|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > May 2007 > Ooops, Cingular did it again!
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 |
Ooops, Cingular did it again!
|
|
| no_body@home.com 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| UPGRADE NOW! The letter says.
Your new SIM CARD is Enclosed!!
No thanks Cingular. I'll jack myself off...you don't have to do it:-).
My friend and I were in a major Southern California city. He had upgraded
to the new 64K SIMS. I am using the old style 32K SIMS. We were standing
next to each other. I had 5 bars. He had 2 bars. We changed locations.
Same results. Both phones are unlocked. We switched SIMS. Same result.
The phone with the 32K SIMS had 5 bars. The phone with the 64K SIMS had 2
bars. We both have the same model phone: a Moto 557.
No thanks Cingular...
The only way to take my 32K SIMS from me: FROM MY COLD, BLUE DEAD finger.
Enuf said.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:28 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote in
< mndo139t3kidrk2ragc6
g2p2adbk66k39d@4ax.com>:
>UPGRADE NOW! The letter says.
>Your new SIM CARD is Enclosed!!
>
>No thanks Cingular. I'll jack myself off...you don't have to do it:-).
>
>My friend and I were in a major Southern California city. He had upgraded
>to the new 64K SIMS. I am using the old style 32K SIMS. We were standing
>next to each other. I had 5 bars. He had 2 bars. We changed locations.
>Same results. Both phones are unlocked. We switched SIMS. Same result.
>The phone with the 32K SIMS had 5 bars. The phone with the 64K SIMS had 2
>bars. We both have the same model phone: a Moto 557.
>
>No thanks Cingular...
>
>The only way to take my 32K SIMS from me: FROM MY COLD, BLUE DEAD finger.
>
>Enuf said.
The two SIMs might well have been homed on two different networks,
"blue" (old ATTWS) and "orange" (old Cingular), which could explain the
difference, and easily solved by having the home network changed.
My own experience is absolutely no difference in signal in switching
from 32K to 64K, and from 64K to 3G, as expected.
The home network difference issue will eventually go away when network
integration is complete and Cingular has migrated all of its subscribers
off the "orange" network now owned by T-Mobile.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jeffrey Kaplan 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| It is alleged that John Navas claimed:
> The home network difference issue will eventually go away when network
> integration is complete and Cingular has migrated all of its subscribers
> off the "orange" network now owned by T-Mobile.
Don't you mean off the "blue" network? Or does the move back to at&t
mean that those who started on the "orange" network now have to move,
too?
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
Tips for evil cult members: 3. Avoid needless embarrassment. Practice
the correct pronunciation of your deity's name in private before
chanting it in public. Flash cards are helpful. Be very careful to
pronounce only one syllable at a time; some deities pop up at every
mention of their name, and expect to have an acceptable sacrifice
waiting for them.
| |
|
| In article < mndo139t3kidrk2ragc6
g2p2adbk66k39d@4ax.com>,
no_body@home.com wrote:
> UPGRADE NOW! The letter says.
> Your new SIM CARD is Enclosed!!
>
> No thanks Cingular. I'll jack myself off...you don't have to do it:-).
>
> My friend and I were in a major Southern California city. He had upgraded
> to the new 64K SIMS. I am using the old style 32K SIMS. We were standing
> next to each other. I had 5 bars. He had 2 bars. We changed locations.
> Same results. Both phones are unlocked. We switched SIMS. Same result.
> The phone with the 32K SIMS had 5 bars. The phone with the 64K SIMS had 2
> bars. We both have the same model phone: a Moto 557.
>
> No thanks Cingular...
>
> The only way to take my 32K SIMS from me: FROM MY COLD, BLUE DEAD finger.
>
> Enuf said.
Lucky you. I haven't received any new SIM card notification, but maybe
because I have a Treo (which it may not apply to) and all the goodies
work fine.
First rule, if it works, don't fix it.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:37:23 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>The home network difference issue will eventually go away when network
>integration is complete and Cingular has migrated all of its subscribers
>off the "orange" network now owned by T-Mobile.
Didnt Navas years ago assure us that the integration of the ATTWS
network was complete?
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:52:08 -0400, Jeffrey Kaplan <nomail@gordol.org>
wrote in < k8jo139mbcgho032r9m9
ujeapdfp4oppgn@gordo
l.org>:
>It is alleged that John Navas claimed:
>
>
>Don't you mean off the "blue" network? Or does the move back to at&t
>mean that those who started on the "orange" network now have to move,
>too?
I meant "orange" network, on which T-Mobile and Cingular had a joint
venture, which interest Cingular sold to T-Mobile at the time of the
merger with ATTWS, keeping the "blue" (old ATTWS) network for itself,
buying back roaming from T-Mobile for a few years of transition. Long
term Cingular wants subscribers on its own (blue) network rather than
the now T-Mobile (orange) network. In many areas that's a plus, but
there are undoubtedly areas where it's a minus.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:08:51 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< 49ko13taujbsaon64lbo
us82d3ea19j3th@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:37:23 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Didnt Navas years ago assure us that the integration of the ATTWS
>network was complete?
No I didn't, but the integration is now largely complete, the remaining
issue being the migration -- read more carefully instead of leaping into
a silly childish attack.
--
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:btko135kcu9b6mr
q49d801vek6i1ra8gd4@
4ax.com:
> but the integration is now largely complete,
You said that well over a year ago.
| |
| Bob Fry 2007-04-11, 4:33 am |
| I got significantly better coverage when I upgraded.
--
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --President Bush,
discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson,
after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for
casualties.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-04-11, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:11:39 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:btko135kcu9b6mr
q49d801vek6i1ra8gd4@
4ax.com:
>
>
>You said that well over a year ago.
Google is wonderful.On January 26, 2005 Navas told us Integration
would be complete by the end of 2006, cause thats what he was told.
<http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_...ontent_id=77321>
Nothing childish about my having a good memory. What is childish is
Navas uncorrectly accusing me of being childish cause we know
he's contracticting himself.
Now for his apology.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:26:04 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< 3qrp13lmkcfu635mn7s8
uup79jcvdlogbr@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:11:39 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>Google is wonderful.On January 26, 2005 Navas told us Integration
>would be complete by the end of 2006, cause thats what he was told.
>
><http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_...ontent_id=77321>
>
>Nothing childish about my having a good memory. What is childish is
>Navas uncorrectly accusing me of being childish cause we know
>he's contracticting himself.
>
>Now for his apology.
No apology needed from me -- things happened pretty much as I forecast.
My prognostication record is way ahead of several others posting here.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-04-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:34:26 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:26:04 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< 3qrp13lmkcfu635mn7s8
uup79jcvdlogbr@4ax.com>:
>
>
>No apology needed from me -- things happened pretty much as I forecast.
>My prognostication record is way ahead of several others posting here.
You were wrong. Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
complete, as you now admit. But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
it would be.
Apology still due.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:45:43 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< j0tp13d5lvfa60lfumlo
ukqhan92hckrcn@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:34:26 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>You were wrong. Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
>complete, as you now admit. But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
>it would be.
Not true on all counts.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:28:52 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:45:43 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< j0tp13d5lvfa60lfumlo
ukqhan92hckrcn@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
>Not true on all counts.
Absolutely true as Google posts prove. You're the childish one for
omitting the links that prove you wrong.
Google is wonderful.On January 26, 2005 Navas told us Integration
would be complete by the end of 2006, cause thats what he was told.
<http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_...ontent_id=77321>
and
You were wrong. Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
complete, as you now admit. But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
it would be.
Apology still due.
Still waiting on your apology.
Google does not lie.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:38:47 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< o37q135g8q7n640fkka6
gncuaklilrgt2d@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:28:52 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Absolutely true as Google posts prove. You're the childish one for
>omitting the links that prove you wrong.
You're the one making claims and omitting links.
>Google is wonderful.On January 26, 2005 Navas told us Integration
>would be complete by the end of 2006, ...
Proof?
>You were wrong.
>
>Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
>complete, as you now admit.
I was actually correct.
>But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
>it would be.
Proof?
>Apology still due.
Nope.
>Google does not lie.
You've not presented anything from Google -- you're just making claims.
I'm done unless and until you've actually got some real evidence.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| amanda 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:okvp135tjnlrr97
1tcqllm6jto9erdqp4n@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:45:43 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < j0tp13d5lvfa60lfumlo
ukqhan92hckrcn@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
> Not true on all counts.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
Call it "Childish" if you like John.....but you are a world class HORSE'S
XXX........
I really dislike people like *you*, that are "Right" even when proven
WRONG....
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:30 GMT, "amanda" <amanda772009@yahoo.com>
wrote in <Sa9Th.9304$YL5.7634@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:
>Call it "Childish" if you like John.....but you are a world class HORSE'S
>XXX........
>I really dislike people like *you*, that are "Right" even when proven
>WRONG....
You've just described yourself. Grow up.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> Apology still due.
I guess it all depends on your definition of "largely." It's been 2.5
years since the merger. Less than a year after the merger a large
percentage of the AT&T user base, both TDMA and GSM, had migrated to
Cingular GSM, or left.
Of course at that time, Navas was blaming the poor results of the
Consumer Reports survey on the small percentage of TDMA users that were
still on Cingular or AT&T (which made no sense since the TDMA/AMPS
coverage was better than the GSM coverage). It was only after there were
almost no TDMA customers left that he changed his story about why
Cingular continued to do so poorly, inventing some bizarres stories
about the survey methodology. It must suck to have to spend every waking
moment coming up with that kind of crap!
Anyway, don't hold your breath waiting for an apology.
| |
| no_body@home.com 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:28 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote:
>UPGRADE NOW! The letter says.
>Your new SIM CARD is Enclosed!!
>
>No thanks Cingular. I'll jack myself off...you don't have to do it:-).
>
>My friend and I were in a major Southern California city. He had upgraded
>to the new 64K SIMS. I am using the old style 32K SIMS. We were standing
>next to each other. I had 5 bars. He had 2 bars. We changed locations.
>Same results. Both phones are unlocked. We switched SIMS. Same result.
>The phone with the 32K SIMS had 5 bars. The phone with the 64K SIMS had 2
>bars. We both have the same model phone: a Moto 557.
>
>No thanks Cingular...
>
>The only way to take my 32K SIMS from me: FROM MY COLD, BLUE DEAD finger.
>
>Enuf said.
Oh boy.
I am the one who started this thread. Interesting how it matured??? if that
is the correct word... into the current discussion.
Seems like "Oooops, Navas stepped in it again"
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:34:57 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote in
< 80eq139ue403sna2rqn7
j9un9ej6kve21h@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:28 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote:
>Seems like "Oooops, Navas stepped in it again"
More like "Oooops, stirred up the childish trolls again"
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| amanda 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:3mfq13d01h4jjjb
q1tgppdd4loassil37l@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:34:57 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote in
> < 80eq139ue403sna2rqn7
j9un9ej6kve21h@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
> More like "Oooops, stirred up the childish trolls again"
Actually John, your credibility was shit before, you just make is easy for
first time readers to see what an XXX you really are.
Remove ALL doubt......make sure they know what a paid off Jerk you are for
Cingular...
| |
| Todd H. 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net writes:
> Apology still due.
>
> Still waiting on your apology.
>
> Google does not lie.
Dear god, grow up.
So he made a forward looking statement that wasn't 100% correct. Big
fuggin deal. A "my bad, close but no cigar" maybe, but an apology?
What did his being wrong hurwt your widdle feewings or something?
John, I'm not sure why you're such a lightning rod of the unhelpful.
Your signal to noise ratio is pretty high so far as I can tell.
Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy. net!wn13feed!worldne
t.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!c0e53274!not-for-mail
>From: John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
>Subject: Re: Ooops, Cingular did it again!
>Followup-To: alt.cellular.cingular
>Organization: The Navas Group <http://navasgroup.com>
>Message-ID: < mi7q139v21bf5v3maras
k7kavgfjh5s9h0@4ax.com>
>References: < mndo139t3kidrk2ragc6
g2p2adbk66k39d@4ax.com> < hneo13da949lddf4l5cd
00s05n6vaikukl@4ax.com> < 49ko13taujbsaon64lbo
us82d3ea19j3th@4ax.com> < btko135kcu9b6mrq49d8
01vek6i1ra8gd4@4ax.com> < v8adnca8JdtmwoHbnZ2d
nUVZ_sninZ2d@adelphi
a.com> <3qrp13lmkcfu6
35mn7s8uup79jcvdlogb
r@4ax.com> < tasp13d48db8ma21b95p
3qjmdl2q51jh3q@4ax.com> < j0tp13d5lvfa60lfumlo
ukqhan92hckrcn@4ax.com> < okvp135tjnlrr971tcql
lm6jto9erdqp4n@4ax.com> < o37q135g8q7n640fkka6
gncuaklilrgt2d@4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 56
>NNTP-Posting-Host: d09f59b66c187fddefdc
3966cd8d85cb
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
>X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1176313651 d09f59b66c187fddefdc
3966cd8d85cb (Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:47:31 GMT
>Xref: prodigy.net alt.cellular.cingular:77216
>X-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:47:32 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:38:47 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< o37q135g8q7n640fkka6
gncuaklilrgt2d@4ax.com>:
>
>
>You're the one making claims and omitting links.
>
>
>Proof?
>
>
>I was actually correct.
>
>
>Proof?
>
>
>Nope.
>
>
>You've not presented anything from Google -- you're just making claims.
I most certainly have, and proved you wrong.
Will you aqpolgize with the exact google listings for your postings to
alt.cellular.cingular on the dates listed, which prove you predicted
no problems and a full integration of ATTWS networks by end 2006 ???
Of course not the man-child is never wrong. WAAAAAH.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| On 11 Apr 2007 15:27:55 -0500, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
<84bqhu4px0.fsf@ripco.com>:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net writes:
>
>
>Dear god, grow up.
>
>So he made a forward looking statement that wasn't 100% correct. Big
>fuggin deal. A "my bad, close but no cigar" maybe, but an apology?
>What did his being wrong hurwt your widdle feewings or something?
>
>John, I'm not sure why you're such a lightning rod of the unhelpful.
>Your signal to noise ratio is pretty high so far as I can tell.
Thanks.
The basic problem is a few people who troll here for the purpose of
bashing GSM in general and AT&T/Cingular in particular. My correcting
of the record infuriates them, so they go after me as one of the
"enemy". Jealousy also seems to play a part.
Sadly that flaming interferes with legitimate use of this newsgroup, but
because of the way Usenet works, is something we just have to put up
with.
Like sunspot activity the flaming tends to wax and wane. At the moment
it's relatively near a maximum. It will hopefully die down again soon,
and we can then spend more time on more productive activities.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:12:56 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 461d3339$0$27196$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>I guess it all depends on your definition of "largely." It's been 2.5
>years since the merger. Less than a year after the merger a large
>percentage of the AT&T user base, both TDMA and GSM, had migrated to
>Cingular GSM, or left.
>
>Of course at that time, Navas was blaming the poor results of the
>Consumer Reports survey on the small percentage of TDMA users that were
>still on Cingular or AT&T (which made no sense since the TDMA/AMPS
>coverage was better than the GSM coverage). It was only after there were
> almost no TDMA customers left that he changed his story about why
>Cingular continued to do so poorly, inventing some bizarres stories
>about the survey methodology.
As usual, you just make wild charges with nothing to back them up.
In fact I did nothing of the sort -- my position has been consistent all
along.
>It must suck to have to spend every waking
>moment coming up with that kind of crap!
It must suck to have so much free time and anger that you have to spend
it here on flaming.
>Anyway, don't hold your breath waiting for an apology.
We do agree on something. "Wonders will never cease." :)
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| dOn Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:15:49 GMT, "amanda" <amanda772009@yahoo.com>
wrote in <VlbTh.14167$JZ3.13188@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:3mfq13d01h4jjjb
q1tgppdd4loassil37l@
4ax.com...
>
>Actually John, your credibility was shit before, you just make is easy for
>first time readers to see what an XXX you really are.
>Remove ALL doubt......make sure they know what a paid off Jerk you are for
>Cingular...
Now I understand why the rest of your family can't deal with you.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:tasp13d48db8ma2
1b95p3qjmdl2q51jh3q@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:26:04 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < 3qrp13lmkcfu635mn7s8
uup79jcvdlogbr@4ax.com>:
>
>
> No apology needed from me -- things happened pretty much as I forecast.
> My prognostication record is way ahead of several others posting here.
>
IN your dreams maybe. You getting lucky every once in a while is not
something to hang your hat on, Novice.
| |
| Scott 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:okvp135tjnlrr97
1tcqllm6jto9erdqp4n@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:45:43 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < j0tp13d5lvfa60lfumlo
ukqhan92hckrcn@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
> Not true on all counts.
>
Google is your friend and never lies.
| |
| no_body@home.com 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:03:01 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:34:57 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote in
>< 80eq139ue403sna2rqn7
j9un9ej6kve21h@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
>More like "Oooops, stirred up the childish trolls again"
childish trools: Did nothing of the sort. My original post was to
demonstrate why it would not pay me to change from the 32K SIM to the 64K
SIM. My post was not intended to trool.
YOU on the other hand jumped in with both hands & feet finally ending up
sticking your foot in your mouth. IMHO you got EXACTLY what you deserve.
Like one of the responders said:: your credibility is shit.
You sound like a Cingular lap dog.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:00:10 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote in
< 88tq1351dilg2kl868ea
t4et04ijvlcoaa@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:03:01 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>childish trools: Did nothing of the sort. My original post was to
>demonstrate why it would not pay me to change from the 32K SIM to the 64K
>SIM. My post was not intended to trool.
It was nonetheless wrong.
>YOU on the other hand jumped in with both hands & feet finally ending up
>sticking your foot in your mouth. IMHO you got EXACTLY what you deserve.
>Like one of the responders said:: your credibility is shit.
My credibility isn't affected by nasty misstatements like that, which
only serve to diminish your own credibility.
>You sound like a Cingular lap dog.
You sound like a 12 year old.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-04-12, 10:33 am |
| In article < r7vq13h4mkvcp3q4ksbk
5qg1ie45caks5j@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> It was nonetheless wrong.
Rubbish.
>
> My credibility isn't affected by nasty misstatements like that
Nonsense.
| |
| Scott 2007-04-12, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:r7vq13h4mkvcp3q
4ksbk5qg1ie45caks5j@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:00:10 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote in
> < 88tq1351dilg2kl868ea
t4et04ijvlcoaa@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
> My credibility isn't affected by nasty misstatements like that, which
> only serve to diminish your own credibility.
Nothing can be affected that you do not possess, Skippy.
>
>
> You sound like a 12 year old.
>
Which would put him a year ahead of you in school.
| |
|
| In article < r7vq13h4mkvcp3q4ksbk
5qg1ie45caks5j@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:00:10 -0700, no_body@home.com wrote in
> < 88tq1351dilg2kl868ea
t4et04ijvlcoaa@4ax.com>:
>
>
> It was nonetheless wrong.
>
>
> My credibility isn't affected by nasty misstatements like that, which
> only serve to diminish your own credibility.
>
>
> You sound like a 12 year old.
LOL - get a room you guys...
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-04-13, 7:33 am |
| In article <labolide-C12809.19541512042007@news.giganews.com>,
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article < r7vq13h4mkvcp3q4ksbk
5qg1ie45caks5j@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> LOL - get a room you guys...
Navas would love to get a room with a 12 year old boy, no doubt...
| |
| Ryan Sinn 2007-04-13, 10:33 pm |
| Being a BLUE customer for over 4 years and having switched to being a
ORANGE customer in December 2006... After 4 months I can confidently
say two things about the cingular 64K SIM network...
1] I have lower signal in more places where I would had always had
good reception... Namely customers I've had for years... regular
driving routes and my own home and office.
2] Data speeds are overall about 1/5th of the speed using a Cingular
Orange SIM rather than my old blue SIM...
Both of these observations have been made using the same phone on the
same firmware... the only change is the SIM.
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-04-15, 3:33 pm |
| On Apr 11, 9:45 am, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:34:26 GMT, John Navas
>
>
>
>
>
> <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You were wrong. Integration was not easy as you had predicted, its not
> complete, as you now admit. But October 24, 2004 you posted how easy
> it would be.
>
> Apology still due.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your right buddy. The integration is far from complete and has been no
easy task! It will be a long time before the blue is converted to
orange and with the sunset of TDMA, will only add the the confusion.
3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-17, 10:33 am |
| On 13 Apr 2007 15:54:53 -0700, "Ryan Sinn" <ryansinn@gmail.com> wrote in
<1176504893.851332.64100@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>Being a BLUE customer for over 4 years and having switched to being a
>ORANGE customer in December 2006... After 4 months I can confidently
>say two things about the cingular 64K SIM network...
There is no "64K SIM network". There is a "blue" network and an
"orange" network. Any SIM (64K or otherwise) can be programmed to Home
on either network, but in California would normally only be programmed
to the "blue" network, since the "orange" network is now owned by
T-Mobile, and AT&T/Cingular needs to migrate its customers to the "blue"
network in order to avoid future roaming costs.
>1] I have lower signal in more places where I would had always had
>good reception... Namely customers I've had for years... regular
>driving routes and my own home and office.
>
>2] Data speeds are overall about 1/5th of the speed using a Cingular
>Orange SIM rather than my old blue SIM...
>
>Both of these observations have been made using the same phone on the
>same firmware... the only change is the SIM.
The likely change is the Home network. Your SIMs were just programmed
differently.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-04-17, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-04-13, Ryan Sinn <ryansinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being a BLUE customer for over 4 years and having switched to being a
> ORANGE customer in December 2006... After 4 months I can confidently
> say two things about the cingular 64K SIM network...
>
> 1] I have lower signal in more places where I would had always had
> good reception... Namely customers I've had for years... regular
> driving routes and my own home and office.
>
> 2] Data speeds are overall about 1/5th of the speed using a Cingular
> Orange SIM rather than my old blue SIM...
Is your phone old enough that it doesn't support ENS? All new Cingular
SIMs seem to home to 310-410 now, but ENS is supposed to fix it so that
the phone will attach to 310-380 if that signal is better. With non-ENS
phones (I have one, bought overseas) I have to force it manually to
310-380 if 310-410 is available at all.
> Both of these observations have been made using the same phone on the
> same firmware... the only change is the SIM.
If your phone is old changing the home network of the SIM can cause
this. If your phone is new enough to support ENS, however, this isn't
supposed to happen (in theory).
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-04-17, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-04-17, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 15:54:53 -0700, "Ryan Sinn" <ryansinn@gmail.com> wrote in
><1176504893.851332.64100@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> There is no "64K SIM network". There is a "blue" network and an
> "orange" network. Any SIM (64K or otherwise) can be programmed to Home
> on either network, but in California would normally only be programmed
> to the "blue" network, since the "orange" network is now owned by
> T-Mobile, and AT&T/Cingular needs to migrate its customers to the "blue"
> network in order to avoid future roaming costs.
Recent SIMs in California seem to home to 310-410 (SIM serial number starts
with 8901410) just like everywhere else in the country. I've not seen
a 64k SIM which homed to another network. You apparently need an ENS phone
for it to consider AT&T 310-380 a "home" network; my non-ENS overseas phones
turn on the roaming indicator when using a California Cingular SIM in
California.
You certainly seem to be right about Cingular wanting people to get new
SIMs to eliminate roaming costs. The T-Mobile 310-170 network refuses
service to a 310-410 SIM where I live, so switching everyone to the latter
SIM eliminates a lot of roaming. If I had a Cingular 310-170 SIM I think
I'd keep it out of spite.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-18, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:34:10 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnf2afai.87.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-04-13, Ryan Sinn <ryansinn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Is your phone old enough that it doesn't support ENS? All new Cingular
>SIMs seem to home to 310-410 now, but ENS is supposed to fix it so that
>the phone will attach to 310-380 if that signal is better. With non-ENS
>phones (I have one, bought overseas) I have to force it manually to
>310-380 if 310-410 is available at all.
>
>
>If your phone is old changing the home network of the SIM can cause
>this. If your phone is new enough to support ENS, however, this isn't
>supposed to happen (in theory).
ENS actually just makes it possible for AT&T/Cingular to manually "home"
the phone OTA (over the air) to different networks. It does _not_ make
it possible for the phone to pick the better network signal -- an ENS
phone will still prefer the home network signal even when a non-home
network signal is much better (as per standard GSM operation).
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| buttwheat@home.com 2007-04-18, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:16:48 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:34:10 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
><slrnf2afai.87.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>
>
>ENS actually just makes it possible for AT&T/Cingular to manually "home"
>the phone OTA (over the air) to different networks. It does _not_ make
>it possible for the phone to pick the better network signal -- an ENS
>phone will still prefer the home network signal even when a non-home
>network signal is much better (as per standard GSM operation).
which is EXACTLY why I ain't gonna upgrade.
XXXX Cingular and their ENS. Also XXXX anybody who promotes ENS.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-18, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:54:16 -0700, buttwheat@home.com wrote in
< s7jc23db418btodp9thm
nmltlujvmpfhgp@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:16:48 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com>
>wrote:
>
>which is EXACTLY why I ain't gonna upgrade.
>
>XXXX Cingular and their ENS. Also XXXX anybody who promotes ENS.
You're probably only putting off the inevitable, and probably not for
long -- AT&T/Cingular wants (needs) to migrate all subscribers to its
own network, and will probably cut off those that haven't migrated
sometime soon, just as with IS-136(TDMA).
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-04-22, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-04-18, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:34:10 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
>
> ENS actually just makes it possible for AT&T/Cingular to manually "home"
> the phone OTA (over the air) to different networks. It does _not_ make
> it possible for the phone to pick the better network signal -- an ENS
> phone will still prefer the home network signal even when a non-home
> network signal is much better (as per standard GSM operation).
Ah, I didn't know that, though it makes sense. I think I'll be keeping
my non-ENS phone with manual network selection (also as per standard GSM
operation), however, as I think I'm better off retaining my choice of
networks rather than letting Cingular choose for me.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-05-20, 10:33 am |
| On Apr 10, 8:37 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:28 -0700, no_b...@home.com wrote in
> < mndo139t3kidrk2ragc6
g2p2adbk66k...@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The two SIMs might well have been homed on two different networks,
> "blue" (old ATTWS) and "orange" (old Cingular), which could explain the
> difference, and easily solved by having the home network changed.
>
> My own experience is absolutely no difference in signal in switching
> from 32K to 64K, and from 64K to 3G, as expected.
>
> The home network difference issue will eventually go away when network
> integration is complete and Cingular has migrated all of its subscribers
> off the "orange" network now owned by T-Mobile.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
64K and 3G are one in the same.
Happy celling
3GFreak
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-05-20, 12:33 pm |
| On 20 May 2007 08:07:03 -0700, 3Gfreak <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 10, 8:37 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>64K and 3G are one in the same.
>
>Happy celling
>3GFreak
As near as I can tell the only difference between a 64K Sim and a 3G
Sim is that the 3G sim says 3G on it.
I put my existing 64K sim in an 8525, and 3G worked just fine thank
you.
| |
| John Navas 2007-05-24, 3:33 pm |
| On 20 May 2007 08:07:03 -0700, 3Gfreak <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote in
<1179673623.062284.284550@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 10, 8:37 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>64K and 3G are one in the same.
They are actually different, easily identified by different markings on
the SIM.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|