|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > AT-T wireless service > August 2005 > Re: ATTWS GAIT forced migration -- more reports...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: ATTWS GAIT forced migration -- more reports...
|
|
| [ a m z ] 2005-08-20, 2:48 am |
| "JAF" wrote:
>
> I'm in the Denver, CO area, and have the S46. I called at least four
> reps over two days, and two of them (including a supervisor) said that
> the plan that I was being forced (yes, forced) on to was one that would
> include a $0.69/minute charge for roaming (I currently pay no roaming).
>
> I was lied to ("of course your SIM will work in our Cingular GSM-only
> phones") and generally pushed to a new Cingular plan.
>
> I just activated my new T Mobile Razr. We'll see how they are for the
> next year; I may try to find some sort of pay-as-you-go TDMA service
> for my forays into the wilderness, if there is such a thing. So far my
> T Mobile reception has been great, knock wood, and the people have benn
> good as well.
It looks like the forced migration to GSM from ATTWS GAIT is happening in
more than just my area (NW WA). I think this is the third or fourth post
from a totally different area.
| |
| Brian Beuchaw 2005-08-30, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular GomJabbar <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You should quit trolling your own forum John. You broke the above
> message into 7 parts and you seem to do this quite frequently. I find
> this very irritating to read, and I would imagine others do as well, as
> it is unnecessary and spiteful. You could add your disagreements
> without breaking up everyone's post so much. Your answering people
> this way suggests that everything they have to say is incorrect and
> uninformed.
Man, you just ain't got a clue - he did it that way to address each topic
individually. Email conversations (as well as Usenet threads) have been
done that way for decades. It's pretty much an accepted way (don't know
if it conforms to the RFCs, though) of having a Usenet, email, or
web-board forum conversation. As long as you quote the post (only the
relevant parts, please) you're referring to and don't top-post, lots of
things are accepted protocol.
brian (who's trying to get his wife (former ATTWS pay-as-you-go) to get
another carrier who won't charge twice as much for half the expiration
time for the minutes).
--
If you want to reply to this message by mail, you will
have to change the reply address to beuchaw@beuchaw.net
|
|
|
|
|