|
|
|
| Is anyone else getting dropped calls with cingular service?
rfshieldbox | |
|
| Depends on location. Bearer not available is more common, as is an unusable
connection.
"nikkir" <nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com> wrote in message
news:nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com...
>
> Is anyone else getting dropped calls with cingular service?
> http://www.rfshieldbox.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> nikkir
| |
| Evan Platt 2007-04-05, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:36:40 +0100, nikkir
<nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com> wrote:
>
>Is anyone else getting dropped calls with cingular service?
>http://www.SPAMshieldbox.com
I smell spam.
| |
|
|
"nikkir" <nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com> wrote in message
news:nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com...
>
> Is anyone else getting dropped calls with cingular service?
> http://www.rfshieldbox.com
>
a bunch lately
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-07, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:08:24 -0500, "Sarge" <sarge@36db.com> wrote in
<ev7u31$ana$1@news.datemas.de>:
>"nikkir" <nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com> wrote in message
>news:nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com...
>
>a bunch lately
Try a better phone.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:36:40 +0100, nikkir
<nikkir.5754cd@cellbanter.com> wrote:
>
>Is anyone else getting dropped calls with cingular service?
>http://www.rfshieldbox.com
Never. Must be you!
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:jegf135fhlthrhu
7bu56pa7gmda3hpj0kk@
4ax.com:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:08:24 -0500, "Sarge" <sarge@36db.com> wrote in
> <ev7u31$ana$1@news.datemas.de>:
>
>
> Try a better phone.
>
I love it when Navas admites that Cingular sells sub-standard phones to
their customers.
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-04-08, 7:33 am |
|
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:VuSdnaBMQO- 7eIrbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2
d@adelphia.com...
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:jegf135fhlthrhu
7bu56pa7gmda3hpj0kk@
4ax.com:
>
>
> I love it when Navas admites that Cingular sells sub-standard phones to
> their customers.
Come on Scott. You never heard of an unlocked phone?
Don
| |
| Scott 2007-04-08, 10:33 am |
| "Don Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in news:evaj1e01qr1
@enews4.newsguy.com:
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:VuSdnaBMQO- 7eIrbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2
d@adelphia.com...
>
> Come on Scott. You never heard of an unlocked phone?
>
> Don
>
>
>
Sure I have. The key here is that this is far from the first time that he
has immediately blamed the phone for coverage issues, and in well over 90%
of those cases the phone in question was purchased directly from Cingular.
I would be willing to bet that this is the case here as well.
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-04-08, 12:33 pm |
|
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:vfmdnQVTMqG7ZoX
bnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> "Don Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in news:evaj1e01qr1
> @enews4.newsguy.com:
>
>
> Sure I have. The key here is that this is far from the first time that he
> has immediately blamed the phone for coverage issues, and in well over 90%
> of those cases the phone in question was purchased directly from Cingular.
> I would be willing to bet that this is the case here as well.
Except this was not a coverage issue. Without coverage there is not a call
to drop. The issue is/was dropped calls.
Not all phones sold by Cingular are equal in their RF ability. I don't
recall the OP mentioning the phone they used, or even the condition of the
phone. The Moto MPX I tried (from Cingular) had terrible RF. I personally,
in my area, find Nokias better that Motorola. My 8125 has been quite good.
So getting a better phone *might* indeed be a valid suggestion. Myself,
I'd be curious about reported signal strength when the drop out occurs.
I'm not trying to shill for Mr. Navas; just trying to keep things honest.
Don
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> Come on Scott. You never heard of an unlocked phone?
>
> Don
Very few customers buy unlocked phones, unless they are buying them
solely for use with prepaid SIM cards outside of the U.S.. The subsidies
from the carrier on phones are rarely passed up.
While there are small differences in the RF quality of various phones,
every time anyone comments on the relative quality and coverage of
various carriers, Navas claims that the person must have gotten a bad
phone, because in his single user tests, he has no coverage issues.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-08, 12:33 pm |
| dOn Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:00:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46191fa2$0$27242$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>
>Very few customers buy unlocked phones, unless they are buying them
>solely for use with prepaid SIM cards outside of the U.S.. The subsidies
>from the carrier on phones are rarely passed up.
>
>While there are small differences in the RF quality of various phones,
The differences can actually be quite significant, particularly between
the best phones and cheap bargain phones -- I've seen many cases where
the former could make good quality calls while the latter would be
nearly or completely unusable. This is true both for GSM/UMTS and for
CDMA2000.
>every time anyone comments on the relative quality and coverage of
>various carriers, Navas claims that the person must have gotten a bad
>phone, because in his single user tests, he has no coverage issues.
Your usual ad hominem, nothing of substance, and untrue on all counts.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|