doesn't sell are dual-band or tri-band mobiles that lack the GSM
>850 band (i.e., 900/1800/1900) like the Sony Ericsson Z600.


I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
Why bother?
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:27:59 PM

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

nos...@ptd.net wrote:

> I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
> Why bother?

Well, the frequencies used in the US of A are 850 and 1900. In England
and France however, the frequencies used are 900 and 1800. This is
only one example. Most of North America is 850 and 1900, while most of
Europe is 900 and 1800. (I didn't have time to research but a half a
dozen countries.)

So if you only have a dual frequency 850/1900 phone, it would be
useless if you brought it to England or France for instance. Many
people travel back and forth to Europe, and it is very useful for them
to have a phone that works on both sides of the big pond. Even if you
only make one trip over there, using a phone that you are familiar
with, with your phonebook inside, is very convenient.

Having access to both 850 and 1900 in the US gives you access to a
useful wireless signal in the most places. Having access to 900 and
1800 in England or France (and most likely all of Europe) gives you
access to a wireless signal in the most places. If you have a quad
band phone 850/900/1800/1900, you can access almost all GMS frequencies
available across the world. See links below:

http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml

http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_gb.shtml

http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_fr.shtml
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:46:27 AM

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

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

In <c72dnf3725d6rH_fRVn-vA@giganews.com> on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:02:43 -0500,
"BBB" <hotel@jay.com> wrote:

>Not strictly true John. Cingular doesn't really sell phones. It sells
>cellular service, and a phone is usually included as part of the service
>agreement.

Cingular does actually sell phones, either at full price, or at a subsidized
price with a new or extended service agreement.

>That's what started my tirade against Cingular. If you want to buy a
>phone, for example, to replace a broken phone, Cingular will not sell you
>just "a phone." You must buy a service plan, or you cannot get a phone,
>even if you are an existing customer.

My local Cingular company store assures me that they will sell phones at full
price without service agreements. See the Cingular Service Agreement under
Return Policy <http://www.cingular.com/customer_service/common_phone_r...;:

If the customer wishes to keep the device but not the service,
Customer shall have the option to keep the device at the *no
commitment price*. [emphasis added]

In other words, there is a "no commitment price" (typically $100 more than the
2-year price exclusive of rebates and promotions).

In addition, you can buy a GoPhone with a minimum plan, cancel, and use it on
prepaid service (or vice versa).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:50:44 AM

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

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

In <mnr9e19meg58kir2k4gfv20qi4otbgq74t@4ax.com> on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:57:06
-0400, nospam@ptd.net wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:53 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>My point, which I can now see wasn't all that clear (sorry), was that Cingular
>>only sells mobiles with the GSM 850 and GSM 1900 bands, no matter what other
>>GSM bands (900 and/or 1800) may also included.
>>
>>So yes, Cingular does sell quad-band (850/900/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g.,
>>Motorola V400), along with dual-band (850/1900) mobiles (e.g., Samsung X427M)
>>and tri-band (850/1800/1900) mobiles (e.g., Audiovox SMT 5600).
>>
>>What Cingular doesn't sell are dual-band or tri-band mobiles that lack the GSM
>>850 band (i.e., 900/1800/1900) like the Sony Ericsson Z600.
>
>I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
>Why bother?

It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in any part
of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and 900/1800/1900 version for
outside the USA. Such tri-band phones can be useful even outside their native
sales territories (e.g., 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA),
albeit not as useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
make.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:37:48 PM

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

On 25 Jul 2005 16:27:59 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>nos...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>> I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
>> Why bother?
>
>Well, the frequencies used in the US of A are 850 and 1900. In England
>and France however, the frequencies used are 900 and 1800. This is
>only one example. Most of North America is 850 and 1900, while most of
>Europe is 900 and 1800. (I didn't have time to research but a half a
>dozen countries.)
>
>So if you only have a dual frequency 850/1900 phone, it would be
>useless if you brought it to England or France for instance. Many
>people travel back and forth to Europe, and it is very useful for them
>to have a phone that works on both sides of the big pond. Even if you
>only make one trip over there, using a phone that you are familiar
>with, with your phonebook inside, is very convenient.
>
>Having access to both 850 and 1900 in the US gives you access to a
>useful wireless signal in the most places. Having access to 900 and
>1800 in England or France (and most likely all of Europe) gives you
>access to a wireless signal in the most places. If you have a quad
>band phone 850/900/1800/1900, you can access almost all GMS frequencies
>available across the world. See links below:
>
>http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml
>
>http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_gb.shtml
>
>http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_fr.shtml

No, what I was getting at was the choice of 1800 for the non US band.

I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I used to but I believe
with the exception of Brazil, 900 is always the primary band.

In other words the big providers grab the 900 slots first.

Maybe the answer is that phone is targeted toward people that travel
to Brazil?
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 3:23:57 PM

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

nos...@ptd.net wrote:

> No, what I was getting at was the choice of 1800 for the non US band.

> I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I used to but I believe
> with the exception of Brazil, 900 is always the primary band.

> In other words the big providers grab the 900 slots first.

> Maybe the answer is that phone is targeted toward people that travel
> to Brazil?

Well, I really haven't researched it that far, so you could be right.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 9:13:31 PM

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

John Navas wrote:

> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
> efficiency of a tri-band phone:

> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
> make.

> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
> 900 than between 850 and 1800.

But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
missing something here?
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 10:52:52 PM

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

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

In <uaice1hvnm26ccg59bgfsj4lhr7g1qkps7@4ax.com> on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:37:48
-0400, nospam@ptd.net wrote:

>On 25 Jul 2005 16:27:59 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>nos...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>>> I sure can't understand the point of making a 850/1800/1900 phone.
>>> Why bother?

>No, what I was getting at was the choice of 1800 for the non US band.
>
>I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I used to but I believe
>with the exception of Brazil, 900 is always the primary band.
>
>In other words the big providers grab the 900 slots first.
>
>Maybe the answer is that phone is targeted toward people that travel
>to Brazil?

No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing efficiency of
a tri-band phone:

It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones can
be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as useful
as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to make.

The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and 900 than
between 850 and 1800.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
July 27, 2005 1:21:04 AM

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

On 26 Jul 2005 17:13:31 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
>to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
>close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
>missing something here?

Yes you are. It's not that simple.
- -
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:53:07 AM

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

Joseph wrote:

> Yes you are. It's not that simple.

Very enlightening. Thank you very much!!!
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:22:44 PM

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

On 26 Jul 2005 17:13:31 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
>> efficiency of a tri-band phone:
>
>> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
>> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
>> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
>> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
>> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
>> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
>> make.
>
>> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
>> 900 than between 850 and 1800.
>
>But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
>to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
>close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
>missing something here?

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but as I recall, the 1800 and
1900 bands actually overlap. My first triband phone (L something
Timeport from Mot which I still have) had to be manually switched
between 1900 and 900/1800 and there was potential for interference
because the TX from one band was in the RX in the other.

So, when building the RF section it's probably close enough. The 850
and 900 are far enough apart that it probably requires more
engineering.

Historically I have found that the rates for the 1800 carriers are
cheaper but I would not want to travel with an 1800 only phone (unless
it was Brazil) because you may not get the coverage out in West
Overcoat or East Pinhole.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:01:12 PM

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

Well, at least I got a real answer as to what I was missing from John
Navas as opposed to some quip from Joseph.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:30:16 AM

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

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

In <1122423211.800715.128080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 26 Jul 2005
17:13:31 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
>> efficiency of a tri-band phone:
>
>> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
>> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
>> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
>> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
>> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
>> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
>> make.
>
>> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
>> 900 than between 850 and 1800.
>
>But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
>to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
>close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
>missing something here?

Indeed, you are missing something: issues of chipset cost and availability.
Tri-band "world phone" 900/1800/1900 chipsets were developed when the USA only
had GSM 1900. These chipsets are now dirt cheap. With the advent of GSM 850
in the USA, the easiest and cheapest way to add GSM 850 was to convert an
900/1800/1900 chipset to 850/1800/1900. 850/1900 was a new design, and thus
more expensive (at least initially). Quad-band 850/900/1800/1900 was likewise
a new design, more complex, and thus even more expensive. This is why we see
so many tri-band phones that are offered in two versions, 850/1800/1900 for
the USA, and 900/1800/1900 for the rest of the world.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:16:34 PM

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:30:16 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <1122423211.800715.128080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 26 Jul 2005
>17:13:31 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> No, as I wrote, it's simply a matter of design and manufacturing
>>> efficiency of a tri-band phone:
>>
>>> It's the simple way to make a tri-band phone that can be marketed in
>>> any part of the world, 850/1800/1900 version for the USA and
>>> 900/1800/1900 version for outside the USA. Such tri-band phones
>>> can be useful even outside their native sales territories (e.g.,
>>> 850/1800/1900 phone on 1800 outside of the USA), albeit not as
>>> useful as quad-band phones, but quad-band is more expensive to
>>> make.
>>
>>> The reason is that it's easier to switch the design between 850 and
>>> 900 than between 850 and 1800.
>>
>>But it seems to me, if you have a 850/1900 band US phone, 900 is close
>>to the 850 in frequency, so it's easy to add, but likewise, 1800 is
>>close to 1900 in frequency, so it should be equally easy to add. Am I
>>missing something here?
>
>Indeed, you are missing something: issues of chipset cost and availability.
>Tri-band "world phone" 900/1800/1900 chipsets were developed when the USA only
>had GSM 1900. These chipsets are now dirt cheap. With the advent of GSM 850
>in the USA, the easiest and cheapest way to add GSM 850 was to convert an
>900/1800/1900 chipset to 850/1800/1900. 850/1900 was a new design, and thus
>more expensive (at least initially). Quad-band 850/900/1800/1900 was likewise
>a new design, more complex, and thus even more expensive. This is why we see
>so many tri-band phones that are offered in two versions, 850/1800/1900 for
>the USA, and 900/1800/1900 for the rest of the world.

NOW I get it.
!