Cingular cell phone service - Letter From Cingular

Author

Letter From Cingular - Service Impacting Issue

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-12, 10:33 pm

Don't know if this has been discussed before.

I live in Southern California.

Got a letter from Cingular in the mail today. It states they are improving
their network and in order to do so they need to upgrade the existing SIM
card in my wireless phone immediately to the new 64K SmartChip SIM card.

The letter says I need to do this to reduce any potential service
interruptions. What service interruptions? I think this is a crock. They
don't want to continue to pay roaming charges to T-Mobile.

What happens if the notice is ignored.

TIA.

John Navas

2006-07-12, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:05:24 -0700, heartlock@linkearth.com wrote in
< m03bb25bn6umeln95q8g
vf8j5dmv25996d@4ax.com>:

>Don't know if this has been discussed before.
>
>I live in Southern California.
>
>Got a letter from Cingular in the mail today. It states they are improving
>their network and in order to do so they need to upgrade the existing SIM
>card in my wireless phone immediately to the new 64K SmartChip SIM card.

That will only really help if your phone is ENS capable, but there's no
downside.

>The letter says I need to do this to reduce any potential service
>interruptions. What service interruptions?

Not being able to connect to the best available network.

>I think this is a crock. They
>don't want to continue to pay roaming charges to T-Mobile.

That has nothing to do with it.

>What happens if the notice is ignored.

Your service might not be as good.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-12, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:14:40 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:05:24 -0700, heartlock@linkearth.com wrote in
>< m03bb25bn6umeln95q8g
vf8j5dmv25996d@4ax.com>:
>
>
>That will only really help if your phone is ENS capable, but there's no
>downside.
>
>
>Not being able to connect to the best available network.
>
>
>That has nothing to do with it.
>
>
>Your service might not be as good.

I thought this might be a blue network, orange network thingy. Not sure
which color network the old AT&T system was on and what network Cingular is
on and what color network T-Mobile is on.

I didn't think the Cingular network was/is built out completely. I thought
that it might take a couple years for Cingular to build out their network.
Please enlighten me.

Bob Fry

2006-07-12, 10:33 pm

>>>>> "hl" == heartlock <heartlock@linkearth.com> writes:

hl> Don't know if this has been discussed before. I live in
hl> Southern California.

hl> Got a letter from Cingular in the mail today. It states they
hl> are improving their network and in order to do so they need to
hl> upgrade the existing SIM card in my wireless phone immediately
hl> to the new 64K SmartChip SIM card.

Huh. I live in NorCal, and got that letter, what, 6-9 months ago.

I got the new chip and put it in my phone...bad mistake! It locked up
my phone which not even the Cingular store guys + HQ could unlock.
They sent me a free upgraded phone to replace the now useless phone.
All this I posted on this newsgroup. BTW, I did get substantially
better reception with the new SIM.

Followup1: My wife still had the old SIM in her phone. A couple of
weeks ago we visited an Indian Casino in the boonies, and I got good
reception while her phone didn't get any. So I figured time to
upgrade her phone too. While at the store, the clerk/tech exclaimed
over the antique SIM card (PacBell), and I mentioned the fiasco with
my phone. She knew the problem, so I guess Cingular, after sending
some free phones, finally got the word out to not use that problem
phone anymore. I doubt it's an issue now.

Followup2: Since the new SIM cards do work much better--and it was
explained to me that they allow access to AT&T's network as well as
the original PacBell/Cingular network--why are the former AT&T
customers bitching about how Cingular is dismantling the old AT&T
network? I don't buy that argument. I can understand being pissed
about forced contract changes, unexpected costs, worse customer
service, but don't see how the network could have got worse.

SMS

2006-07-13, 4:33 am

Bob Fry wrote:

> Followup2: Since the new SIM cards do work much better--and it was
> explained to me that they allow access to AT&T's network as well as
> the original PacBell/Cingular network--why are the former AT&T
> customers bitching about how Cingular is dismantling the old AT&T
> network? I don't buy that argument. I can understand being pissed
> about forced contract changes, unexpected costs, worse customer
> service, but don't see how the network could have got worse.

There were three ways.

First, Cingular continued to operate the networks separately for quite a
while, but logically they only wanted to do expansion on the Cingular
network which would one day become the only network. So if AT&T Wireless
customers would buy a new phone, and pay to transfer to Cingular GSM,
then they wouldn't have had as much of an issue.

Second, AT&T Wireless had a lot of TDMA/AMPS customers, and the TDMA
networks (both Cingular's and AT&T Wireless's) began to be degraded as
capacity and cells were removed. There are still a lot of TDMA/AMPS
customers, about 11%, and they really have to move to GSM to get decent
digital coverage.

Third, AT&T TDMA/AMPS customers that moved to GSM, suddenly lost all of
their AMPS coverage. There are vast areas of the U.S. where AMPS is the
only service at all. These aren't population centers, but they are areas
that people travel through (and to). Even in urban areas, travel outside
the populated areas to coastal and mountain areas, and you'll likely
lose your digital coverage. Probably 99% of cellular subscribers do not
understand anything about GSM, TDMA, CDMA, iDEN, AMPS, etc., they just
know when they lose coverage that they once had, and aren't interested
in the reasons. No one argues that TDMA/AMPS had far, far more coverage
than GSM without AMPS. Unfortunately, there were only four handsets in
the history of handsets that could work on both GSM and AMPS, and none
of them are being sold anymore.

Bob Armstrong

2006-07-13, 3:33 pm

heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
> Don't know if this has been discussed before.
>
> Got a letter from Cingular in the mail today. ...
> upgrade the existing SIM
> card in my wireless phone immediately to the new 64K SmartChip SIM card.
>...

My wife and I (both Cingular customers) got exactly the same letter
just last week, and this week some automated Cingular dialer left us a
voicemail with the same message.

Did anybody ever figure out what the real purpose is? Changing out
all the existing SIM cards can't be cheap - Cingular must have a good
reason.

In addition to the "better sevice" line (and what effect does a SIM
card have on your coverage, anyway?) one customer service rep told us
that the new cards would "allow us to store more contacts in our
phone." That's clearly nonsense since a) the old SIM cards were 64K
too, and b) nobody in this country stores their contacts on their SIM
cards anyway.

Bob

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-13, 10:33 pm

On 13 Jul 2006 11:08:33 -0700, "Bob Armstrong" <bob@jfcl.com> wrote:

>
>heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
>
> My wife and I (both Cingular customers) got exactly the same letter
>just last week, and this week some automated Cingular dialer left us a
>voicemail with the same message.
>
> Did anybody ever figure out what the real purpose is? Changing out
>all the existing SIM cards can't be cheap - Cingular must have a good
>reason.
>
> In addition to the "better sevice" line (and what effect does a SIM
>card have on your coverage, anyway?) one customer service rep told us
>that the new cards would "allow us to store more contacts in our
>phone." That's clearly nonsense since a) the old SIM cards were 64K
>too, and b) nobody in this country stores their contacts on their SIM
>cards anyway.
>

I thought the old SIM's cards were only 32K.
>Bob

John Navas

2006-07-13, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:46:56 -0700, heartlock@linkearth.com wrote in
< sb9bb2pvjmgbssfior3j
2dsjvk97rihlip@4ax.com>:

>I thought this might be a blue network, orange network thingy. Not sure
>which color network the old AT&T system was on and what network Cingular is
>on and what color network T-Mobile is on.

Blue = old ATTWS
Orange = old Cingular

In California, Cingular sold its orange network to T-Mobile, and bought
back a few years of roaming (free and invisible to Cingular customers).

>I didn't think the Cingular network was/is built out completely. I thought
>that it might take a couple years for Cingular to build out their network.
>Please enlighten me.

The Cingular network (blue + orange) has very good coverage, but, like
other carriers, is being expanded.

The advantage to the 64K SIM is that it enables ENS on ENS-capable
handsets, which makes it possible for Cingular to manually "home"
subscribers to either blue or orange OTA (over the air). That can help
if you're not on the best home network for your particular area, or if
Cingular needs to mess with networks during network integration.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Bob Armstrong

2006-07-13, 10:33 pm

heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
> I thought the old SIM's cards were only 32K.

Not mine or hers - I have right here an 18 month old, orange Cingular
SIM that says "64K smartchip".

BTW, the "new" SIMs are mostly white with an orange stripe and the
word "cingular" in blue.

Bob

Bob Armstrong

2006-07-13, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> In California, Cingular sold its orange network to T-Mobile, and bought
> back a few years of roaming (free and invisible to Cingular customers).

Really? Does this mean that I can switch to T-Mobile and get the
same coverage? Excellent !

... looking forward to dumping Cingular as soon as our contract
expires.

Bob

SMS

2006-07-13, 10:33 pm

Bob Armstrong wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> Really? Does this mean that I can switch to T-Mobile and get the
> same coverage? Excellent !

No. It's not two-way. T-Mobile customer cannot roam on Cingular's 800
Mhz network, in areas where T-Mobile has a 1900 Mhz network, even if in
a dead-spot of T-Mobile. It's the same deal with Sprint roaming onto
Verizon, no roaming in areas where Sprint has a network, even if in a
dead spot.

I have a friend that works a few blocks from where I live. He went into
the local T-Mobile store, and was going to sign up for service. They
looked up his address in the Willow Glen neighborhood of San Jose, and
advised him that he would not have service at his house, and that he
should not sign up. I have the same issue in my neighborhood, no 1900
Mhz GSM coverage (though Cingular, and now T-Mobile, have been trying to
install a tower in my neighborhood for about six years).

Bob Armstrong

2006-07-14, 10:33 am

SMS wrote:
> No. It's not two-way. T-Mobile customer cannot roam on Cingular's 800
> Mhz network

Is the Cingular 800Mhz network the old AT&T network? If that's the
case then it hardly matters, since I haven't had access to that anyway
up until I got this new SIM card just recently.

If there's something other than the T-Mobile network (which used to
belong to Cingular) and the old AT&T network (which is now the Cingular
network), then I don't understand what John meant when he said

>In California, Cingular sold its orange network to T-Mobile, and bought
>back a few years of roaming (free and invisible to Cingular customers).

Bob

SMS

2006-07-14, 10:33 am

Bob Armstrong wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> Is the Cingular 800Mhz network the old AT&T network?

No. There were two separate GSM networks, the AT&T Wireless GSM network,
and the Cingular GSM network.

In the western region, Cingular never had an 800 MHz TDMA network (or
any TDMA network), they only had a 1900 Mhz GSM network. This network
was very poor, both in coverage and capacity, and is what led to the
huge fines being levied against Cingular by the CPUC.

Part of the reason Cingular wanted AT&T Wireless so badly, was that AT&T
Wireless had the valuable 800 Mhz spectrum in some areas where Cingular
lacked it, most notably all of California, and New York City. Once
Cingular had AT&T Wireless, they could get rid of their 1900 Mhz
networks, but they had a slight problem in that there were still a lot
of subscribers out there that had 1900 Mhz-only handsets. The solution
to this was a roaming agreement with T-Mobile, to whom they sold their
1900 Mhz network. Once the roaming agreement ends, the few remaining
subscribers with 1900 MHz-only handsets, will have to get new handsets
from Cingular, or change carriers.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-07-14, 10:33 am

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> No. It's not two-way. T-Mobile customer cannot roam on Cingular's 800
> Mhz network, in areas where T-Mobile has a 1900 Mhz network, even if in
> a dead-spot of T-Mobile. It's the same deal with Sprint roaming onto
> Verizon, no roaming in areas where Sprint has a network, even if in a
> dead spot.
>

That's not true about Sprint PCS at all. I can analog roam or digital roam in
Delano, MN if the Sprint PCS signal fades. Digital is Verizon and Analog is
QWest if I am not mistaken. When I was using the Samsung 920, I was able to
force the phone to "Roaming Only" and it would drop the Sprint PCS signal and
pick up the Verizon Wireless signal and roam.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

SMS

2006-07-14, 10:33 am

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> That's not true about Sprint PCS at all. I can analog roam or digital roam in
> Delano, MN if the Sprint PCS signal fades. Digital is Verizon and Analog is
> QWest if I am not mistaken. When I was using the Samsung 920, I was able to
> force the phone to "Roaming Only" and it would drop the Sprint PCS signal and
> pick up the Verizon Wireless signal and roam.

Well at least in my area it's true for Sprint. I had two people at work
that dropped Sprint due to coverage issues (one got them to waive the
ETF). If they had been able to roam on Verizon, they would not have had
any coverage issue at all. But I don't know if they ever tried putting
their handsets into "Roaming Only" or if their handsets even had that
capability.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-07-14, 12:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Well at least in my area it's true for Sprint. I had two people at work
> that dropped Sprint due to coverage issues (one got them to waive the
> ETF). If they had been able to roam on Verizon, they would not have had
> any coverage issue at all. But I don't know if they ever tried putting
> their handsets into "Roaming Only" or if their handsets even had that
> capability.

Out of curiosity ... do you have the latest PRL? What phone?

Where I am, I get Sprint PCS in some areas of the building, but if I go to an
inner room I will roam into Analog or Digital [seems like a coin toss which I
get]. This has been true just about everywhere I have been. Another
troublesome area I worked at in Eden Prairie, MN had even worse Sprint PCS
coverage, but it would eventually roam into Analog if the signal faded in the
area [if I was driving or in a room]. I used the Sanyo 7400 in both places.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Bob Armstrong

2006-07-14, 3:33 pm

SMS wrote:
> Part of the reason Cingular wanted AT&T Wireless so badly, was that AT&T
> Wireless had the valuable 800 Mhz spectrum in some areas where Cingular
> lacked it, most notably all of California

Exactly - sounds to me like the "Cingular 800 Mhz network" _is_ the
old AT&T network which, as a Cingular Orange SIM subscriber, I never
had access to until I got the new dual network Orange/Blue
Cingular/AT&T SIM.

It still sounds to me like the network I was using with my old,
Orange, Cingular SIM is exactly the same network I'd be using with
T-Mobile.

BTW, I do live in California.

Bob

John Navas

2006-07-14, 10:33 pm

On 13 Jul 2006 15:45:28 -0700, "Bob Armstrong" <bob@jfcl.com> wrote in
<1152830728.333398.210430@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
> Really? Does this mean that I can switch to T-Mobile and get the
>same coverage? Excellent !

No. With T-Mobile you only get orange. With Cingular you get blue +
orange. While orange alone is good, blue + orange is better.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-14, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:49:13 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44b7aef0$0$96171$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Bob Armstrong wrote:
>
>No. There were two separate GSM networks, the AT&T Wireless GSM network,
>and the Cingular GSM network.

Actually yes -- here in California Cingular GSM 850 is actually the old
blue ATTS network.

>In the western region, Cingular never had an 800 MHz TDMA network (or
>any TDMA network), they only had a 1900 Mhz GSM network. This network
>was very poor, both in coverage and capacity, and is what led to the
>huge fines being levied against Cingular by the CPUC.

The network was actually good. The fines weren't related to that.

>[SNIP more nonsense]

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-14, 10:33 pm

On 14 Jul 2006 10:33:12 -0700, "Bob Armstrong" <bob@jfcl.com> wrote in
<1152898392.634930.304290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

>SMS wrote:
>
> Exactly - sounds to me like the "Cingular 800 Mhz network" _is_ the
>old AT&T network which, as a Cingular Orange SIM subscriber, I never
>had access to until I got the new dual network Orange/Blue
>Cingular/AT&T SIM.

Not true -- ATTWS blue has free roaming on Cingular orange, just as
Cingular orange had free roaming on ATTWS blue. All the new SIM does is
allow ENS capable handsets to be manually homed on either blue or
orange.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-14, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:07:18 -0700, Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com>
wrote in <wtaiqk2h.fsf@mailinator.com>:

>I got the new chip and put it in my phone...bad mistake! It locked up
>my phone which not even the Cingular store guys + HQ could unlock.
>They sent me a free upgraded phone to replace the now useless phone.
>All this I posted on this newsgroup. BTW, I did get substantially
>better reception with the new SIM.

What mattered was the new phone -- ENS 64K SIMs only matter in an ENS
capable handset.

>Followup1: My wife still had the old SIM in her phone. A couple of
>weeks ago we visited an Indian Casino in the boonies, and I got good
>reception while her phone didn't get any. So I figured time to
>upgrade her phone too. While at the store, the clerk/tech exclaimed
>over the antique SIM card (PacBell), and I mentioned the fiasco with
>my phone. She knew the problem, so I guess Cingular, after sending
>some free phones, finally got the word out to not use that problem
>phone anymore. I doubt it's an issue now.

She probably didn't have the 850 band on her phone.

>Followup2: Since the new SIM cards do work much better--and it was
>explained to me that they allow access to AT&T's network as well as
>the original PacBell/Cingular network--why are the former AT&T
>customers bitching about how Cingular is dismantling the old AT&T
>network? I don't buy that argument. I can understand being pissed
>about forced contract changes, unexpected costs, worse customer
>service, but don't see how the network could have got worse.

ATTWS blue has free roaming on Cingular orange, just as Cingular orange
had free roaming on ATTWS blue. All the new SIM does is allow ENS
capable handsets to be manually homed on either blue or orange.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-14, 10:33 pm

On 13 Jul 2006 11:08:33 -0700, "Bob Armstrong" <bob@jfcl.com> wrote in
<1152814113.272069.23250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:

>heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
>
> My wife and I (both Cingular customers) got exactly the same letter
>just last week, and this week some automated Cingular dialer left us a
>voicemail with the same message.
>
> Did anybody ever figure out what the real purpose is? Changing out
>all the existing SIM cards can't be cheap - Cingular must have a good
>reason.
>
> In addition to the "better sevice" line (and what effect does a SIM
>card have on your coverage, anyway?) one customer service rep told us
>that the new cards would "allow us to store more contacts in our
>phone." That's clearly nonsense since a) the old SIM cards were 64K
>too, and b) nobody in this country stores their contacts on their SIM
>cards anyway.

<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu..._connections.3F>
or <http://tinyurl.com/85ofh>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-15, 10:33 am

In article <1152814113.272069.23250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Bob Armstrong" <bob@jfcl.com> wrote:

> nobody in this country stores their contacts on their SIM
> cards anyway.

Bullshit.

I store my contacts on my SIM exclusively. I want them PORTABLE.

So what if I don't get whatever features the phone offers for numbers
stored on the phone? Big XXXXing deal. I want a PHONE. With my
numbers on it. And if my phone breaks, I want the numbers to be
instantly available on another phone, anywhere, anytime.

GSM and numbers on SIM. It's the only way to go.

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-15, 12:33 pm

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:01:15 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <1152814113.272069.23250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bob Armstrong" <bob@jfcl.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bullshit.
>
>I store my contacts on my SIM exclusively. I want them PORTABLE.
>
>So what if I don't get whatever features the phone offers for numbers
>stored on the phone? Big XXXXing deal. I want a PHONE. With my
>numbers on it. And if my phone breaks, I want the numbers to be
>instantly available on another phone, anywhere, anytime.
>
>GSM and numbers on SIM. It's the only way to go.

REALLY?!

I store my contacts on the phone.

I dropped my Moto V557 into the ocean at the local boat launch while it was
turned on. Couldn't recover the phone or the SIM. Both were 'dead in the
water' pardon the pun :-).

Were all my contacts lost for good? Nope, I store them on the computer
using Motorola Phone Tools. Went to the local Cingular store. Took them
the broken V557. Purchased another V557 off the shelf (I don't have
insurance). The tech gave me the new phone with a new SIM. Programmed my
old phone number in the new SIM. Sent me on my way. I went home. Hooked
the new V557 up to the computer. Downloaded the stored contacts in the
(NEW) V557. AND ALL WAS GOOD WITH THE WORLD!

You, on the other hand, would have been up s%+(&^ creek without a paddle.
-NO?!

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-15, 12:33 pm

In article < s94ib2hf7q00hs3ps9v7
le5fkbc79te6ee@4ax.com>,
heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:

> You, on the other hand, would have been up s%+(&^ creek without a paddle.
> -NO?!

Nope--because I don't drop my phone in the water.

And, I have my numbers elsewhere.

On the other hand, the phone is MUCH more likely to break at a moment's
notice than the SIM going bad. I just get another phone, pop in the
SIM, and go on my way--even if I'm away from home.

Makes me wonder why the phone companies aren't offering a monthly
service to keep your numbers stored away somewhere, so that when you
need them you can have them restored to the phone over the air.

GomJabbar

2006-07-16, 12:33 pm

SMS

2006-07-16, 12:33 pm

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Makes me wonder why the phone companies aren't offering a monthly
> service to keep your numbers stored away somewhere, so that when you
> need them you can have them restored to the phone over the air.

They do offer this, at least Verizon does, but it isn't free. Also, the
Verizon stores will transfer your phone book from phone to phone for
either free or $10 depending on your account.

On my GSM phone, I used to store numbers on the SIM card, rather than
the phone, but the reality is that this was not a good idea because I
used the phone overseas with prepaid SIM cards. So I'd lose the phone
numbers when I switched SIMs. It actually makes sense to store them on
both the SIM and the phone.

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-16, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:21:10 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article < s94ib2hf7q00hs3ps9v7
le5fkbc79te6ee@4ax.com>,
> heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
>
>
>Nope--because I don't drop my phone in the water.

You miss the point here. If your phone is lost, stolen, crushed or broken
beyond repair your address book is gone.

>
>And, I have my numbers elsewhere.

So, lets see if I got this straight: you have your numbers written down
somewhere? And if you have to recreate your 200 entry address book, you
have to do it by hand. I tried that. Made an excel spreadsheet with all my
numbers on it. Not a good strategy. That is why Motorola Phone Tools was a
welcome addition to my computer.

>
>On the other hand, the phone is MUCH more likely to break at a moment's
>notice than the SIM going bad. I just get another phone, pop in the
>SIM, and go on my way--even if I'm away from home.

Your right about that. It is not if your phone is going to break, it is
when it is going to break.

Why not prepare for the worst case senerio? Shoot for the stars and if you
fall on the moon at least your on higher ground. Not sure who said that but
it is good philosophy for my family.

>Makes me wonder why the phone companies aren't offering a monthly
>service to keep your numbers stored away somewhere, so that when you
>need them you can have them restored to the phone over the air.

No comment about that. BUT, as an aside I dropped my Cingular insurance @
$3.99 X phone. Purchased another V557 from Cingular. Now we pay for the
primary phone for myself, an additional $9.95 for the wifes' V557 and $9.95
for an additional phone and (line) we don't use. It is all set and ready to
go should my phone or my wifes phone become inoperative. Should that happen
we take the unused phone to Cingular - minus the SIM card - tell Cingular
the phone number that we want a new SIM for, what happened to the lost,
damaged or stolen phone and away we go.

And yes, we purchase a brand new V557 and put the SIM associated with the
third phone line in that phone.

Why pay $3.99 for insurance when there is a $50 deductible and you may or
may not get the same type of phone as a replacement? They call that
insurance? I call it a ripoff.

tmoran@acm.org

2006-07-16, 3:33 pm

>On my GSM phone, I used to store numbers on the SIM card, rather than
>the phone, but the reality is that this was not a good idea because I
>used the phone overseas with prepaid SIM cards. So I'd lose the phone
>numbers when I switched SIMs. It actually makes sense to store them on
>both the SIM and the phone.
My old Nokia 6200 has "copy phone to SIM" and "copy SIM to phone"
functions. Is that not standard?

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-16, 10:33 pm

In article < 44ba72fc$0$96234$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> They do offer this, at least Verizon does, but it isn't free.

yeah, well, that's no suprise. that's OK, though. It's just insurance.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-16, 10:33 pm

In article < 44ba72fc$0$96234$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On my GSM phone, I used to store numbers on the SIM card, rather than
> the phone, but the reality is that this was not a good idea because I
> used the phone overseas with prepaid SIM cards. So I'd lose the phone
> numbers when I switched SIMs. It actually makes sense to store them on
> both the SIM and the phone.

True, but that's awkward.

Were I going to switch SIMs like that, I'd just copy the numbers to the
phone before doing so.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-16, 10:33 pm

In article < qtskb21i9i2gdj5n2q4l
jeg8lunf6m8948@4ax.com>,
heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:

>
> So, lets see if I got this straight: you have your numbers written down
> somewhere? And if you have to recreate your 200 entry address book, you
> have to do it by hand. I tried that. Made an excel spreadsheet with all my
> numbers on it. Not a good strategy. That is why Motorola Phone Tools was a
> welcome addition to my computer.

That would mean using a Moto phone. No, thanks. Been there, done that.

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-16, 10:33 pm

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:30:13 -0500, tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> My old Nokia 6200 has "copy phone to SIM" and "copy SIM to phone"
>functions. Is that not standard?

We have had the Moto V400 & V557. Can't remember ever seeing that as an
option in the menu.

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-16, 10:33 pm

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:51:47 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article < qtskb21i9i2gdj5n2q4l
jeg8lunf6m8948@4ax.com>,
> heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
>
>
>That would mean using a Moto phone. No, thanks. Been there, done that.

So, tell us...where do you keep your backup contact list?

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-16, 10:33 pm

In article < lvflb2pseook2f6t5fjq
vrquncgoo85ksq@4ax.com>,
heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:

>
>
> So, tell us...where do you keep your backup contact list?

Several places.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-16, 10:33 pm

In article < csflb2997gj4n5vvv3q9
qpurhlhk26a7h2@4ax.com>,
heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:

>
> We have had the Moto V400 & V557. Can't remember ever seeing that as an
> option in the menu.

Which is one reason why I'll have Nokia, thank you, and no more Moto.

dold@XReXXLette.usenet.us.com

2006-07-17, 4:33 am

heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:30:13 -0500, tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> We have had the Moto V400 & V557. Can't remember ever seeing that as an
> option in the menu.

The Moto V551, presumably the V557, since they are virtually the same,
offers the ability to copy one entry, or all, from SIM to phone, or phone
to SIM. Phonebook-Menu-Copy. Entry, All to Phone, All to SIM.

I use Motorola Phone Tools to back up the contact lists on a v220 and v551.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

heartlock@linkearth.com

2006-07-19, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:05:24 -0700, heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:

>Don't know if this has been discussed before.
>
>I live in Southern California.
>
>Got a letter from Cingular in the mail today. It states they are improving
>their network and in order to do so they need to upgrade the existing SIM
>card in my wireless phone immediately to the new 64K SmartChip SIM card.
>
>The letter says I need to do this to reduce any potential service
>interruptions. What service interruptions? I think this is a crock. They
>don't want to continue to pay roaming charges to T-Mobile.
>
>What happens if the notice is ignored.
>
>TIA.

Wanted to follow up on my own post.

Seems like Cingular is serious.

I live near John Wayne Airport(Newport Beach, CA) and folks in my
organization have started complaining about a decline in Cingular service.
Those who upgraded to the new 64K 3G SIM are not having the problem. Those
who didn't upgrade have poor service. Perhaps Cingular has stopped or is
stopping the roaming agreement with T-Mobile.

Check out this URL on Howard Forum
http://www.howardforums.com/showthr...23&page=3&pp=15

Guess I'll buster over to the local Cingular store this weekend and upgrade
both my V557's.

paulmurray1

2006-07-20, 10:33 am

> I dropped my Moto V557 into the ocean at the local boat launch while it was
> turned on. Couldn't recover the phone or the SIM. Both were 'dead in the
> water' pardon the pun :-).
>
> Were all my contacts lost for good? Nope, I store them on the computer
> using Motorola Phone Tools

I think the phone tools method is the way to go. The phone book on
the SIM always has to initialize and on some phones, that can take up to
a minute and half after you've turned it on. Your phonebook is useless
until it initializes.

Storing on the phone with backup on your computer is the best way. Plus
if you change phone brands or networks, if you get another phone that is
compatable with Outlook, you're up and running in just "sync"

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-20, 10:33 pm

In article <qVMvg.2690$Mz3.2614@fed1read07>,
paulmurray1 <paulmurray1@cox.net> wrote:

> The phone book on
> the SIM always has to initialize and on some phones, that can take up to
> a minute and half after you've turned it on. Your phonebook is useless
> until it initializes.

Huh? What's the problem with that?

Tell me, how often do you turn your phone off? Then how often do you
need your SIM card IMMEDIATELY upon turning your phone on?

You remind me of the people who XXXXX about a web browser because it
takes a few more seconds to launch than another web browser. Tell me,
how often do you launch a web browser?

no_one@home.com

2006-07-20, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:44:00 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <qVMvg.2690$Mz3.2614@fed1read07>,
> paulmurray1 <paulmurray1@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>Huh? What's the problem with that?
>
>Tell me, how often do you turn your phone off? Then how often do you
>need your SIM card IMMEDIATELY upon turning your phone on?
>
>You remind me of the people who XXXXX about a web browser because it
>takes a few more seconds to launch than another web browser. Tell me,
>how often do you launch a web browser?

You remind me of someone who is very arrogant and thinks his opinion is the
only opinion that matters. You attempt to invalidate anyone who disagrees
with you.

And I bet you don't even wear a seat belt because you don't think you will
be injured should you be involved in a car crash.

PLONK!

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-20, 10:33 pm

In article < cm40c2hk8jnvt7ks62n7
73m2ut5t67k60e@4ax.com>,
no_one@home.com wrote:

> You remind me of someone who is very arrogant and thinks his opinion is the
> only opinion that matters.

Well, when the option offered is "yeah, but your numbers aren't
available for a minute or so after turning the phone on," the facts are
plain to see.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-20, 10:33 pm

In article < cm40c2hk8jnvt7ks62n7
73m2ut5t67k60e@4ax.com>,
no_one@home.com wrote:

> You remind me of someone who is very arrogant and thinks his opinion is the
> only opinion that matters. You attempt to invalidate anyone who disagrees
> with you.

I don't do any such thing. I simply lay out the facts, and let the
reader decide.

That I lay out facts YOU don't like and would rather not be put forth,
is your problem. It's certainly no reason to attack me. If anything,
it's a reason for you to do a little introspection--as in "yeah, he's
right, dammit, I shouldn't be so stupid!".

> And I bet you don't even wear a seat belt because you don't think you will
> be injured should you be involved in a car crash.

How that follows, I'll never know. I certainly do wear a seat
belt--always.

> PLONK!

It's funny to watch people publicly announce that they've plonked
someone--as if anyone cares.

Richard J. Wyble

2006-07-20, 10:33 pm

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com>

Shagnasty, I knew a person years ago who used that moniker,
actual last name of O'Shaughnessy (my spelling is suspect).
You his cousin, or you be he, perhaps?

--
RJW

Bob Fry

2006-07-20, 10:33 pm

>>>>> "EPS" == Elmo P Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> writes:
[color=darkred]

EPS> Well, when the option offered is "yeah, but your numbers
EPS> aren't available for a minute or so after turning the phone
EPS> on," the facts are plain to see.

The facts are plain, the interpretation varies. I often don't have my
phone on, and when I do turn it on, I do so to...<drumroll>...place a
call! Most often, using the contact list! Which, like the poster
said, if I kept it on the SIM card wouldn't be available for an
annoyingly long time.

Your web browser example was bogus too. If windows computers would
boot up in a few seconds, like every other electrical appliance in the
house, their use would be second nature, like a landline telephone,
radio or sound system, and so on. But no--they take minutes to become
useful so people who don't leave them on 24/7 don't use them
spontaneously.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-07-21, 10:33 am

Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> You remind me of the people who XXXXX about a web browser because it
> takes a few more seconds to launch than another web browser. Tell me,
> how often do you launch a web browser?
>

Fairly often. I go on the web may times during the day and I use two
different browsers (IE and Firefox). The speed that it loads can be annoying
to me. Tabbed browsing does reduce the issue, however, when I am done with my
task, I close the browser[s] and later, I often need to reload. BTW ... I
have 2GB RAM on this box and still prefer to to load it up.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-07-21, 10:33 am

Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> The facts are plain, the interpretation varies. I often don't have my
> phone on, and when I do turn it on, I do so to...<drumroll>...place a
> call! Most often, using the contact list! Which, like the poster
> said, if I kept it on the SIM card wouldn't be available for an
> annoyingly long time.
>

I agree with whoever posted that startup time isn't that big of a deal. To
each his own on that issue. In may case, I do not shut off my phone for weeks
[or even months] at a time. I currently use Sprint PCS on a CDMA phone, so it
boots pretty quick and the phonebook is available immediately, but that is not
my point.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

John Navas

2006-07-28, 4:33 am

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:11:48 -0400, "Richard J. Wyble"
<nospam@bitbucket> wrote in <R_Uvg.364$T95.159@fe05.lga>:

>
>Shagnasty, I knew a person years ago who used that moniker,
>actual last name of O'Shaughnessy (my spelling is suspect).
> You his cousin, or you be he, perhaps?

Naw, just 'nasty. ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-28, 4:33 am

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:50:26 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-C49676. 19502620072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:

>In article < cm40c2hk8jnvt7ks62n7
73m2ut5t67k60e@4ax.com>,
> no_one@home.com wrote:
>
>
>I don't do any such thing. ...

Had me fooled. And I'm obviously not the only one. ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-28, 4:33 am

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:44:00 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-2CB230. 18440020072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:

>In article <qVMvg.2690$Mz3.2614@fed1read07>,
> paulmurray1 <paulmurray1@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>Huh? What's the problem with that?
>
>Tell me, how often do you turn your phone off? Then how often do you
>need your SIM card IMMEDIATELY upon turning your phone on?
>
>You remind me of the people who XXXXX about a web browser because it
>takes a few more seconds to launch than another web browser. Tell me,
>how often do you launch a web browser?

Pretty often, actually -- I see no point in tying up a lot of memory for
no good reason. That's my only real XXXXX with Mozilla Firefox -- it's
a memory pig and a startup turtle.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-28, 4:33 am

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:46:23 -0700, heartlock@linkearth.com wrote in
< 57dtb21dpra9mvl7a65t
s2lh92hctnk02n@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:05:24 -0700, heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
>
>
>Wanted to follow up on my own post.
>
>Seems like Cingular is serious.
>
>I live near John Wayne Airport(Newport Beach, CA) and folks in my
>organization have started complaining about a decline in Cingular service.
>Those who upgraded to the new 64K 3G SIM are not having the problem. Those
>who didn't upgrade have poor service. Perhaps Cingular has stopped or is
>stopping the roaming agreement with T-Mobile.

No, it just means they are homed on the wrong network for them. That's
all the 64K SIM does. See the full explanation in the FAQ below.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-28, 4:33 am

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:21:10 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-C7E235. 13211015072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:

>In article < s94ib2hf7q00hs3ps9v7
le5fkbc79te6ee@4ax.com>,
> heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
>
>
>Nope--because I don't drop my phone in the water.

You never ever have an accident? Really?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-07-28, 4:33 am

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:47:20 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-C2353C. 19472016072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:

>In article < csflb2997gj4n5vvv3q9
qpurhlhk26a7h2@4ax.com>,
> heartlock@linkearth.com wrote:
>
>
>Which is one reason why I'll have Nokia, thank you, and no more Moto.

Bad reason, because it's not true.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-07-28, 7:33 am

In article < 7mbjc2prieq7daq6hpuv
4btt4d7l704okp@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
> You never ever have an accident? Really?

Nope.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-07-28, 10:33 am

John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Bad reason, because it's not true.
>

I have that Nokia 3595 and I can't seem to find a function to store the phone
numbers on the SIM. All of the phone number are stored in the phone memory.
I put a friends T-Mobile SIM in and all my phone numbers still showed.
Perhaps the issue is that I have a pre-paid Cingular SIM in the phone?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-07-28, 10:33 am

John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> You never ever have an accident? Really?
>

I have yet to. I have never broken a single cell phone. They have all
function until I replaced them with an upgrade [or switched carriers].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

John Navas

2006-07-28, 10:33 am

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:47:14 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<mHnyg.66113$204.15921@fe14.usenetserver.com>:

>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>I have that Nokia 3595 and I can't seem to find a function to store the phone
>numbers on the SIM. All of the phone number are stored in the phone memory.
>I put a friends T-Mobile SIM in and all my phone numbers still showed.
>Perhaps the issue is that I have a pre-paid Cingular SIM in the phone?

I don't think so. I've never seen a GSM phone that doesn't support SIM
contacts.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-07-28, 12:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think so. I've never seen a GSM phone that doesn't support SIM
> contacts.
>

I would agree with you ... except I can not find a single function that allows
me to chose where to store the contact nor can I find an option to copy the
contacts from one location or another. There are functions that display
available storage and not one indicates a difference between storage on SIM or
in phone memory. This phone is an unlocked AT&T Wireless Nokia 3595 .. so
perhaps they modified it in some ungodly way.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

LinkBot