1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  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!

NEWS: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by PDA Man, Sep 5, 2003.

  1. jer

    jer Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    Brian peterson wrote:
    > I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
    > the DSL to work.


    True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
    service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
    service.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur



    › See More: NEWS: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War
  2. On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:21:34 -0400, norelpref <norelpref@fake.inv>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:48:35 GMT, "Paul J. Lucas"
    ><pjl.removethis@removethistoo.mac.com> said:
    >>
    >> But, at least with Sprint, they won't activate a phone they
    >> didn't originally sell for their service on their network.
    >>
    >> - Paul

    >
    >I thought all carriers had that policy.


    No they don't. T-Mobile, cingular and I believe Verizon will let you
    use any compatible equipment on their systems. The GSM carriers don't
    have any control saying you can't use any compatible device (even
    though AT&T will claim that you cannot use any other GSM phone on
    their network.)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
  3. PDA Man

    PDA Man Guest

    Getting a phone unlocked in Europe etc, is like walking into a store and
    buying a cig cord adapter.

    "Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:pfilm-E66504.17404606092003@news06.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <QLs6b.19154$dk4.605134@typhoon.sonic.net>,
    > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >
    > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > >
    > > In <pfilm-BEFEB6.13392506092003@news06.east.earthlink.net> on Sat, 06

    Sep 2003
    > > 18:39:19 GMT, Phillipe <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > >The thing is, over in England where portability has been around for a
    > > >while, the AVERAGE business discount is 50%, because of the willingness
    > > >of businesses to change carriers.

    > >
    > > The big difference is that in England, businesses can change carriers

    while
    > > keeping the same phones (just issue new SIMs), whereas here in the USA

    it
    > > often takes all-new phones.

    >
    > I thought the carriers were "locking" phones so simple SIM swaps
    > wouldn't work?
  4. On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 03:44:21 GMT, "Lawrence G. Mayka"
    <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote:

    >My understanding was that the GSM carriers (T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless, and
    >Cingular) will indeed activate an arbitrary GSM phone. However, each of these
    >carriers SIM-locks each phone it sells or gives away itself, in order to help
    >ensure sufficient service revenue to offset the phone's price subsidy.
    >
    >Does anyone have contrary information?


    T-Mobile and cingular will give out the unlock code after a period.
    ATTWS will not under any circumstance.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
  5. DevilsPGD

    DevilsPGD Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    In message <<bjf5l4$1se@library2.airnews.net>> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
    did ramble:

    >> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
    >> the DSL to work.

    >
    >True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
    >service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
    >service.


    No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
    doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
    you need to pay for that.

    --
    If you've had half as much fun reading this as I've had writing it, I've had twice as much fun as you.
  6. Ray

    Ray Guest

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:45:17 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >
    > There was a problem with VZW's computers refusing to put a PRL on the
    > phone because they didn't recognize its (Alltel) ESN. The phone does run
    > fine on VZW's network; Comtel Cellular, a VZW authorized retailer in
    > the Cleveland area, used to sell them at their kiosk at the Great Lakes
    > Mall.
    >
    > I did note that the 6185 did have fewer signal issues running on Alltel,
    > even though the store tech flashed the phone with VZW firmware. (At least
    > I assumed they did. If not, that might partially explain the phone's
    > poorer performance on VZW's network.)


    In another thread I posted a question about a Motorola V60c originally from
    Alltel. I was able to activate it from the VZW web site and program it via
    *22801 and it works fine but VZW was unable to update the phones firmware
    because they say they couldn't "read" it. Someone here suggested that it
    was because their software didn't recognize the Alltel version of the
    firmware and therefore wouldn't update it.

    --
    Ray


    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    > 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    > Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    > 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  7. JRW

    JRW Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    Paul J. Lucas wrote:
    > And, for me, cable-based broadband isn't an option because they
    > don't offer static IPs


    Try www.tzo.com or www.dynaip.com or dyndns.org to resolve your
    dynamic IP to a static one.
  8. jer

    jer Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    DevilsPGD wrote:

    > In message <<bjf5l4$1se@library2.airnews.net>> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
    > did ramble:
    >
    >
    >>>I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
    >>>the DSL to work.

    >>
    >>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
    >>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
    >>service.

    >
    >
    > No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
    > doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
    > you need to pay for that.
    >



    Okay, I'm unaware of which tariff you're referring to. Maybe you
    could offer a cite from some web-based document.


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  9. Mark O'Brien

    Mark O'Brien Guest

    On 9/6/03 11:44 PM, in article
    pQx6b.20931$Ih1.8107515@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com, "Lawrence G. Mayka"
    <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote:

    > My understanding was that the GSM carriers (T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless, and
    > Cingular) will indeed activate an arbitrary GSM phone. However, each of these
    > carriers SIM-locks each phone it sells or gives away itself, in order to help
    > ensure sufficient service revenue to offset the phone's price subsidy.
    >
    > Does anyone have contrary information?


    Not contrary, but a minor clarification: GSM carriers actually activate a
    SIM. It can be used in any unlocked GSM phone of the proper frequency, and
    the carrier doesn't see or know about what handset the SIM is in.
  10. DevilsPGD

    DevilsPGD Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    In message <<bjg7gi$jmo@library1.airnews.net>> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
    did ramble:

    >>>>I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
    >>>>the DSL to work.
    >>>
    >>>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
    >>>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
    >>>service.

    >>
    >> No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
    >> doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
    >> you need to pay for that.

    >
    >Okay, I'm unaware of which tariff you're referring to. Maybe you
    >could offer a cite from some web-based document.


    Gah, I can't believe I didn't fix that... Sorry, I meant "greed" not
    "tariff" *sighs* Need to sleep more before posting.

    --
    If you've had half as much fun reading this as I've had writing it, I've had twice as much fun as you.
  11. jer

    jer Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    DevilsPGD wrote:

    > In message <<bjg7gi$jmo@library1.airnews.net>> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
    > did ramble:
    >
    >
    >>>>>I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
    >>>>>the DSL to work.
    >>>>
    >>>>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
    >>>>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
    >>>>service.
    >>>
    >>>No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
    >>>doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
    >>>you need to pay for that.

    >>
    >>Okay, I'm unaware of which tariff you're referring to. Maybe you
    >>could offer a cite from some web-based document.

    >
    >
    > Gah, I can't believe I didn't fix that... Sorry, I meant "greed" not
    > "tariff" *sighs* Need to sleep more before posting.



    Okay, I'll give you that.

    Now, since I've had my sleep, and some time to chat with a couple of
    SBC buds, here's one deal.... AT&T is an alternate voice provider
    across SBC copper wires to homes and business. AT&T uses a
    two-channel multiplexor on their customer's premises. The multiplexor
    on the customer end communicates with another one on the telco end,
    and the mux on the telco end is actually an integral part of the AT&T
    switch. Which means the copper wires used for AT&T voice service go
    no where near the SBC switch, nor any other service equipment offered
    by SBC or their DSL partner.

    This mux and DSL service cannot exist on the same copper pair - the
    mux cannot pass DSL signals. Any customer wanting SBC DSL service and
    AT&T voice service on the same line, will be told 'no can do - mux
    gotta go'.

    Now, the other deal... (Repeat: can SBC offer DSL service without
    their own dial-tone service?) Answer: No, they won't. This
    particular bud of mine said he thought it was a policy issue, not a
    tariffed issue. Laughingly he said, "Why would anyone want DSL
    service without voice? I mean, that's the whole point of DSL, voice
    and broadband on the same copper wires. If we started selling DSL
    service without voice, it would break the business model we depend on.
    The price point for DSL delivery depends on, and is partially
    subsidized by, dial tone." So, it sounds like it may be technically
    possible for SBC to provide DSL broadband service without dial tone,
    but they won't because nobody is forcing them to do otherwise. And
    that's where your Greed Factor kicks in.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  12. Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    "PDA Man" <pda@place.com> wrote in message
    news:guSdnTxENKP7bMWiU-KYgw@comcast.com...
    >
    > Carriers will likely spend heavily to keep customers once number

    portability
    > kicks in this November.
    >
    > NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - On Nov. 24, the long-awaited wireless number
    > portability rule kicks in, which will allow cell phone users to keep their
    > numbers when they switch service providers.
    >

    <snip>

    Now, if the carriers were to offer you a discount to trade in phones from
    old carriers when you sign up with them ... that would a deal clincher!
    Offer me something for my now dead phones and I will be more likely to
    become your customer ...

    Tom Veldhouse
  13. Frederick

    Frederick Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    Don't really know how that can happen.

    1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
    supposed to.)

    2. SBC DSL is available in my town, however SBC local phone service is
    not. Therefore they can not require me to have their phone service.
    Wonder if it is an area specific thing.


    rdm_24@go.com (Brian peterson) wrote in message news:<vlkj76l79d314f@corp.supernews.com>...
    > I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
    > the DSL to work. If I read your message correct your saying to transfer
    > the phone service to another company is that right?
    >
    > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
    > <h%n6b.19078$dk4.603631@typhoon.sonic.net>:
    > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > >
    > > In <ksn6b.10194$cj1.9170@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 06 Sep 2003
    > > 15:56:00 GMT, "Paul J. Lucas" <pjl.removethis@removethistoo.mac.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > >In alt.cellular.verizon Doru Roll <doruroll@optonline.net> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> With WLNP the "need" for a wired phone is truly gone.
    > > >
    > > > Except if you happen to have SBC DSL. SBC won't just sell you
    > > > DSL service: you MUST have a land-line number. You might be
    > > > thinking, "Well, of course you need a land-line since DSL runs
    > > > over the same copper." Except there's a difference between the
    > > > copper and the *number* assigned to the copper. It's certainly
    > > > possible to have DSL on a copper pair with no phone number
    > > > assigned to it (I used to have this with Northpoint before they
    > > > went bankrupt).
    > > >
    > > > And, for me, cable-based broadband isn't an option because they
    > > > don't offer static IPs (not to mention cable companies'
    > > > Draconian TOS policies).
    > > >
    > > > So, for now, I'm sorta of stuck with my land-line.

    > >
    > > Not really. Transfer the DSL to a number you don't care about on the lowest
    > > possible cost service, and then move your current landline number elsewhere.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    > > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
  14. Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    "Frederick" <fjclaus@photographyspecialist.com> wrote in message
    news:66c372d3.0309080755.29b57622@posting.google.com...
    > 1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
    > supposed to.)


    Yes, it is supposed to and it does. As another poster has said, that is the
    whole point of DSL: to piggyback data on the same copper pair as voice.

    > 2. SBC DSL is available in my town, however SBC local phone service is
    > not. Therefore they can not require me to have their phone service.
    > Wonder if it is an area specific thing.


    As another poster has said, SBC's primary business model for DSL assumes
    bundling with voice service. That's the only way SBC can afford to provide
    1.5Mbps downspeed data for $30/month ($25/month if you caught the special deal
    that was only available July 1-2).

    If your SBC DSL is not bundled with voice, I can only assume that either your
    monthly rate is much higher than $30/month, or SBC is cross-subsidizing you for
    the sake of uniform national pricing.
  15. Phillipe

    Phillipe Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    In article <yS17b.22895$Ih1.8512377@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>,
    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote:

    > That's the only way SBC can afford to provide
    > 1.5Mbps downspeed data for $30/month


    Thats only for 12 months, then it goes upto $49.99
  16. jer

    jer Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    Frederick wrote:

    > Don't really know how that can happen.
    >
    > 1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
    > supposed to.)
    >
    > 2. SBC DSL is available in my town, however SBC local phone service is
    > not. Therefore they can not require me to have their phone service.
    > Wonder if it is an area specific thing.



    I suppose you could call it an area thing. The important part to
    understand is, in most places, SBC is the primary voice provider, and
    they are also the primary DSL provider - their equipment is located at
    the same place and is wired to work together.

    OTOH, if SBC isn't the primary voice provider (someone else is), but
    SBC is the primary DSL provider, then SBC's equipment is still wired
    to be an integral part of the copper (or fiber) service.

    Yes, I understand that one could get DSL service from a variety of
    alternate DSL providers, but that service will still be carried to you
    on an SBC copper loop, and SBC's DSLAM is simply programmed to home
    off the alternate's network.

    Where AT&T is the alternate voice provider (in Dallas), their voice
    switch is in the same building as SBC's switch, but there's a hard
    demarc between the two, with only a tie cable to hand off a copper
    pair to AT&T's voice switch. Once that copper pair is handed over to
    AT&T, it won't come back to SBC's side for all the tea in China. It's
    also my understanding the AT&T's service from Verizon locations is the
    same arrangement.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  17. Cyrus Afzali

    Cyrus Afzali Guest

    On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 22:40:39 GMT, Phillipe <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >In article <QLs6b.19154$dk4.605134@typhoon.sonic.net>,
    > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >
    >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >>
    >> In <pfilm-BEFEB6.13392506092003@news06.east.earthlink.net> on Sat, 06 Sep 2003
    >> 18:39:19 GMT, Phillipe <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The thing is, over in England where portability has been around for a
    >> >while, the AVERAGE business discount is 50%, because of the willingness
    >> >of businesses to change carriers.

    >>
    >> The big difference is that in England, businesses can change carriers while
    >> keeping the same phones (just issue new SIMs), whereas here in the USA it
    >> often takes all-new phones.

    >
    >I thought the carriers were "locking" phones so simple SIM swaps
    >wouldn't work?


    They do, but many except AT&T will give out the unlocking codes after
    a period and there are unlocking services where you can get it done
    for a relatively small fee. They exist in many major cities and
    through the mail.
  18. Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    On 8 Sep 2003 08:55:37 -0700, fjclaus@photographyspecialist.com
    (Frederick) wrote:

    >1. Your DSL does not run off your phone line (at least it's not
    >supposed to.)


    DSL is indeed delivered over regular copper pairs. Depending on the
    DSL you have it is very often delivered over the *same* copper pair as
    your voice service. All DSL delivered from local telcos such as
    Verizon, SBC, Qwest, etc. are for the most part delivered over the
    same line you have for voice and in fact requires you to have voice
    service on that line in order to serve you. Other companies offer DSL
    and don't have voice service with it such as offered by Covad.


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
  19. RDT

    RDT Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    In article <4vomlvcpbbh0bdhic22ughfgmpgqnbaaed@4ax.com>,
    DevilsPGD <yeahbaby@crazyhat.net> wrote:
    >In message <<bjf5l4$1se@library2.airnews.net>> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
    >did ramble:
    >>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service for
    >>> the DSL to work.

    >>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
    >>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
    >>service.

    >No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
    >doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
    >you need to pay for that.


    Jer, I have to agree with this guy. The loop cost should be absorbed
    in the cost of DSL. It is just a way for landline carriers to protect
    their voice revenues from further erosion. On the other hand, DSL is down
    to $29.95 plus $10.80 for basic voice service. A base price of around
    $40.75. After taxes, my bill is about $54. Not a bad deal to get high
    speed internet bundled with voice. But I still think that DSL should be a
    standalone service.

    RDT
    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill
  20. Justin

    Justin Guest

    Re: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War

    ""RDT"" <taite@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:bjql1b$l92$1@panix2.panix.com...
    > In article <4vomlvcpbbh0bdhic22ughfgmpgqnbaaed@4ax.com>,
    > DevilsPGD <yeahbaby@crazyhat.net> wrote:
    > >In message <<bjf5l4$1se@library2.airnews.net>> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
    > >did ramble:
    > >>> I have SBC DSL, and they adv. that I have to have SBC phone service

    for
    > >>> the DSL to work.
    > >>True. It's not a tariff issue, it's a technical issue. SBC's DSL
    > >>service connects through the same equipment the supplies their voice
    > >>service.

    > >No, that's tariff. Just because it goes through the same equipment
    > >doesn't mean you need a phone number or dialtone on that line, nor do
    > >you need to pay for that.

    >
    > Jer, I have to agree with this guy. The loop cost should be absorbed
    > in the cost of DSL. It is just a way for landline carriers to protect
    > their voice revenues from further erosion. On the other hand, DSL is down
    > to $29.95 plus $10.80 for basic voice service. A base price of around
    > $40.75. After taxes, my bill is about $54. Not a bad deal to get high
    > speed internet bundled with voice. But I still think that DSL should be a
    > standalone service.
    >
    > RDT
    > --
    > "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    > inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    > --- Sir Winston Churchill
    >


    I have Sloserv for DSL and it's always crapping out. It's $45 just for DSL
    alone. But I'd NEVER go back to dial up unless I absolutely had no
    alternative.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?