|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2007 > Calls Dropped Continually
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 |
Calls Dropped Continually
|
|
|
| I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls
dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and
my husband commutes to and from Oakland. I'm not kidding when I say
our calls are dropped three-four times if we're on the phone during
his commute. It happens just before the Caldecott on the Oakland
side, in the Caldecott, just after the Caldecott on the Orinda side,
at the Hwy 24 turn onto Hwy 680, and a half-mile after the turn before
Rudgear. This seems really odd to me considering we're not out in the
sticks somewhere. What's going on with this company? Do they ever
plan on fixing this problem? Or should I go back to Sprint?
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-06, 12:33 pm |
| On 6 Mar 2007 07:50:05 -0800, "ldbk" <fingerson88@aol.com> wrote in
<1173196203.736554.100940@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls
>dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and
>my husband commutes to and from Oakland. I'm not kidding when I say
>our calls are dropped three-four times if we're on the phone during
>his commute. It happens just before the Caldecott on the Oakland
>side, in the Caldecott, just after the Caldecott on the Orinda side,
>at the Hwy 24 turn onto Hwy 680, and a half-mile after the turn before
>Rudgear. This seems really odd to me considering we're not out in the
>sticks somewhere. What's going on with this company? Do they ever
>plan on fixing this problem? Or should I go back to Sprint?
Try a better phone. While the signal isn't the best from Orinda to the
Caldecott tunnel, my Motorola V551 is still almost always able to carry
a call all the way from Walnut Creek to Oakland. The usual problem is a
"bargain" phone from the carrier.
For what it's worth, the signal in this area is a result of NIMBY in
these hilly high-end communities that have been fighting tower
placements needed for better signal.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> For what it's worth, the signal in this area is a result of NIMBY in
> these hilly high-end communities that have been fighting tower
> placements needed for better signal.
And of course they are the first to complain they can't get coverage in
said high-end community.
Palm tree camouflage theme is very effective, or religious crosses - saw
one cell site in a PHX parking lot the was just a tall light pole
configuration with three 120º spaced crosses, and a cabinet at the base.
| |
|
| On Mar 6, 9:00 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2007 07:50:05 -0800, "ldbk" <fingerso...@aol.com> wrote in
> <1173196203.736554.100...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> Try a better phone. While the signal isn't the best from Orinda to the
> Caldecott tunnel, my Motorola V551 is still almost always able to carry
> a call all the way from Walnut Creek to Oakland. The usual problem is a
> "bargain" phone from the carrier.
>
> For what it's worth, the signal in this area is a result of NIMBY in
> these hilly high-end communities that have been fighting tower
> placements needed for better signal.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
Hmm...I have a good phone..an Audiovox smartphone. My husband has a
Blackjack. Maybe it's like you said, they're fighting NIMBY. So what
does that stand for?? :^)
| |
| PCs Rule 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
|
"ldbk" <fingerson88@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173220456.207529.116090@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 9:00 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm...I have a good phone..an Audiovox smartphone. My husband has a
> Blackjack. Maybe it's like you said, they're fighting NIMBY. So what
> does that stand for?? :^)
>
an acronym for "Not In My Back Yard"
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:07:26 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <yClHh.124572$_73.70141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>And of course they are the first to complain they can't get coverage in
>said high-end community.
>
>Palm tree camouflage theme is very effective, or religious crosses - saw
>one cell site in a PHX parking lot the was just a tall light pole
>configuration with three 120º spaced crosses, and a cabinet at the base.
My own favorite is a fake pine tree cell tower in Danville, which I
personally think looks worse than a plain cellular tower.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On 6 Mar 2007 14:34:16 -0800, "ldbk" <fingerson88@aol.com> wrote in
<1173220456.207529.116090@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 6, 9:00 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Hmm...I have a good phone..an Audiovox smartphone. My husband has a
>Blackjack.
Smartphones don't necessarily have good radio performance -- in fact,
some are downright poor -- my V551 is far better than the Treo a friend
of mine uses.
>aybe it's like you said, they're fighting NIMBY. So what
>does that stand for?? :^)
Not In My Back Yard.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:d67ru2h2tsmk2jo
1jh995imp3q8588dlae@
4ax.com:
>
> Try a better phone.
Wow- you haven't used that one in a while. I guess that it infers that
Cingular sells sub-par equioment if the phone is the soilution.
| |
|
| In article < l9tru2dfvpl4jn211ke6
2unvlvc43ek9tp@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2007 14:34:16 -0800, "ldbk" <fingerson88@aol.com> wrote in
> <1173220456.207529.116090@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
> Smartphones don't necessarily have good radio performance -- in fact,
> some are downright poor -- my V551 is far better than the Treo a friend
> of mine uses.
>
>
> Not In My Back Yard.
This group is now turning into the San Francisco/Oakland "whose penis
coverage is bigger" contest.
Geez, guys.
BTW- my Treo 650 takes me all over the US (and Europe) just fine.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> My own favorite is a fake pine tree cell tower in Danville, which I
> personally think looks worse than a plain cellular tower.
>
Found in the Fort Worth Star Telegram today.
[snipped]
Bell tower, cell tower
St. Vincent's Episcopal Church in Bedford...The bells were purchased by the
parish, but 93-foot tower was built by Verizon, which wanted a cell tower
in the area.
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> This group is now turning into the San Francisco/Oakland "whose penis
> coverage is bigger" contest.
Well..DUH....San Francisco...Castro District...do the math.
[snicker mode off]
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:32:01 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <l7sHh.10085$tD2.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Found in the Fort Worth Star Telegram today.
>
>[snipped]
>
>Bell tower, cell tower
>
>St. Vincent's Episcopal Church in Bedford...The bells were purchased by the
>parish, but 93-foot tower was built by Verizon, which wanted a cell tower
>in the area.
Cellular has been a windfall to many churches, and to some schools as
well.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:32:01 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
> wrote in <l7sHh.10085$tD2.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> Cellular has been a windfall to many churches, and to some schools as
> well.
>
Depends on what you call a windfall. A bum would say a buck is a
windfall. Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy
bought some land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner
had it removed. Of course after they went to court. Judge ruled that the
new owner had the right to have it removed. I bet AT&T was pissed after
they had to remove it. The old owner of the land said he was getting
approx 300.00 a month. Not that much when you have to look at it
everyday in your backyard.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 07:06:27 GMT, Kevin Weaver
< kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in
<TvtHh.1646$uo3.178@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>Depends on what you call a windfall. A bum would say a buck is a
>windfall.
The churches I've talked to around here have been grateful for the
revenue, which is far more than a buck.
>Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy
>bought some land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner
>had it removed. Of course after they went to court. Judge ruled that the
>new owner had the right to have it removed. I bet AT&T was pissed after
>they had to remove it. The old owner of the land said he was getting
>approx 300.00 a month. Not that much when you have to look at it
>everyday in your backyard.
The typical lease is much more than that, but even $300 would be fine
with me. But as always, YMMV.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:32:01 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
> wrote in <l7sHh.10085$tD2.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> Cellular has been a windfall to many churches, and to some schools as
> well.
I don't know where I read it, but some carrier was going to install a site
on a high school stadium light pole, but parents objected. So carrier built
them a new athletic dept. building. A win-win deal if I ever heard one.
I want to say a small hick Kansas or Nebraska town, I just don't remember.
| |
|
| Kevin Weaver wrote:
> Speaking of which. Newspaper had a write up on how a guy
> bought some land where the prior owner had a cell site. The new owner
> had it removed. Of course after they went to court. Judge ruled that the
> new owner had the right to have it removed. I bet AT&T was pissed after
> they had to remove it.
That's unusual that AT&T didn't have a clause in the contract to perpetuate
the lease if the property changed ownership. Obviously they didn't and the
judge ruled in the property's new owner.
About thirty years ago, another tower contractor and myself testified in a
civil court case about a tower. Attorneys never lie, but they can sure
reveal different perceptions of the truth. It was so funny, we were told to
sit outside the courtroom as we were giggling so much.
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-03-07, 10:33 pm |
| DTC wrote:
> Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
> That's unusual that AT&T didn't have a clause in the contract to
> perpetuate the lease if the property changed ownership. Obviously they
> didn't and the judge ruled in the property's new owner.
>
> About thirty years ago, another tower contractor and myself testified in
> a civil court case about a tower. Attorneys never lie, but they can sure
> reveal different perceptions of the truth. It was so funny, we were told
> to sit outside the courtroom as we were giggling so much.
Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner.
Unless he wanted the money. He buys the land. Says no to the tower. I
would say they would have to remove it and it anything legal would go
back to the person that agreed to the orig contract. I'm no lawyer. I
can't see how they could enforce it on the new owner.
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-08, 7:33 am |
| On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:09:12 GMT, Kevin Weaver
< kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in
<s7LHh.6799$jx3.6778@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>:
>DTC wrote:
>
>Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner.
>Unless he wanted the money. He buys the land. Says no to the tower. I
>would say they would have to remove it and it anything legal would go
>back to the person that agreed to the orig contract. I'm no lawyer. I
>can't see how they could enforce it on the new owner.
If it was an easement on the property, then the new owner would be
bound.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Kevin Weaver wrote:
> Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner.
Deed restrictions can be made binding on the new owner. It happens all
the time.
| |
|
| Kevin Weaver wrote:
> Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner.
> Unless he wanted the money. He buys the land. Says no to the tower. I
> would say they would have to remove it and it anything legal would go
> back to the person that agreed to the orig contract. I'm no lawyer. I
> can't see how they could enforce it on the new owner.
Typically its up to the seller to specify in his sales contract,
"The seller warrants the Attached Goods and included Unattached Goods are
in normal working order and are free and clear of all encumbrances."
where an encumbrance would be an existing land use contract.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-09, 4:33 am |
| At 08 Mar 2007 03:09:12 +0000 Kevin Weaver wrote:
> Even If they did, I don't think it would be binding on the new owner.
Of course it would. If AT&T had a long-term lease with the old owner it
would be binding on the new one as well. It would be just another factor
the new owner would've had to consider before buying.
| |
|
|
|
|
| Ben Skversky 2007-03-12, 10:33 pm |
| Try T-Mobile for really great service.
"ldbk" <fingerson88@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173196203.736554.100940@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>I don't understand how Cingular can say they have the fewest calls
> dropped when my calls are constantly dropped. I live in Danville and
> my husband commutes to and from Oakland. I'm not kidding when I say
> our calls are dropped three-four times if we're on the phone during
> his commute. It happens just before the Caldecott on the Oakland
> side, in the Caldecott, just after the Caldecott on the Orinda side,
> at the Hwy 24 turn onto Hwy 680, and a half-mile after the turn before
> Rudgear. This seems really odd to me considering we're not out in the
> sticks somewhere. What's going on with this company? Do they ever
> plan on fixing this problem? Or should I go back to Sprint?
>
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-03-13, 4:33 am |
| You should go back to Sprint if they have worked for you in the past without
problems. It is that simple.
"Ben Skversky" <bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gNSdnZyCctuUc2j
YnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Try T-Mobile for really great service.
>
> "ldbk" <fingerson88@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1173196203.736554.100940@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-15, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:00:53 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
< d67ru2h2tsmk2jo1jh99
5imp3q8588dlae@4ax.com>:
>On 6 Mar 2007 07:50:05 -0800, "ldbk" <fingerson88@aol.com> wrote in
><1173196203.736554.100940@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>Try a better phone. While the signal isn't the best from Orinda to the
>Caldecott tunnel, my Motorola V551 is still almost always able to carry
>a call all the way from Walnut Creek to Oakland. The usual problem is a
>"bargain" phone from the carrier.
Ran a careful test today with my new Motorola RAZR V3xx handset (which
I highly recommend), westbound from Lafayette through the rightmost
(northernmost) bore of the Caldecott tunnel to central Berkeley.
I carried one call all the way. I had 5 bars of signal most of the way,
never less than 3 bars, with crystal clear sound, except for a very
short stretch a bit west of the tunnel where signal dropped to 2 bars
and I got just a bit of audio interference. What most impressed me was
how good and improved the signal is around Orinda.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-03-15, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:qd7jv2d8fs6o5qs
gu9ss53alt48diplopk@
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:00:53 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> < d67ru2h2tsmk2jo1jh99
5imp3q8588dlae@4ax.com>:
>
>
> Ran a careful test today with my new Motorola RAZR V3xx handset (which
> I highly recommend), westbound from Lafayette through the rightmost
> (northernmost) bore of the Caldecott tunnel to central Berkeley.
> I carried one call all the way. I had 5 bars of signal most of the way,
> never less than 3 bars, with crystal clear sound, except for a very
> short stretch a bit west of the tunnel where signal dropped to 2 bars
> and I got just a bit of audio interference. What most impressed me was
> how good and improved the signal is around Orinda.
>
We need more than anecdotal claims, Mr. Novice.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
>
> We need more than anecdotal claims, Mr. Novice.
Well at least it's tacit acknowledgment that the signal was bad before!
The east bay, including Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga, as well as the
tri-valley area has been especially problematic for Cingular coverage
until recently. I noticed that Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita road, is
much improved recently as well, but I haven't been out on 24 in a while
to check. It'll be interesting to see what the surveys show next year
and in 2009. Cingular may finally be getting their act together and
within two years may have coverage as good as Verizon's.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
| John Navas 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:09:51 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45f9ee62$0$27183$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>Well at least it's tacit acknowledgment that the signal was bad before!
On the contrary -- it's just not 5 bars all the way. My V551 has been
able to hold a call along that route for quite a long time.
>The east bay, including Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga, as well as the
>tri-valley area has been especially problematic for Cingular coverage
>until recently.
Only if you have a crap phone.
>I noticed that Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita road, is
>much improved recently as well, but I haven't been out on 24 in a while
>to check. It'll be interesting to see what the surveys show next year
>and in 2009. Cingular may finally be getting their act together and
>within two years may have coverage as good as Verizon's.
Actually better than Verizon in the East Bay for years.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:k8emv2tf0umqeja
uojckgefr2hisokanr9@
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:09:51 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45f9ee62$0$27183$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> On the contrary -- it's just not 5 bars all the way. My V551 has been
> able to hold a call along that route for quite a long time.
>
>
> Only if you have a crap phone.
>
Cingular uses crap phones? Can I quote you on that? It makes it so much
easier to fight your own outlandish claims with your own words.
| |
|
| I guess that depends on the brand as well. I recently upgraded from a
Moto V551 to a Nokia E62. The Nokia has better reception.
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:13:09 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>Smartphones don't necessarily have good radio performance -- in fact,
>some are downright poor -- my V551 is far better than the Treo a friend
>of mine uses.
|
|
|
|
|