Verizon wireless - Verizon locks their phones?

Author

Verizon locks their phones?

Gonzo

2007-08-14, 10:33 pm

Purchased a cheap cable set for my LG Verizon phone.

I noticed that the software that came with the data cable would not work and
the phone complained that it was locked by verizon.

So there is now way around this then? Why do they do this?

Hell, all I want to do is add ringtones and transfer pic and vid files etc.

Does Verizon hate their customers or what?

CellGuy

2007-08-14, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:03:41 -0500, Gonzo wrote:

> Purchased a cheap cable set for my LG Verizon phone.
>
> I noticed that the software that came with the data cable would not work and
> the phone complained that it was locked by verizon.
>
> So there is now way around this then? Why do they do this?
>
> Hell, all I want to do is add ringtones and transfer pic and vid files etc.
>
> Does Verizon hate their customers or what?

See howardforums.com for help on this issue.

Peter Pan

2007-08-14, 10:33 pm

Gonzo wrote:
> Purchased a cheap cable set for my LG Verizon phone.
>
> I noticed that the software that came with the data cable would not
> work and the phone complained that it was locked by verizon.
>
> So there is now way around this then? Why do they do this?
>
> Hell, all I want to do is add ringtones and transfer pic and vid
> files etc.
> Does Verizon hate their customers or what?

Verizon phones aren't locked putz, it'\s a problem with the crappy el cheapo
software, it's even giving you a wrong error message!

Use the free software (Bitpim from http://www.bitpim.org/)

tavenger5

2007-08-15, 12:33 pm

Gonzo;1196121 Wrote:
> Purchased a cheap cable set for my LG Verizon phone.
>
> I noticed that the software that came with the data cable would not
> work and
> the phone complained that it was locked by verizon.
>
> So there is now way around this then? Why do they do this?
>
> Hell, all I want to do is add ringtones and transfer pic and vid files
> etc.
>
> Does Verizon hate their customers or what?

What LG phone do you have. It sounds like you just need the correct
software.

--
tavenger5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cell...eir-phones.html

MHJ

2007-08-15, 12:33 pm

Sometimes I would be inclined to agree that Verizon is not very friendly
towards its customers. Due to so many problems I have had with Verizon,
I changed my service to a new one.

'Classic Television Blog' (http://tinyurl.com/2a7r62)

--
MHJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cell...eir-phones.html

Jim Dubya

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

Sprint service is better than Verizon and they don't lock their phones.
Also, Sprint phones can be forced to roam on Verizon. Verizon is being sued
for locking their phones.

"MHJ" <MHJ.2vdb0g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:MHJ.2vdb0g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> Sometimes I would be inclined to agree that Verizon is not very friendly
> towards its customers. Due to so many problems I have had with Verizon,
> I changed my service to a new one.
>
> 'Classic Television Blog' (http://tinyurl.com/2a7r62)
>
>
> --
> MHJ
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
> View this thread:
> http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cell...eir-phones.html
>

Steve Sobol

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

On 2007-08-15, Jim Dubya <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
> Sprint service is better than Verizon and they don't lock their phones.
> Also, Sprint phones can be forced to roam on Verizon. Verizon is being sued
> for locking their phones.

Sprint doesn't cripple the firmware on their phones. They do most definitely
lock them and always have. You can't bring a compatible non-Sprint phone to
use on Sprint's network, and Sprint won't let you unlock a Sprint phone to
use somewhere else.

I like Sprint better than Verizon, myself, having used both; but your
statement is still completely incorrect.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

XS11E

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> Sprint service is better than Verizon and they don't lock their
> phones. Also, Sprint phones can be forced to roam on Verizon.
> Verizon is being sued for locking their phones.

You have some proof of these statements?

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Peter Pan

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

Gads, are you a putz or just friggeng STUPID?!??!?!? ALL sprint phones are
LOCKED, verizons aren't.... Idiot!

Jim Dubya wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Sprint service is better than Verizon and they don't lock their
> phones. Also, Sprint phones can be forced to roam on Verizon. Verizon
> is being sued for locking their phones.
>
> "MHJ" <MHJ.2vdb0g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
> news:MHJ.2vdb0g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...

Gonzo

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

"tavenger5" <tavenger5.2vdb0f@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:tavenger5.2vdb0f@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> Gonzo;1196121 Wrote:
>
> What LG phone do you have. It sounds like you just need the correct
> software.

The cheap little LG VX5300. It has no memory upgrade option.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...eId=2425

Thanks for answering.

Gonzo

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:_fSdne7dVaXM8l_
bnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Gonzo wrote:
>
> Verizon phones aren't locked putz, it'\s a problem with the crappy el
> cheapo software, it's even giving you a wrong error message!
>
> Use the free software (Bitpim from http://www.bitpim.org/)

"putz"?!?

OMG, I don't even know you and you are calling me names?
Are you for real?

And why exactly am I the target of your juvenile idea of an insult exactly?

I bet you have many friends here don't you?

BTW genius, Bitpim IS the software that gave me the "phone is locked" error.
That's why I am posting here to begin with.

But, since you did at least attempt to answer my question, I will repay you
by give you some of my own good heartfelt advice:

Turn off your computer.
Take a shower.
Put on clean clothes.
Go outside.
Walk or drive to different places of social interaction.
Make REAL friends.

Esmail

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

Gonzo wrote:
>
> "putz"?!?
>
> OMG, I don't even know you and you are calling me names?
> Are you for real?
>
> And why exactly am I the target of your juvenile idea of an insult exactly?

I thought the same. I read a number of usenet groups, but this is an odd
group, while there are some nice people here, the percentage of rude/abrasive
members who are legends in their own mind seems larger than elsewhere.

Which is too bad, because many have much knowledge and information to
contribute, but ruin it with this sort of behavior. I don't quite get it.

Peter Pan

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

Gonzo wrote:
> "tavenger5" <tavenger5.2vdb0f@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in
> message news:tavenger5.2vdb0f@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> The cheap little LG VX5300. It has no memory upgrade option.
>
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...eId=2425

>
> Thanks for answering.

As I mentioned, it is supported by bitpim, from there what is supported
page:
LG VX-5300
What works
Phonebook, wallpaper (including camera), ringers, sounds, calendar, call
history, SMS, and filesystem. BitPim can autodetect this phone if it is
connected to the PC via a straight USB cable.

Peter Pan

2007-08-15, 10:33 pm

Esmail wrote:
> Gonzo wrote:
>
> I thought the same. I read a number of usenet groups, but this is an
> odd group, while there are some nice people here, the percentage of
> rude/abrasive members who are legends in their own mind seems larger
> than elsewhere.
> Which is too bad, because many have much knowledge and information to
> contribute, but ruin it with this sort of behavior. I don't quite get
> it.

Well, unfortunately there are people that are "putz's" (and that's a NICE
and PC term for it)... they have preconcieved notions, and write their text
and problems with incorrect info based on those pre-concieved notions, and
unfortunately don't even listen to rational answers, cuz they don't fit with
their irraional thoughts...

first sentence? Purchased a cheap cable set for my LG Verizon phone < STRIKE
ONE
second sentence I noticed that the software that came with the data cable
would not work and the phone complained that it was locked by verizon. <
STRIKE TWO
third and fourth sentence So there is now way around this then? Why do they
do this? < STRIKE THREE

Ever hear of three strikes and you are out?

Then he says "Hell, all I want to do is add ringtones and transfer pic and
vid files etc." works fine with a decent cable (looking online they cost
about 11.99 http://www.cellphoneshop.net/usbdacaforlg8.html ) so I wonder
how much he saved by getting a CHEAPER one? And one that doesn't work? Duh..
get a cable that works and everything will work correctly...

Topo Gigio

2007-08-16, 4:33 am

"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> Ever hear of three strikes and you are out?

A *locked* cell phone refers to a GSM phone that is locked to a particular
carrier.
Strike four.

Steve Sobol

2007-08-16, 4:33 am

On 2007-08-16, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:
>
> "Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
>
> A *locked* cell phone refers to a GSM phone that is locked to a particular
> carrier.

Well, since we're picking nits...

A CDMA phone can be locked too.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 4:33 am

yes, I am the proof. I had Verizon for 10 years and then switched to Sprint.
I am very satisfied.

"XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:Xns998D965FF867
8xs11emailinatorcom@
69.28.173.184...
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> You have some proof of these statements?
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

clifto

2007-08-16, 4:33 am

Jim Dubya wrote:
> Sprint service is better than Verizon

In some parts of the country. A few years ago I persuaded a friend to
switch from Sprint to T-Mobile. Before that I don't think we ever had
one single call without Sprint dropping him and forcing him to call back.
We talked about five times a week. He lived by O'Hare Airport, where
they have lots of capacity, but it didn't matter where in the Chicago
area he was calling from, Sprint dropped his call.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 4:33 am

Sprint always works great for me in the Chicago area. He must have had a bad
phone or maybe he is just a putz.
One of the Chicago TV stations did independent testing last year and found
sprint to be the best in the Chicago area.

"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7l3dp4-4ab.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Jim Dubya wrote:
>
> In some parts of the country. A few years ago I persuaded a friend to
> switch from Sprint to T-Mobile. Before that I don't think we ever had
> one single call without Sprint dropping him and forcing him to call back.
> We talked about five times a week. He lived by O'Hare Airport, where
> they have lots of capacity, but it didn't matter where in the Chicago
> area he was calling from, Sprint dropped his call.
>
> --
> If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
> you should stop exhaling.

XS11E

2007-08-16, 4:33 am

"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> "XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns998D965FF867
8xs11emailinatorcom@
69.28.173.184...
[color=darkred]
> yes, I am the proof. I had Verizon for 10 years and then switched
> to Sprint. I am very satisfied.

So you have no proof at all?

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 4:33 am

No, I am the proof. You are a putz for saying that I have no proof. Also,
the TV station that did the test of the cell phone services in the Chicago
area was WLS Channel 7.

"XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:Xns998DE819B24F
Axs11emailinatorcom@
69.28.173.184...
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> So you have no proof at all?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Carl

2007-08-16, 7:33 am

"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:IrSdnXYCcvQFXV7
bnZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Esmail wrote:
> Well, unfortunately there are people that are "putz's" (and that's a NICE
> and PC term for it)... they have preconcieved notions, and write their
> text and problems with incorrect info based on those pre-concieved
> notions, and unfortunately don't even listen to rational answers, cuz they
> don't fit with their irraional thoughts...
>
> first sentence? Purchased a cheap cable set for my LG Verizon phone <
> STRIKE ONE
> second sentence I noticed that the software that came with the data cable
> would not work and the phone complained that it was locked by verizon. <
> STRIKE TWO
> third and fourth sentence So there is now way around this then? Why do
> they do this? < STRIKE THREE
>
> Ever hear of three strikes and you are out?
>
> Then he says "Hell, all I want to do is add ringtones and transfer pic and
> vid files etc." works fine with a decent cable (looking online they cost
> about 11.99 http://www.cellphoneshop.net/usbdacaforlg8.html ) so I wonder
> how much he saved by getting a CHEAPER one? And one that doesn't work?
> Duh.. get a cable that works and everything will work correctly...
>
I hate to get involved in this, particularly because I am not a fan of
name-calling for any reason and at first thought it uncalled for here, but I
had to laugh-out-loud at this because, frankly, the guy has a point! His
last paragraph says it all. Cheap is cheap and sometimes you just damn well
get what you pay for.

james g. keegan jr.

2007-08-16, 10:33 am

In article <osRwi.47514$xx1.25333@newsfe09.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> Sprint always works great for me in the Chicago area. He must have had a bad
> phone or maybe he is just a putz.
> One of the Chicago TV stations did independent testing last year and found
> sprint to be the best in the Chicago area.

i was one of sprints first customers in the 518 area code. i dropped
sprint some years ago and switched to verizon when i lived in chicago
and none of the 8 or 9 sprint phones they gave me for free would work
in my chicago apartment. presidential towers, 47th floor. i could see
the sprint sign from my window, but not make or receive a call.
verizon was significantly better in all areas of chicago, including
airports.

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

XS11E

2007-08-16, 10:33 am

"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> No, I am the proof. You are a putz for saying that I have no
> proof. Also, the TV station that did the test of the cell phone
> services in the Chicago area was WLS Channel 7.

If you have any proof please provide it. Your saying something does
not make it so.

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Gonzo

2007-08-16, 12:33 pm

"Esmail" < ebonak_delme@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
news:46c3ac49$0$1533
7$4c368faf@roadrunne
r.com...
> Gonzo wrote:
>
> I thought the same. I read a number of usenet groups, but this is an odd
> group, while there are some nice people here, the percentage of
> rude/abrasive
> members who are legends in their own mind seems larger than elsewhere.
>
> Which is too bad, because many have much knowledge and information to
> contribute, but ruin it with this sort of behavior. I don't quite get it.

LOL. Yes very strange indeed.

Make you wonder if he even has any friends left to call with his Verizon
Cell phone LOL.

Sad but true but it seems to me that Cell phones are still more of a status
symbol than a communication device. People simply must have one whether
they really need it or not.

Only reason I am finally jumping on the cell phone bandwagon is to lower my
long distance cost.

Gonzo

2007-08-16, 12:33 pm

"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:IrSdnXYCcvQFXV7
bnZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Esmail wrote:
>
> Well, unfortunately there are people that are "putz's" (and that's a NICE
> and PC term for it)... they have preconcieved notions, and write their
> text and problems with incorrect info based on those pre-concieved
> notions, and unfortunately don't even listen to rational answers, cuz they
> don't fit with their irraional thoughts...
>
> first sentence? Purchased a cheap cable set for my LG Verizon phone <
> STRIKE ONE
> second sentence I noticed that the software that came with the data cable
> would not work and the phone complained that it was locked by verizon. <
> STRIKE TWO
> third and fourth sentence So there is now way around this then? Why do
> they do this? < STRIKE THREE
>
> Ever hear of three strikes and you are out?
>
> Then he says "Hell, all I want to do is add ringtones and transfer pic and
> vid files etc." works fine with a decent cable (looking online they cost
> about 11.99 http://www.cellphoneshop.net/usbdacaforlg8.html ) so I wonder
> how much he saved by getting a CHEAPER one? And one that doesn't work?
> Duh.. get a cable that works and everything will work correctly...

This is not baseball but apparently you like to play games with people.

You appear to be stuck on stupid and I can only presume by your lack of
social skills that you are either a child or have some issues as an adult.

I refuse to play your juvinile games so in the killfile you go.

I will converse with you when you've grown up and learned how to talk to
adults. Otherwise, go back to shaking down your classmates for lunch money.

Gonzo

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

"Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote in message
news:dVPwi.4803$%55.2532@trnddc04...
>
> "Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
>
> A *locked* cell phone refers to a GSM phone that is locked to a particular
> carrier.
> Strike four.

Against Peter Pan I presume?

Anway, is this what my freeware software is trying to tell me when it warns
me my phone is locked after I try to load my pix and ringtones? Or is this
in a completely different context? The software is not very specific so I
had to at least make some presumptions since I am new to cellular phones.

Gonzo

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

"Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote in message
news:41Xwi.15$MK2.14@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:IrSdnXYCcvQFXV7
bnZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> I hate to get involved in this, particularly because I am not a fan of
> name-calling for any reason and at first thought it uncalled for here, but
> I had to laugh-out-loud at this because, frankly, the guy has a point!
> His last paragraph says it all. Cheap is cheap and sometimes you just damn
> well get what you pay for.

Well it has been reported to work fine on other model phones. I did
research it a little before I purchased it.

I really just needed a car charger but for $7 off ebay I got 1)a car
charger, 2)extra wall charger and 3)the data cable. So you can't beat that.
The data cable and extra wall charger were simply a plus for me.

So make fun of me if you want but locally the car charger alone cost $20
here. I think it's $30 if I buy one from Verizon, so who is laughing now
LOL.

I know that the Usenet is full of egomaniacs and losers with no social
skills but I was surprised to find one on my very first post here. Luckily
Mr. Pan is now killfile food.

Peter Pan

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

Gonzo wrote:

>
> This is not baseball but apparently you like to play games with
> people.
> You appear to be stuck on stupid and I can only presume by your lack
> of social skills that you are either a child or have some issues as
> an adult.
> I refuse to play your juvinile games so in the killfile you go.
>
> I will converse with you when you've grown up and learned how to talk
> to adults. Otherwise, go back to shaking down your classmates for
> lunch money.

That's pretty funny, idiot.... You cheap out to save a few cents, it doesn't
work for YOU, with the elcheapo stuff you have, but it works for many others
that paid a few cents more for something that works... So instead of even
considering that it may have been the cheap stuff you bought, you
immediately jump to conclusions, and blame verizon and LG

Peter Pan

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

Gonzo wrote:
> "Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote in message
> news:dVPwi.4803$%55.2532@trnddc04...
>
> Against Peter Pan I presume?
>
> Anway, is this what my freeware software is trying to tell me when
> it warns me my phone is locked after I try to load my pix and
> ringtones? Or is this in a completely different context? The
> software is not very specific so I had to at least make some
> presumptions since I am new to cellular phones.

Nope, in actuality SOME CDMA phone are Subsidy locked, but *NOT* Verizon
phones..... IE the verizon phone is *NOT* locked... If you are getting that
message from your software, it is either the softare or the cable....

Peter Pan

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

Gonzo wrote:
>
> Well it has been reported to work fine on other model phones. I did
> research it a little before I purchased it.
>
> I really just needed a car charger but for $7 off ebay I got 1)a car
> charger, 2)extra wall charger and 3)the data cable. So you can't
> beat that. The data cable and extra wall charger were simply a plus
> for me.
> So make fun of me if you want but locally the car charger alone cost
> $20 here. I think it's $30 if I buy one from Verizon, so who is
> laughing now LOL.
>
> I know that the Usenet is full of egomaniacs and losers with no social
> skills but I was surprised to find one on my very first post here. Luckily
> Mr. Pan is now killfile food.

As I suspected, yeah, you saved a few cents but it DOESN'T work! So have you
really saved anything, or have you wasted money on junk that doesn't work?
Lets see, it doesn't work with the cheap stuff you got, but it works fine
for others that don't cheap out..... Hmmmm since mine works fine, and yours
doesn't, think I'l laugh at YOU now! :)

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

Not true no more! Sprint has significantly improved service in the Chicago
area. They are now better than Verizon, but I don't expect anyone on this
newsgroup to admit it because it is full-of Verizon Shills that have been
brainwashed with the "It's the Network BS" of the Verizon Marketing Machine.

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-69C9CB. 10223516082007@indiv
idual.net...
> In article <osRwi.47514$xx1.25333@newsfe09.phx>,
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> i was one of sprints first customers in the 518 area code. i dropped
> sprint some years ago and switched to verizon when i lived in chicago
> and none of the 8 or 9 sprint phones they gave me for free would work
> in my chicago apartment. presidential towers, 47th floor. i could see
> the sprint sign from my window, but not make or receive a call.
> verizon was significantly better in all areas of chicago, including
> airports.
>
> --
> get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

Sure it does make it so! Didn't you mother ever tell you "because I said
so"?

"XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:Xns998E4DE9EEDC
Fxs11emailinatorcom@
69.28.173.184...
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you have any proof please provide it. Your saying something does
> not make it so.
>
>
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

All of his friends are PUTZES and therefore there isn't anyone left to call
on his Verizon phone. :-)

"Gonzo" <r_murphree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46c48884$0$1648
6$4c368faf@roadrunne
r.com...
> "Esmail" < ebonak_delme@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:46c3ac49$0$1533
7$4c368faf@roadrunne
r.com...
>
> LOL. Yes very strange indeed.
>
> Make you wonder if he even has any friends left to call with his Verizon
> Cell phone LOL.
>
> Sad but true but it seems to me that Cell phones are still more of a
> status symbol than a communication device. People simply must have one
> whether they really need it or not.
>
> Only reason I am finally jumping on the cell phone bandwagon is to lower
> my long distance cost.
>
>
>
>
>

clifto

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

Jim Dubya wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7l3dp4-4ab.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>
> Sprint always works great for me in the Chicago area. He must have had a bad
> phone or maybe he is just a putz.

Three different phones. He has zero problems with the T-Mobile phone.

> One of the Chicago TV stations did independent testing last year and found
> sprint to be the best in the Chicago area.

They must own Sprint stock.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

clifto

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

Jim Dubya wrote:
> Not true no more! Sprint has significantly improved service in the Chicago
> area. They are now better than Verizon, but I don't expect anyone on this
> newsgroup to admit it because it is full-of Verizon Shills that have been
> brainwashed with the "It's the Network BS" of the Verizon Marketing Machine.

Unfortunately, their reputation isn't good, I don't know any Sprint
customers, and it would cost me at least a one-year hitch to find out
whether they have indeed improved.

As for being a Verizon shill, you obviously haven't seen my recent a.c.v
articles.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

james g. keegan jr.

2007-08-16, 3:33 pm

* usenet-illiterate top post reformatted as a convenience to readers

In article <ed1xi.121348$zz2.18491@newsfe12.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-69C9CB. 10223516082007@indiv
idual.net...
[color=darkred]
> Not true no more! Sprint has significantly improved service in the Chicago
> area. They are now better than Verizon, but I don't expect anyone on this
> newsgroup to admit it because it is full-of Verizon Shills that have been
> brainwashed with the "It's the Network BS" of the Verizon Marketing Machine.

do you think your wailing that has more substance then the personal
experiences of people who have had a chance to see what the facts are?

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 10:33 pm

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-2390BE. 16044516082007@indiv
idual.net...
>* usenet-illiterate top post reformatted as a convenience to readers
>
> In article <ed1xi.121348$zz2.18491@newsfe12.phx>,
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> do you think your wailing that has more substance then the personal
> experiences of people who have had a chance to see what the facts are?

Yes I do. There are many putzes here that are brain-washed by the Verizon
Marketing Machine that are almost in a hypnotic trance regarding the
"Verizon, It's the Network" crap. They are drinking the koolaid by the
gallons. If they were to do some reserach. they would find that Sprint can
be forced into roaming mode and therefore can roam on Verizon, in the very
unlikely circumstance that you have a Verizon signal but not a sprint
signal. If the folks on the Verizon newsgroup would stop drinking the
kool-aid that Verizon is serving them, they would see the truth!

I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is actually
quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from me
because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
them. I went around like you guy do bashing Sprint at every opportunity and
then I moved to an area where there is no Verizon service and was forced to
switch to Sprint. It has been three years and I have never looked-back! I
travel nationally quite frequently and the folks that I travel with are
always borrowing my Sprint phone because they don't have usable signal on
their Verizon phones. Listen up all of you Verizon Shills and put down your
glass of Verizon Kool-aid because I speak the truth and you will learn by
listening to me! If you have any questions, then fire-away and I will give
you the truth from an unbiased point-of-view. Remember that I was with
Verizon for 10 years and was trained to be a "Sprint Basher" just like most
of the shills in this newsgroup.

P.S. Next time you don't get a signal on Verizon and have to borrow a Sprint
phone, don't forget to say to yourself "It's the Network!" :-) Doh!

>
> --
> get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

Jim Dubya

2007-08-16, 10:33 pm

"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sulep4-s4e.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Jim Dubya wrote:
>
> Three different phones. He has zero problems with the T-Mobile phone.
>
>
> They must own Sprint stock.
>
> --

No! They are just not brainwashed by the Verizon Marketing Machine!

> If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
> you should stop exhaling.

George

2007-08-16, 10:33 pm

Jim Dubya wrote:
> Sure it does make it so! Didn't you mother ever tell you "because I said
> so"?
>

But this is a discussion group for adults so your reference doesn't
apply. So you just can't make stuff and somehow have it be the truth.
Contrary to your statements there are actually people here who have a
clue about the various carriers and are just not blindly following
marketing pronouncements.

Drumstick

2007-08-16, 10:33 pm

> Yes I do. There are many putzes here that are brain-washed by the Verizon
> Marketing Machine that are almost in a hypnotic trance regarding the
> "Verizon, It's the Network" crap. They are drinking the koolaid by the
> gallons. If they were to do some reserach. they would find that Sprint can
> be forced into roaming mode and therefore can roam on Verizon, in the very
> unlikely circumstance that you have a Verizon signal but not a sprint
> signal. If the folks on the Verizon newsgroup would stop drinking the
> kool-aid that Verizon is serving them, they would see the truth!

And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
Sprint wasn't even available where I ma so I got Cingular and couldn't
make/receive a call outside my city limits. Went to Altell, better but
no joy and they kept my bill screwed up. Verizon works every day
everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!

I say YOU are the shill or maybe the real putz here for pushing Sprint
in a Verizon group or maybe even worse, a troll. I don't care what you
think of my story any more than I care about your story, different area
different coverage. See we can all make it personal, how hard is that?!

Point is, no one cell company is always better so give that part of it a
rest ok? I don't care what's written on the d*mn phone or the bill as
long as the phone works at a price I can live with paying. With or
without cameras, MP3 players, web browsers, fancy pictures and
videos...all that is gravy if the d*mn phone works! My Verizon phone
never lets me down and where I'm at it's MY phone they're borrowing.

Drum--

james g. keegan jr.

2007-08-16, 10:33 pm

In article <AQ2xi.78601$kK1.30360@newsfe14.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-2390BE. 16044516082007@indiv
idual.net...

>
> Yes I do.

obstinately ignorant is far, far worse then simply ignorant you know.

[...]

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

Scott

2007-08-16, 10:33 pm

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:dYadnQYSqdcTTln
bnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@co
mcast.com:

> Jim Dubya wrote:
>
> But this is a discussion group for adults so your reference doesn't
> apply. So you just can't make stuff and somehow have it be the truth.

And yet 75% of what is posted here is just that. In this case, unless YOU
have data to contradict the personal experience cited, you are contributing
less than heis.

> Contrary to your statements there are actually people here who have a
> clue about the various carriers

And that statement is worth no more than the one you are chastising Jim
for. In fact, it is even more apt to be unbelieved, given the fact that
consumer use of a phone for a length of time (usually the "clue" that you
refer to) is hardly any better than that which you bash..

> and are just not blindly following
> marketing pronouncements.
>

True- statements by "those" folks are usually the result of a grudge
against a particular carrier.

Boomer

2007-08-17, 7:33 am

"Drumstick" <no_thanks@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 212ea9c38955d6349897
8e@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>
> And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
> Sprint wasn't even available where I ma so I got Cingular and couldn't
> make/receive a call outside my city limits. Went to Altell, better but
> no joy and they kept my bill screwed up. Verizon works every day
> everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!
>
>

..
>
> Drum--

I'm not trying to stir this argument but just where do Verizon phones NOT
work? I'm a satisfied Verizon customer for the last 3 years & have yet to
find a location without signal. I suppose I haven't traveled to those areas
yet but from NJ to Florida they seem to have it covered.

George

2007-08-17, 10:33 am

Scott wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:dYadnQYSqdcTTln
bnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
>
> And yet 75% of what is posted here is just that. In this case, unless YOU
> have data to contradict the personal experience cited, you are contributing
> less than heis.

This is called a "discussion group" and not sworn testimony.

He claimed that people should believe him in the same unquestionable way
a child should believe a parent. My assertion is that is nonsense and is
no different than if a group of people were having a face to face
discussion and one of them made such a statement.

I am not sure who appointed you as supreme arbiter but please explain
how any ones comments has more or less value than those of another?

>
>
>
>
>
> And that statement is worth no more than the one you are chastising Jim
> for. In fact, it is even more apt to be unbelieved, given the fact that
> consumer use of a phone for a length of time (usually the "clue" that you
> refer to) is hardly any better than that which you bash..
>
>
>
> True- statements by "those" folks are usually the result of a grudge
> against a particular carrier.
>

Carl

2007-08-17, 12:33 pm

"Drumstick" <no_thanks@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 212ea9c38955d6349897
8e@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>
> And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
>...Verizon works every day
> everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!
>
>... I don't care what you
> think of my story any more than I care about your story, different area
> different coverage. See we can all make it personal, how hard is that?!
>
> Point is, no one cell company is always better so give that part of it a
> rest ok? I don't care what's written on the d*mn phone or the bill as
> long as the phone works at a price I can live with paying. With or
> without cameras, MP3 players, web browsers, fancy pictures and
> videos...all that is gravy if the d*mn phone works! My Verizon phone
> never lets me down and where I'm at it's MY phone they're borrowing.
>
Amen to this post, the one that's made the most sense so far in the entire
thread!

Carl

2007-08-17, 12:33 pm

"XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:Xns998D965FF867
8xs11emailinatorcom@
69.28.173.184...
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> You have some proof of these statements?
>
Sorry, I couldn't find a date to this posting, but it appears to be recent.
If so, it may shed some light on the controversy. My disclaimer is that I am
a Verizon supporter/user. That said, the data presented here does not always
support my personal choice:

http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com/ C... rea_Comparison

Michael Wise

2007-08-17, 12:33 pm

In article <AQ2xi.78601$kK1.30360@newsfe14.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is actually
> quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from me
> because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
> them....

Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
them for ten years?

What else are you fabricating?

--Mike

Pegleg

2007-08-17, 12:33 pm

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid>
wrote:

>Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
>them for ten years?

Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
lines he was thinking.

clifto

2007-08-17, 3:33 pm

Boomer wrote:
> I'm not trying to stir this argument but just where do Verizon phones NOT
> work? I'm a satisfied Verizon customer for the last 3 years & have yet to
> find a location without signal. I suppose I haven't traveled to those areas
> yet but from NJ to Florida they seem to have it covered.

I've been told there are large areas in Wisconsin where there's no coverage.

--
"You know the difference between cannibals and liberals? Cannibals only eat
their enemies." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson

Michael Wise

2007-08-17, 3:33 pm

In article < jambc3h1ireeaaphj377
7h4ceptkjrnrr0@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
> PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
> the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
> lines he was thinking.

Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless became
SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.

Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a customer of one
of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was not VZW.

--Mike

Todd Allcock

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

At 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been
with
> them for ten years?

Verizon didn't get created out of the aeither- I assume he's counting
their predecessors in his tenure. T-Mobile thanks me for being with
them since "October 2000" everytime I call CS, despite the fact the
first two or three years t eycalled themselves "Voicestream." My ten-
year tenure (1993 through 2003) with Cingular included six years or
so when they were "Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems."

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Todd Allcock

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless
> became
> SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
> bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.

Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and BellSouth)
bought AT&T Wireless, which at that point in time was an independent
company spun off from AT&T (the long distance company left over by
the Ma Bell breakup,) months before, and lost the right to use the
AT&T name, which required spending millions on new signage and untold
gallons of orange paint rebranding hundreds of AT&T stores as
Cingular stores.

Then SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company,) and started
renaming themselves AT&T, and of course getting the right to use the
AT&T name for wireless, but BellSouth wasn't interested in putting
another company's name on their half of Cingular, until...

....AT&T (SBC) merged with BellSouth and became one happy
dysfunctional company, and started spending untold millions
rebranding the Cingular stores as AT&T stores... ;-)

> No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
MHz? Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
(which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)
(US West, now Qwest, sold most of their original licenses so here in
Denver, Verizon is the B carrier, and AT&T is the "A" or "A"lternate
carrier.

> Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a customer of
> one
> of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was not
> VZW.

Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
midwest.)

(You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
consumers by the "economies of scale!")

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Steve Sobol

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

>
>
> Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless became
> SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
> bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.

SBC bought all of AT&T, actually.

> Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
> customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
> host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

I thought part of PacBell Wireless spun off and became AirTouch. But I'm
not 100% sure.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Michael Wise

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

In article <LHoxi.127$Dg.98@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and BellSouth)
> bought AT&T Wireless,...

Are you sure about that? My recollection from that time frame is that
Cingular was merely a rebranded name for the cellular service which SBC
implemented shortly after the SBC/Bell South merger. They may have been
considered independent (much in the same way VZW is technically
independent from Verizon...but in reality it was the same company with
the same board members.

> which at that point in time was an independent
> company spun off from AT&T (the long distance company left over by
> the Ma Bell breakup,) months before, and lost the right to use the
> AT&T name, which required spending millions on new signage and untold
> gallons of orange paint rebranding hundreds of AT&T stores as
> Cingular stores.

> Then SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company,) and started
> renaming themselves AT&T, and of course getting the right to use the
> AT&T name for wireless, but BellSouth wasn't interested in putting
> another company's name on their half of Cingular, until...
>
> ...AT&T (SBC) merged with BellSouth and became one happy
> dysfunctional company, and started spending untold millions
> rebranding the Cingular stores as AT&T stores... ;-)

ATTWS existed long before SBC bought AT&T. I know, because from about
1994-1999 (or perhaps 1998) I and the company (Wired Magazine) I managed
IT and landline/wireless service for used the A-side carrier Cellular
One (SF Bay Area market). AT&T incorporated C1 and rebranded as ATTWS.
During that time, I also had accounts with Pac Bell Wireless, Nextel,
and GTE Wireless (Wired wanting me to stay on top of who had the best
coverage).

I'm aware of the logistical hassles incurred after the by all the sign
changes, but the company was known as Cingular before it became ATTWS.

>
> I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
> MHz?

Because, at least in the SF Bay Area, C1 (which ATTWS later acquired)
was already using the 800 MHz TDMA and GTE Wireless was using the 800
MHz CDMA freqs.

> Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
> (which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
> they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
> whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)
> (US West, now Qwest, sold most of their original licenses so here in
> Denver, Verizon is the B carrier, and AT&T is the "A" or "A"lternate
> carrier.
>
>
>
> Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
> bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
> with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
> cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
> them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
> midwest.)

I don't know of anytime when Pac Bell offered any sort of cellular in
the Chicagoland (where our thread curmudgeon suggests he lives).
>
> (You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
> a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
> then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
> consumers by the "economies of scale!")

Isn't America great?! ; )

--Mike

Michael Wise

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

In article <IHoxi.124$Dg.7@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
> with
>
> Verizon didn't get created out of the aeither- I assume he's counting
> their predecessors in his tenure.

Perhaps, but Pac Bell cellular was not a predecessor to VZW.

--Mike

Steve Sobol

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

>
> Isn't America great?! ; )

Feh. That's why I get my landline telephone and Internet access from the
cable company, and my wireless phone service from a company that doesn't
do US landlines. US telcos suck XXX; they're monolithic monsters that
employ large numbers of obnoxious bureaucratic jerkoffs. :)

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Todd Allcock

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

At 17 Aug 2007 16:29:24 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

BellSouth)[color=dar
kred]
>
>
> Are you sure about that? My recollection from that time frame is
that
> Cingular was merely a rebranded name for the cellular service which
SBC
> implemented shortly after the SBC/Bell South merger.

The SBC/BellSouth merger was relatively recent- it happened only last
year. Cingular was a joint venture of the two companies (SBC owned a
little more- it was 55/45 or 60/40, IIRC) and merged three cellular
systems- SBC's SBMS, BellSouth (both TDMA), and PacBell's GSM system
out west. Cingular has operated under that name since 2000.

Cingular bought AT&T Wireless in 2004 just before ATTWS was about to
lose their name- when they were originally spun off from AT&T back in
2001, they had a license to operate under the AT&T name for a certain
time period.

Ironically, just before SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company),
they (AT&T) had planned to get back into wireless as a reseller of
Sprint. (The licensing deal that let AT&T Wireless use the AT&T name
also kept AT&T LD out of the wireless biz for the same timeframe.)
One can only imagine what confusion would've happened in the
marketplace if Cingular hadn't bought AT&T Wireless- ATTWS would've
quickly had to take on a new name, followed shortly by a DIFFERENT
AT&T wireless company being launched by a different company with
different equipment!

> They may have been
> considered independent (much in the same way VZW is technically
> independent from Verizon...but in reality it was the same company
with
> the same board members.

Sort of- just like with Verizon, however, there was another partner,
in this case BellSouth, with a major interest- (Verizon Wireless is
45% owned by Vodaphone, 55% by Verizon) After the SBC/BS merger,
Cingular now has one parent.

> ATTWS existed long before SBC bought AT&T.

Yes. ATTWS was, for a long time, part of AT&T (the LD company.)

> I know, because from about
> 1994-1999 (or perhaps 1998) I and the company (Wired Magazine) I
managed
> IT and landline/wireless service for used the A-side carrier
Cellular
> One (SF Bay Area market). AT&T incorporated C1 and rebranded as
ATTWS.

> During that time, I also had accounts with Pac Bell Wireless, Nextel,

> and GTE Wireless (Wired wanting me to stay on top of who had the
best
> coverage).
>
> I'm aware of the logistical hassles incurred after the by all the
sign
> changes, but the company was known as Cingular before it became
> ATTWS.

Cingular and ATTWS were two completly separate, unrelated companies.
At least until they "merged" (Cingular acquired them) in 2004. Then
SBC (Cingular's 1/2 owner) bought AT&T (LD- not the wireless company
Cingular already bought)in 2005, followed by SBC (now called AT&T)
merging with BS in '06. (Phew!)

Actually we were both wrong! (Explained below!)
[color=darkred]
>
>
> Because, at least in the SF Bay Area, C1 (which ATTWS later
acquired)
> was already using the 800 MHz TDMA and GTE Wireless was using the
800
> MHz CDMA freqs.

You're missing my point- PacBell originally had the 800MHz B license
by default (the one Verizon now owns), just for being the local
Telco. That's how it worked in the early 80s- two licenses, one for
the local Bell, and the other to the highest bidder. PacBell either
was involved with Verizon's earliest predecessor or sold their
license to them. ATTWS bought the "A" license holder there.
(Cellular One?)
>
this[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
"A" lternate[color=darkr
ed]
customer of[color=darkred]
not[color=darkred]
have[color=darkred]
allowed[color=darkre
d]
the[color=darkred]
>
> I don't know of anytime when Pac Bell offered any sort of cellular
in
> the Chicagoland (where our thread curmudgeon suggests he lives).

Dont be so sure! According to Wikipedia:

"The cellular and paging unit of Pacific Telesis, PacTel Cellular,
was spun off in 1994 into a new company called AirTouch
Communications (AirTouch), leaving Pacific Telesis with only the
landline telephone company. Senior Pacific Telesis management moved
to the new company, thus leaving a new corporate culture to run the
old Pacific Telesis. In 1999, Airtouch merged with Britain's Vodafone
Group Plc to become Vodafone Airtouch Plc. In 2000, its U.S. wireless
assets were merged with those of Bell Atlantic Corp. to form the
joint venture Verizon Wireless..."

So PacTel Wireless was spun off of Pacific Telephone and became
Airtouch, then Verizon, leaving the local Telco to start again with
PacBell who eventually became Cingular then (the new) AT&T!

Apparenty there's more inbreeding in the cellular biz than there is
in the Appalachians!

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Dennis Ferguson

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

On 2007-08-17, Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
> I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
> MHz? Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
> (which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
> they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
> whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)

I think it went like this. The PacTel Cellular unit of Pacific Telesis
was the B-side AMPS operator in its area. It also supported and funded
Qualcomm's development of CDMA, which it ended up deploying. The wireless
unit was spun out of PacTel in about 1994, along with most of PacTel's
senior management, to become part of Airtouch Communications, which in
turn was acquired by (merged with?) Vodafone, which in turn was merged
with the wireless assets of Verizon (i.e. Bell Atlantic plus GTE) to
become Verizon Wireless.

Meanwhile the landline company left behind at PacTel, with their new
managers, decided to get back into the wireless business in 1996 or
1997 with the 1900 MHz GSM network, which they called Pacific Bell
Wireless. That network became part of Cingular, and then got sold
to T-Mobile after the AT&T Wireless acquisition.

> Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
> bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
> with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
> cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
> them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
> midwest.)

That's correct, except it was only a couple of years between the
spinoff of the cellular network and the construction of the PCS
network. I think the old management at PacTel decided that they'd
get richer in the spunoff, mostly-unregulated wireless business,
then the new managers at PacTel decided the wireless business was
good enough that they should get back in and compete in it too.

Dennis Ferguson

Todd Allcock

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

At 18 Aug 2007 02:08:00 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

<Snip excellent history lesson>

Thanks! That cleared it up and filled in the blanks.

Back when I was a Cingular TDMA customer out of Kansas City, I always
found it ironic that I had to roam on either Verizon or AT&T while in
California, despite the fact that Cingular had plenty of perfectly
good, yet incompatible, service buzzing all around me!

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Scott

2007-08-17, 10:33 pm

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:JICdnaBOd- 8aPFjbnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ
2d@comcast.com:

>
> I am not sure who appointed you as supreme arbiter but please explain
> how any ones comments has more or less value than those of another?
>
>

Good question, and one that you should probably answer yourself based on
your other post.

Jim Dubya

2007-08-18, 4:33 am

At my house in Laguna Niguel California. Verizon admits that they don't work
there. Sprint has full signal.

"Boomer" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:- YSdnTix29R_61jbnZ2dn
UVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Drumstick" <no_thanks@you.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG. 212ea9c38955d6349897
8e@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>
> .
>
> I'm not trying to stir this argument but just where do Verizon phones NOT
> work? I'm a satisfied Verizon customer for the last 3 years & have yet to
> find a location without signal. I suppose I haven't traveled to those
> areas yet but from NJ to Florida they seem to have it covered.
>

Jim Dubya

2007-08-18, 4:33 am

I was with Airtouch Cellular before they were acquired by Verizon. Now play
nice and go drink some more Verizon Kool-Aid.

"Michael Wise" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:no-DCD710.10083917082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <AQ2xi.78601$kK1.30360@newsfe14.phx>,
> "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
> them for ten years?
>
> What else are you fabricating?
>
>
>
> --Mike

Michael Wise

2007-08-18, 4:33 am

In article <XBvxi.39652$Vk6.34260@newsfe07.phx>,
"Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com> wrote:

> I was with Airtouch Cellular before they were acquired by Verizon. Now play
> nice and go drink some more Verizon Kool-Aid.

So then you admit that you weren't a VZW customer for 10 years as you
earlier claimed?

--Mike
[color=darkred]
>
>
> "Michael Wise" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:no-DCD710.10083917082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...

Topo Gigio

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfc7kdo.hbu.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
> On 2007-08-16, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:

>
> Well, since we're picking nits...
>
> A CDMA phone can be locked too.
>

CDMA phones are locked by the nature of the technology. There is no SIM card
to swap as with GSM phones.

Todd Allcock

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

At 17 Aug 2007 16:30:46 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> Perhaps, but Pac Bell cellular was not a predecessor to VZW.

No, but apparently, as Dennis posted, PacTel, Pacific Telephone's
first cellular service was! PacTel spun off PacTel Cellular as a
separate compny, and it became Airtouch (and eventually part of
Verizon). Then PacTel (the landline company left behind after the
spinoff) started PacBell Wireless- the GSM operator who eventually
became part of Cingular.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Steve Sobol

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

On 2007-08-18, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:
>
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnfc7kdo.hbu.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
>
>
>
> CDMA phones are locked by the nature of the technology. There is no SIM card
> to swap as with GSM phones.

Nonsense.

I took an Alltel Nokia 6185 and activated it on Verizon, and I've heard of
people going the other way. This was several years ago; neither carrier
subsidy-locked their phones back then. Not sure whether Alltel does now, or
not. I don't believe Verizon does, except prepaid (I understand the prepaid
phones ARE locked).

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Topo Gigio

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfcerrn.1j5.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
> On 2007-08-18, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:
card[color=darkred]
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I took an Alltel Nokia 6185 and activated it on Verizon, and I've heard of
> people going the other way. This was several years ago; neither carrier
> subsidy-locked their phones back then. Not sure whether Alltel does now,
> or
> not. I don't believe Verizon does, except prepaid (I understand the
> prepaid
> phones ARE locked).
>

A *locked* phone can only be used on one carrier and unlocked phones can be
used with any GSM carrier. If you have a CDMA phone you can only use the
carrier your ESN is *locked* to. If you have an unlocked GSM phone it will
work with any carrier as the SIM card is locked not the phone.

That phone you have activated on Verizon cannot be used with Alltel now as
it is locked to Verizon.

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:53:10 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-08-18, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:
>
>Nonsense.
>
>I took an Alltel Nokia 6185 and activated it on Verizon, and I've heard of
>people going the other way. This was several years ago; neither carrier
>subsidy-locked their phones back then. Not sure whether Alltel does now, or
>not. I don't believe Verizon does, except prepaid (I understand the prepaid
>phones ARE locked).

About two months ago, I took one of my old VZW phones (Kyo-2325) and
had it activated on my Alltel account. No problems, no charge. Was
out of there in less than 10 minutes.

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:18:06 GMT, "Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com>
wrote:

>
>"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnfcerrn.1j5.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
>card
>
>
>
>
>A *locked* phone can only be used on one carrier and unlocked phones can be
>used with any GSM carrier. If you have a CDMA phone you can only use the
>carrier your ESN is *locked* to. If you have an unlocked GSM phone it will
>work with any carrier as the SIM card is locked not the phone.
>
>
>
>That phone you have activated on Verizon cannot be used with Alltel now as
>it is locked to Verizon.
>

I don't think so. See my post to Steve in this thread.

Peter Pan

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

Topo Gigio wrote:
>
>
> That phone you have activated on Verizon cannot be used with Alltel
> now as it is locked to Verizon.

Fraid you are WAY WAY WRONG on that... I had verizon, moved to an alltell
area, walked in and switched to them with my phone no problem...

Larry

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in
news:MoqdneE0n5A37Fr
bnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@co
mcast.com:

> Fraid you are WAY WAY WRONG on that... I had verizon, moved to an
> alltell area, walked in and switched to them with my phone no
> problem...
>
>
>

Me, too. I still have my Verizon-branded V60i that's reprogrammed to
Alltel in the Alltel store. It's for backup, now with the E815....

If it was locked to Verizon, Alltel had the unlock code sequence to
unlock and reprogram it on their programmer in the store.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If the 3 people I gave Alltel cards to near the Verizon kiosk in CC come
aboard this month...I won't have a phone bill...(c;

Thanks, Alltel. The Hip Hop Channel sold it to a pretty chicky. She
wanted MY phone to take home with 44 channels of TV....(c;

Steve Sobol

2007-08-18, 10:33 pm

On 2007-08-18, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:

> A *locked* phone can only be used on one carrier and unlocked phones can be
> used with any GSM carrier. If you have a CDMA phone you can only use the
> carrier your ESN is *locked* to. If you have an unlocked GSM phone it will
> work with any carrier as the SIM card is locked not the phone.

An unlocked GSM phone can be used with any GSM carrier that will allow it.
An unlocked CDMA phone can be used with any CDMA carrier that will allow it.

Just because many CDMA carriers lock their phones doesn't mean it's required
by the protocol.

> That phone you have activated on Verizon cannot be used with Alltel now as
> it is locked to Verizon.

How so?

Verizon never locked my 6185.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Topo Gigio

2007-08-22, 3:33 pm

"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:MoqdneE0n5A37Fr
bnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Topo Gigio wrote:
>
> Fraid you are WAY WAY WRONG on that... I had verizon, moved to an alltell
> area, walked in and switched to them with my phone no problem...

You had to have Alltel UNLOCK your phone from Verizon and lock it to Alltel.
With an unlocked GSM phone one does not have to have it unlocked by a
carrier one just has to change SIMs.

You people don't have the intelligence to understand, I am casting pearls
before swine.

Topo Gigio

2007-08-22, 3:33 pm

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9990C56CC94E
8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...

> Me, too. I still have my Verizon-branded V60i that's reprogrammed to
> Alltel in the Alltel store.

Substitute UNLOCKED for *reprogrammed* and you will understand.

Topo Gigio

2007-08-22, 3:33 pm

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfcf0h2.885.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...

> An unlocked GSM phone can be used with any GSM carrier that will allow it.
> An unlocked CDMA phone can be used with any CDMA carrier that will allow
> it.

An unlocked GSM phone can be used with any GSM, even overseas, carrier
because it is UNLOCKED that is what UNLOCKED means. A CDMA phone can only be
used with the carrier that it is LOCKED to.

I DON'T CARE BE STUPID AND FLOUNDER IN YOUR IGNORANCE.

Steve Sobol

2007-08-22, 10:33 pm

On 2007-08-22, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:

> You had to have Alltel UNLOCK your phone from Verizon and lock it to Alltel.

No, because Verizon doesn't lock postpaid phones.

> With an unlocked GSM phone one does not have to have it unlocked by a
> carrier one just has to change SIMs.

I don't know what your agenda is... are you trying to convince people
to switch to a GSM carrier?

> You people don't have the intelligence to understand, I am casting pearls
> before swine.

We don't have the intelligence? That's hilarious.

You've been corrected by more than one person here... all of the people
involved, including me, have moved phones back and forth between Alltel
and Verizon, and we're all telling you you're full of shit. Yet you insist
that you're right.

I find your attitude highly amusing, if rather pathetic...

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Steve Sobol

2007-08-22, 10:33 pm

On 2007-08-22, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:

>
> Substitute UNLOCKED for *reprogrammed* and you will understand.

Wrong again, Moron. He could have used the Verizon firmware, but the phone
would probably not have operated at an optimal level since it was set up
for Verizon's network, not Alltel's.

Why don't you go google for the phrase "master subsidy lock"...

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Topo Gigio

2007-08-22, 10:33 pm

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfcpdv8.bgo.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...

> Why don't you go google for the phrase "master subsidy lock"...

I fart in the general direction of *master subsidy locks*. When I unlock a
GSM phone I can use it with any carrier foreign or domestic. Remove a
*master subsidy lock* on a CDMA phone and one is still LOCKED to one
carrier. Now STFU as you are boring me.

Michael Wise

2007-08-22, 10:33 pm

In article <8d3zi.12752$A57.5172@trnddc04>,
"Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:

> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnfcpdv8.bgo.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
>
>
> I fart in the general direction of *master subsidy locks*. When I unlock a
> GSM phone I can use it with any carrier foreign or domestic.

Really? When did all GSM phones sold in the U.S. suddenly become tri or
quad-band phones?

--Mike

Topo Gigio

2007-08-22, 10:33 pm

"Michael Wise" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:no-DC561E.16073922082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <8d3zi.12752$A57.5172@trnddc04>,
> "Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Really? When did all GSM phones sold in the U.S. suddenly become tri or
> quad-band phones?

Now you are just being an XXX because you lost the argument.

Steve Sobol

2007-08-22, 10:33 pm

On 2007-08-22, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:

> I fart in the general direction of *master subsidy locks*. When I unlock a
> GSM phone I can use it with any carrier foreign or domestic. Remove a
> *master subsidy lock* on a CDMA phone and one is still LOCKED to one
> carrier.

I was expecting an entertaining troll. I think you need to work a little
harder to be entertaining. :)

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Michael Wise

2007-08-22, 10:33 pm

In article <iv3zi.12758$A57.5565@trnddc04>,
"Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:

> "Michael Wise" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:no-DC561E.16073922082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>
> Now you are just being an XXX because you lost the argument.

I wasn't in any argument.

Are you going to answer the question or not? The question is are all GSM
sets sold in the U.S. capable of operating in either or both of the
European GSM bands (900/1800 MHz)?

--Mike

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-08-23, 7:33 am

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:37:20 GMT, "Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com>
wrote:

>
>"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9990C56CC94E
8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
>
>
>Substitute UNLOCKED for *reprogrammed* and you will understand.
>

Bullshit. The ex-VZW phone I had activated on Alltel was never, ever
locked.

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-08-23, 7:33 am

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:02:45 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-08-22, Topo Gigio <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote:
>
>
>Wrong again, Moron. He could have used the Verizon firmware, but the phone
>would probably not have operated at an optimal level since it was set up
>for Verizon's network, not Alltel's.
>

The funny thing is, the ex-VZW phone I had activated on Alltel still
shows up with the VZW splash screen. So I'm thinking the VZW firmware
isn't so much of an issue, at least with Alltel. The only change I
notice is the Alltel PRL number.

LinkBot