Your question

Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a d..

Tags:
  • Cingular
  • Phones
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Wireless Carriers
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 8:53:51 PM

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

I am curious to know if Cingular will let those customers who live and
work in a dead spot out of their contracts without having to pay the
ETF. I receive no signal in my apartment complex or if I do get a
signal, my phone drops the call within a few minutes. This is quite
frustrating when working with customers. I have spoken to several
CSR's and Cingular is aware of my area being a known dead spot, but
they don't seem to eager to correct it. Does anyone have any
feedback?

More about : cancel paying etf due living working

Anonymous
April 27, 2004 1:14:21 AM

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

"Ghost Dog" <hankcg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1357f96d.0404261553.4a021c5@posting.google.com...
> I am curious to know if Cingular will let those customers who live and
> work in a dead spot out of their contracts without having to pay the
> ETF. I receive no signal in my apartment complex or if I do get a
> signal, my phone drops the call within a few minutes. This is quite
> frustrating when working with customers. I have spoken to several
> CSR's and Cingular is aware of my area being a known dead spot, but
> they don't seem to eager to correct it. Does anyone have any
> feedback?

I doubt they will, and legally they don't have to. It's not a matter of the
phone/service being unusable. It is a matter of you not getting service in
that particular place, which is covered in their terms. That is the reason
for the trial period. If you find the service unsuitable, you can return the
phone during that period with no ETF. Unless you used to get service with
them there, and now don't, I would think it would be a weak case. But you
might be able to. I was getting disgusted with Cingular back around
November. After finally getting in touch with the right person, they offered
to cancel with no ETF, even though I was still in contract on one of my two
lines. I wish I remembered the guys name, but I do not. Just keep asking up
the ladder when you make the call. There is no legal reason they have to,
but if you get in touch with the right person, who knows.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 4:24:43 AM

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

In article <1357f96d.0404261553.4a021c5@posting.google.com>,
hankcg@yahoo.com (Ghost Dog) wrote:

> I am curious to know if Cingular will let those customers who live and
> work in a dead spot out of their contracts without having to pay the
> ETF. I receive no signal in my apartment complex or if I do get a
> signal, my phone drops the call within a few minutes. This is quite
> frustrating when working with customers. I have spoken to several
> CSR's and Cingular is aware of my area being a known dead spot, but
> they don't seem to eager to correct it. Does anyone have any
> feedback?

Don't ask to bet let out of contract. Demand it. Basic common law, a
cell phone sold to you must be fit for purpose. if you can't use it,
they can't charge you. If they refuse, write to your State's Attorney
General, with Certified copy to HQ in Atlanta.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 6:00:20 AM

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

In article <mrijc.9531$7a5.9085@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

> I doubt they will, and legally they don't have to. It's not a matter of the
> phone/service being unusable. It is a matter of you not getting service in
> that particular place, which is covered in their terms.

The Contract is a legal wish list, which they hope you will blindly
believe. DON'T.


Don't ask to bet let out of contract. Demand it. Basic common law, a
cell phone sold to you must be fit for purpose. if you can't use it,
they can't charge you. If they refuse, write to your State's Attorney
General, with Certified copy to HQ in Atlanta.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 12:00:34 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-36C6D3.21002126042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <mrijc.9531$7a5.9085@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
..
>
> The Contract is a legal wish list, which they hope you will blindly
> believe. DON'T.
>
>
> Don't ask to bet let out of contract. Demand it. Basic common law, a
> cell phone sold to you must be fit for purpose. if you can't use it,
> they can't charge you. If they refuse, write to your State's Attorney
> General, with Certified copy to HQ in Atlanta.

Basic common law also requires you to repay any loan you sign a promissory
note on. Unless he paid full retail for the phone, he IS bound to that
contract. The only other way around it would be if Cingular changed
something on their end since the contract was instated. The State's attorney
General would have quite a laugh at that letter.
April 27, 2004 12:46:22 PM

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

Ghost Dog wrote:

> I am curious to know if Cingular will let those customers who live and
> work in a dead spot out of their contracts without having to pay the
> ETF. I receive no signal in my apartment complex or if I do get a
> signal, my phone drops the call within a few minutes. This is quite
> frustrating when working with customers. I have spoken to several
> CSR's and Cingular is aware of my area being a known dead spot, but
> they don't seem to eager to correct it. Does anyone have any
> feedback?

Oh boy, it's a good thing you're not depending on wireless service for
calling 911 in the middle of the night. This is what some of us call
"stewed, screwed, and tattooed".

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
April 27, 2004 12:49:48 PM

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

Jason Cothran wrote:

> The only other way around it would be if Cingular changed
> something on their end since the contract was instated.

Nah, no wireless carrier changes anything - they have standards to
adhere to. All cell sites are permanently anchored and are incapable of
moving around. All antennas are also permanently anchored in place -
they never move either. <giggle>


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 3:45:52 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-36C6D3.21002126042004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...

> > I doubt they will, and legally they don't have to. It's not a matter of the
> > phone/service being unusable. It is a matter of you not getting service in
> > that particular place, which is covered in their terms.
>
> The Contract is a legal wish list, which they hope you will blindly
> believe. DON'T.


While some of the contract terms are likely to fall apart in court,
your tireless rant about "fit for purpose" isn't a catch-all for every
situation.

In the OP's case, his phone doesn't work in his apartment . Now if it
USED to work there then coverage changed so it stopped working there,
the OP has a case (the standard contract "coverage not guaranteed"
clause notwithstanding!) However, you'd have a very hard time
convincing a judge (or arbitrator) that you never got around to
checking coverage at home during the 14-30 day trials offered by the
wireless company. Not cancelling during the trial period pretty much
admits you accepted the service as it performed at that point.

> Don't ask to bet let out of contract. Demand it.

Go ahead. Just don't be surprised if Cingular doesn't ask for an EFT,
but instead DEMANDS it.

> Basic common law, a
> cell phone sold to you must be fit for purpose. if you can't use it,
> they can't charge you.

Fit for WHAT purpose? It's a MOBILE telephone. It's a phone, and
it's mobile. By definition, it's "fit for purpose". It doesn't work
in his APARTMENT- not the city at large. If his LANDLINE phone
doesn't work in his apartment, that's not "fit for purpose!"

> If they refuse, write to your State's Attorney
> General, with Certified copy to HQ in Atlanta.

Now, if you are suggesting the OP makes enough of a nuisance of
himself that Cingular will let him out just to get rid of him, that
may work, but stop wrapping it in this righteous "fit for purpose"
bulls**t. The OP has no legal (or moral) grounds for severing his
contract without penalty unless the service quality at his home has
changed materially since his service began, and nothing in his
original post indicated that's the case.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 5:22:34 PM

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

In article <qOrjc.85934$UC4.27353@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-36C6D3.21002126042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <mrijc.9531$7a5.9085@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> .
> >
> > The Contract is a legal wish list, which they hope you will blindly
> > believe. DON'T.
> >
> >
> > Don't ask to bet let out of contract. Demand it. Basic common law, a
> > cell phone sold to you must be fit for purpose. if you can't use it,
> > they can't charge you. If they refuse, write to your State's Attorney
> > General, with Certified copy to HQ in Atlanta.
>
> Basic common law also requires you to repay any loan you sign a promissory
> note on. Unless he paid full retail for the phone, he IS bound to that
> contract. The only other way around it would be if Cingular changed
> something on their end since the contract was instated. The State's attorney
> General would have quite a laugh at that letter.

No, there have been ample posts from folks thatget out of their contract
by doing just what I suggested. Of course they need to return the phone.
April 27, 2004 5:22:35 PM

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

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<No, there have been ample posts from folks thatget out of their
contract by doing just what I suggested. Of course they need to return
the phone.>>

Oh really? You, having never been a Cingular customer, know first hand
of how to get a Cingular customer out of their Cingular contract? You
are quite amazing.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 5:22:35 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-1BFC5D.08223527042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <qOrjc.85934$UC4.27353@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:rmarkoff-36C6D3.21002126042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <mrijc.9531$7a5.9085@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > .
> > >
> > > The Contract is a legal wish list, which they hope you will blindly
> > > believe. DON'T.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't ask to bet let out of contract. Demand it. Basic common law, a
> > > cell phone sold to you must be fit for purpose. if you can't use it,
> > > they can't charge you. If they refuse, write to your State's Attorney
> > > General, with Certified copy to HQ in Atlanta.
> >
> > Basic common law also requires you to repay any loan you sign a
promissory
> > note on. Unless he paid full retail for the phone, he IS bound to that
> > contract. The only other way around it would be if Cingular changed
> > something on their end since the contract was instated. The State's
attorney
> > General would have quite a laugh at that letter.
>
> No, there have been ample posts from folks thatget out of their contract
> by doing just what I suggested. Of course they need to return the phone.

It is by the carriers choice, not legal requirement.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 6:21:27 PM

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

In article <c6loba$rea@library2.airnews.net>, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
wrote:

> Jason Cothran wrote:
>
> > The only other way around it would be if Cingular changed
> > something on their end since the contract was instated.



>
> Nah, no wireless carrier changes anything - they have standards to
> adhere to. All cell sites are permanently anchored and are incapable of
> moving around. All antennas are also permanently anchored in place -
> they never move either. <giggle>



Nice try. Things change.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 6:49:06 PM

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

>Nah, no wireless carrier changes anything - they have standards to
>adhere to. All cell sites are permanently anchored and are incapable of
>moving around. All antennas are also permanently anchored in place -
>they never move either.

Actually they do have cell sites that "move around" as you put it. They are
called COW's (Cells on wheels). They are used for special events, to get
service to an area that is in need while a new site is built and for emergency
site replacement if a site is damaged by something like lightning or tornado or
hurricane.

But in general your statement is true.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 6:49:07 PM

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

Well, the thing is, I called customer care and was told that they were
expanding the network and the service would improve, well that has not
happened. And it has gotten worse, even after sending a software upgrade to
my phone. Also, my phone displays cingular extend in my home area.

"John S." <sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree> wrote in message
news:20040427104906.13347.00000428@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >Nah, no wireless carrier changes anything - they have standards to
> >adhere to. All cell sites are permanently anchored and are incapable of
> >moving around. All antennas are also permanently anchored in place -
> >they never move either.
>
> Actually they do have cell sites that "move around" as you put it. They
are
> called COW's (Cells on wheels). They are used for special events, to get
> service to an area that is in need while a new site is built and for
emergency
> site replacement if a site is damaged by something like lightning or
tornado or
> hurricane.
>
> But in general your statement is true.
>
> --
> John S.
> e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 6:54:09 PM

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

>Oh really? You, having never been a Cingular customer, know first hand
>of how to get a Cingular customer out of their Cingular contract? You
>are quite amazing.

Why do you continue to banter with the prick. If none of us ever responds to
his trash, puts him and his many iterations in our kill files, maybe he will go
away.

I have him in my kill file but continue to see his drivel because of all the
replies to the guy by those of you who continue to banty about with him!

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 7:37:04 PM

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

In article <20040427105409.13347.00000429@mb-m06.aol.com>,
sexyexotiche@aol.com (John S.) wrote:

> >Oh really? You, having never been a Cingular customer, know first hand
> >of how to get a Cingular customer out of their Cingular contract? You
> >are quite amazing.
>
> Why do you continue to banter with the prick. If none of us ever responds to
> his trash, puts him and his many iterations in our kill files, maybe he will
> go
> away.
>
> I have him in my kill file but continue to see his drivel because of all the
> replies to the guy by those of you who continue to banty about with him!

You want someone to get ripped off by Cingular fine, but your pre-teen
insults are uncalled for. But then you always use childish insults
against anyone you disagree with.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 7:37:41 PM

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

In article <20040427104906.13347.00000428@mb-m06.aol.com>,
sexyexotiche@aol.com (John S.) wrote:

> >Nah, no wireless carrier changes anything - they have standards to
> >adhere to. All cell sites are permanently anchored and are incapable of
> >moving around. All antennas are also permanently anchored in place -
> >they never move either.
>
> Actually they do have cell sites that "move around" as you put it.

Thank you for agreeing with me.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 7:38:45 PM

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

In article <-sqdnfyw8fZ-5xPdRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"H.C." <Invalid@replyviausenet.net> wrote:

> Well, the thing is, I called customer care and was told that they were
> expanding the network and the service would improve, well that has not
> happened. And it has gotten worse, even after sending a software upgrade to
> my phone. Also, my phone displays cingular extend in my home area.

They will always try to get you to stay by saying, "the network is being
improved", whether it is true (or as is usually the case) not.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 11:39:18 PM

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

In article <de37a2e0.0404271045.2dc81b53@posting.google.com>,
elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-36C6D3.21002126042004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > I doubt they will, and legally they don't have to. It's not a matter of
> > > the
> > > phone/service being unusable. It is a matter of you not getting service
> > > in
> > > that particular place, which is covered in their terms.
> >
> > The Contract is a legal wish list, which they hope you will blindly
> > believe. DON'T.
>
>
> While some of the contract terms are likely to fall apart in court,
> your tireless rant about "fit for purpose" isn't a catch-all for every
> situation.

No, but it applies if you have no service for your phone.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 4:26:42 AM

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

Well, it used to work. I'm not talking about inside my apartment, but, the
parking lot, and within a square mile of this area. I spoke to Customer
care about the situation and I was told that my area is rated low to medium
for GSM coverage. So I'm saying they are not providing the service that I
am paying for. That's all.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
news:D e37a2e0.0404271045.2dc81b53@posting.google.com...
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<rmarkoff-36C6D3.21002126042004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > I doubt they will, and legally they don't have to. It's not a matter
of the
> > > phone/service being unusable. It is a matter of you not getting
service in
> > > that particular place, which is covered in their terms.
> >
> > The Contract is a legal wish list, which they hope you will blindly
> > believe. DON'T.
>
>
> While some of the contract terms are likely to fall apart in court,
> your tireless rant about "fit for purpose" isn't a catch-all for every
> situation.
>
> In the OP's case, his phone doesn't work in his apartment . Now if it
> USED to work there then coverage changed so it stopped working there,
> the OP has a case (the standard contract "coverage not guaranteed"
> clause notwithstanding!) However, you'd have a very hard time
> convincing a judge (or arbitrator) that you never got around to
> checking coverage at home during the 14-30 day trials offered by the
> wireless company. Not cancelling during the trial period pretty much
> admits you accepted the service as it performed at that point.
>
> > Don't ask to bet let out of contract. Demand it.
>
> Go ahead. Just don't be surprised if Cingular doesn't ask for an EFT,
> but instead DEMANDS it.
>
> > Basic common law, a
> > cell phone sold to you must be fit for purpose. if you can't use it,
> > they can't charge you.
>
> Fit for WHAT purpose? It's a MOBILE telephone. It's a phone, and
> it's mobile. By definition, it's "fit for purpose". It doesn't work
> in his APARTMENT- not the city at large. If his LANDLINE phone
> doesn't work in his apartment, that's not "fit for purpose!"
>
> > If they refuse, write to your State's Attorney
> > General, with Certified copy to HQ in Atlanta.
>
> Now, if you are suggesting the OP makes enough of a nuisance of
> himself that Cingular will let him out just to get rid of him, that
> may work, but stop wrapping it in this righteous "fit for purpose"
> bulls**t. The OP has no legal (or moral) grounds for severing his
> contract without penalty unless the service quality at his home has
> changed materially since his service began, and nothing in his
> original post indicated that's the case.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 12:07:43 PM

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

"H.C." <Invalid@replyviausenet.net> wrote in message
news:mI-dnSCNTrkXrxLdRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> Well, it used to work. I'm not talking about inside my apartment, but,
the
> parking lot, and within a square mile of this area. I spoke to Customer
> care about the situation and I was told that my area is rated low to
medium
> for GSM coverage. So I'm saying they are not providing the service that I
> am paying for. That's all.

If it used to work at your apartment and now it doesn't, then they will
likely let you out if you return the phone if you get the right customer
service rep. But, assuming you were on GSM when it worked, and are still on
GSM now and they haven't reduced the power on your closest tower, they
aren't required by law to let you out of your contract. Perhaps you should
have them replace the handset if your signal has decreased and they haven't
had to reduce the power on the tower for some reason. Whatever service you
change to, it would be a good idea to make sure it works where you need it
to during the "trial period" to make sure you don't get yourself into this
mess again.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 2:46:36 PM

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

In article <mI-dnSCNTrkXrxLdRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"H.C." <Invalid@replyviausenet.net> wrote:

> Well, it used to work. I'm not talking about inside my apartment, but, the
> parking lot, and within a square mile of this area. I spoke to Customer
> care about the situation and I was told that my area is rated low to medium
> for GSM coverage. So I'm saying they are not providing the service that I
> am paying for. That's all.

Don't ask to be let out of your contract, demand it.

Write to your State's Attorney General with Certfied copy to company HQ.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 4:47:12 PM

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

In article <3%Mjc.87854$UC4.20460@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

>
> "H.C." <Invalid@replyviausenet.net> wrote in message
> news:mI-dnSCNTrkXrxLdRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> > Well, it used to work. I'm not talking about inside my apartment, but,
> the
> > parking lot, and within a square mile of this area. I spoke to Customer
> > care about the situation and I was told that my area is rated low to
> medium
> > for GSM coverage. So I'm saying they are not providing the service that I
> > am paying for. That's all.
>
> If it used to work at your apartment and now it doesn't, then they will
> likely let you out if you return the phone if you get the right customer
> service rep. But, assuming you were on GSM when it worked, and are still on
> GSM now and they haven't reduced the power on your closest tower, they
> aren't required by law to let you out of your contract. Perhaps you should
> have them replace the handset if your signal has decreased and they haven't
> had to reduce the power on the tower for some reason.

Don't go there. They sell you another handset, and hit you with another
activation fee, and the results 95% of the time are the same.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 9:35:52 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-979749.07471528042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
>
> Don't go there. They sell you another handset, and hit you with another
> activation fee, and the results 95% of the time are the same.

100% false. If his handset is defective, they will replace under warranty.
And there is no activation fee. OP just removes the SIM from his old phone
and places it in new the new phone. He is GSM, not TDMA or CDMA. You can
swap the SIM an unlimited amount of times between an unlimited number of
850/1900 MHz phones on GSM and never encounter any kind of activation fee,
as there is nothing that needs to be done on Cingular's side. No activation
required. If nothing has changed with towers in OP's area, and he had a
siganl and now doesn't, the only explanation is a defective handset.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 1:41:51 AM

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

"H.C." <Invalid@replyviausenet.net> wrote in message news:<mI-dnSCNTrkXrxLdRVn-sw@comcast.com>...
> Well, it used to work. I'm not talking about inside my apartment, but, the
> parking lot, and within a square mile of this area. I spoke to Customer
> care about the situation and I was told that my area is rated low to medium
> for GSM coverage. So I'm saying they are not providing the service that I
> am paying for. That's all.

Well, if it used to work, that's a little different. Cingular
"realigned" a tower near my rural town in Kansas City a few years back
and knocked out service in my neighborhood. I talked them into three
months of free service (one month at a time) until they restored
signal where I lived. I'd been a customer at that location for years
with good signal, and (coincidentally) had just dumped home phone
service to go 100% wireless right before Cingular went dead at my
home!
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 2:20:01 AM

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

In article <1mVjc.96322$Lh2.55801@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-979749.07471528042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Don't go there. They sell you another handset, and hit you with another
> > activation fee, and the results 95% of the time are the same.
>
> 100% false. If his handset is defective, they will replace under warranty.
> And there is no activation fee. OP just removes the SIM from his old phone
> and places it in new the new phone. He is GSM, not TDMA or CDMA. You can
> swap the SIM an unlimited amount of times between an unlimited number of
> 850/1900 MHz phones on GSM and never encounter any kind of activation fee,
> as there is nothing that needs to be done on Cingular's side. No activation
> required. If nothing has changed with towers in OP's area, and he had a
> siganl and now doesn't, the only explanation is a defective handset.

Where did it suddenly occur his handset was defective? Thats an excuse
for AT&T you're inventing.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 2:20:02 AM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-CE5529.17200128042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
>
> Where did it suddenly occur his handset was defective? Thats an excuse
> for AT&T you're inventing.

What does AT&T have to do with this? What excuse? It is quite simple. If the
tower is still functional and putting out the same power, it is either the
handset, or something that has been erected causing interference between the
tower and himself. the only one he can control is the handset. I am
attempting to help him regain his signal. You, on the other hand are doing
nothing but spreading lies. Apparently from reading other responses, you are
a known troll though, so I guess I should expect it. At any rate, best of
luck to the OP with resolving your problem.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 7:08:42 AM

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

In article <L_Wjc.96369$Lh2.60706@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

It is quite simple. If the
> tower is still functional and putting out the same power, it is either the
> handset, or something that has been erected causing interference between the
> tower and himself.

Duh, maybe the Tower is over used, and its functional distance is less
now.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 12:11:09 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-40E56C.22084228042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <L_Wjc.96369$Lh2.60706@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>
> It is quite simple. If the
>> tower is still functional and putting out the same power, it is either
>> the
>> handset, or something that has been erected causing interference between
>> the
>> tower and himself.
>
> Duh, maybe the Tower is over used, and its functional distance is less
> now.

Duh, overused in GSM terms doesn't relate to lower power. It relates to
dropped calls and inability to complete calls, but the signal is still there
on the handset.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 4:46:05 PM

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

In article <od6kc.55924$Uz1.44654@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-40E56C.22084228042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <L_Wjc.96369$Lh2.60706@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
> >
> > It is quite simple. If the
> >> tower is still functional and putting out the same power, it is either
> >> the
> >> handset, or something that has been erected causing interference between
> >> the
> >> tower and himself.
> >
> > Duh, maybe the Tower is over used, and its functional distance is less
> > now.
>
> Duh, overused in GSM terms doesn't relate to lower power. It relates to
> dropped calls and inability to complete calls, but the signal is still there
> on the handset.

Not at the feather edge.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 4:46:06 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-34DB0C.07460529042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <od6kc.55924$Uz1.44654@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:rmarkoff-40E56C.22084228042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <L_Wjc.96369$Lh2.60706@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
>> > "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>> >
>> > It is quite simple. If the
>> >> tower is still functional and putting out the same power, it is either
>> >> the
>> >> handset, or something that has been erected causing interference
>> >> between
>> >> the
>> >> tower and himself.
>> >
>> > Duh, maybe the Tower is over used, and its functional distance is less
>> > now.
>>
>> Duh, overused in GSM terms doesn't relate to lower power. It relates to
>> dropped calls and inability to complete calls, but the signal is still
>> there
>> on the handset.
>
> Not at the feather edge.

ROFL. Do your homework first.
April 29, 2004 11:23:55 PM

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

Todd Allcock wrote:

> "H.C." <Invalid@replyviausenet.net> wrote in message news:<mI-dnSCNTrkXrxLdRVn-sw@comcast.com>...
>
>>Well, it used to work. I'm not talking about inside my apartment, but, the
>>parking lot, and within a square mile of this area. I spoke to Customer
>>care about the situation and I was told that my area is rated low to medium
>>for GSM coverage. So I'm saying they are not providing the service that I
>>am paying for. That's all.
>
>
> Well, if it used to work, that's a little different. Cingular
> "realigned" a tower near my rural town in Kansas City a few years back
> and knocked out service in my neighborhood. I talked them into three
> months of free service (one month at a time) until they restored
> signal where I lived. I'd been a customer at that location for years
> with good signal, and (coincidentally) had just dumped home phone
> service to go 100% wireless right before Cingular went dead at my
> home!


It's a good thing you didn't have to dial 911 during that time.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 3:52:42 AM

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

In article <dI7kc.92761$UC4.73308@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-34DB0C.07460529042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <od6kc.55924$Uz1.44654@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> >> news:rmarkoff-40E56C.22084228042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <L_Wjc.96369$Lh2.60706@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> >> > "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It is quite simple. If the
> >> >> tower is still functional and putting out the same power, it is either
> >> >> the
> >> >> handset, or something that has been erected causing interference
> >> >> between
> >> >> the
> >> >> tower and himself.
> >> >
> >> > Duh, maybe the Tower is over used, and its functional distance is less
> >> > now.
> >>
> >> Duh, overused in GSM terms doesn't relate to lower power. It relates to
> >> dropped calls and inability to complete calls, but the signal is still
> >> there
> >> on the handset.
> >
> > Not at the feather edge.
>
> ROFL. Do your homework first.

I know The Network is perfect. Nothing can go wrang.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 3:52:43 AM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-3838F5.18524129042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...

>
> I know The Network is perfect. Nothing can go wrang.

Don't know that he said it was perfect. If a tower gets over capacity, it
drops calls and doesn't allow calls to complete. Doesn't sound perfect to
me.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 12:14:55 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-3838F5.18524129042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...
>
> I know The Network is perfect. Nothing can go wrang.

You are full of misconceptions. Problems happen frequently with electronic
devices.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 4:31:33 PM

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

In article <Horkc.26207$7a5.24881@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-3838F5.18524129042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > I know The Network is perfect. Nothing can go wrang.
>
> You are full of misconceptions. Problems happen frequently with electronic
> devices.

Nope. Electrons do not have free will.

Problems occur due to over use, and misconfiguration, and if one is left
without a signal, they will be let out of their contract if they know
how to complain.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 11:21:18 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-DA1D22.07313330042004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
>
> Nope. Electrons do not have free will.
>
> Problems occur due to over use, and misconfiguration, and if one is left
> without a signal, they will be let out of their contract if they know
> how to complain.

Glad you finally agree with me that the only way he could be let out of
contract is if something changed on Cingular's side, but you are incorrect,
as expected about "electronics". Electronics fail primarily beacuse of
capacitors, diodes, resistors, transistors, etc. failing. Of course
misconfiguration could cause failure also, but that typically results in
instant failure of an electronic device. Again, learn before you spout
falsehoods.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 2:23:57 AM

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

Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message news:<c6s684$cr1@library2.airnews.net>...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > "H.C." <Invalid@replyviausenet.net> wrote in message news:<mI-dnSCNTrkXrxLdRVn-sw@comcast.com>...
> >
> >>Well, it used to work. I'm not talking about inside my apartment, but, the
> >>parking lot, and within a square mile of this area. I spoke to Customer
> >>care about the situation and I was told that my area is rated low to medium
> >>for GSM coverage. So I'm saying they are not providing the service that I
> >>am paying for. That's all.
> >
> >
> > Well, if it used to work, that's a little different. Cingular
> > "realigned" a tower near my rural town in Kansas City a few years back
> > and knocked out service in my neighborhood. I talked them into three
> > months of free service (one month at a time) until they restored
> > signal where I lived. I'd been a customer at that location for years
> > with good signal, and (coincidentally) had just dumped home phone
> > service to go 100% wireless right before Cingular went dead at my
> > home!
>
>
> It's a good thing you didn't have to dial 911 during that time.

911 probably would've worked on the cellphone anyway. Even with
Cingular's IRDB blocking the phone from roaming in regular
circumstances, my Nokia would've latched onto any service available to
complete a 911 call. Verizon's signal reached my house (although
weaker than Cingular's usually was, it was certainly ample enough.)
If that didn't work, I could always have used my neighbor's phone.

I've been fortunate enough to have never needed to call 911 in my
life, and, as amazing as this sounds, well over 99.9999999% of man's
existence was spent without telephones. The two months I lived with
very sporadic phone service were very peaceful ones! ;-)
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 6:31:03 PM

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

well what about GSM repeaters like this one

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.com/contractors/base/...
Chip

John S. wrote:
>>Nah, no wireless carrier changes anything - they have standards to
>>adhere to. All cell sites are permanently anchored and are incapable of
>>moving around. All antennas are also permanently anchored in place -
>>they never move either.
>
>
> Actually they do have cell sites that "move around" as you put it. They are
> called COW's (Cells on wheels). They are used for special events, to get
> service to an area that is in need while a new site is built and for emergency
> site replacement if a site is damaged by something like lightning or tornado or
> hurricane.
>
> But in general your statement is true.
>
> --
> John S.
> e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 10:35:37 PM

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

In article <j9Bkc.29998$7a5.8293@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-DA1D22.07313330042004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Nope. Electrons do not have free will.
> >
> > Problems occur due to over use, and misconfiguration, and if one is left
> > without a signal, they will be let out of their contract if they know
> > how to complain.
>
> Glad you finally agree with me that the only way he could be let out of
> contract is if something changed on Cingular's side, but you are incorrect,
> as expected about "electronics". Electronics fail primarily beacuse of
> capacitors, diodes, resistors, transistors, etc. failing. Of course
> misconfiguration could cause failure also, but that typically results in
> instant failure of an electronic device. Again, learn before you spout
> falsehoods.

Nothing false about getting out of a "contract" if you have no coverage,
regardless of excuse the Carrier might make.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 10:35:38 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-CC2CB9.13353701052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...

>
> Nothing false about getting out of a "contract" if you have no coverage,
> regardless of excuse the Carrier might make.

Like I said, glad you finally agree with me. If the problem is the carrier's
fault and permanent, he will be let of contract.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 3:57:48 AM

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

In article <KfUkc.62075$Uz1.30250@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-CC2CB9.13353701052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > Nothing false about getting out of a "contract" if you have no coverage,
> > regardless of excuse the Carrier might make.
>
> Like I said, glad you finally agree with me. If the problem is the carrier's
> fault and permanent, he will be let of contract.

Yes, but most often the carrier will deny fault.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 3:57:49 AM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-09AC02.18574701052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <KfUkc.62075$Uz1.30250@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:rmarkoff-CC2CB9.13353701052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
>>
>> >
>> > Nothing false about getting out of a "contract" if you have no
>> > coverage,
>> > regardless of excuse the Carrier might make.
>>
>> Like I said, glad you finally agree with me. If the problem is the
>> carrier's
>> fault and permanent, he will be let of contract.
>
> Yes, but most often the carrier will deny fault.

As will the consumer most often. Unfortunately, due to the legalities
involved, it is the consumer which must prove otherwise. If not, the
contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
subsidized.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 2:36:05 PM

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

In article <NaZkc.3646$983.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:

> If not, the
> contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
> subsidized.

Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
made to be legally binding.

If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 5:28:56 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-CA3D4E.05360502052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <NaZkc.3646$983.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>
> > If not, the
> > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
> > subsidized.
>
> Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
> is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
> made to be legally binding.

The only fiction is your statement above. It does have basis in contract
law, and you need to back up your baseless opinion with fact for once.

>
> If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
> contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, not true. If there was no coverage in an area when you signed up for
service, and you did not discover it during the 14 day trial period, legally
you are obligated to the terms of the agreement. However, if the condition
of service deteriorates during the term of the agreement, you may have an
out, but only after informing the carrier of the problem and giving them
time to correct the situation.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 10:44:19 PM

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

"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote in message
news:M5glc.61165$oN1.43587@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-CA3D4E.05360502052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
> | In article <NaZkc.3646$983.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> | "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
> |
> | > If not, the
> | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
> | > subsidized.
> |
> | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
> | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
> | made to be legally binding.
>
>
> 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free
or
> at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
> could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
> drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
> better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
>
> The contract signed when purchasing a subsidized phone is and always has
> been a legally binding contract. As long as the Carrier holds up their end
> of the contract, the end user is lawfully required to do the same.
>
> |
> | If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
> | contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> As usual coming from you, 100% false. That is what the trial period is
for.
> The ONLY way the contract is no longer legally binding is if the carrier
has
> done something to change the service in the area. Examples: reduced the
> power, completely taken a tower offline for some reason, switched
> technologies which resulted in a significant difference in range. Without
> the ability for the end user to prove any of the following, the case
likely
> will not ever even be heard by even the smallest of courts.
>
>

Good post. One more thing- a decline in coverage may not indicate a problem
with the carrier. Where coverage was once good at the very fringe of a
site's area, what happens when a six story hotel goes up between you and the
tower? And how would that be the carrier's fault or liability?
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 12:05:52 AM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-CA3D4E.05360502052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
| In article <NaZkc.3646$983.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
| "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
|
| > If not, the
| > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
| > subsidized.
|
| Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
| is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
| made to be legally binding.


100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free or
at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.

The contract signed when purchasing a subsidized phone is and always has
been a legally binding contract. As long as the Carrier holds up their end
of the contract, the end user is lawfully required to do the same.

|
| If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
| contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As usual coming from you, 100% false. That is what the trial period is for.
The ONLY way the contract is no longer legally binding is if the carrier has
done something to change the service in the area. Examples: reduced the
power, completely taken a tower offline for some reason, switched
technologies which resulted in a significant difference in range. Without
the ability for the end user to prove any of the following, the case likely
will not ever even be heard by even the smallest of courts.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 1:13:26 AM

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

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:a4ydnXWGT-IGCAjdRVn-hg@adelphia.com...
|
| "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote in message
| news:M5glc.61165$oN1.43587@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
| > news:rmarkoff-CA3D4E.05360502052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
| > | In article <NaZkc.3646$983.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
| > | "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
| > |
| > | > If not, the
| > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
| > | > subsidized.
| > |
| > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
| > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
| > | made to be legally binding.
| >
| >
| > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free
| or
| > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
| > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
| > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
| > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
| >
| > The contract signed when purchasing a subsidized phone is and always has
| > been a legally binding contract. As long as the Carrier holds up their
end
| > of the contract, the end user is lawfully required to do the same.
| >
| > |
| > | If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
| > | contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
| >
| > As usual coming from you, 100% false. That is what the trial period is
| for.
| > The ONLY way the contract is no longer legally binding is if the carrier
| has
| > done something to change the service in the area. Examples: reduced the
| > power, completely taken a tower offline for some reason, switched
| > technologies which resulted in a significant difference in range.
Without
| > the ability for the end user to prove any of the following, the case
| likely
| > will not ever even be heard by even the smallest of courts.
| >
| >
|
| Good post. One more thing- a decline in coverage may not indicate a
problem
| with the carrier. Where coverage was once good at the very fringe of a
| site's area, what happens when a six story hotel goes up between you and
the
| tower? And how would that be the carrier's fault or liability?
|

I wouldn't think that the carrier would be liable in that situation. It all
goes back to the "trial period". It is obvious if you are on the edge of
service. If so, it would be a good idea to go with another provider. I am
not sure abou thte legalities behind getting out of contract for that, but I
personally would hold a carrier responsible if I was the one that accepted
the bad coverage to begin with.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 1:13:27 AM

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

"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote in message
news:ZVglc.11524$983.7630@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>

> |
>
> I wouldn't think that the carrier would be liable in that situation. It
all
> goes back to the "trial period". It is obvious if you are on the edge of
> service. If so, it would be a good idea to go with another provider. I am
> not sure abou thte legalities behind getting out of contract for that, but
I
> personally would hold a carrier responsible if I was the one that accepted
> the bad coverage to begin with.
>
>

Personally 'would' or 'wouldn't' hold a carrier responsible if you were the
one that accepted
the bad coverage to begin with?

In my case, I certainly live on the very edge of coverage (certain areas of
the house are dead) and have everything going against me- I'm at least a
mile and a half away from the nearest tower, which I'm sure is there to
service the major military installations on the other side of the tower.
The terrain between here and the tower is very hilly with established, TALL
vegetation. Bottom line- signal at my house is not guaranteed. Is it the
carrier's fault? Absolutely not- I've learned to live with it. And if a
building goes up between here and the tower that blocks what signal I get,
it won't be the carrier's fault, either.

Anybody that expects coverage to improve at the very edge of already
provided coverage won't always get their wish. In my case, I'm sure that we
are very far down the list for new towers in my area, and I can see the
business logic of that- there are more populous areas that trump my own
needs. There is no guarantee that coverage is going to get better.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 2:51:11 AM

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

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:26OdnRbCDdoYOgjdRVn-hg@adelphia.com...
|
| "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote in message
| news:ZVglc.11524$983.7630@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| >
|
| > |
| >
| > I wouldn't think that the carrier would be liable in that situation. It
| all
| > goes back to the "trial period". It is obvious if you are on the edge of
| > service. If so, it would be a good idea to go with another provider. I
am
| > not sure abou thte legalities behind getting out of contract for that,
but
| I
| > personally would hold a carrier responsible if I was the one that
accepted
| > the bad coverage to begin with.
| >
| >
|
| Personally 'would' or 'wouldn't' hold a carrier responsible if you were
the
| one that accepted
| the bad coverage to begin with?
|
| In my case, I certainly live on the very edge of coverage (certain areas
of
| the house are dead) and have everything going against me- I'm at least a
| mile and a half away from the nearest tower, which I'm sure is there to
| service the major military installations on the other side of the tower.
| The terrain between here and the tower is very hilly with established,
TALL
| vegetation. Bottom line- signal at my house is not guaranteed. Is it the
| carrier's fault? Absolutely not- I've learned to live with it. And if a
| building goes up between here and the tower that blocks what signal I get,
| it won't be the carrier's fault, either.
|
| Anybody that expects coverage to improve at the very edge of already
| provided coverage won't always get their wish. In my case, I'm sure that
we
| are very far down the list for new towers in my area, and I can see the
| business logic of that- there are more populous areas that trump my own
| needs. There is no guarantee that coverage is going to get better.
|

My apologies, that was supposed to read "wouldn't".

I am not on the very edge of a service area at my home, but I am a decent
distance from the closest tower. I do have a signal, but usually only one or
two bars (T616, so 1 or two bars is not that bad <wink>. Equates to about
3/4 signal on most phones even though my reception is better than most). It
is more than enough to make crystal clear calls and I have never dropped one
from my home. The main reason I chose Cingular over Verizon (Verizon has a
tower very very close to my home) was for coverage in areas other than my
house. Verizon will not work in certain areas inside my work, and will not
work at all at my lake house. The other local carriers (Sprint, Suncom,
Nextel, Alltel) where not even considered. Their regional coverage here is
HORRIBLE.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter
  • add to twitter
  • add to facebook
  • ajouter un flux RSS