|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > May 2007 > Report on Cancun and ATT/Cingular
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 |
Report on Cancun and ATT/Cingular
|
|
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2007-05-22, 10:33 pm |
| I had posted here several weeks ago about coverage in Cancun, Mexico,
where we were taking a trip. I have just returned from a lovely trip
there and can report good feedback.
The bottom line is that I didn't have to use my GPRS/EDGE card at all,
since the hotel where we stayed (The JW Marriott) had an excellent
wireless network ($20.00 per 24 hours) which varied in connectivity
between 36 and 54 Mbps, and was up about 95% of the time. It was even
OK for Skype telephone calls (to the States), even though someone had
posted earlier that there were bandwidth problems for Skype.
In our short stay in the Dallas, Texas, area before going to Mexico,
the Cingular/ATT 3G service worked like clockwork (I have a flat-rate
plan).
Of course, Cancun is a heavily supported tourist area (The Mexican
Government has it right and they make things very comfortable albeit
at a fairly high price), and the services at the Marriott were also
top-drawer.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-05-23, 7:33 am |
| On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:38 -0700, "Robert A. Fink, M. D."
<lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:
>I had posted here several weeks ago about coverage in Cancun, Mexico,
>where we were taking a trip. I have just returned from a lovely trip
>there and can report good feedback.
>
>The bottom line is that I didn't have to use my GPRS/EDGE card at all,
>since the hotel where we stayed (The JW Marriott) had an excellent
>wireless network ($20.00 per 24 hours) which varied in connectivity
>between 36 and 54 Mbps, and was up about 95% of the time. It was even
>OK for Skype telephone calls (to the States), even though someone had
>posted earlier that there were bandwidth problems for Skype.
>
Many many hotel chains now offer Internet connectivity at no charge.
http://www.wififreespot.com/hotels.html
In Cancun some other hotels have free WiFi in the lobby.
>In our short stay in the Dallas, Texas, area before going to Mexico,
>the Cingular/ATT 3G service worked like clockwork (I have a flat-rate
>plan).
How much did you travel around Dallas? Even Cingular, when pressed,
will admit that their 3G coverage is not yet universal in any given
area (i.e. Dallas).
>
>Of course, Cancun is a heavily supported tourist area (The Mexican
>Government has it right and they make things very comfortable albeit
>at a fairly high price), and the services at the Marriott were also
>top-drawer.
>
>
>Best,
>
>Bob
>
>Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
>Neurological Surgery
>2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
>Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
>510-849-2555
>
>"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> Many many hotel chains now offer Internet connectivity at no charge.
I stayed at a La Quinta in Sacaramento, and they had a big banner on the
outside reading, "La Quinta is Spanish for Free Wireless." Inside the
room, they had a sign, "La Quinta is Spanish for Conserving Water."
Ironically, the fancier and expensive the hotel, the more likely they
are to charge a hefty fee for Internet access. For the non-resort, non
five-star hotels, it's pretty rare to find one that charges for Internet
access, wired or wireless, anymore.
| |
|
| In article < 46545401$0$27243$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
> I stayed at a La Quinta in Sacaramento, and they had a big banner on the
> outside reading, "La Quinta is Spanish for Free Wireless." Inside the
> room, they had a sign, "La Quinta is Spanish for Conserving Water."
>
> Ironically, the fancier and expensive the hotel, the more likely they
> are to charge a hefty fee for Internet access. For the non-resort, non
> five-star hotels, it's pretty rare to find one that charges for Internet
> access, wired or wireless, anymore.
Las Vegas is famous for that now, where every little thing is an extra
charge.
My favorite are ones the expensive rooms with flat screen TVs that get
the same crappy reception and basic cable lineup as the cheapest places.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Tinman 2007-05-23, 10:33 am |
| "Kurt" wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> Las Vegas is famous for that now, where every little thing is an extra
> charge.
> My favorite are ones the expensive rooms with flat screen TVs that get
> the same crappy reception and basic cable lineup as the cheapest places.
The hotels/casinos in Vegas really don't want you in your room watching TV
or surfing the 'Net.
But aside from Vegas, where even off-strip casinos/hotels get away with
charging for 'Net access (if they offer it at all) I would agree that the
pricier the hotel the less likely one will find free access. Gotta make up
for the loss of $1-per-minute local phone call revenue somehow!
Last summer I was on a bike trip through some very rural parts of New
Mexico. Even rinky-dink no-name motels in small "towns" (barely) which had
no broadband access via cable or DSL had free broadband signs out front (via
satellite, which I'd still take over dialup, especially with phone systems
so old that touch-tone dialing is a new concept).
--
Mike
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-05-23, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:47:35 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>I stayed at a La Quinta in Sacaramento, and they had a big banner on the
>outside reading, "La Quinta is Spanish for Free Wireless." Inside the
>room, they had a sign, "La Quinta is Spanish for Conserving Water."
>
>Ironically, the fancier and expensive the hotel, the more likely they
>are to charge a hefty fee for Internet access. For the non-resort, non
>five-star hotels, it's pretty rare to find one that charges for Internet
>access, wired or wireless, anymore.
Also commonly like that for local phone calls, or on site parking.
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2007-05-23, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:47:35 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Ironically, the fancier and expensive the hotel, the more likely they
>are to charge a hefty fee for Internet access. For the non-resort, non
>five-star hotels, it's pretty rare to find one that charges for Internet
>access, wired or wireless, anymore.
I have found this to be true in many cases, but one caveat is the fact
that I have also found that those Wi-Fi systems (the free ones) are
often blocked for sending outgoing SMTP mail on the "standard" port
(25). I have had to resort to using Port 587 on several of those
occasions.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2007-05-23, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:31:11 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>How much did you travel around Dallas? Even Cingular, when pressed,
>will admit that their 3G coverage is not yet universal in any given
>area (i.e. Dallas).
We were pretty much around Plano and the DFW Airport, and had no
trouble connecting.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-05-23, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:13:12 -0700, "Robert A. Fink, M. D."
<lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:31:11 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>
>We were pretty much around Plano and the DFW Airport, and had no
>trouble connecting.
Connecting is not the problem, You'd be connected but the 3G would
transparently go back and forth to Edge, similar to a voice call
transparently remaining connected as you went from cell to cell.
If you didn't check regularly on the transport mechanism, you might
NOT
have continuously had 3G.
>Best,
>
>Bob
>
>Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
>Neurological Surgery
>2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
>Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
>510-849-2555
>
>"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-05-24, 7:33 am |
| On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:47:35 -0400, SMS wrote
(in article < 46545401$0$27243$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> ):
> Subject: Re: Report on Cancun and ATT/Cingular
> From: SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> Date: Yesterday 10:47 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.attws, alt.cellular.cingular
>
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
> I stayed at a La Quinta in Sacaramento, and they had a big banner on the
> outside reading, "La Quinta is Spanish for Free Wireless." Inside the
> room, they had a sign, "La Quinta is Spanish for Conserving Water."
>
> Ironically, the fancier and expensive the hotel, the more likely they
> are to charge a hefty fee for Internet access. For the non-resort, non
> five-star hotels, it's pretty rare to find one that charges for Internet
> access, wired or wireless, anymore.
I was going to post the exact same thing.
The $40 - $100 hotels are far more likely to offer free wireless than the
$250 - $400 hotels. I think it's because the higher priced hotels are more
likely to be business travelers on an expense report. (So the hotel likes to
milk it.)
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-05-24, 7:33 am |
| On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:13:12 -0400, Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote
(in article < v37953hlb07t3i7hke6r
ak3oigermhrb58@4ax.com> ):
>
>
> We were pretty much around Plano and the DFW Airport, and had no
> trouble connecting.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
> Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
> Neurological Surgery
> 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
> Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
> 510-849-2555
>
> "Ex Tristitia Virtus"
I've spent many a week in Dallas and had no trouble with 3G connectivity.
However, I was also mostly in Plano and DFW.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-05-24, 12:33 pm |
| At 23 May 2007 16:51:55 -0500 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> Connecting is not the problem, You'd be connected but the 3G would
> transparently go back and forth to Edge, similar to a voice call
> transparently remaining connected as you went from cell to cell.
>
> If you didn't check regularly on the transport mechanism, you might
> NOT
> have continuously had 3G.
But frankly, if he didn't notice, it wasn't a problem, was it? ;-)
It sounds as if he was relatively stationary when using data, so I doubt
his 3G would cut in and out as you described. That phenomena would be
more likely when mobile.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-05-24, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-05-24, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:47:35 -0400, SMS wrote:
>
> I was going to post the exact same thing.
>
> The $40 - $100 hotels are far more likely to offer free wireless than the
> $250 - $400 hotels. I think it's because the higher priced hotels are more
> likely to be business travelers on an expense report. (So the hotel likes to
> milk it.)
That's true in the US, but not so true in Mexico where the OP went. There
the more expensive hotels tend to provide the service for extra charge,
but the cheaper hotels tend not to provide it at all. I don't recall
seeing free WiFi anywhere. I don't blame them for this since the phone
company there charges usurious prices.
I also travel to London, UK fairly regularly and I don't recall seeing free
WiFi there either (except maybe on the street outside of someone's house).
Worse, the hotels they've booked me into seem to think it is reasonable
to charge $40 or $50 per day for Internet service. One of the reasons
I bought a European 3G phone is that the $2 per day you are charged
for HSDPA access with a prepaid T-Mobile SIM looks like such a bargain
compared to the alternatives I've noticed.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-05-24, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:30:22 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>That's true in the US, but not so true in Mexico where the OP went. There
>the more expensive hotels tend to provide the service for extra charge,
>but the cheaper hotels tend not to provide it at all. I don't recall
>seeing free WiFi anywhere. I don't blame them for this since the phone
>company there charges usurious prices.
>
Wrong, many mid priced Hotels have free WiFi in the Lobby only. Just
Google it.
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2007-05-24, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 23 May 2007 18:03:32 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>It sounds as if he was relatively stationary when using data, so I doubt
>his 3G would cut in and out as you described. That phenomena would be
>more likely when mobile.
True. Virtually all of my connections were from a residence in Plano
or at the DFW Airport. I saw no evidence of fluctuation.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| clifto 2007-05-24, 10:33 pm |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:
> I have found this to be true in many cases, but one caveat is the fact
> that I have also found that those Wi-Fi systems (the free ones) are
> often blocked for sending outgoing SMTP mail on the "standard" port
> (25). I have had to resort to using Port 587 on several of those
> occasions.
Seems like it was several years ago that I remember the first incident of
mass spamming from a hotel connection. Bravo to the hotels that block
outgoing port 25 and require their users to send mail through their home
ISP.
--
We can't possibly imprison 300 million Americans for not paying their taxes,
so let's grant all of them amnesty NOW!
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2007-05-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:50:13 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seems like it was several years ago that I remember the first incident of
>mass spamming from a hotel connection. Bravo to the hotels that block
>outgoing port 25 and require their users to send mail through their home
>ISP.
If one is paying for the Internet connection, why should a hotel block
outgoing mail? Besides, by blocking Port 25 (and forcing the use of
an alternate port), it prevents using the "authenticating server" that
one has to use when signing into an ISP via a different bandwidth
provider. For example, if I try to send mail via ATT using my Comcast
cable service, I must use an "authenticating SMTP server" in order
that ATT will accept the mail. That is fine. Why should they block
the port in addition?
If a hotel requires that I pay for the Internet connection, and then
blocks my access for sending mail, I will not patronize them again and
have told them so.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| clifto 2007-05-26, 4:33 am |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:50:13 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> If one is paying for the Internet connection, why should a hotel block
> outgoing mail?
As has been shown, because for the price of a night's lodging a spammer
can save the hundreds of dollars it would cost him for a connection, or
the thousands it would cost him for a bulletproof connection, and blast
away at the world for hours on end, trashing inboxes all over the world
and getting the hotel on every blocking list known to man. That last,
incidentally, has exactly the same effect that simply blocking port 25
in the first place will have, except the port blocking doesn't spam the
world or ruin the hotel's reputation.
--
We can't possibly imprison 300 million Americans for not paying their taxes,
so let's grant all of them amnesty NOW!
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2007-05-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:14:33 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>As has been shown, because for the price of a night's lodging a spammer
>can save the hundreds of dollars it would cost him for a connection, or
>the thousands it would cost him for a bulletproof connection, and blast
>away at the world for hours on end, trashing inboxes all over the world
>and getting the hotel on every blocking list known to man. That last,
>incidentally, has exactly the same effect that simply blocking port 25
>in the first place will have, except the port blocking doesn't spam the
>world or ruin the hotel's reputation.
I would really like to know the incidence of spammers using hotel
rooms as a way to send out their spam. It is easy enough for these
spammers to send out their crap without involving hotels. Personally,
I think that the hotels (which block Port 25) are probably unaware of
the policies of the companies that handle their Broadband.
That is why I make it a point to tell the hotel management of my own
policies (to stop patronizing a hotel that charges for Internet access
and then limits it). If the hotel wants my business, they should
change their policy; if they don't want my business, it is easy enough
to find a hotel which will deliver what they charge for.
I have recently gotten access to connection through my cellular
provider (Cingular/AT&T) which, in many areas, is almost as fast and
as reliable as what the hotels are providing. I am thus, less
dependent on hotel-supplied Broadband, but I still refuse to pay for
only "half-access".
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
|
|
|
|
|