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

How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
mail pics up? Mine does it but my wife's goes to voice mail after only
a couple of rings. Can I change something on the phone or is it a
customer service issue?

TIA

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:32:13 GMT, Sky King <melaughing@home.net> wrote:

>How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
>mail pics up? Mine does it but my wife's goes to voice mail after only
>a couple of rings. Can I change something on the phone or is it a
>customer service issue?
>
>TIA


where XXXXXXXXXX is the ten-digit voicemail system number for your area and
tt is the time in seconds you want the phone to ring for. Valid numbers for
tt are 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30. Since each ring is approx. 5 seconds
including the blank space between them, that means 30 seconds should give
you about 6 rings and that's the maximum you can do.

For instance, to set the longest ring delay for the NYC market you would
dial:

*61*+19084630020*11*30#

After pressing the "send/call" button you should get some sort of
confirmation message.

Note: If you don't know what the voicemail system number for your area is,
dial *#61# on your phone.

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

>
>>How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
Great. Did the above and changed it from 15 to 30 seconds.

Is there a sequence to turn OFF no reply/answer calls going to voice
mail? There are times I would prefer it not to go to voice mail. The
official answer from CS is once activated, it can't be turned off.

Of course, they also say you cannot change the delay either!

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

"Sky King" <melaughing@home.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6aa9bd6efed2cc9897c2@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
: How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
: mail pics up? Mine does it but my wife's goes to voice mail after only
: a couple of rings. Can I change something on the phone or is it a
: customer service issue?
:
: TIA

The max time is 30 seconds - about 6 rings.

Follow the directions:

*61*(your service center number)**30#[press Send]

You should see a message on your screen after it's done.

If you don't know your Service Center Number, follow the directions:

*#67#[press Send]

Write down the number, area code and all.

-David

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

Merlin wrote:

>>>How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
>>>
>>>
>Great. Did the above and changed it from 15 to 30 seconds.
>
>Is there a sequence to turn OFF no reply/answer calls going to voice
>mail? There are times I would prefer it not to go to voice mail. The
>official answer from CS is once activated, it can't be turned off.
>
>Of course, they also say you cannot change the delay either!
>
>
>
>
>
There is, because I've seen settings in my phone for it (Moto V505), but
I don't know what the commands are. My LG phone has no voicemail
control settings.

CS may have been referring to whether or not your voicemail box is
active rather than the settings.

TH

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

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

In <MPG.1d6aa9bd6efed2cc9897c2@news.snet.sbcglobal.net> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005
18:32:13 GMT, Sky King <melaughing@home.net> wrote:

>How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
>mail pics up? Mine does it but my wife's goes to voice mail after only
>a couple of rings. Can I change something on the phone or is it a
>customer service issue?

"Google is your friend." Before asking the same question yet again.
<http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=ringing+voice-mail+group%3Aalt.cellular.cingular>
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

The other day someone wondered here why traffic in this newsgroup seemed to
be diminishing. You suggested that Usenet in general was slowly dying, which
I think is true. Your sententious scolding hastens the process
unnecessarily. Want to know what "sententious" means? Google is your friend.

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:jS7Me.9300$p%3.37367@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <MPG.1d6aa9bd6efed2cc9897c2@news.snet.sbcglobal.net> on Mon, 15 Aug
> 2005
> 18:32:13 GMT, Sky King <melaughing@home.net> wrote:
>
>>How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
>>mail pics up? Mine does it but my wife's goes to voice mail after only
>>a couple of rings. Can I change something on the phone or is it a
>>customer service issue?
>
> "Google is your friend." Before asking the same question yet again.
> <http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=ringing+voice-mail+group%3Aalt.cellular.cingular>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

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

In <GU9Me.1735$yb.1350@trndny01> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:52:06 GMT, "Kanc"
<kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The other day someone wondered here why traffic in this newsgroup seemed to
>be diminishing. You suggested that Usenet in general was slowly dying, which
>I think is true. Your sententious scolding hastens the process
>unnecessarily. Want to know what "sententious" means? Google is your friend.

I disagree. The obvious problems are endless repetitious postings, and
meta-postings like yours. In fact I showed the OP how to use Google to get
on-topic information, as compared to your posting, which had zero on-topic
value.

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

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

1. Was your answering post any less "meta" than mine?
2. Do you imagine the effect of your didactic tone is to encourage the OP to
post again in the future or discourage him? It would be just as easy for you
to accomplish your goal of getting people good information using a polite
tone, though perhaps not as satisfying. You're an expert. We get it.
3. It is not at all "obvious" that endless, repetitious posts contribute to
the demise of Usenet (although your endless, repetitve comments like "Nope"
or "Google is your friend" certainly don't help). In fact, because of this
particular post, repetitious though it may have seemed to you, I changed my
"number of rings to voicemail" setting. This was not a high priority for me
and I would not have spent any time Googling for the answer. But seeing it
here during a casual visit was helpful to me and reinforced my sense that
there is still useful information to be found on Usenet.
4. Note that two other posters gave the OP the information he was looking
for without moralizing. Why do you feel the need when others don't?
5. The last word is yours. Have at it.

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:EcaMe.9377$p%3.37310@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <GU9Me.1735$yb.1350@trndny01> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:52:06 GMT, "Kanc"
> <kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The other day someone wondered here why traffic in this newsgroup seemed
>>to
>>be diminishing. You suggested that Usenet in general was slowly dying,
>>which
>>I think is true. Your sententious scolding hastens the process
>>unnecessarily. Want to know what "sententious" means? Google is your
>>friend.
>
> I disagree. The obvious problems are endless repetitious postings, and
> meta-postings like yours. In fact I showed the OP how to use Google to
> get
> on-topic information, as compared to your posting, which had zero on-topic
> value.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:54:37 GMT, "Kanc" <kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:

>1. Was your answering post any less "meta" than mine?
>2. Do you imagine the effect of your didactic tone is to encourage the OP to
>post again in the future or discourage him? It would be just as easy for you
>to accomplish your goal of getting people good information using a polite
>tone, though perhaps not as satisfying. You're an expert. We get it.
>3. It is not at all "obvious" that endless, repetitious posts contribute to
>the demise of Usenet (although your endless, repetitve comments like "Nope"
>or "Google is your friend" certainly don't help). In fact, because of this
>particular post, repetitious though it may have seemed to you, I changed my
>"number of rings to voicemail" setting. This was not a high priority for me
>and I would not have spent any time Googling for the answer. But seeing it
>here during a casual visit was helpful to me and reinforced my sense that
>there is still useful information to be found on Usenet.
>4. Note that two other posters gave the OP the information he was looking
>for without moralizing. Why do you feel the need when others don't?
>5. The last word is yours. Have at it.
>

John has been his obnoxious self for years. He'll disappear for weeks at a
time and return with his neverending gospel on "how-to" instead of just
posting how.

The key to Usenet is not to take the inconsequential serious. Just post the
way you want, where you want. If you have an answer or advice to a question
post it. That is all that counts. If someone doesn't like it let the
kill-file you. You shouldn't take serious anything that does not answer or
is not connected to the question directly and let John and his ilk have
their fun.


I always wondered if John had Al Gore's permission to run the Internet.

I'm done. Back to helping the ones that want it, if I can.

--
bg_jr.

> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:EcaMe.9377$p%3.37310@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <GU9Me.1735$yb.1350@trndny01> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:52:06 GMT, "Kanc"
>> <kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The other day someone wondered here why traffic in this newsgroup seemed
>>>to
>>>be diminishing. You suggested that Usenet in general was slowly dying,
>>>which
>>>I think is true. Your sententious scolding hastens the process
>>>unnecessarily. Want to know what "sententious" means? Google is your
>>>friend.
>>
>> I disagree. The obvious problems are endless repetitious postings, and
>> meta-postings like yours. In fact I showed the OP how to use Google to
>> get
>> on-topic information, as compared to your posting, which had zero on-topic
>> value.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:32:13 GMT, Sky King <melaughing@home.net>
wrote:

>How do I get it to wait until ..lets say 5 or six rings, before voice
>mail pics up? Mine does it but my wife's goes to voice mail after only
>a couple of rings. Can I change something on the phone or is it a
>customer service issue?

Key the following:

**61#+1[a/c/number of your voicemail center]*11*30# <send.> The final
"30" is the maximum number of seconds before you roll to voicemail.
You can modify the number between 5 and 30 for a 5 to 30 second delay
before you roll to voicemail.
- -

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

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

In <hPaMe.1184$yb.221@trndny07> on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:54:37 GMT, "Kanc"
<kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:

>1. Was your answering post any less "meta" than mine?

Does that make your right?

>2. Do you imagine the effect of your didactic tone is to encourage the OP to
>post again in the future or discourage him? ...

It wasn't didactic, and it will encourage him to do the right thing.

>3. It is not at all "obvious" that endless, repetitious posts contribute to
>the demise of Usenet ...

Nonsense.

>4. Note that two other posters gave the OP the information he was looking
>for without moralizing. Why do you feel the need when others don't?

I helped him help himself, which is always better in the long run than just
helping.

>5. The last word is yours. Have at it.

Thanks, not that I needed your approval.

Have a nice day.

> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:EcaMe.9377$p%3.37310@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <GU9Me.1735$yb.1350@trndny01> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:52:06 GMT, "Kanc"
>> <kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The other day someone wondered here why traffic in this newsgroup seemed
>>>to
>>>be diminishing. You suggested that Usenet in general was slowly dying,
>>>which
>>>I think is true. Your sententious scolding hastens the process
>>>unnecessarily. Want to know what "sententious" means? Google is your
>>>friend.
>>
>> I disagree. The obvious problems are endless repetitious postings, and
>> meta-postings like yours. In fact I showed the OP how to use Google to
>> get
>> on-topic information, as compared to your posting, which had zero on-topic
>> value.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>

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