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

I was able to make a call this morning at home, where my AT&T phone hasn't
worked in the past. It starting displaying Cingular as the service there a
couple of days ago. The person I called said that my ID wasn't showing up on
their (non-GSM) phone.

Is it possible that the merger is bringing new towers on line that were
previously silent?

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

In many markets, AT&T customers now have access to the Cingular network.
But I hear that the reverse is not true. As the merger is completed,
Cingular/AT&T coverage should be much improved.


"DH" <douglas.hagerman@hp.com> wrote in message
news:40a10e16$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> I was able to make a call this morning at home, where my AT&T phone hasn't
> worked in the past. It starting displaying Cingular as the service there a
> couple of days ago. The person I called said that my ID wasn't showing up
on
> their (non-GSM) phone.
>
> Is it possible that the merger is bringing new towers on line that were
> previously silent?
>
>
>

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

"Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:QWupc.8934$kt.8898@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> In many markets, AT&T customers now have access to the Cingular network.
> But I hear that the reverse is not true. As the merger is completed,
> Cingular/AT&T coverage should be much improved.

I doubt the access has anything to do with the upcoming merger. I suspect
AT&T, between the customer service black-eye they've had over the last year,
and their decision to market their GSM as much improved ("how many bars do
you have?" ) decided to spare no expense in providing the "best" GSM coverage
available, even if it meant paying Cingular roaming fees even for in-market
use. (If it was some sort of pre-merger "free" roaming agreement, Cingular
customers would've likely got the same benefit in reverse.)

In many ways, it makes sense. AT&T used to be perceived as the carrier to
have if you wanted a phone that worked "everywhere" (TDMA Digital One Rate).
In a few short years they pi--ed away that reputation completely to Verizon.

Allowing a phone to grab the best signal, even if allowing roaming
off-network in your own coverage area to do it is a bold move that would
virtually eliminate dead spots and dropped calls. I suspect ATTWS' second
quarter churn will be much lower than the first.

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

elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:
> I doubt the access has anything to do with the upcoming merger. I
> suspect AT&T, between the customer service black-eye they've had
> over the last year, and their decision to market their GSM as much
> improved ("how many bars do you have?" ) decided to spare no expense
> in providing the "best" GSM coverage available, even if it meant
> paying Cingular roaming fees even for in-market use.

AT&T has the "best" GSM coverage available in my area, to the tune of
having something like 50% more towers than any other carrier here.

Now if they had just supported GSM900 on those towers after selling
me a phone that did 900 but not 850... Oh well, now at least I
have one that does 850.

-Dan (really must call BBB to see if ATT responded to BBB complaint)

--
Dan Birchall, Hilo HI - http://dan.birchalls.net/ - images, words, technology

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

On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:39:03 GMT, "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>"Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:QWupc.8934$kt.8898@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>> In many markets, AT&T customers now have access to the Cingular network.
>> But I hear that the reverse is not true. As the merger is completed,
>> Cingular/AT&T coverage should be much improved.
>
>I doubt the access has anything to do with the upcoming merger. I suspect
>AT&T, between the customer service black-eye they've had over the last year,
>and their decision to market their GSM as much improved ("how many bars do
>you have?" ) decided to spare no expense in providing the "best" GSM coverage
>available, even if it meant paying Cingular roaming fees even for in-market
>use. (If it was some sort of pre-merger "free" roaming agreement, Cingular
>customers would've likely got the same benefit in reverse.)
>
>In many ways, it makes sense. AT&T used to be perceived as the carrier to
>have if you wanted a phone that worked "everywhere" (TDMA Digital One Rate).
>In a few short years they pi--ed away that reputation completely to Verizon.
>
>Allowing a phone to grab the best signal, even if allowing roaming
>off-network in your own coverage area to do it is a bold move that would
>virtually eliminate dead spots and dropped calls. I suspect ATTWS' second
>quarter churn will be much lower than the first.


Too bad the phone doesn't work that way. What phone does is to connect
to the first BTS (and carrier) it can find that will register it
unless you have registered a carrier preference. So it a matter of who
has the lower fequency allocation in that area.

When roaming in Sweden, I used to watch during the day as the phone
cycled through all 3 carriers. When you went underground, or did
something that lost the signal, you got as a carrier whoever the phone
found first that would allow registration.

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

GSM 900? That's just not possible in USA. The 900MHz band is used overseas
when you roam there but not license for mobile phone use in USA.


"Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.birchalls.net> wrote in message
news:slrncafr6q.7mp.nobody@malasada.lava.net...
> elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:
> > I doubt the access has anything to do with the upcoming merger. I
> > suspect AT&T, between the customer service black-eye they've had
> > over the last year, and their decision to market their GSM as much
> > improved ("how many bars do you have?" ) decided to spare no expense
> > in providing the "best" GSM coverage available, even if it meant
> > paying Cingular roaming fees even for in-market use.
>
> AT&T has the "best" GSM coverage available in my area, to the tune of
> having something like 50% more towers than any other carrier here.
>
> Now if they had just supported GSM900 on those towers after selling
> me a phone that did 900 but not 850... Oh well, now at least I
> have one that does 850.
>
> -Dan (really must call BBB to see if ATT responded to BBB complaint)
>
> --
> Dan Birchall, Hilo HI - http://dan.birchalls.net/ - images, words,
technology

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

mbc@pacbell.net (Richie) wrote:
> GSM 900? That's just not possible in USA. The 900MHz band is used
> overseas when you roam there but not license for mobile phone use in USA.
>
> "Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.birchalls.net> wrote:
> > AT&T has the "best" GSM coverage available in my area, to the tune of
> > having something like 50% more towers than any other carrier here.
> >
> > Now if they had just supported GSM900 on those towers after selling
> > me a phone that did 900 but not 850... Oh well, now at least I
> > have one that does 850.

Well, it did other frequencies too. Maybe it was 1900 I was thinking
of. It was a 900/1800/1900 "world phone" Nokia 3650; at the time they
sold it to me they had deployed 850/1900 on the tower closest to my home,
and I was told that service further from town would be "coming soon." It
came, of course - on the 850 band ONLY. After waiting 10 months for "soon"
to occur, I complained to ATT, and when they refused to do anything logical
(like replacing it with a 850/1800/1900 3620 - same phone, different band)
to the BBB.

That was a month and a half ago, if I recall. I've not heard back from
anyone; meanwhile, AT&T keeps mailing me ads for all manner of stuff. I
did just re-up with them, but only because their service in the 850 band
has far better coverage than anyone else here. I wound up picking up an
850/1800/1900 Sony Ericsson T616 - the 3620 was just too expensive, since
they weren't willing to give me any kind of discount for my suffering.

--
Dan Birchall, Hilo HI - http://dan.birchalls.net/ - images, words, technology

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

matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote in message news:<u9rfa017aosh1kg8itq84io6sdqi5bi5pi@4ax.com>...

> Too bad the phone doesn't work that way. What phone does is to connect
> to the first BTS (and carrier) it can find that will register it
> unless you have registered a carrier preference. So it a matter of who
> has the lower fequency allocation in that area.

Right, but the problem, at least here in the US, is t at carriers tend
to program phones to reject all competitors in their home market- i.e.
although an AT&T phone was allowed to roam on Cingular in areas AT&T
didn't offer service, it automatically rejected Cingular in markets it
did offer service. Now, even at home, an AT&T phone can roam on
Cingular in it's home market if it looses signal w/AT&T. In markets
where T&T runs at 1900MHz and Cingular runs at 800MHz this helps
greatly with in-building use. Rather than go to "no service" the AT&T
customer now connects via Cingular.

> When roaming in Sweden, I used to watch during the day as the phone
> cycled through all 3 carriers. When you went underground, or did
> something that lost the signal, you got as a carrier whoever the phone
> found first that would allow registration.

I assume, in that case, none of those carriers were "preferred" or
"rejected". Generally in US phones, all competitors are rejected in
the home market.

Dumb example: I live in a small valley near Denver, Colorado, where
Verizon Wireless (800MHz CDMA) doesn't reach well, but Sprint PCS
(1900MHz CDMA) does. Sprint and Verizon are roaming partners
nationwide, but since Sprint's Denver system is rejected by Verizon
phones native to the Denver area, my Verizon-using neighbors can't get
a signal here in the valley. When my Verizon-using brother or
brother-in-law visit from Rhode Island or Iowa (respectively), they
have service here, roaming on Sprint, because Sprint's Denver system
is not rejected by their phones (though the Sprint systems in their
home markets would be.)

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

On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:50:21 GMT, "Richie" <mbc@pacbell.net> wrote:

>GSM 900? That's just not possible in USA. The 900MHz band is used overseas
>when you roam there but not license for mobile phone use in USA.
It is not quite impossible, the FCC has allowed small temporary GSM900
networks to operate to support Internationnal conferences (basically a
few microcells). Obvious the frequency allocations are very
restricted, as is the transmitter power from the BTS.

But as far as any permanent, commercial GSM900 service in the USA, you
are correct, it doesn't exist in the USA, and probably never will.
MOst of the spectrum is already in use for other services (and was in
use for those services before the European adopted it. The fact that
in use and what it was used for is well documented in the ITU
proceedings .
>
>
>"Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.birchalls.net> wrote in message
>news:slrncafr6q.7mp.nobody@malasada.lava.net...
>> elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:
>> > I doubt the access has anything to do with the upcoming merger. I
>> > suspect AT&T, between the customer service black-eye they've had
>> > over the last year, and their decision to market their GSM as much
>> > improved ("how many bars do you have?" ) decided to spare no expense
>> > in providing the "best" GSM coverage available, even if it meant
>> > paying Cingular roaming fees even for in-market use.
>>
>> AT&T has the "best" GSM coverage available in my area, to the tune of
>> having something like 50% more towers than any other carrier here.
>>
>> Now if they had just supported GSM900 on those towers after selling
>> me a phone that did 900 but not 850... Oh well, now at least I
>> have one that does 850.
>>
>> -Dan (really must call BBB to see if ATT responded to BBB complaint)
>>
>> --
>> Dan Birchall, Hilo HI - http://dan.birchalls.net/ - images, words,
>technology
>

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

On 16 May 2004 21:08:33 -0700, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock)
wrote:

>Right, but the problem, at least here in the US, is t at carriers tend
>to program phones to reject all competitors in their home market

Which is the same in other parts of the world as well. If you're on
O2 you cannot roam on Orange or T-Mobile in the UK or if you're in
Israel as an Orange subscriber you cannot roam on Cellcom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply