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

ATT vs. Verizon

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Brian Grigg, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:28:54 -0500, Steven J Sobol wrote:

    > In alt.cellular.verizon Traveling Man <none@none.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> But if the "new" AT&T offers a roamfree solution, and unlimited n/w, I'd
    >>> switch if only to stay with AT&T. Who the hell wants to go with Cingular,
    >>> anyway?

    >>
    >> VZW has a National Single Rate plan like AT&Ts DOR.

    >
    > AT&T was just the pioneer in that area. Verizon, Alltel, Cingular all have
    > similar plans.


    Yes, I know. I started with an AT&T DOR plan several years ago while they
    were still all TDMA, but switched to VZW since their coverage was better for
    me. Also, the closest AT&T cell number I could get was still a local toll
    call, whereas VZW had local numbers. It cost me money everytime my wife
    called me or my office phone forwarded to my AT&T cell phone <G>.
     



    › See More: ATT vs. Verizon
  2. Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.


    Mark Henderson wrote:

    > In article <nUUBc.13940$Wr.6284@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    >> I doubt the 2g gsm network will ever be fully built, before it is
    >>switched to 3G WCDMA. I think the AT&T heads finally saw the light and
    >>cut their losses with the 2g gsm network and will be much better off
    >>with the 3G CDMA of Sprint PCS and Verizon.

    >
    >
    > Well, UMTS isn't exactly the 3G CDMA of Sprint/Verizon...
    >
    > UMTS phones will all fall back to GSM for voice. Right now, given all the
    > congestion problems on VZW, my AT&T GSM phone is actually working better
    > than my VZW phone (it isn't the phone, I've tried several)
    >
    > Sprint - well, they don't have the coverage I need, so they aren't in
    > the running for my business. I wish the CDMA carriers would get 1xRTT
    > data roaming going. Right now, lack of 1xRTT data roaming is one
    > thing that is keeping data coverage on Sprint and Verizon behind in
    > terms of overall data coverage.
    >
     
  3. In article <F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    > But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    >wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    >be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    >the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.


    Motorola A845. Dual mode GSM tri-band/WCDMA. Check it out on
    phonescoop. It's a _big_ phone - weighs 155g.

    This is apparently one of the phone choices AT&T Wireless will be
    launching UMTS with this summer.
     
  4. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Traveling Man wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:18:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:


    > My wife still keeps her VZW Single Rate East plan, which is similar to
    > yours, for the same reason. She also gets 3500 minutes of free nights and
    > weekends. VZW doesn't offer it anymore.


    I have Single Rate East also (Pgh., PA) No roaming charges period in the
    northeast. I won't switch till I have to travel outside the area.
     
  5. David S

    David S Guest

    On 22 Jun 2004 18:29:43 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) chose to add
    this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >In article <nUUBc.13940$Wr.6284@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    >Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> I doubt the 2g gsm network will ever be fully built, before it is
    >>switched to 3G WCDMA. I think the AT&T heads finally saw the light and
    >>cut their losses with the 2g gsm network and will be much better off
    >>with the 3G CDMA of Sprint PCS and Verizon.

    >
    >AT&T Corporation, which is launching the "new" AT&T wireless as a Sprint
    >reseller, is a completely unrelated to the current "AT&T Wireless" company
    >which is merging with Cingular. Until the Sprint initiative launches,
    >AT&T Corporation is not in the wireless business at all. "AT&T Wireless"
    >simply licenses the "AT&T" name from AT&T Corporation. At one time they
    >were the same company, but several years ago AT&T Corporation got rid
    >of the wireless operation, as they did the cable TV operation.
    >
    >And they are really going to be able to explain this to the public??
    >All of the the "old" AT&T Wireless customers, with their TDMA/GSM phones
    >are going to be absorbed into Cingular, and the "new" <whatever it will
    >be called> will sell Sprint-compatible PCS CDMA phones to its all-new
    >customers. :-(


    Wait a minute -- is Sprint PCS still related to Sprint (the long distance
    company)? Or has it been spun off the same way as ATTWS?

    If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    one of its biggest rivals?

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "You know, I was supposed to be a flash in the pan. I'm the longest flash
    Hollywood's ever seen." - Whoopi Goldberg, accepting a career achievement
    award at the Santa Barbara Film Festival
     
  6. David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

    > Wait a minute -- is Sprint PCS still related to Sprint (the long distance
    > company)? Or has it been spun off the same way as ATTWS?


    No, Sprint PCS is wholly owned by Sprint.

    > If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    > one of its biggest rivals?


    They obviously were doing a crappy job running their own network. Reselling
    someone else's means someone else has to do all the network maintenance and
    planning, etc.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  7. Bill Radio

    Bill Radio Guest

    David,
    Not only are Sprint and Sprint PCS still related, they have been combined
    back into one company! The reason they did that was the same reason (old)
    AT&T is considering a wireless service. All the large carriers want to
    'bundle' communications services, especially for their larger customers.
    Wireless is the future, wireline is old school.

    AT&T wants to offer its customers a wireless service, and they're not really
    concerned about competing with the other wireless carriers. They are just
    creating added value for their data and business customers. When accounts
    are 'bundled', customers tend to be more loyal, and it is a bigger hassle to
    change your data, LD and wireless services all it once. They are more
    willing to stay with a company if only part of their service has a problem.

    Qwest, Verizon, Sprint and SBC are already offering these 'bundles', and
    Qwest's wireless is also handled by Sprint. AT&T does not care who supplies
    the wireless network, they just want to hand over some wireless phones for
    their big customers to use. In some areas of the country, the phones they
    offer may be Nextel. So far most of these bundled services haven't made
    that much difference.

    Bill Radio
    Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
    http://www.mountainwireless.com


    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:2h3jd0h9bh9cgj47dgni10tj8q1otb52pl@4ax.com...
    > On 22 Jun 2004 18:29:43 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) chose to

    add
    > >

    > Wait a minute -- is Sprint PCS still related to Sprint (the long distance
    > company)? Or has it been spun off the same way as ATTWS?
    >
    > If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    > one of its biggest rivals?
     
  8. * * Chas

    * * Chas Guest

    "Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
    news:zcasdfyfyzcasdu9043834009@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
    > In alt.cellular.verizon Killer Michael

    <killermike@qwerty.com> wrote:
    > : Unfortunately Verizon has the oldest hardware line-up

    around. If you're
    > : looking for Bluetooth or anything like that, then run

    away from Verizon as
    > : fast as you can. They also push back release dates on

    new phones for months
    > : and months at a time. I had Verizon and switched to

    AT&T. I can now use
    > : wireless headsets, dump data from my computer to my

    phone and actually have
    > : the latest hardware available. The whole idea of me

    having a cell phone is
    > : to keep my some times boring day a little fun and

    different. I don't mind
    > : grabbing new cell phones every now and then. Verizon

    left all their
    > : customer's hanging with crapola phones and nothing

    really new....they're
    > : really geared to GET IT NOW and really pushing towards

    the teenage market.
    >
    > Well, some of us only want a decent phone with good

    service and don't
    > care about the gadgets. I dumped AT&T TDMA for Verizon

    because TDMA
    > service had gotten so bad I couldn't stand all the missed

    calls and
    > fast busies I got when trying to make a call. Verizon

    service and
    > reception has been great, and the simple Nokia 3589i has

    been great -
    > I've never looked back.
    >
    > Andrew
    > --
    > ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----


    Agreed! I have a life! Wanking around with a cell phone is a
    little pathetic.

    I'm a Mfg. Engineer and I travel all over the country. I do
    engineering and tech support by phone all day long. I'm on
    the road 2-3 weeks a month.

    All I need is a phone that works like my old fashioned
    desktop phones that I use in my office. I pick up the
    receiver and say "Hello", I can hear the person on the other
    end and when I want to place a call I dial the number and it
    works! Is that too much to ask!
    --
    Chas. verktyg@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail
    me)
     
  9. Joseph

    Joseph Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:24:29 GMT, "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com>
    wrote:

    >All I need is a phone that works like my old fashioned
    >desktop phones that I use in my office.


    I'm afraid you'll be disappointed then. There's no wireless service
    that even hopes to guarantee you that you'll get the same level of
    service you get with a fixed wireline service (even in areas that were
    served by the former GT&E.)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
     
  10. David S

    David S Guest

    On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:49:01 GMT, mch@darkhunger.com (Mark Henderson) chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >In article <F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    >Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    >> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    >>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    >>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    >>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.

    >
    >Motorola A845. Dual mode GSM tri-band/WCDMA. Check it out on
    >phonescoop. It's a _big_ phone - weighs 155g.
    >
    >This is apparently one of the phone choices AT&T Wireless will be
    >launching UMTS with this summer.


    A friend of mine, currently living in Japan (cellular service from Docomo),
    just bought a Sony 505i (I think). I haven't checked it out on the web yet,
    but he says it's GSM with built in CDMA (he's better than the average Joe,
    but I can't claim 100% certainty that he is correct about this) and it has
    a pretty darn good camera. He says it also does video, but he hasn't sent
    me any yet.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "ONE is too many zucchinis." - Dave Barry
     
  11. David S

    David S Guest

    On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:40:37 GMT, Traveling Man <none@none.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    > Also, the closest AT&T cell number I could get was still a local toll
    >call, whereas VZW had local numbers. It cost me money everytime my wife
    >called me or my office phone forwarded to my AT&T cell phone <G>.


    For the wife, tell her to hang up after 1 ring, then you call her back. You
    use the same minutes either way, and since the outbound call didn't
    connect, there's no charge on the landline.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
    against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And
    so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused
    and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
    - Rush Limbaugh, Oct. 5, 1995
     
  12. Jeremy

    Jeremy Guest

    "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
    news:1dwCc.76871$Qr.56950@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

    > >
    > > Well, some of us only want a decent phone with good

    > service and don't
    > > care about the gadgets.


    I agree completely with your sentiments, but customers like us do not drive
    profits for wireless companies. Now it's internet browsing and data
    transmission by wireless (with the accompanying charges for the amount of
    data sent or received).

    Verizon seems to be the carrier that most conforms to the "Universal
    Reliable Service" model. But it does seem frustrating to have all these
    incompatible transmission systems. Life was easier when they had the "A"
    and "B" analog systems.
     
  13. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message
    news:5ujld0l3qqm1pr53qfio9nvopagtro2ohu@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:24:29 GMT, "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >All I need is a phone that works like my old fashioned
    > >desktop phones that I use in my office.


    Check out the Phonecell (or just click on products) at www.telular.com they
    make a whole slew of boxes that are basically a cell phone inside a box that
    also has a switching system equivalent in it (like you would find in a motel
    or small business, dial 9 for an outside line, that happens to be the cell),
    and allows you to use all your normal phones (even your old fashioned
    desktop phones, almost any phone with an rj11 plug, but on the cellular
    system. Lets you use fax or alarms too, but not high speed data modems in
    computers at all times (in 1X areas yes, but in analog only areas can only
    do lower speed).

    Sorry, I don't sell em, just been using one for over a year and am very
    happy.
     
  14. Jeremy

    Jeremy Guest

    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    >
    > If it is still related, why on Earth would AT&T want to get into bed with
    > one of its biggest rivals?
    >


    Sprint has excess capacity that it can sell to AT&T.

    Sprint will derive revenue from wholesaling to AT&T, rather than see AT&Ts
    customers making their calls on some other network.

    Sprint will have a 5-year deal where AT&T will not switch their customers to
    any other network, AT&T's or anyone else's.

    Sprint will earn revenue with which to continue building out their existing
    network.

    Sprint is already in the wireless wholesale business (they provide service
    for Virgin Mobile). If Sprint declined AT&T's business, chances are that
    some other carrier would take it--and Sprint would see the revenues go to
    someone else.

    Sprint will ensure that AT&T does not become an outright competitor for at
    least 5 years. Better for Sprint to get SOME of the revenue from AT&T's
    customers than to get NONE of it.
     
  15. * * Chas

    * * Chas Guest

    "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
    news:VPCCc.25017$Y3.8028@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "* * Chas" <dnafutz@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
    > news:1dwCc.76871$Qr.56950@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > > >
    > > > Well, some of us only want a decent phone with good

    > > service and don't
    > > > care about the gadgets.

    >
    > I agree completely with your sentiments, but customers

    like us do not drive
    > profits for wireless companies. Now it's internet

    browsing and data
    > transmission by wireless (with the accompanying charges

    for the amount of
    > data sent or received).
    >
    > Verizon seems to be the carrier that most conforms to the

    "Universal
    > Reliable Service" model. But it does seem frustrating to

    have all these
    > incompatible transmission systems. Life was easier when

    they had the "A"
    > and "B" analog systems.


    I had several Fujitsu 3 Watt Analog phones that worked
    flawlessly around the country. I bought the first one with a
    "Portable Kit" for about $1200 in 1998. The kit weighed
    about 6 Lbs. and had a lead/acid gel battery that would run
    a motorcycle!

    These phones served me well until about 1998-1999 when I was
    pretty much forced to go digital. Absolutely none of the
    various acronym versions of digital has ever come close to
    what they have promised. A new technology comes along before
    the bugs in the old one get fixed and the suckers jump on
    the techno-weenie geek bandwagon.

    There are several fools or shills in this thread who
    continue to mouth the mantra that service will get better
    when more people buy into becoming unpaid beta testers for
    the latest technology.

    Cell phones are becoming worse that PCs!
    --
    Chas. verktyg@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail
    me)
     
  16. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    > But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    > wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    > be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    > the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.


    All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.

    A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    quickly -- it is a very complex process.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  17. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    > But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    > wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    > be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    > the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.


    All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.

    A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    quickly -- it is a very complex process.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  18. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    > But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    > wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    > be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    > the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.


    All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.

    A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    quickly -- it is a very complex process.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  19. JatJatIan

    JatJatIan Guest

    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    > But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    > wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    > be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    > the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.


    All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.

    A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    quickly -- it is a very complex process.

    Regards,
    Jatian
     
  20. I do not know of any gsm carriers in the USA that have launched
    wcdma. If you do, who are they, and where? I was also under the
    impression that a phone could not maintain the call while switching from
    wcdma to gsm, or the other way.


    JatJatIan wrote:

    > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<F2iCc.15132$Wr.3839@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>Correct, wcdma is not Verizon/Sprint PCS 3G CDMA.
    >> But as for a wcdma falling back to gsm for voice when there is no
    >>wcdma signal, I doubt it. I think that if not at the same time it will
    >>be very soon after wcdma is launched, the launching carrier will turn
    >>the gsm completely off. I doubt there will be dual mode gsm/wcdma phones.

    >
    >
    > All current UMTS (WCDMA) phones I am aware of (about half a dozen) as well
    > as UMTS networks support fall-back to GSM, both when the phone is idle
    > and is moved to a non-UMTS area, or during a call. Most if not all
    > have an indicator to say if you are on 3G or 2G. Some phones (e.g.
    > some of the LGE) allow you to select which network type you want.
    > The added cost to support GSM is quite low in a phone.
    >
    > A UMTS-only phone isn't marketable anywhere today, nor will be it for
    > some time to come. GSM operators cannot afford to swith to UMTS that
    > quickly -- it is a very complex process.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jatian
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?