1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Any way to switch T720 cell phone from Cingular to Verizon

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by SDNomad, Mar 22, 2004.

  1. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <eM88c.54399$aT1.51302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    > Yet their results are suspect at best


    Dont like the message, attack the messenger.

    Consumer Reports' results are near identical to those of

    The Yankee Group

    J.D. Power

    and thus are highly credible.
     



    › See More: Any way to switch T720 cell phone from Cingular to Verizon
  2. Dave C.

    Dave C. Guest


    > Consumer Reports did not rate Nextel as having good coverage. Their
    > subscribers in the surveyed areas did the ratings. And clearly the ratings
    > reflected coverage in the metro area, where often Nextel does provide good
    > coverage, and not outside these areas. Consumer Reports did warn about
    > non-metro coverage issues, both for Nextel and for GSM. The fact is that
    > most people spend 95%-99% of their time in their home area, so the ratings
    > don't really reflect how bad certain carriers are outside these areas.


    Well that explains a lot. I spend 4-5 days a week on the road. Thus, I'm
    almost never in my "home" area. I carry a Nextel phone because my employer
    requires me to. It never has a signal, and is worthless even when it DOES
    have a signal. I know it's not the phone, as this isn't the first phone
    I've carried on the Nextel Network, and it behaves like all the others . . .
    utter crapola. Even when I'm IN a metro area, I find it's next to
    impossible to either initiate OR receive a call on the nextel network. If
    the phone call is important, I don't even think about it. I just use my
    personal cell phone, which is Cingular GSM . . . and formerly Verizon. I
    have no idea why CR would warn about non-metro coverage issues for GSM.
    Yeah, I've found a few blind spots hundreds of miles from nowhere, but those
    same areas have huge blind spots on the Verizon network, also. -Dave
     
  3. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <MdadnWt8Ad9r5vzdRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
    "Dave C." <spammersdie@ahorribledeath.now> wrote:

    > I
    > have no idea why CR would warn about non-metro coverage issues for GSM.


    Because most GSM phones do not do Analog, and Analog is what provides
    your coverage out "in the sticks".
     
  4. "Dave C." <spammersdie@ahorribledeath.now> wrote in message
    news:MdadnWt8Ad9r5vzdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
    >
    > > Consumer Reports did not rate Nextel as having good coverage. Their
    > > subscribers in the surveyed areas did the ratings. And clearly the

    ratings
    > > reflected coverage in the metro area, where often Nextel does provide

    good
    > > coverage, and not outside these areas. Consumer Reports did warn about
    > > non-metro coverage issues, both for Nextel and for GSM. The fact is that
    > > most people spend 95%-99% of their time in their home area, so the

    ratings
    > > don't really reflect how bad certain carriers are outside these areas.

    >
    > Well that explains a lot. I spend 4-5 days a week on the road. Thus, I'm
    > almost never in my "home" area. I carry a Nextel phone because my

    employer
    > requires me to.


    My wife's employer got everyone, including the field people Nextel phones.
    Two problems. First there is no coverage in many of the areas the field
    people go to. Second, they all had to turn off the speakerphones, because
    they can't have the clients they are visiting hearing confidential
    information about other clients being broadcast. So no one uses the phones,
    but everyone has to carry them. Bizarre. I don't think my wife has used her
    Nextel phone once in the year or so she's had it. Oh, and they "permit" you
    to sign up for a second number on the same phone for your personal calls!
     
  5. "Dave C." <spammersdie@ahorribledeath.now> wrote in message
    news:MdadnWt8Ad9r5vzdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...

    <snip>

    > I have no idea why CR would warn about non-metro coverage issues for GSM.
    > Yeah, I've found a few blind spots hundreds of miles from nowhere, but

    those
    > same areas have huge blind spots on the Verizon network, also. -Dave


    Unless you have a GAIT phone, you'll have a lot of dead spots in rural
    areas. Ditto for CDMA phone that lacks AMPS. And of course there are many
    areas that have TDMA and/or CDMA coverage, but little or no GSM coverage.
    Like the entire state of Alaska, and many areas in California. The non-AT&T
    affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added digital
    to their AMPS network. They did this for cost reasons since less towers are
    needed to cover the same geograhic area with CDMA than GSM or TDMA, and they
    often cover large, sparsely populated areas.
     
  6. "SDNomad" <brand@rushmore.com> wrote in message
    news:80bcbb59.0403220556.582aafa5@posting.google.com...
    > Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was

    used
    > with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service?


    There is a Motorola T720 which works on CDMA on the Cricket network
    but the internal workings are different from that of the T720 used
    with GSM on Cingular and ALLTEL. Verizon has a similar phone in the
    T72x series which might meet your needs.

    Generally, GSM phones are locked to a specific carrier and only that
    carrier's SIM will work in that phone. TDMA and CDMA phones do not
    use SIMs but the ESN of the phone you want to use must be in the
    database of the carrier with whom you want to start service.

    --
    Earl F. Parrish
     
  7. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    In article <V2j8c.10865$bX5.10443@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
    Earl F. Parrish <efparri@nowhere.world> wrote:
    >
    >"SDNomad" <brand@rushmore.com> wrote in message
    >news:80bcbb59.0403220556.582aafa5@posting.google.com...
    >> Is there any way to switch a Motorola T720 cell phone that was

    >used
    >> with Cingular, so I could use it with Verizon service?

    >
    >There is a Motorola T720 which works on CDMA on the Cricket network
    >but the internal workings are different from that of the T720 used
    >with GSM on Cingular and ALLTEL. Verizon has a similar phone in the
    >T72x series which might meet your needs.
    >
    >Generally, GSM phones are locked to a specific carrier and only that
    >carrier's SIM will work in that phone. TDMA and CDMA phones do not
    >use SIMs but the ESN of the phone you want to use must be in the
    >database of the carrier with whom you want to start service.


    Only some CDMA carriers have this requirement (e.g., SprintPCS). Verizon
    and Alltel only require that they support the particular model, and that
    the phone is unlocked (not locked by the previous provider).
     
  8. X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
    Lines: 24
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.123.190.70
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
    X-Trace: newssvr24.news.prodigy.com 1080225041 ST000 64.123.190.70 (Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:30:41 EST)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:30:41 EST
    Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
    X-UserInfo1: SCSGG\[D[JEURQTXEBCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^BSZUSAANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB@X^B_OCJLPZ@ET_O[G\XSG@E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM@I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_]@A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
    Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:30:41 GMT
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.cingular:29365 alt.cellular.verizon:142221 alt.cellular.attws:22557

    In article <Cqv8c.1135$LX.322374@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
    ktwonnj@NOSPAMoptonline.net says...
    > Verizon has one big advantage over all carriers, and that's COVERAGE!
    >

    Not really if you compare apples to apples. Verizon coverage WITH
    analog, Cingular national GAIT coverage WITH analog, and ATT national
    coverage WITH analog all look similar to me--basically the entire
    country with a few spots that don't have ANY coverage. Back out the
    analog and look at only the "all-digital" portion of the Verizon map and
    it compares to Cingular's new GSM-only coverage. Could be even less.
    Small cities of 20000 to 30000 in Texas have GSM of some kind (T-Mobile
    usually) but CDMA is MUCH less common. Actually hard to tell on my
    screen--somebody deliberately made the V national map hard to see the
    difference between "all-digital" and "home rate"--colors are very
    similar. Select the new "IN-Network" maps and you'll see that Verizon's
    own network is much smaller still.

    I really considered Verizon the last time I had to change plans but
    decided against it because the phone would have been in analog for most
    of the area I roam--with poor battery life and lack of SMS whereas the
    GAIT phone is in TDMA most of that time.
    --
    Jud
    Dallas TX USA
     
  9. K2NNJ

    K2NNJ Guest

    Verizon has one big advantage over all carriers, and that's COVERAGE!


    "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
    news:a0t660h9g4cdj2ufr3bc3pfhu6lqolhcfb@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:13:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    > <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
    >
    > >The non-AT&T
    > >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added

    digital
    > >to their AMPS network. They did this for cost reasons since less towers

    are
    > >needed to cover the same geograhic area with CDMA than GSM or TDMA,

    >
    > Where did you get that piece of bullshit? The technology doesn't have
    > shit to do with using less or more towers. The frequency used does.
    > Cellular does not require as many towers as PCS (1900.) The
    > technology doesn't.
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
     
  10. Joseph

    Joseph Guest

    On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:13:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    >The non-AT&T
    >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added digital
    >to their AMPS network. They did this for cost reasons since less towers are
    >needed to cover the same geograhic area with CDMA than GSM or TDMA,


    Where did you get that piece of bullshit? The technology doesn't have
    shit to do with using less or more towers. The frequency used does.
    Cellular does not require as many towers as PCS (1900.) The
    technology doesn't.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
     
  11. "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
    news:a0t660h9g4cdj2ufr3bc3pfhu6lqolhcfb@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:13:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    > <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
    >
    > >The non-AT&T
    > >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added

    digital
    > >to their AMPS network. They did this for cost reasons since less towers

    are
    > >needed to cover the same geograhic area with CDMA than GSM or TDMA,

    >
    > Where did you get that piece of bullshit? The technology doesn't have
    > shit to do with using less or more towers. The frequency used does.
    > Cellular does not require as many towers as PCS (1900.) The
    > technology doesn't.


    Watch your language--especially when you don't know what you're talking
    about. The air interface has everything to do with how many towers are
    required. GSM has a maximum range of 35 km, even if the signal strength is
    adequate, timing considerations prevent longer distances. CDMA can have a
    range of 110km. This is why countries like Australia went to CDMA in the
    rural areas, you need far fewer towers. These ranges are possible with tall
    towers and non-mountainous terrain.

    In the U.S., there are areas that will either remain as AMPS, or go to CDMA,
    GSM is not an option. The GSM carriers are creating corridors of coverage
    along major highways through rural areas.

    In urban areas there is no advantage to CDMA in terms of the number of
    towers to cover an area, only the capacity advantages that CDMA offers.
     
  12. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    In article <mHP8c.1243$Dv2.1075@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
    >
    >"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
    >news:a0t660h9g4cdj2ufr3bc3pfhu6lqolhcfb@4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:13:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    >> <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The non-AT&T
    >> >affiliated, smaller carriers, tended to go to CDMA when they added

    >digital
    >> >to their AMPS network. They did this for cost reasons since less towers

    >are
    >> >needed to cover the same geograhic area with CDMA than GSM or TDMA,

    >>
    >> Where did you get that piece of bullshit? The technology doesn't have
    >> shit to do with using less or more towers. The frequency used does.
    >> Cellular does not require as many towers as PCS (1900.) The
    >> technology doesn't.

    >
    >Watch your language--especially when you don't know what you're talking
    >about. The air interface has everything to do with how many towers are
    >required. GSM has a maximum range of 35 km, even if the signal strength is
    >adequate, timing considerations prevent longer distances. CDMA can have a
    >range of 110km. This is why countries like Australia went to CDMA in the
    >rural areas, you need far fewer towers. These ranges are possible with tall
    >towers and non-mountainous terrain.


    In Australia, they tweak a CDMA parameter on the cell sites to allow the
    handset to be even further away than "standard" CDMA. Nice thing is,
    the handsets do not require any firmware changes; the cell site just
    tolerates more timing skew in the signal from the handset.
     
  13. "CharlesH" <hoch@exemlary.invalid> wrote in message
    news:c42akt11hmj@enews2.newsguy.com...

    > In Australia, they tweak a CDMA parameter on the cell sites to allow the
    > handset to be even further away than "standard" CDMA. Nice thing is,
    > the handsets do not require any firmware changes; the cell site just
    > tolerates more timing skew in the signal from the handset.


    This sounds like a good solution for an AMPS replacement in the U.S. as
    well.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?