T-Mobile cellular service - GSM and TM/Cingular

Author

GSM and TM/Cingular

Scott Ehrlich

2005-11-29, 5:48 pm

I have heard from many that TM's coverage is more limited than Cingular's
for the GSM world. Would that mean that Cingular does not have a roaming
agreement with TM, its largest (so to speak) rival?

Scott

delysid

2005-11-29, 11:48 pm

Scott Ehrlich wrote:
> I have heard from many that TM's coverage is more limited than Cingular's
> for the GSM world. Would that mean that Cingular does not have a roaming
> agreement with TM, its largest (so to speak) rival?
>
> Scott
I think you may be right. I believe they used to have roaming
agreements, but if you check out gsmworld.com, they are not listed as a
T-Mobile roaming partner for the US.
http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsm...swe.shtml#SectU

Steve Sobol

2005-11-30, 2:48 am

delysid wrote:
> Scott Ehrlich wrote:
> I think you may be right. I believe they used to have roaming
> agreements, but if you check out gsmworld.com, they are not listed as a
> T-Mobile roaming partner for the US.

You are wrong.

The 2004 press release that TM made about buying the former Cingular network
in CA/NV also pointed out that Cingular and TM had inked a big new roaming
agreement. I have a nationwide family plan and can roam on Cingular without
paying roaming fees, which wouldn't be possible if TM and Cingular didn't
have any roaming agreements.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Scott Ehrlich

2005-11-30, 5:48 pm

In article < dmjaq6$v2c$1@ratbert
.glorb.com>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>delysid wrote:
>
>You are wrong.
>
>The 2004 press release that TM made about buying the former Cingular network
>in CA/NV also pointed out that Cingular and TM had inked a big new roaming
>agreement. I have a nationwide family plan and can roam on Cingular without
>paying roaming fees, which wouldn't be possible if TM and Cingular didn't
>have any roaming agreements.
>
>--
>Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>Company website: http://JustThe.net/
>Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
>E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

I'm looking at coverage vs cost, and it still seems that Verizon has the
greatest coverage. If TM and Cingular had seemless interchangable
coverage, I would think that would make a strong case as a head-to-head
matchup between GSM and CDMA.

I'm not sure how the pictures looks with AMPS/Analog out of the picture
wrt Verizon.

Scott

Corvus

2005-11-30, 5:48 pm

> The 2004 press release that TM made about buying the former Cingular network
> in CA/NV also pointed out that Cingular and TM had inked a big new roaming
> agreement. I have a nationwide family plan and can roam on Cingular without
> paying roaming fees, which wouldn't be possible if TM and Cingular didn't
> have any roaming agreements.

That may be so, but you dont get your free mobile to mobile minutes
while roaming. Those come out of your anytime minutes, as per customer
service.

The only places in my travels that I have roamed on Cingular was in
Oklahoma between Miami (My-Am-Uh) and Muskogee and in Arkansas just
east of the Texas border past Texarkana, though in the latter case I
was on AT&T (pre-merger).

I was in Alabama last week and did not have T-Mobile coverage. What was
available to me was Cingular and a small carrier called Corr Wireless
(310-080). I was NOT able to lock onto Cingular, but was successful in
registering with Corr and placing and receiving calls (and using data).
While I am aware that one cannot roam on Cingular when there is native
T-Mobile coverage in a given area, perhaps one cannot roam on Cingular
when there is another roaming partner is the same area (e.g. Corr
Wireless in my above experience).

The point is, in the limited areas where I have travelled, the bonds
with T-Mobile and Cingular are not that extensive and T-Mobile is
served by smaller roaming partners in select markets even where
Cingular is present. The only place where I was able to connect either
to Cingular or another carrier was off of Intertstate 44 between
Joplin, MO and Miami, OK. My choices there were Cingular or Dobson
(310-580). As I type this I suddenly remember: I also had T-Mobile
signal. My phone was set to manual network selection and I did have a
choice of either of the three carriers. This would seem to contradict
the edict of no roaming where there is T-Mobile native coverage.

Again, this is based on my own limited roaming experience, but at least
it's how things worked for me in the real world, not coverage maps or
press releases.

BruceR

2005-11-30, 5:48 pm

When you look at coverage the most important thing is the coverage where
you are likely to be. Once you do that you may find that there's not
much difference. I know that TMo has the most limited coverage in the US
but on the other hand, even with the extensive travelling I do, I've
never been in a US area not served by them. I also like the abitlity to
use my phone in other countries.

From:Scott Ehrlich
scott@mit.edu

> In article < dmjaq6$v2c$1@ratbert
.glorb.com>,
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'm looking at coverage vs cost, and it still seems that Verizon has
> the greatest coverage. If TM and Cingular had seemless interchangable
> coverage, I would think that would make a strong case as a
> head-to-head matchup between GSM and CDMA.
>
> I'm not sure how the pictures looks with AMPS/Analog out of the
> picture wrt Verizon.
>
> Scott

Ben Skversky

2005-11-30, 5:48 pm

I agree with Bruce. I too have not had any problems using my TMO phone
anywhere I've been in the U.S.

"BruceR" <br@NOhawaiiSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:pcmjf.49427$Hs.2355@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> When you look at coverage the most important thing is the coverage where
> you are likely to be. Once you do that you may find that there's not much
> difference. I know that TMo has the most limited coverage in the US but on
> the other hand, even with the extensive travelling I do, I've never been
> in a US area not served by them. I also like the abitlity to use my phone
> in other countries.
>
> From:Scott Ehrlich
> scott@mit.edu
>
>
>

Scott Ehrlich

2005-11-30, 11:48 pm

In article <vTmjf.120$fY3.46@trnddc01>,
Ben Skversky <bskversky1@verizon.net> wrote:
>I agree with Bruce. I too have not had any problems using my TMO phone
>anywhere I've been in the U.S.
>

In light of the responses, how are calls handled when/if you are on an
active call and leaving TMo coverage? Do you manually have to switch to
a partner provider, or does the phone automatically switch/roam to the
partner and offer a seemless transition?

I know for Verizon Wireless, my phone will automatically connect with the
preferred partner Verizon wants me to. I may have no idea who the
provider is - the phone will simply say "Extended Network" or provide an
indicator.

Thanks for additional feedback.

Scott

delysid

2005-11-30, 11:48 pm

Steve Sobol wrote:
> delysid wrote:
>
>
>
> You are wrong.
>
> The 2004 press release that TM made about buying the former Cingular
> network in CA/NV also pointed out that Cingular and TM had inked a big
> new roaming agreement. I have a nationwide family plan and can roam on
> Cingular without paying roaming fees, which wouldn't be possible if TM
> and Cingular didn't have any roaming agreements.
>
Cool. You are probably right. Otherwise, why would T-Mobile phones be
supporting 850MHz.

BruceR

2005-11-30, 11:48 pm

I've never had a dropped call from that but then I don't really know if
I've ever crossed the line while on a call. GSM does support seamless
handoffs so I don't think it's a problem.

From:Scott Ehrlich
scott@mit.edu

> In article <vTmjf.120$fY3.46@trnddc01>,
> Ben Skversky <bskversky1@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> In light of the responses, how are calls handled when/if you are on an
> active call and leaving TMo coverage? Do you manually have to
> switch to a partner provider, or does the phone automatically
> switch/roam to the partner and offer a seemless transition?
>
> I know for Verizon Wireless, my phone will automatically connect with
> the preferred partner Verizon wants me to. I may have no idea who
> the provider is - the phone will simply say "Extended Network" or
> provide an indicator.
>
> Thanks for additional feedback.
>
> Scott

Steve Sobol

2005-12-01, 2:48 am

Scott Ehrlich wrote:

>
> I'm looking at coverage vs cost, and it still seems that Verizon has the
> greatest coverage. If TM and Cingular had seemless interchangable
> coverage, I would think that would make a strong case as a head-to-head
> matchup between GSM and CDMA.

Um.... not only do they, I can force my phone to Cingular if the T-Mobile
signal is weak, but not weak enough for my phone to automatically choose
Cingular.

And it's true free nationwide roaming on the nationwide plan with T-Mo, not
the "sometimes you pay, sometimes you don't, sometimes you just don't have
service" America's Choice plan from Verizon. OK, there's a benefit to
America's Choice not roaming for free everywhere - the monthly pricing is
lower, because Verizon doesn't have to subsidize roaming calls that they
can't bill to the customer. On the other hand, T-Mobile's nationwide
no-roaming-anywhere-in-the-US plans are priced similarly to AC in the first
place.

My father-in-law travels all over the country with his T-Mo phone and
between T-Mo and their roaming partners, he says there isn't anywhere he's
been yet that he can't use the phone.

> I'm not sure how the pictures looks with AMPS/Analog out of the picture
> wrt Verizon.

It's not. Verizon is 100% digital now but they probably still have pockets
of AMPS roaming here and there. Not many, I'd imagine.

When you factor in roaming agreements, I believe T-Mo covers as much real
estate as Verizon, and again, you don't have to worry about being
on-network, on the extended network or roaming and paying for it. With T-Mo
it's "no roaming anywhere in the US, as long as you can get a signal from
T-Mo or one of their roaming partners." The only thing I'm not sure of with
T-Mo is whether it's the continental US only, or all 50 states (but I
suspect it's all 50).

NB: I was a happy Verizon customer for four years. I didn't leave them
because of lack of coverage. Their coverage is strong in most markets (with
a few notable exceptions).

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

BruceR

2005-12-01, 5:48 am

TMo is indeed "no Roaming charges" in all 50 states. I live in Hawaii
and TMo is quite popular here. I visited Alaska in September and was
told that as long as I was getting a signal from Dawson it was OK. They
warned me about picking up signal from Canadian carriers in some areas
and from Cingular Cruise Ship services.

From:Steve Sobol
sjsobol@JustThe.net

> Scott Ehrlich wrote:
>
>
> Um.... not only do they, I can force my phone to Cingular if the
> T-Mobile signal is weak, but not weak enough for my phone to
> automatically choose Cingular.
>
> And it's true free nationwide roaming on the nationwide plan with
> T-Mo, not the "sometimes you pay, sometimes you don't, sometimes you
> just don't have service" America's Choice plan from Verizon. OK,
> there's a benefit to America's Choice not roaming for free everywhere
> - the monthly pricing is lower, because Verizon doesn't have to
> subsidize roaming calls that they can't bill to the customer. On the
> other hand, T-Mobile's nationwide no-roaming-anywhere-in-the-US plans
> are priced similarly to AC in the first place.
>
> My father-in-law travels all over the country with his T-Mo phone and
> between T-Mo and their roaming partners, he says there isn't anywhere
> he's been yet that he can't use the phone.
>
>
> It's not. Verizon is 100% digital now but they probably still have
> pockets of AMPS roaming here and there. Not many, I'd imagine.
>
> When you factor in roaming agreements, I believe T-Mo covers as much
> real estate as Verizon, and again, you don't have to worry about being
> on-network, on the extended network or roaming and paying for it.
> With T-Mo it's "no roaming anywhere in the US, as long as you can get
> a signal from T-Mo or one of their roaming partners." The only thing
> I'm not sure of with T-Mo is whether it's the continental US only, or
> all 50 states (but I suspect it's all 50).
>
> NB: I was a happy Verizon customer for four years. I didn't leave them
> because of lack of coverage. Their coverage is strong in most markets
> (with a few notable exceptions).
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Company website: http://JustThe.net/
> Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
> E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA
> 92307

Cyrus Afzali

2005-12-04, 2:48 am

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:48:49 -0800, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>delysid wrote:
>
>You are wrong.
>
>The 2004 press release that TM made about buying the former Cingular network
>in CA/NV also pointed out that Cingular and TM had inked a big new roaming
>agreement. I have a nationwide family plan and can roam on Cingular without
>paying roaming fees, which wouldn't be possible if TM and Cingular didn't
>have any roaming agreements.

He's actually partially right. We cannot roam on every portion of
Cingular's network, just areas where that is authorized. For example,
T-Mobile is making available several quad-band devices, but users will
find that much of Cingular's 850 mHz territory isn't available to
them.

Bottom line is still this: if you need coverage almost everywhere in
the country, you have 2 basic options: Cingular for GSM and Verizon
Wireless for CDMA.

Cyrus Afzali

2005-12-04, 2:48 am

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:27:26 -0800, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Scott Ehrlich wrote:
>
>
>Um.... not only do they, I can force my phone to Cingular if the T-Mobile
>signal is weak, but not weak enough for my phone to automatically choose
>Cingular.

But you can't in an area where we're not allowed to roam, whether or
not you have your phone set in automatic or manual network mode.

>When you factor in roaming agreements, I believe T-Mo covers as much real
>estate as Verizon, and again, you don't have to worry about being
>on-network, on the extended network or roaming and paying for it. With T-Mo
>it's "no roaming anywhere in the US, as long as you can get a signal from
>T-Mo or one of their roaming partners." The only thing I'm not sure of with
>T-Mo is whether it's the continental US only, or all 50 states (but I
>suspect it's all 50).

No way, no how. Not even remotely close. T-Mobile works wonderfully
for me, given where I travel and spend most of my time. But if you get
out of the big cities and interstate corridors in the country, you'll
find big holes and/or situations where you can pull up an 850 mHz
Cingular network, but won't be able to register on it.

Cyrus Afzali

2005-12-04, 2:48 am

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:13:36 -0500, delysid
< delysid@nospaminmyls
d.net> wrote:

>Steve Sobol wrote:
>Cool. You are probably right. Otherwise, why would T-Mobile phones be
>supporting 850MHz.

They do because there are pockets of 850 mHz supported by not only
Cingular, but other roaming partners. But you'll be in for a cruel
reminder of how nationwide isn't truly nationwide if you take your TM
device on a tour of the areas of this country away from interstate
corridors or major cities. You'll get Cingular or Verizon there, but
not TM.

Steve Sobol

2005-12-04, 11:48 pm

Scott:

Me:[color=darkred]

Cyrus:[color=darkred
]
> He's actually partially right. We cannot roam on every portion of
> Cingular's network,

Well, OK, but that wasn't what he asked.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Steve Sobol

2005-12-04, 11:48 pm

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

[color=darkred]
> No way, no how. Not even remotely close.

Hm. The way T-Mo played up their enhanced relationship with Cingular last
year, it sure sounded like a good deal. Perhaps it wasn't as good as it
sounded. (Perhaps I shouldn't get so fired up over press releases.) :)

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

LinkBot