Cingular cell phone service - Blackberry Phones

Author

Blackberry Phones

Ersalan Rahman

2006-08-09, 10:33 pm

Blackberry's seem to be quite popular these days...I am not too
familiar with them. What do they allow you to do over what normal
phones do?

John Navas

2006-08-09, 10:33 pm

On 9 Aug 2006 17:21:30 -0700, "Ersalan Rahman"
< ersalan_rahman@yahoo
.com> wrote in
<1155169290.849600.15420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

>Blackberry's seem to be quite popular these days...I am not too
>familiar with them. What do they allow you to do over what normal
>phones do?

Send and receive email. Which regular cell phones can do as well or
better using the slick Google Mail WAP interface.

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

Anon E. Muss

2006-08-09, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:01:59 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>On 9 Aug 2006 17:21:30 -0700, "Ersalan Rahman"
>< ersalan_rahman@yahoo
.com> wrote in
><1155169290.849600.15420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>

Normal phones do not allow push email (<http://tinyurl.com/fjow3> ) and
synchronization of calendar, contacts, etc. OTA transparently like a
Blackberry does.

Blackberry's big claim to fame is email.
[color=darkred]
>Send and receive email. Which regular cell phones can do as well or
>better using the slick Google Mail WAP interface.

Better? Come on John, get serious. Have you even used a Blackberry?

No "normal phone" (i.e., non SMARTphone) does email better than a
Blackberry, even via GMail's WAP interface.

John Navas

2006-08-10, 4:33 am

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:36:49 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < jr2ld2556tcmjfqucjmp
nsvknmgimcjpdl@4ax.com>:

>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:01:59 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Normal phones do not allow push email (<http://tinyurl.com/fjow3> ) and
>synchronization of calendar, contacts, etc.

With a normal phone, I can do either regular pull mail or push mail with
Google Mail.

>OTA transparently like a
>Blackberry does.

I normally sync my PC with Bluetooth, but I can also use SyncML over
cellular wireless.

>Blackberry's big claim to fame is email.

I personally prefer WAP access with my normal phone.

>
>Better? Come on John, get serious. Have you even used a Blackberry?

Yes. Have you ever used Gmail WAP?

>No "normal phone" (i.e., non SMARTphone) does email better than a
>Blackberry, even via GMail's WAP interface.

"Better" is an elusive concept that I don't care to debate.
Gmail WAP works more than well enough for me.
My phone is first and foremost a phone, and I don't think
Blackberry is a terribly good phone. YMMV.

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

Anon E. Muss

2006-08-10, 4:33 am

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:41:30 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:36:49 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < jr2ld2556tcmjfqucjmp
nsvknmgimcjpdl@4ax.com>:

[snip]

>
>With a normal phone, I can do either regular pull mail or push mail with
>Google Mail.

As far as I know, you cannot do true real time "push email" with a
normal phone.

Smartphones (Symbian OS, Windows Mobile), Treos (e.g., via Goodlink),
Blackberries (via BES) -- yes. Non-smart phones -- no.

See <http://tinyurl.com/kqtsm>

"It is still not push email (or even close for that matter) so
it's not a direct competitor."

>
>I normally sync my PC with Bluetooth, but I can also use SyncML over
>cellular wireless.

Again, not transparently in real time.

>
>I personally prefer WAP access with my normal phone.

Fair enough.

>
>Yes. Have you ever used Gmail WAP?

Yes I have. For plain text, it is adequate.

For anything else, such as attachments, threaded discussions, etc. it
is clearly inferior.

>
>"Better" is an elusive concept that I don't care to debate.
>Gmail WAP works more than well enough for me.

Again, fair enough.

>My phone is first and foremost a phone, and I don't think
>Blackberry is a terribly good phone. YMMV.

Once again, fair enough.

John Navas

2006-08-10, 4:33 am

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:31:14 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < 21kld2d3jhlam9f1meoi
iafgi2tef3u1hj@4ax.com>:

>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:41:30 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>As far as I know, you cannot do true real time "push email" with a
>normal phone.
>
>Smartphones (Symbian OS, Windows Mobile), Treos (e.g., via Goodlink),
>Blackberries (via BES) -- yes. Non-smart phones -- no.
>
>See <http://tinyurl.com/kqtsm>
>
> "It is still not push email (or even close for that matter) so
> it's not a direct competitor."

A Google Mail filter can be used to forward ("push") mail to a normal
phone in real time (using the email to SMS or MMS gateway). I do it
whenever I need instant delivery. I can respond directly from the phone
via messaging back to the gateway, or use the Google Mail WAP interface.
A benefit of using Google Mail is essentially infinite archiving.

Most of the time I am quite satisfied with regular "pull" mail, which is
configurable down to 30 mins.

>
>Again, not transparently in real time.

More than fast enough for me.

>
>Yes I have. For plain text, it is adequate.
>
>For anything else, such as attachments, threaded discussions, etc. it
>is clearly inferior.

I personally find Gmail superior for attachments, converting popular
formats into small screen format much more efficiently than any
smartphone I've used.

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

Cliff

2006-08-10, 10:33 am

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:1fhld2tc8nnph61
h2nu49fa4lt3k4a8pel@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:36:49 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
> wrote in < jr2ld2556tcmjfqucjmp
nsvknmgimcjpdl@4ax.com>:
>
>
> With a normal phone, I can do either regular pull mail or push mail with
> Google Mail.
>
>
> I normally sync my PC with Bluetooth, but I can also use SyncML over
> cellular wireless.
>
>
> I personally prefer WAP access with my normal phone.
>
>
> Yes. Have you ever used Gmail WAP?
<snip>

The real problem that GMail has is that it is a "Beta" and that if you have
a problem with GMail that is the response that you will get from Google.
Also, there is a known issue that when your GMail box gets "full" (the
number is around the 350-400 mark) GMail will reset itself and show all
emails in the box as unread and - if you are getting them via the WAP
interface would mean that you get all 400 emails redelivered to your inbox.

Now what you can do is use the forwarding feature and forward it to your MMS
email address.

Ersalan Rahman

2006-08-10, 10:33 am

Thanks for the replies guys. I don't use my cell phone for internet
purposes--email, etc (at least not yet) so I don't know if Blackberries
would be worth it for me. Probably just get a good old fashioned Nokia
:)

Cliff wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:1fhld2tc8nnph61
h2nu49fa4lt3k4a8pel@
4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
> The real problem that GMail has is that it is a "Beta" and that if you have
> a problem with GMail that is the response that you will get from Google.
> Also, there is a known issue that when your GMail box gets "full" (the
> number is around the 350-400 mark) GMail will reset itself and show all
> emails in the box as unread and - if you are getting them via the WAP
> interface would mean that you get all 400 emails redelivered to your inbox.
>
> Now what you can do is use the forwarding feature and forward it to your MMS
> email address.

John Navas

2006-08-10, 12:33 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:42:56 GMT, "Cliff" < missingrealname@yaho
o.com>
wrote in <QBHCg.1130$1D.207@tornado.texas.rr.com>:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:1fhld2tc8nnph61
h2nu49fa4lt3k4a8pel@
4ax.com...

[color=darkred]
>The real problem that GMail has is that it is a "Beta" and that if you have
>a problem with GMail that is the response that you will get from Google.

Gmail is quite reliable, on a par with other email services.

Google does discourage support requests, but does respond when there are
real issues with the mobile (WAP) service. Case in point:
<http://groups.google.com/group/ Goo...fb95f9485851970>
(or <http://tinyurl.com/rnc4r> )

>Also, there is a known issue that when your GMail box gets "full" (the
>number is around the 350-400 mark) GMail will reset itself and show all
>emails in the box as unread and - if you are getting them via the WAP
>interface would mean that you get all 400 emails redelivered to your inbox.

I've not seen that problem, but then I've never let my inbox get
anywhere near that full. :) So I ran a test with a backup Gmail
account, and didn't see that problem with well over 400 read messages in
the Inbox and new messages arriving. Did a quick check and couldn't
find reports of it. Citation? Perhaps it's been fixed.

>Now what you can do is use the forwarding feature and forward it to your MMS
>email address.

Or SMS email address. As I said. Works great.

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

John Navas

2006-08-10, 12:33 pm

On 9 Aug 2006 17:21:30 -0700, "Ersalan Rahman"
< ersalan_rahman@yahoo
.com> wrote in
<1155169290.849600.15420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

>Blackberry's seem to be quite popular these days...I am not too
>familiar with them. What do they allow you to do over what normal
>phones do?

"BlackBerry hacking peril exposed"
<http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/..._attac
k/>

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

Thurman

2006-08-10, 3:33 pm

"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> wrote in message
news:21kld2d3jhlam9f
1meoiiafgi2tef3u1hj@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:41:30 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> As far as I know, you cannot do true real time "push email" with a
> normal phone.

Depending on your goals, my office digital land line sends a notice of
incoming calls to my Hotmail account. I did have Hotmail set to send a text
message to my RAZR.

John Navas

2006-08-10, 3:33 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:09:12 -0500, "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com>
wrote in <dkMCg.17$Gf6.16@newsfe06.lga>:

>"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> wrote in message
> news:21kld2d3jhlam9f
1meoiiafgi2tef3u1hj@
4ax.com...
>
>Depending on your goals, my office digital land line sends a notice of
>incoming calls to my Hotmail account. I did have Hotmail set to send a text
>message to my RAZR.

Yahoo Mobile also has SMS notification of email available.

There's nothing really unique about Blackberry other than packaging and
convenience.

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

Anon E. Muss

2006-08-10, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:09:12 -0500, "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com>
wrote:

>"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> wrote in message
> news:21kld2d3jhlam9f
1meoiiafgi2tef3u1hj@
4ax.com...
>
>Depending on your goals, my office digital land line sends a notice of
>incoming calls to my Hotmail account. I did have Hotmail set to send a text
>message to my RAZR.

That's not PUSH email -- it's a "hack".

For some people, it's close enough to not matter.

For others, it's not even close to being what they need.

SinghaLvr

2006-08-15, 10:33 am

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:42:56 -0400, Cliff wrote
(in article <QBHCg.1130$1D.207@tornado.texas.rr.com> ):

>
> The real problem that GMail has is that it is a "Beta" and that if you have
> a problem with GMail that is the response that you will get from Google.
> Also, there is a known issue that when your GMail box gets "full" (the
> number is around the 350-400 mark) GMail will reset itself and show all
> emails in the box as unread and - if you are getting them via the WAP
> interface would mean that you get all 400 emails redelivered to your inbox.
>
> Now what you can do is use the forwarding feature and forward it to your MMS
> email address.

In addition Blackberry provides secure e-mail ... nothing based on the public
internet does that. If you are dealing with customer information, especially
financial data then this is quite important.

John Navas

2006-08-15, 10:33 am

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:16:58 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote in <0001HW. C1074F9A0001B7EDF030
5530@news.giganews.com>:

>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:42:56 -0400, Cliff wrote
>(in article <QBHCg.1130$1D.207@tornado.texas.rr.com> ):
>
>
>In addition Blackberry provides secure e-mail ... nothing based on the public
>internet does that. If you are dealing with customer information, especially
>financial data then this is quite important.

What makes you think that? There really is no such thing as "secure"
email short of complete end-to-end encryption in both sending and
receiving email clients. Since Blackberry is just a service grafted
onto regular or enterprise email, it's not secure. The security in
Blackberry is just between the BES and the Blackberry device. "A chain
is only as strong as its weakest link."

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

SinghaLvr

2006-08-17, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:30:30 -0400, John Navas wrote
(in article < g1m3e259m9q2rgg5qfbv
g7b2erd1ja87t2@4ax.com> ):

>
> What makes you think that? There really is no such thing as "secure"
> email short of complete end-to-end encryption in both sending and
> receiving email clients. Since Blackberry is just a service grafted
> onto regular or enterprise email, it's not secure. The security in
> Blackberry is just between the BES and the Blackberry device. "A chain
> is only as strong as its weakest link."

When you are dealing with data that goes through public internet routers and
is potentially stored on those hard drives as well (and maintained by people
outside of your companies security policies) then it's an improvement.

Perfect? No ... but neither are locks on doors. They just help keep honest
people honest. The crooks are going to find a way to break in anyway.

John Navas

2006-08-17, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:09:26 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote in <0001HW. C10A8B8600014404F028
4530@news.giganews.com>:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:30:30 -0400, John Navas wrote
>(in article < g1m3e259m9q2rgg5qfbv
g7b2erd1ja87t2@4ax.com> ):
>
>
>When you are dealing with data that goes through public internet routers and
>is potentially stored on those hard drives as well (and maintained by people
>outside of your companies security policies) then it's an improvement.

How is it an improvement? That still happens right up to the Blackberry
end.

>Perfect? No ... but neither are locks on doors. They just help keep honest
>people honest. The crooks are going to find a way to break in anyway.

It's not even close to perfect -- it's like locking the door, but
leaving all the windows open.

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

SinghaLvr

2006-08-18, 4:33 am

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:28:39 -0400, John Navas wrote
(in article < or5ae2l76aco71rrf44q
l36lb5klrh1sht@4ax.com> ):

>
> How is it an improvement? That still happens right up to the Blackberry
> end.

Except that the data is encrypted at all points between the blackberry and
the BES.

John Navas

2006-08-18, 4:33 am

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:24:40 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote in <0001HW. C10AC758000F495CF040
7530@news.giganews.com>:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:28:39 -0400, John Navas wrote
>(in article < or5ae2l76aco71rrf44q
l36lb5klrh1sht@4ax.com> ):
>
>
>Except that the data is encrypted at all points between the blackberry and
>the BES.

That's like locking the door while the windows are wide open.

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

SinghaLvr

2006-08-18, 10:33 am

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:29:28 -0400, John Navas wrote
(in article < q0kae2tj5ioolblfors4
kj9lccjmrun64f@4ax.com> ):

> Subject: Re: Blackberry Phones
> From: John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>
> Date: Today 1:29 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:24:40 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
> wrote in <0001HW. C10AC758000F495CF040
7530@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> That's like locking the door while the windows are wide open.

If you can't secure the data behind your firewall then I can't help you.

Did you want to know what's different about Blackberry, or do you just like
to argue?

If you want to know more details then I suggest you try something called
Google. RIM itself has a ton of resources to tell you how Blackberry works.
There are other fine sites to learn to secure data once it's within your
organization.

SinghaLvr

2006-08-18, 10:33 am

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:29:28 -0400, John Navas wrote
(in article < q0kae2tj5ioolblfors4
kj9lccjmrun64f@4ax.com> ):

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:24:40 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
> wrote in <0001HW. C10AC758000F495CF040
7530@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> That's like locking the door while the windows are wide open.
>
>

BTW: Just in case you are new to Google ... Blackberry also supports
end-to-end encryption using PGP or other encryption technologies.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-18, 10:33 am

SinghaLvr wrote:
> or do you just like to argue?

That is not a question, that's a statement.

John Navas

2006-08-18, 12:33 pm

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:50:10 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote in <0001HW. C10B2FC200009587F040
7530@news.giganews.com>:

>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:29:28 -0400, John Navas wrote
>(in article < q0kae2tj5ioolblfors4
kj9lccjmrun64f@4ax.com> ):

>
>If you can't secure the data behind your firewall then I can't help you.

My actual point is that email isn't secure over the majority of its
journey over the public Internet, which is why it doesn't do all that
much good to secure it on the last few hops of its journey. It's a
false sense of security, just like locking a door when the windows are
open.

>Did you want to know what's different about Blackberry, or do you just like
>to argue?

I know what's different. You like it, and I respect that, but I'm
personally not impressed. I can do push without it, and I don't think
its security has much value -- SSL/TLS connections to my server are at
least as good, if not better.

>If you want to know more details then I suggest you try something called
>Google. RIM itself has a ton of resources to tell you how Blackberry works.
>There are other fine sites to learn to secure data once it's within your
>organization.

Thanks, but I've used Blackberry, and know how it works from a technical
standpoint.

When I need real security, I use strong full end-to-end encryption,
orders of magnitude better than Blackberry, which I couldn't use for
anything that requires real security.

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

John Navas

2006-08-18, 12:33 pm

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:51:52 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote in <0001HW. C10B30280000AD3FF040
7530@news.giganews.com>:

>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:29:28 -0400, John Navas wrote
>(in article < q0kae2tj5ioolblfors4
kj9lccjmrun64f@4ax.com> ):
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>BTW: Just in case you are new to Google ...

Are you rude by nature, or do you have to work at it?

>Blackberry also supports
>end-to-end encryption using PGP or other encryption technologies.

Sure. And that is a nice feature. But I personally prefer a secure
notebook computer with cellular data.

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

SinghaLvr

2006-08-18, 3:33 pm

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:09:26 -0400, John Navas wrote
(in article < kdpbe2llmo78u19bcacm
937b4h1qtc83fg@4ax.com> ):

> Subject: Re: Blackberry Phones
> From: John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>
> Date: Today 12:09 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:51:52 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
> wrote in <0001HW. C10B30280000AD3FF040
7530@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
>
>
> Are you rude by nature, or do you have to work at it?
>

It generally takes effort so I have to work up to it.

>
> Sure. And that is a nice feature. But I personally prefer a secure
> notebook computer with cellular data.

I'd recommend some sort of hard drive encryption (BeCrypt) and perhaps some
software to allow you to purge the data on the device in case it's lost.
There are a number of vendors out there. We use stuff from iAnywhere.

Blackberry has a few "poison pill" features built in to remotely delete the
device in case it's lost. They also have software to do this on Windows
Mobile.

(Just a recommendation ... ANY mobile device can be lost ... as we've seen
over the past few months.)

FWIW: I'm not a huge fan of Blackberry .. I just know where it's strengths
are ... Security one of the reasons various departments of the government and
many in the financial field use the device.

John Navas

2006-08-18, 3:33 pm

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:14:48 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote in <0001HW. C10B89E80015B667F040
7530@news.giganews.com>:

>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:09:26 -0400, John Navas wrote

>
>I'd recommend some sort of hard drive encryption (BeCrypt) and perhaps some
>software to allow you to purge the data on the device in case it's lost.
>There are a number of vendors out there. We use stuff from iAnywhere.

Thanks, but my ThinkPad is already _very_ secure. ;)

>FWIW: I'm not a huge fan of Blackberry .. I just know where it's strengths
>are ... Security one of the reasons various departments of the government and
>many in the financial field use the device.

I guess that's part of why we see so many stupid security lapses from
these very same folk.

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

Scott

2006-08-19, 4:33 am

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:ri6ce2pke1885l1
9p8dbt5btr9s8qv17mc@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:14:48 -0400, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
> wrote in <0001HW. C10B89E80015B667F040
7530@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
>
> Thanks, but my ThinkPad is already _very_ secure. ;)
>
>
> I guess that's part of why we see so many stupid security lapses from
> these very same folk.
>
> --
Yep- usually involving their ThinkPads, not their Blackberries.

LinkBot