Why IS IT...

[Dave]

That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply by
showing your driver's license . . .

Yet you can't take a ~$300 FULL RETAIL PRICE (usually less) cellular handset
for a day or two for testing purposes without:
- A major credit card
- A copy of your driver's license
- Paying an activation fee
- Signing a 2 year contract (or 1 year in some very limited
circumstances) AND
- Often paying part or even MOST of the full retail price of the handset
up front

WHY IS THAT???

If you can test-drive a car (and risk damaging it) with no up-front cost and
no obligation to buy, why can't you "test-drive" a cellular handset before
paying for it and signing a contract. WHY?????????? Can anyone come up
with a reasonable explanation? (I didn't think so)

Why don't cellular providers have "loaner" handsets for this purpose? You'd
only need about ten per store, and they wouldn't have to be the high-end
models. For testing purposes, the low-end handsets (that the cellular
providers get for much less than a hundred bucks a piece) would do. Why
can't you just walk into Cingular or Verizon or T-Mo or whatever and say you
want a loaner handset to test the network where you live and work? WHY???

Yes, I know that all cellular service providers have a "trial" period of 10
days or 15 days or whatever, during which you can cancel your contract.
Only problem is, there is considerable money and paperwork involved just to
GET the "trial", only to learn that you have to cancel it later. THERE
SHOULD BE AN EASIER WAY. If cellular service providers would allow you to
show identification, then take a handset home for a day or two, cellular
service providers would have (literally) nothing to lose and lots of
potential customers to gain. It would be a real win-win situation. SO WHY
ISN'T IT DONE?

*************************************************************

On a side note, what brought this up was, my wife and I recently switched
jobs, only to discover that Cingular had NO SERVICE at either of our new
office locations. Cingular claimed that we should have "good" strength
signal at work. We told them that we had no service. First, they tried to
blame the handset. OK, we tried . . . 4 different Nokia handsets and 2
different Motorola handsets. 2 of the Nokia handsets we tried were recently
re-programmed with the latest list of towers (re-provisioned, or whatever
they call it). Not surprisingly, we had NO SIGNAL on any of them. Then
Cingular told us it was the buildings. Those are some really odd buildings,
blocking Cingular GSM signals both inside AND OUTSIDE, yet allowing cellular
handsets from 3 other networks to have FULL signal strength both outside AND
INSIDE. (!)
Obviously, the problem was that the Cingular network had NO COVERAGE where
we were working. Out of curiosity though, I walked into a local Cingular
store and asked to see the street level coverage map (WHY IS THIS ONLY
ACCESSIBLE IN THE CINGULAR STORE?!?) and sure enough . . . I could confirm
with my own eyes that the Cingular coverage map showed the building where I
work was smack dab in the middle of a "good" signal strength area. So
Cingular didn't lie to us . . . they just fed us information that is
obviously inaccurate. That is, their street level map shows "good" signal
strength in a couple of areas where there is in fact NO SIGNAL AT ALL.

In other words, even the very detailled street level coverage maps are NO
GOOD. If you want to know if a handset will work where you live and/or
where you work, you have to take the handset "home" and "to work" and use it
from there.

So what to do? Well, we'd previously dumped Verizon for Cingular, due to
constant (and outrageous) billing errors on Verizon. We LOVED our Cingular
Nation GSM service for the two years that we used it. NO billing errors, NO
reception problems (until we switched jobs), good quality handsets that just
WORK, nothing to complain about at all with Cingular. In our experience,
Cingular's customer service was pretty good, also. At least, the few times
we did have to call Cingular customer service, our issue was resolved
immediately, on the FIRST phone call. Also, it was pretty significant that
we found Cingular's coverage was at least as good as Verizon's (and we both
travel a lot).

So we really did not want to dump Cingular, and we didn't want to switch to
Verizon, but what other choice did we have? After many years of headaches
trying to use Nextel/Sprint (employer provided handsets), I wouldn't sign
with Nextel. If you held a gun to my head and ordered me to sign with
Nextel, I'd say "SHOOT".

But in our area, all we have is:
Cingular (no signal at work now, unfortunately . . . otherwise, they are
great)
Verizon (good network, so-so handsets, frequent outrageous billing errors)
Nextel/Sprint (don't even get me started on all the coverage problems with
Nextel . . . in short, the network SUCKS RAW EGGS)
T-Mobile (never had them, don't know anybody else who has them, either)

So shit, it looked like I'd have to sign with T-Mobile. When I went to the
T-Mo web site, their street level map showed "good" signal strength at both
of our work locations (ha ha) and signal strength at home was smack dab in
the middle of "good" and "fair". Considering I already knew that the street
level coverage maps can be horribly inaccurate, it wasn't very encouraging
to note that T-Mo might be just "fair" at home. I called T-Mobile to ask if
I could borrow a handset for a day or so to test it. You'd think I was
asking for the salesman's first born child or something. Is it so wrong to
want to test a network BEFORE signing a contract for service on that
network?

But then I discussed the matter with my wife. She reminded me that we both
had coworkers who used Verizon cellular handsets at our work locations. So
I reminded HER that I'd dumped Verizon as I was sick and fucking tired of
spending hours on the phone every month trying to do Verizon's work for
them. So she came back and told me that all of her friends and relatives
are on Verizon, so most of our phone calls would be "IN" and thus free. And
she REALLY wanted a Verizon handset so that she could call her best friend
for free.

Awwwww, shit . . . I guess I'm a Verizon customer again. Yup, I signed a
contract with Verizon. But take note Verizon . . . I WILL BE WATCHING MY
BILLS EXTREMELY CLOSELY. I dumped you once, and I will fucking dump you
AGAIN if you treat me like you did the last time I was your customer. "IN"
be damned if I get half my calls for free and pay WAY TOO MUCH for the REST
of my calls.

OK, enough venting.

T-Mobile take note: If you'd just let me borrow a handset for a day or two,
you might have gained a contract for service on two cellular handsets (both
Nokia 6101) recently. All I wanted was something that could reliably make
calls from both home AND work (and most areas of the continental U.S., and I
understand that ALL cellular providers do have "dead spots"). I had no way
to know if the T-Mo network would work without actually USING a T-Mo handset
at home and work, and I wasn't about to sign a contract to find out. I
don't care that I know nobody on T-Mo. If T-Mo would work for me, I WOULD
have signed with T-Mo. If I'd signed with T-Mo, my wife wouldn't have been
able to 'twist my arm' hard enough to make me go back to Verizon.

But I don't mean to pick on T-Mo specifically. It seems like ALL cellular
service providers make you sign a contract if you want to just TEST a
handset at home or YOUR OWN work location. If the cellular service
providers are worried about people borrowing the phones just to make free
phone calls, why not pass out really cheap handsets that are programmed to
ONLY connect calls to 911, other users of THE SAME CELLULAR NETWORK, and the
cellular network's customer service numbers? That is all you'd NEED to test
the network, and it wouldn't cost the cellular service provider anything.
In fact, you really don't need to make phone calls at all to test the
network. Just walk around with the borrowed handset at work and home and
see how many bars of signal strength you get. If you see 3-5 (or more) bars
of signal strength and the name of your prospective service provider is
displayed (not roaming), then you pretty much know that the handset will
work OK for you at that location. If that's not good enough, call the
customer service number (pre-programmed in the phone, probably) and ask "can
you hear me now"???? :)

To Cellular Service providers: Why don't you allow prospective customers to
test a handset at home (and work) without signing a contract? WHY????

[Larry]

WHY?

Because if they did that, you'd find out where the holes in the coverage is
before signing a contract and wouldn't buy it.....??

[Dave]

Post by Larry

WHY?

Because if they did that, you'd find out where the holes in the coverage is
before signing a contract and wouldn't buy it.....??

And the alternative is? They make you sign a contract, then you cancel
during the trial period (because of course you found the holes in the
coverage) and get your money back. How is THAT better than not signing up
in the first place, from the point of view of a cellular service
rovider??? -Dave

[Agent_C]

Post by Dave
WHY IS THAT???

Because you're much more likely to steal something like a $300
headset, rather than a $30,000 car.

No normal person would doubt that the authorities would come after you
BIG TIME for stealing a car; but a merchant who let a customer walk
out of his store with a $300 item without paying for it, would
probably just get laughed at by the police.

A_C

[Dave]

Post by Agent_C

Post by Dave
WHY IS THAT???

Because you're much more likely to steal something like a $300
headset, rather than a $30,000 car.

I already answered this in my original post. I don't expect cellular
providers to just hand over the handset without verifying your identity
(they could copy down your driver's license number, for example). Also, you
wouldn't need a $300 handset to test the network . . . the cellular
providers could pass out their cheapest handsets, which cost the cellular
providers much less than $100 . . . and who would WANT to steal those?
Besides, who is going to activate a stolen handset??? So a stolen handset
would be worthless.

But assuming the cellular service providers were REALLY paranoid about the
potential loss of something that costs them next to nothing . . . they could
always ask for a credit card number, in case you don't return the handset,
but agree not to make any charges on the credit card if the handset is
returned. In the worst case, why require the contract? -Dave

[marx404]

my 2 cents - you can drop a cellphone, you cant drop a car. :-)

[Dave]

Post by marx404
my 2 cents - you can drop a cellphone, you cant drop a car. :-)

But you can wrap the car around the nearest telephone pole, so I don't get
your point. If you mention "insurance", keep in mind that cellular handsets
can be insured, also. Besides which, even if a new car is "totalled", you
KNOW that the insurance company isn't going to reimburse the dealer the full
cost of what the dealer paid for the car. So the potential loss to the car
dealer could be thousands, while the maximum potential loss to the cellular
service provider is less than I paid for dinner last night. -Dave

[clifto]

Post by marx404
my 2 cents - you can drop a cellphone, you cant drop a car. :-)

Loading Image...

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Dave
That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply by
showing your driver's license . . .
Yet you can't take a ~$300 FULL RETAIL PRICE (usually less) cellular handset
- A major credit card
- A copy of your driver's license
- Paying an activation fee
- Signing a 2 year contract (or 1 year in some very limited
circumstances) AND
- Often paying part or even MOST of the full retail price of the handset
up front
WHY IS THAT??? [SNIP]

Because the car dealer makes enough money off the sale to have someone
accompany you on the test drive. Do you expect the cell carrier to pay
someone to keep an eye on the cell phone while you walk around with it?

[Dave]

Post by John Navas
Because the car dealer makes enough money off the sale to have someone
accompany you on the test drive. Do you expect the cell carrier to pay
someone to keep an eye on the cell phone while you walk around with it?

Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way. And why would anyone need to keep an eye on the cell
phone? We're talking about something that costs next to nothing for the
cellular provider to purchase!!!* And the odds that it would get stolen or
damaged are really low . . . and can be close to ZERO if the cellular
provider just takes reasonable precautions, such as verifying identity and
collecting credit card information to be used only in case of damage or
loss. -Dave

* Remember, the cellular provider is not paying retail price for the
handsets. With the typical handset lasting 2 years or longer, one store
might only need to spend about $500/year on average, to keep a few loaners
on hand. Next to all the profits that the average store rakes in, that is
NOTHING . . . and would probably be more than offset by the increase in
profits that would result. I wonder how many people don't own cell phones
for the specific reason that they don't want to sign a contract before
trying the service?

[SMS]

Post by Dave
Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way.

I was surprised the first time a dealer just handed me the keys and told
me to take the vehicle out myself. I still wouldn't make any judgment as
to the dealer's character based on this.

[Dave]

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way.

I was surprised the first time a dealer just handed me the keys and told
me to take the vehicle out myself.

I'm sorry to hear that. That you were surprised, that is. It should have
been something that you EXPECTED to happen. -Dave

[SMS]

Post by Dave

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way.

I was surprised the first time a dealer just handed me the keys and told
me to take the vehicle out myself.

I'm sorry to hear that. That you were surprised, that is. It should have
been something that you EXPECTED to happen. -Dave

I just thought it strange, because they didn't even ask me for a
driver's license or anything.

[Dave]

Post by Dave

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car
dealers operate that way.

I was surprised the first time a dealer just handed me the keys and told
me to take the vehicle out myself.

I'm sorry to hear that. That you were surprised, that is. It should
have been something that you EXPECTED to happen. -Dave

I just thought it strange, because they didn't even ask me for a driver's
license or anything.

It kind of makes sense though. First, the car is fully insured (with a
small deductible, probably). So the risk to the car dealer, while not
trivial, is relatively minor, when weighed against the huge potential
profits of a sale. Second, they have more information about the car they
give you THAN MOST OWNERS DO. For example, how many car owners have their
own license plate number memorized, or even have it WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE?
Yet the car dealer has paperwork in many places (hardcopy and electronic)
showing the VIN number of the car you are testing. They also can find the
plate number of the dealer plate quite easily, if they need to. Plus as
soon as you entered the property, you were on CCTV with your picture being
recorded on a hard disk recorder unit (or time-lapse VCR, if the system is
older). Not to mention you probably left your current car parked on the
dealer lot during the test-drive. They can find you, quite easily. The
main reason to ask for a copy of your driver's license? Heck, even if you
drove to the dealer, that's no guarantee that you have a driver's license.
:) -Dave

[CharlesH]

Post by Dave

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way.

I was surprised the first time a dealer just handed me the keys and told
me to take the vehicle out myself.

I'm sorry to hear that. That you were surprised, that is. It should have
been something that you EXPECTED to happen. -Dave

My wife and I have each been driving for nearly forty years, and neither
one of us have ever heard of a dealer just handing the keys to the
prospective customer for a test drive, any more than expecting to get
the keys to a home before the sale formally closes. We are talking about
many major domestic and foreign brand car dealers in lots of different
cities. It must be one of those things where the custom differs in
different parts of the country.

[Don Udel (ETC)]

Post by CharlesH
My wife and I have each been driving for nearly forty years, and neither
one of us have ever heard of a dealer just handing the keys to the
prospective customer for a test drive, any more than expecting to get the
keys to a home before the sale formally closes. We are talking about many
major domestic and foreign brand car dealers in lots of different cities.
It must be one of those things where the custom differs in different parts
of the country.

I think you are correct in that it depends on the part of the country. In
Atlanta, they would want DL and other information. They might try to ride
with you (some have, some have not). Away from Atlanta, in North Georgia,
where most people know each other, they throw me the key and hoped I bought
when I got back. Heck, one even gave me gas money to fill the tank because
it was on fumes when I wanted to try it.

Don

[Turbocane]

Post by CharlesH

Post by Dave

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way.

I was surprised the first time a dealer just handed me the keys and told
me to take the vehicle out myself.

I'm sorry to hear that. That you were surprised, that is. It should
have been something that you EXPECTED to happen. -Dave

My wife and I have each been driving for nearly forty years, and neither
one of us have ever heard of a dealer just handing the keys to the
prospective customer for a test drive, any more than expecting to get the
keys to a home before the sale formally closes. We are talking about many
major domestic and foreign brand car dealers in lots of different cities.
It must be one of those things where the custom differs in different parts
of the country.

I haven't either and I have been driving about the same.

[Thurman]

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
Again, you should NEVER buy a car from a dealer that insists on having
someone accompany you on a test drive. Only the shadiest of car dealers
operate that way.

I was surprised the first time a dealer just handed me the keys and told
me to take the vehicle out myself. I still wouldn't make any judgment as
to the dealer's character based on this.

Just last week, again, a test driver ordered the salesman out of the car at
gunpoint.

A person I respect said in 3 days the parts of that car will be on the
market in Mexico.

Maybe it's a Texas thing or the poster is the guy with a gun.

[Kevin Weaver]

They all give you a op-out. most of the time 2 weeks. 15 days for verizon.
Take it, try it. don't like it bring it back.
Simple enough.

Post by Dave
That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply
by showing your driver's license . . .
Yet you can't take a ~$300 FULL RETAIL PRICE (usually less) cellular
- A major credit card
- A copy of your driver's license
- Paying an activation fee
- Signing a 2 year contract (or 1 year in some very limited
circumstances) AND
- Often paying part or even MOST of the full retail price of the
handset up front
WHY IS THAT???
If you can test-drive a car (and risk damaging it) with no up-front cost
and no obligation to buy, why can't you "test-drive" a cellular handset
before paying for it and signing a contract. WHY?????????? Can anyone
come up with a reasonable explanation? (I didn't think so)
Why don't cellular providers have "loaner" handsets for this purpose?
You'd only need about ten per store, and they wouldn't have to be the
high-end models. For testing purposes, the low-end handsets (that the
cellular providers get for much less than a hundred bucks a piece) would
do. Why can't you just walk into Cingular or Verizon or T-Mo or whatever
and say you want a loaner handset to test the network where you live and
work? WHY???
Yes, I know that all cellular service providers have a "trial" period of
10 days or 15 days or whatever, during which you can cancel your contract.
Only problem is, there is considerable money and paperwork involved just
to GET the "trial", only to learn that you have to cancel it later. THERE
SHOULD BE AN EASIER WAY. If cellular service providers would allow you to
show identification, then take a handset home for a day or two, cellular
service providers would have (literally) nothing to lose and lots of
potential customers to gain. It would be a real win-win situation. SO
WHY ISN'T IT DONE?
*************************************************************
On a side note, what brought this up was, my wife and I recently switched
jobs, only to discover that Cingular had NO SERVICE at either of our new
office locations. Cingular claimed that we should have "good" strength
signal at work. We told them that we had no service. First, they tried
to blame the handset. OK, we tried . . . 4 different Nokia handsets and 2
different Motorola handsets. 2 of the Nokia handsets we tried were
recently re-programmed with the latest list of towers (re-provisioned, or
whatever they call it). Not surprisingly, we had NO SIGNAL on any of
them. Then Cingular told us it was the buildings. Those are some really
odd buildings, blocking Cingular GSM signals both inside AND OUTSIDE, yet
allowing cellular handsets from 3 other networks to have FULL signal
strength both outside AND INSIDE. (!)
Obviously, the problem was that the Cingular network had NO COVERAGE where
we were working. Out of curiosity though, I walked into a local Cingular
store and asked to see the street level coverage map (WHY IS THIS ONLY
ACCESSIBLE IN THE CINGULAR STORE?!?) and sure enough . . . I could confirm
with my own eyes that the Cingular coverage map showed the building where
I work was smack dab in the middle of a "good" signal strength area. So
Cingular didn't lie to us . . . they just fed us information that is
obviously inaccurate. That is, their street level map shows "good" signal
strength in a couple of areas where there is in fact NO SIGNAL AT ALL.
In other words, even the very detailled street level coverage maps are NO
GOOD. If you want to know if a handset will work where you live and/or
where you work, you have to take the handset "home" and "to work" and use
it from there.
So what to do? Well, we'd previously dumped Verizon for Cingular, due to
constant (and outrageous) billing errors on Verizon. We LOVED our
Cingular Nation GSM service for the two years that we used it. NO billing
errors, NO reception problems (until we switched jobs), good quality
handsets that just WORK, nothing to complain about at all with Cingular.
In our experience, Cingular's customer service was pretty good, also. At
least, the few times we did have to call Cingular customer service, our
issue was resolved immediately, on the FIRST phone call. Also, it was
pretty significant that we found Cingular's coverage was at least as good
as Verizon's (and we both travel a lot).
So we really did not want to dump Cingular, and we didn't want to switch
to Verizon, but what other choice did we have? After many years of
headaches trying to use Nextel/Sprint (employer provided handsets), I
wouldn't sign with Nextel. If you held a gun to my head and ordered me to
sign with Nextel, I'd say "SHOOT".
Cingular (no signal at work now, unfortunately . . . otherwise, they are
great)
Verizon (good network, so-so handsets, frequent outrageous billing errors)
Nextel/Sprint (don't even get me started on all the coverage problems with
Nextel . . . in short, the network SUCKS RAW EGGS)
T-Mobile (never had them, don't know anybody else who has them, either)
So shit, it looked like I'd have to sign with T-Mobile. When I went to
the T-Mo web site, their street level map showed "good" signal strength at
both of our work locations (ha ha) and signal strength at home was smack
dab in the middle of "good" and "fair". Considering I already knew that
the street level coverage maps can be horribly inaccurate, it wasn't very
encouraging to note that T-Mo might be just "fair" at home. I called
T-Mobile to ask if I could borrow a handset for a day or so to test it.
You'd think I was asking for the salesman's first born child or something.
Is it so wrong to want to test a network BEFORE signing a contract for
service on that network?
But then I discussed the matter with my wife. She reminded me that we
both had coworkers who used Verizon cellular handsets at our work
locations. So I reminded HER that I'd dumped Verizon as I was sick and
fucking tired of spending hours on the phone every month trying to do
Verizon's work for them. So she came back and told me that all of her
friends and relatives are on Verizon, so most of our phone calls would be
"IN" and thus free. And she REALLY wanted a Verizon handset so that she
could call her best friend for free.
Awwwww, shit . . . I guess I'm a Verizon customer again. Yup, I signed a
contract with Verizon. But take note Verizon . . . I WILL BE WATCHING MY
BILLS EXTREMELY CLOSELY. I dumped you once, and I will fucking dump you
AGAIN if you treat me like you did the last time I was your customer.
"IN" be damned if I get half my calls for free and pay WAY TOO MUCH for
the REST of my calls.
OK, enough venting.
T-Mobile take note: If you'd just let me borrow a handset for a day or
two, you might have gained a contract for service on two cellular handsets
(both Nokia 6101) recently. All I wanted was something that could
reliably make calls from both home AND work (and most areas of the
continental U.S., and I understand that ALL cellular providers do have
"dead spots"). I had no way to know if the T-Mo network would work
without actually USING a T-Mo handset at home and work, and I wasn't about
to sign a contract to find out. I don't care that I know nobody on T-Mo.
If T-Mo would work for me, I WOULD have signed with T-Mo. If I'd signed
with T-Mo, my wife wouldn't have been able to 'twist my arm' hard enough
to make me go back to Verizon.
But I don't mean to pick on T-Mo specifically. It seems like ALL cellular
service providers make you sign a contract if you want to just TEST a
handset at home or YOUR OWN work location. If the cellular service
providers are worried about people borrowing the phones just to make free
phone calls, why not pass out really cheap handsets that are programmed to
ONLY connect calls to 911, other users of THE SAME CELLULAR NETWORK, and
the cellular network's customer service numbers? That is all you'd NEED
to test the network, and it wouldn't cost the cellular service provider
anything. In fact, you really don't need to make phone calls at all to
test the network. Just walk around with the borrowed handset at work and
home and see how many bars of signal strength you get. If you see 3-5 (or
more) bars of signal strength and the name of your prospective service
provider is displayed (not roaming), then you pretty much know that the
handset will work OK for you at that location. If that's not good enough,
call the customer service number (pre-programmed in the phone, probably)
and ask "can you hear me now"???? :)
To Cellular Service providers: Why don't you allow prospective customers
to test a handset at home (and work) without signing a contract? WHY????

[Dave]

Post by Kevin Weaver
They all give you a op-out. most of the time 2 weeks. 15 days for verizon.
Take it, try it. don't like it bring it back.
Simple enough.

I take it it's been a LONG time since you started up a cellular contract?
You seem to not remember all that's involved in the process. The paperwork
alone takes over an hour, and THAT assumes that someone in the store (who is
very FAST at doing it) is filling it out for you, and that you don't bother
to READ everything that you are signing (which is not a good idea, but it
will get you out of the store in less than two hours, possibly). Plus you
have to fork out a couple hundred dollars in fees up front for service.
Even if you take the freebie phones and the 2-year contract, there are still
activation charges to be paid up front. Yes, you can get your money back
and cancel the contract. My point is, why should you have to go through all
that hassle just to learn that the service won't work for you?

If you take a "loaner" or "tester" or (whatever) phone home and find it
doesn't work, you return the phone to the store. Very little paperwork, no
money involved, SIMPLE. Also, if all the providers did this, you could
collect two or three loaners at the same time to see which one works best.
Then you know who to sign a contract with BEFORE the paperwork is started.
Under the current system, it could take MONTHS (theoretically) to get the
right network. That is, sign up for Verizon, discover verizon is shit,
cancel, sign up for someone else, discover they're shit also, cancel . .
-Dave

[Mortimer Schnurd]

Dave, IF you are in California, be DAMN glad you didnt sign up with T-Mo!
You would have been roaming on Ching-Chingular's system as T-Mo has
ZERO sites in Southern California.
While "GSM" sounds great when you have a good signal, their 1800-1925Mhz
signals
DO NOT get inside a lot of buildings. Verizon's 820-894Mhz CDMA system is a
LOT
more robust and will see you with up to 6 sites at the same time (soft
handoff).
Verizon has TWO ***MAJOR*** longtime customers that they cater to. "On-Star"
and the California Dept of Highways (Caltrans) for service to freeway and
highway
callboxes.Look at the callboxes and see the 880Mhz antennas on them.
On Cingular how many calls did you miss when inside a store or other
commercial building?
If Cingular REALLY had their shit together they COULD make a "kick ass/take
names" system!
First off, take all the old AT&T TDMA handsets out of service and GIVE them
new dual-band GSM handsets.
Convert all the old AT&T 880Mhz TDMA sites to GSM and overlay them into the
existing 1800Mhz GSM system.
The new 880Mhz GSM system would fill in where the 1800Mhz system stops at
the door.
The main problem is the CHEAP-ASS BASTARDS at Ching-Chingular wont lay out
the front money. Instead they
continue to piss off the public, make poor excuses and continue to provide
substandard overall service. If thier shareholders
ever figure it out the shit would hit the fan.
This is really a shame as there are TONS of really cool GSM handsets
available everywhere.
Meanwhile, I will continue to use my Verizon SCH-730,Samsung 6000 (2 of
them) and my PC-5220 datacard (so I can watch my DISH network) on my laptop
while away from the house (YES..it IS that fast)
In Los Angeles California Verizon wins the system award hands down! there is
no comparasion in voice or especially data from
NEXTIME/SPLINT,CHINGULAR or the now defunct (thank god) (A)ll (T)urd
(T)elephone.

[marx404]

Well, I guess Dave includes GM, Chrysler, Dodge, BMW, Caddilac, Hummer,
Mercedes, Chevrolet, Etc, etc, etc. in his crappy car dealership list. Guess
what I do for a living? MOST big dealerships always perform a test drive as
part of the sales presentation, it has nothing to do with whether they trust
you or not, or if they are good or bad. Ergo this whole comparison is lost
on me.

Just for fun at no-ones expense, why dont we have a little fun and change
the comparison to say - hot tubs, or toilets, or ...er... Im just being
silly here, sorry. But IMHO the comparison to cell phones and autos of any
kind is apples and oranges. And btw- fyi- GM and BMW offer a 24 hr test
drive, which is after the initial test drive.

My 2 cents where I do sorta agree w/Dave, why dont Cell providers offer a
Xnumber day (not 2yrs) exchange policy just like some car dealers offer?
Just like a certain unmentioned GM dealer, I think Cell dealers would
benefit from offering a trial period where ppl can "trade up" to a better
phone. Returned phones that are cosmetically or otherwise damaged wouldnt be
eligible, but think of the revenue Cell companies would enjoy if when they
hand out cheap made models users can trade up to a more expensive model in
say 10 days, whatever. One hates to get stuck in a 2yr contract with an
unacceptable phone.

marx404

[Quick]

Post by marx404
but think of the revenue Cell companies would enjoy
if when they hand out cheap made models users can
trade up to a more expensive model in say 10 days,

You are assuming they make money on subsidized
equipment.

-Quick

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
Dave, IF you are in California, be DAMN glad you didnt sign up with T-Mo!
You would have been roaming on Ching-Chingular's system as T-Mo has
ZERO sites in Southern California.

You would actually be on the T-Mobile system, since Cingular sold it to
T-Mobile.

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
While "GSM" sounds great when you have a good signal, their 1800-1925Mhz
signals
DO NOT get inside a lot of buildings. Verizon's 820-894Mhz CDMA system is a
LOT
more robust

There's actually relatively little difference.

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
and will see you with up to 6 sites at the same time (soft
handoff).

GSM has similar coverage.

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
On Cingular how many calls did you miss when inside a store or other
commercial building?

Few.

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
If Cingular REALLY had their shit together they COULD make a "kick ass/take
names" system!

Indeed, it's pretty darn good.

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
The main problem is the CHEAP-ASS BASTARDS at Ching-Chingular wont lay out
the front money. Instead they
continue to piss off the public, make poor excuses and continue to provide
substandard overall service.

Reported financial results say otherwise.

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
Meanwhile, I will continue to use my Verizon SCH-730,Samsung 6000 (2 of
them) and my PC-5220 datacard (so I can watch my DISH network) on my laptop
while away from the house (YES..it IS that fast)

I'll continue to use my Sony Ericsson GC82 EGPRS(EDGE) card on Cingular, which
is darn fast pretty much wherever I am.

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
In Los Angeles California Verizon wins the system award hands down! there is
no comparasion in voice or especially data from
NEXTIME/SPLINT,CHINGULAR or the now defunct (thank god) (A)ll (T)urd
(T)elephone.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Turbocane]

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
Dave, IF you are in California, be DAMN glad you didnt sign up with T-Mo!
You would have been roaming on Ching-Chingular's system as T-Mo has
ZERO sites in Southern California.
While "GSM" sounds great when you have a good signal, their 1800-1925Mhz
signals
DO NOT get inside a lot of buildings.

Before Cingular screwed us and we thought our service was good we had to sit
by the window in our house to get service. After GSM the phone wouldn't
work in our house. We had to go outside. I can't get outside by myself so
the cell phone was now a paper weight. We switched to Verizon and there is
literally no place in our home that we lose signal. The signal is so great
with Verizon we could drop our land lines.

Verizon's 820-894Mhz CDMA system is a

Post by Mortimer Schnurd
LOT
more robust and will see you with up to 6 sites at the same time (soft
handoff).
Verizon has TWO ***MAJOR*** longtime customers that they cater to. "On-Star"
and the California Dept of Highways (Caltrans) for service to freeway and
highway
callboxes.Look at the callboxes and see the 880Mhz antennas on them.
On Cingular how many calls did you miss when inside a store or other
commercial building?
If Cingular REALLY had their shit together they COULD make a "kick
ass/take names" system!
First off, take all the old AT&T TDMA handsets out of service and GIVE
them new dual-band GSM handsets.
Convert all the old AT&T 880Mhz TDMA sites to GSM and overlay them into
the existing 1800Mhz GSM system.
The new 880Mhz GSM system would fill in where the 1800Mhz system stops at
the door.
The main problem is the CHEAP-ASS BASTARDS at Ching-Chingular wont lay out
the front money. Instead they
continue to piss off the public, make poor excuses and continue to provide
substandard overall service. If thier shareholders
ever figure it out the shit would hit the fan.
This is really a shame as there are TONS of really cool GSM handsets
available everywhere.
Meanwhile, I will continue to use my Verizon SCH-730,Samsung 6000 (2 of
them) and my PC-5220 datacard (so I can watch my DISH network) on my
laptop while away from the house (YES..it IS that fast)
In Los Angeles California Verizon wins the system award hands down! there
is no comparasion in voice or especially data from
NEXTIME/SPLINT,CHINGULAR or the now defunct (thank god) (A)ll (T)urd
(T)elephone.

[Mike T.]

Post by Turbocane
Before Cingular screwed us and we thought our service was good we had to
sit by the window in our house to get service. After GSM the phone
wouldn't work in our house. We had to go outside. I can't get outside
by myself so the cell phone was now a paper weight. We switched to
Verizon and there is literally no place in our home that we lose signal.
The signal is so great with Verizon we could drop our land lines.

We dropped our landline many months ago in favor of Cingular cell phones
(only). No regrets. We recently had to switch to Verizon for cell phone
service, but we still don't have a landline phone. We still use JUST
cellular phones. In the recent Consumer Reports magazine, they strongly
recommend that people still throw money at the phone company to maintain a
landline. I strongly disagree with CR, as usual. It might make sense to
have a landline in a house with many occupants and few cell phones. But if
you have one cell phone for every person in the house, and they all have
good signal, then the landline is a TOTAL waste of money!!! -Dave

[beavis]

Post by Mike T.
In the recent Consumer Reports magazine, they strongly
recommend that people still throw money at the phone company to maintain a
landline. I strongly disagree with CR, as usual.

My Verizon cell works great everywhere except inside my apartment.
Frustrating. By rather than throw ~$60 at Verizon's landline service
(it's outrageous up here -- that's just for a basic line & caller ID),
I signed up for Vonage's $15 a month plan, since I have cable internet
already. It works great! And it'll save me about $600 this year.

[Mike T.]

Post by beavis

Post by Mike T.
In the recent Consumer Reports magazine, they strongly
recommend that people still throw money at the phone company to maintain a
landline. I strongly disagree with CR, as usual.

My Verizon cell works great everywhere except inside my apartment.
Frustrating. By rather than throw ~$60 at Verizon's landline service
(it's outrageous up here -- that's just for a basic line & caller ID),
I signed up for Vonage's $15 a month plan, since I have cable internet
already. It works great! And it'll save me about $600 this year.

I'd have to re-read the article, but I believe CR recommended that even YOU
should have a landline phone. VOIP like Vonage was recommended not to
replace the land-line, but to save money on long-distance. From memory.
Note again that I do not agree with CR. There are some households that
could benefit from having a land-line phone. However, at least 80% of
land-line users could probably have the land-line service disconnected, and
NEVER MISS IT. -Dave

[SMS]

Post by Mike T.
However, at least 80% of
land-line users could probably have the land-line service disconnected, and
NEVER MISS IT.

Well technically, a large percentage of cellular users would be better
off going to prepaid cellular, keeping their landline, and using
TalkLoop or OneSuite for long distance and intra-LATA calls. I know many
people whose main impetus for keeping a $50/month cellular plan is so
they can make a few hundred minutes of "free" off-peak long distance
calls a month. Yet they'd be fine with one or two hundred minutes of
cellular a month at 10 cents/minute, and a long distance carrier at 2
cents/minute.

There's something psychological against paying for every minute of
calling, versus paying a lot more for more minutes than you'd ever use
if you weren't in an endless gab-fest while driving.

[Dave]

However, at least 80% of land-line users could probably have the
land-line service disconnected, and NEVER MISS IT.

Well technically, a large percentage of cellular users would be better off
going to prepaid cellular, keeping their landline, and using TalkLoop or
OneSuite for long distance and intra-LATA calls. I know many people whose
main impetus for keeping a $50/month cellular plan is so they can make a
few hundred minutes of "free" off-peak long distance calls a month. Yet
they'd be fine with one or two hundred minutes of cellular a month at 10
cents/minute, and a long distance carrier at 2 cents/minute.

It depends on your lifestyle, I guess. The last year or so that we had a
landline, we were making most of our phone calls (even local calls) with the
cellular handsets. In spite of this, our land-line bills were higher than
our cell bills were. Of course, we were living in an area with outrageous
pricing for basic land-line service, so the landline was almost as much as
the lowest price cellular contract, BEFORE any calls were made. -Dave

[SMS]

Post by Dave
It depends on your lifestyle, I guess. The last year or so that we had a
landline, we were making most of our phone calls (even local calls) with the
cellular handsets. In spite of this, our land-line bills were higher than
our cell bills were. Of course, we were living in an area with outrageous
pricing for basic land-line service, so the landline was almost as much as
the lowest price cellular contract, BEFORE any calls were made. -Dave

We have pretty cheap landline service in California, though the local
calling area is quite a bit smaller than what it was in other states
where I've lived. It's easy to spend a lot on "local long-distance."
The 8 p.m. off-peak that I'm grand-fathered into on Verizon is heavily
used in our family for calls withing the Bay-Area, though Verizon is so
dominant out here, that probably 80% of the people we call regularly
have Verizon service that's included on MTM.

I cut down our landline service to the minimum, with no ridiculous
features like call-waiting, 3 way calling, Caller ID (more than 50% of
landline subscribers have Caller ID blocking, so Caller ID is pretty
worthless anyway), wiring insurance, etc. It ends up being around
$17/month, including the insane 28 cents a month for an unlisted number
(a fee that made sense with directory assistance calls were free). If I
went to measured rate, it's be about $12 per month. In any case, I have
to have a landline in order to get DSL.

[Dana]

What happens when the cable goes out? I still think the hard wired phone
is more relyble.

Post by beavis

Post by Mike T.
In the recent Consumer Reports magazine, they strongly
recommend that people still throw money at the phone company to maintain a
landline. I strongly disagree with CR, as usual.

My Verizon cell works great everywhere except inside my apartment.
Frustrating. By rather than throw ~$60 at Verizon's landline service
(it's outrageous up here -- that's just for a basic line & caller ID),
I signed up for Vonage's $15 a month plan, since I have cable internet
already. It works great! And it'll save me about $600 this year.

[beavis]

In article <***@panix2.panix.com>, Dana
<***@panix.com> wrote:

Please don't top-post (turning the quotes upside down).
heh... old message! But I'm still here.

Post by Dana

...rather than throw ~$60 at Verizon's landline service
(it's outrageous up here -- that's just for a basic line & caller ID),
I signed up for Vonage's $15 a month plan, since I have cable internet
already. It works great! And it'll save me about $600 this year.

What happens when the cable goes out? I still think the hard wired phone
is more relyble.

Debatable. And certainly not more reliable than my cellphone and
Vonage put together.

As for my cable going out, it happens about once a year for a couple of
hours. Less often, incidentally, than my Verizon landline had trouble!
(I'd get a dial tone, but a fast busy when I tried any number, local or
otherwise. Lasted several hours.)

So for me and my reliable internet (Time Warner in Albany), it's at
least as reliable as my landline was, at about 1/4 the cost to me. I'm
totally satisfied with it.

[David S]

Post by beavis

Post by Dana

...rather than throw ~$60 at Verizon's landline service
(it's outrageous up here -- that's just for a basic line & caller ID),
I signed up for Vonage's $15 a month plan, since I have cable internet
already. It works great! And it'll save me about $600 this year.

What happens when the cable goes out? I still think the hard wired phone
is more relyble.

Debatable. And certainly not more reliable than my cellphone and
Vonage put together.
As for my cable going out, it happens about once a year for a couple of
hours. Less often, incidentally, than my Verizon landline had trouble!
(I'd get a dial tone, but a fast busy when I tried any number, local or
otherwise. Lasted several hours.)
So for me and my reliable internet (Time Warner in Albany), it's at
least as reliable as my landline was, at about 1/4 the cost to me. I'm
totally satisfied with it.

Last March, there was a fire in my father's building. He had no cable for
about three weeks. Therefore, he also had no Vonage for about three weeks.
He was physically unable to leave his apartment at that time; a ham friend
of his called me and explained the situation. I contacted him directly by
ham radio and he had me buy him a prepaid cell phone. BTW, SBC fixed the
phone lines which were damaged in the fire in just four or five days.

A friend with the same cable company (Comcast) tells me that every time an
emergency weather or Amber Alert bulletin or test signal goes out, he loses
his internet for a couple of minutes. When lightning has just struck your
house, you don't want to wait for the internet to come back so you can call
911.
--
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.
"The Bush administration says the Mars mission can be accomplished for only
143.8 zillion dollars, but critics claim that the true cost is likely to be
much more like 687 fillion dillion dollars. (These numbers are imaginary,
but trust me, they're as accurate as any other cost estimates you see about
the Mars mission.)" - Dave Barry

[David S]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:58:34 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great

Post by David S

Post by beavis
So for me and my reliable internet (Time Warner in Albany), it's at
least as reliable as my landline was, at about 1/4 the cost to me. I'm
totally satisfied with it.

A friend with the same cable company (Comcast) tells me that every time an
emergency weather or Amber Alert bulletin or test signal goes out, he loses
his internet for a couple of minutes. When lightning has just struck your
house, you don't want to wait for the internet to come back so you can call
911.

Another thought: is your Vonage modem on a UPS so you can call your power
company to tell them your power's out?

[Notan]

Post by SMS
<snip>
Another thought: is your Vonage modem on a UPS so you can call your power
company to tell them your power's out?

Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?

Notan

[Larry]

Post by Notan
Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?
Notan

It is wrong. The only items necessary are computer and internet access
with newsgroup service....

[Remove This]

Post by Larry

Post by Notan
Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?
Notan

It is wrong. The only items necessary are computer and internet access
with newsgroup service....

Technically, computer + Internet access, thereby using "google groups"

but your point is well taken..

[Notan]

Post by Larry

Post by Notan
Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?
Notan

It is wrong. The only items necessary are computer and internet access
with newsgroup service....

If it's wrong, I'd like to know how many participants are here,
without cell phones.

Anyone?

Notan

[E Brown]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:16:36 -0700, Notan

Post by Notan
If it's wrong, I'd like to know how many participants are here,
without cell phones.
Anyone?

That'd be me, for one. I use Verizon Broadband Access. I use no one
for voice service, and as I understand it my PC5220 can't be used as a
phone in a pinch, like my old Sierra 555 could.
epbrown
--
2003 BMW 325i Black/Black
2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black

[Notan]

Post by E Brown
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:16:36 -0700, Notan

Post by Notan
If it's wrong, I'd like to know how many participants are here,
without cell phones.
Anyone?

That'd be me, for one. I use Verizon Broadband Access. I use no one
for voice service, and as I understand it my PC5220 can't be used as a
phone in a pinch, like my old Sierra 555 could.
epbrown
--
2003 BMW 325i Black/Black
2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black

No cell phone? Not even an emergency one in the glove compartment?

By the way, up until recently, I was the original owner of a '73
200TII, but got rid of it when people started posting that they
owned late model BMWs.

Notan

[Notan]

Post by Notan

Post by E Brown
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:16:36 -0700, Notan

Post by Notan
If it's wrong, I'd like to know how many participants are here,
without cell phones.
Anyone?

That'd be me, for one. I use Verizon Broadband Access. I use no one
for voice service, and as I understand it my PC5220 can't be used as a
phone in a pinch, like my old Sierra 555 could.
epbrown
--
2003 BMW 325i Black/Black
2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black

No cell phone? Not even an emergency one in the glove compartment?
By the way, up until recently, I was the original owner of a '73
200TII, but got rid of it when people started posting that they
owned late model BMWs.

I should've put a little smiley face at the end of that last post,
as I surely was smiling when I wrote it.

Notan

[Notan]

Post by Notan

Post by Notan

Post by E Brown
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:16:36 -0700, Notan

Post by Notan
If it's wrong, I'd like to know how many participants are here,
without cell phones.
Anyone?

That'd be me, for one. I use Verizon Broadband Access. I use no one
for voice service, and as I understand it my PC5220 can't be used as a
phone in a pinch, like my old Sierra 555 could.
epbrown
--
2003 BMW 325i Black/Black
2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black

No cell phone? Not even an emergency one in the glove compartment?
By the way, up until recently, I was the original owner of a '73
200TII, but got rid of it when people started posting that they
owned late model BMWs.

I should've put a little smiley face at the end of that last post,
as I surely was smiling when I wrote it.

One more thing... That was a 2002TII... Way before BMWs became "Beamers."

Notan

[Marty]

Somewhere around Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:36 -0500, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Larry

Post by Larry

Post by Notan
Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?
Notan

It is wrong. The only items necessary are computer and internet access
with newsgroup service....

But these are cellular newsgroups, so it should be safe to assume that
anyone who reads it either has one, or will be getting one soon and is here
researching which one to get.

[Notan]

Post by Marty
Somewhere around Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:29:36 -0500, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Larry

Post by Larry

Post by Notan
Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?
Notan

It is wrong. The only items necessary are computer and internet access
with newsgroup service....

But these are cellular newsgroups, so it should be safe to assume that
anyone who reads it either has one, or will be getting one soon and is here
researching which one to get.

And *that* was my point.

Thanks!

Notan

[David S]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:42:41 -0700, Notan <***@ddress.thatcanbespammed>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and

Post by Notan

Post by SMS
<snip>
Another thought: is your Vonage modem on a UPS so you can call your power
company to tell them your power's out?

Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?

Back up a few posts. You will find someone talking about how his cell phone
is useless in his apartment and he is very pleased with his Vonage service,
which is much cheaper than a traditional landline.

I wasn't going to bring up the 911 issue that someone else did, but I will
say now that it's a good idea to make a test call to 911 to make sure it
really goes through, and to the *correct* PSAP.
--
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.
"So tell Jeff Tomlinson and Baby Bob to take a deep knee bend, would ya?
I'm just as big a cotton candy ass as they are." - President Jed Bartlet
"Yes." - Josh Lyman
"You just gonna let that hang in the air?" - Bartlet
"Course not, sir. You're a much bigger cotton candy ass than they are." -
Lyman
"Damn right." - Bartlet

[Notan]

Post by David S
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and

Post by Notan

Post by SMS
<snip>
Another thought: is your Vonage modem on a UPS so you can call your power
company to tell them your power's out?

Is it wrong to assume that everyone participating in this
newgroup owns a cell phone?

Back up a few posts. You will find someone talking about how his cell phone
is useless in his apartment and he is very pleased with his Vonage service,
which is much cheaper than a traditional landline.
I wasn't going to bring up the 911 issue that someone else did, but I will
say now that it's a good idea to make a test call to 911 to make sure it
really goes through, and to the *correct* PSAP.

It's been discussed in the past... 911 "Test Calls" are *not* a good idea!

Notan

[clifto]

Post by David S
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:58:34 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great

Post by David S

Post by beavis
So for me and my reliable internet (Time Warner in Albany), it's at
least as reliable as my landline was, at about 1/4 the cost to me. I'm
totally satisfied with it.

A friend with the same cable company (Comcast) tells me that every time an
emergency weather or Amber Alert bulletin or test signal goes out, he loses
his internet for a couple of minutes. When lightning has just struck your
house, you don't want to wait for the internet to come back so you can call
911.

Another thought: is your Vonage modem on a UPS so you can call your power
company to tell them your power's out?

I seem to recall in addition that Vonage is useless for 911 calls.

[Notan]

Post by SMS
<snip>
I seem to recall in addition that Vonage is useless for 911 calls.

http://vonage.com/features.php?feature=911&lid=footer_911

Notan

[Isaiah Beard]

Post by Dana
What happens when the cable goes out? I still think the hard wired phone
is more relyble.

I would tend to agree, cable internet (or even DSL for that matter)
isn't utility grade yet. Heck, Comcast where I live has frequent
outages on both the video and internet sides.

That said though, Verizon's landline service has had a lot more outages
lately than I would call utility grade, as well.

I keep Verizon landline around simply because I have DSL service with
them (slower than cable, but it seems to go down less often than Comcast
Broadband). Otherwise, I'd probably still have VoIP as I did through
Vonage. I figured in most cases if the VoIP went down, the cell phone
would still be adequate for necessary calls.

[Jer]

Post by Isaiah Beard

Post by Dana
What happens when the cable goes out? I still think the hard wired
phone is more relyble.

I would tend to agree, cable internet (or even DSL for that matter)
isn't utility grade yet. Heck, Comcast where I live has frequent
outages on both the video and internet sides.
That said though, Verizon's landline service has had a lot more outages
lately than I would call utility grade, as well.
I keep Verizon landline around simply because I have DSL service with
them (slower than cable, but it seems to go down less often than Comcast
Broadband). Otherwise, I'd probably still have VoIP as I did through
Vonage. I figured in most cases if the VoIP went down, the cell phone
would still be adequate for necessary calls.

By "utility grde" I presume you mean to imply the operating charter of
the landline company is covered as a utility (psuedo-monopoly), which
obligates the carrier to provide their customers the capability to use
E911 service under extreme circumstances, ie. "utility grade", ie 24x7.
Cellular companies are under no such obligation. If a cellular
company loses the only cell site covering one's location, the cellular
company are under no such operating charter that requires them to
restore service from that cell. Ever. They can move that cell to
wherever they want whenever they want without obligation to anyone
outside of filing a license change with the FCC. If one is living in a
rural location, served by only one cell, if that cell goes down Friday,
it might not see a repair person until Monday. Which means if one is
depending on that single cell for their phone service at their home,
their capability to dial 911 goes with it. Which is okay, so long as
one doesn't NEED to dial 911 - or anything else. I suppose one could
think of it as a psuedo-vacation.

[Isaiah Beard]

By "utility grade" I presume you mean to imply the operating charter of
the landline company is covered as a utility (psuedo-monopoly), which
obligates the carrier to provide their customers the capability to use
E911 service under extreme circumstances, ie. "utility grade", ie 24x7.

By "utility grade," I refer to the oft-quoted "five nines" uptime
service level that providers in that strata claim to offer. I didn't
make any reference to charters, pseudo-monopolies, or any other
political inferences that you may want to insinuate into that statement,
and I'd kindly ask you to refrain from jumping to conclusions about what
I'm "implying."

Cellular companies are under no such obligation.

I never said they were. Likewise, I know of no cellular company that
has claimed five-nines reliability, nor did I say any of them did.
Again, I must kindly ask you to stop inferring what's simply not there.

Cellular companies are under no such obligation. If a cellular company
loses the only cell site covering one's location, the cellular company
are under no such operating charter that requires them to restore
service from that cell. Ever.

[remaining rant snipped]

Clearly, you have some axe to grind. Perhaps you should create your own
thread to vent your gripes, instead of hijacking this one.

[Me thisBox]

I don't know where you are, but here in So CA I can't remember the last
Verizon outage that wasn't due to some ass on a back-hoe and that's like
once in five years.

Post by Isaiah Beard

Post by Dana
What happens when the cable goes out? I still think the hard wired
phone is more relyble.

I would tend to agree, cable internet (or even DSL for that matter)
isn't utility grade yet. Heck, Comcast where I live has frequent
outages on both the video and internet sides.
That said though, Verizon's landline service has had a lot more outages
lately than I would call utility grade, as well.
I keep Verizon landline around simply because I have DSL service with
them (slower than cable, but it seems to go down less often than Comcast
Broadband). Otherwise, I'd probably still have VoIP as I did through
Vonage. I figured in most cases if the VoIP went down, the cell phone
would still be adequate for necessary calls.

[Isaiah Beard]

Post by Me thisBox
I don't know where you are, but here in So CA I can't remember the last
Verizon outage that wasn't due to some ass on a back-hoe and that's like
once in five years.

I'm in New Jersey. And in the past two years, I've had eight (8)
outages on the landline phone, and am currently experiencing a service
issue (intermittent static on the line). Thankfully, DSL seems to
continue to operate despite the outages on the voice side. But should
that fail, VZW does offer data tethering on their blackberry devices
(including the EVDO enabled 7130e and the 7250, which can be
firmware-updated to support EVDO). And as a Blackberry user, you bet
I'm going to get my money's worth out of it if DSL ever DOES go out.

The longest voice landline outage I had was 74 hours (Friday afternoon
through Monday evening) back in August. That time, the phone went
completely dead; no dialtone, with reorder (fast busy) signal on
incoming calls. Some of the other 7 outages were similar, but most were
more subtle: all circuits busy messages on incoming calls, while any
attempts at dialing out to known valid and working numbers would "time
out" and go to a reorder.

Fortunately I have good wireless coverage through VZW, so the cell phone
has proven to be a serviceable backup in all cases.

[SMS]

Post by Mike T.
We dropped our landline many months ago in favor of Cingular cell phones
(only). No regrets. We recently had to switch to Verizon for cell phone
service, but we still don't have a landline phone. We still use JUST
cellular phones. In the recent Consumer Reports magazine, they strongly
recommend that people still throw money at the phone company to maintain a
landline. I strongly disagree with CR, as usual. It might make sense to
have a landline in a house with many occupants and few cell phones. But if
you have one cell phone for every person in the house, and they all have
good signal, then the landline is a TOTAL waste of money!!! -Dave

Two reasons for keeping the landline. 911 calls, and FAX machines. If
you have kids at home, a 911 landline is a very good idea. Try calling
911 on a cell phone in my area (SF Bay Area). It can literally take 15
minutes to get someone to answer, and even then they are sometimes
clueless as to where to direct your call to, and there is no location
that is shown on their screen.

Landline 911 calls are answered much faster, and the dispatch center has
the address to go to.

You can get measured rate landline service for around $12/month.

FAXing is another issue, but more minor, since there are FAX machines
that will connect to cell phones.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by SMS
Two reasons for keeping the landline. 911 calls, and FAX machines. If
you have kids at home, a 911 landline is a very good idea. Try calling
911 on a cell phone in my area (SF Bay Area). It can literally take 15
minutes to get someone to answer, and even then they are sometimes
clueless as to where to direct your call to, and there is no location
that is shown on their screen.

Never had that problem in any of the 911 calls I've made.

Post by SMS
FAXing is another issue, but more minor, since there are FAX machines
that will connect to cell phones.

Fax machines require analog service, so they will only work over AMPS. Not
that it matters, give the availability of low cost Internet fax services
(e.g., eFax).

Neither is a good reason for a landline IMHO.

[Kevin Weaver]

Looks like it's been a long time for you as well.

I went with a friend to verizon and it took all of about 15 mins to get his
new phone. Paper work that is. He spent more time looking at the phones more
then anything.

Unless you have bad credit, you don't have to pay any up front costs. 2 yr
contract ? They also have 1 yr contracts also. My friend did not have to pay
any fees. IE: 35.00 startup fee. he just paid for the phone and 12V charger
and that's all.

How long do you think it's going to take to learn if the service is right
for you ? 1 day ? This is like going to buy a new car. I want to buy this
car, but want to test it for the day, go to the next dealership do the same
and another, and so on. Of course this is not a cell phone. I was going to
go with another provider. But asking others what area were good and bad, I
made my mind up to stay with what I had. And testing all the phones at point
A today, May be different in 2 days at the same point A

Post by Dave

Post by Kevin Weaver
They all give you a op-out. most of the time 2 weeks. 15 days for
verizon. Take it, try it. don't like it bring it back.
Simple enough.

I take it it's been a LONG time since you started up a cellular contract?
You seem to not remember all that's involved in the process. The
paperwork alone takes over an hour, and THAT assumes that someone in the
store (who is very FAST at doing it) is filling it out for you, and that
you don't bother to READ everything that you are signing (which is not a
good idea, but it will get you out of the store in less than two hours,
possibly). Plus you have to fork out a couple hundred dollars in fees up
front for service. Even if you take the freebie phones and the 2-year
contract, there are still activation charges to be paid up front. Yes,
you can get your money back and cancel the contract. My point is, why
should you have to go through all that hassle just to learn that the
service won't work for you?
If you take a "loaner" or "tester" or (whatever) phone home and find it
doesn't work, you return the phone to the store. Very little paperwork,
no money involved, SIMPLE. Also, if all the providers did this, you could
collect two or three loaners at the same time to see which one works best.
Then you know who to sign a contract with BEFORE the paperwork is started.
Under the current system, it could take MONTHS (theoretically) to get the
right network. That is, sign up for Verizon, discover verizon is shit,
cancel, sign up for someone else, discover they're shit also, cancel .
. -Dave

[Xyloc]

Disgruntled Dave-

They do offer loaners at my local VZW San Jose store in San Jose... Back a
few years ago, I considered switching to Cingular -- and they also had a
loaner. Your continuous yammering is probably why they didn't give you a
loaner because they realize you are a friggin' piece o' work. I imagine you
ran in the store with both guns firing like Lash LaRue "YOU MESSED UP MY
BILL ONCE BEFORE, BUT I AM THINKING OF COMING BACK. GIVE ME A GOD DAMNED
LOANER OR ELSE."

You are a moron. It took you twice as long to whine about your cellular
service than it would have just to drive -- No, you could've walked to the
store, signed up and walked back home, in the time it took to post that
original message. "I talked to myself, I talked to the ppl at Cingular, I
talked to VZW." For crying out loud, did you 'call for your pipe, call for
your bowl, and call for your fiddlers three' as well?

Lighten up or STFU.
-me

Post by Dave
That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply
by showing your driver's license . . .
Yet you can't take a ~$300 FULL RETAIL PRICE (usually less) cellular
- A major credit card
- A copy of your driver's license
- Paying an activation fee
- Signing a 2 year contract (or 1 year in some very limited
circumstances) AND
- Often paying part or even MOST of the full retail price of the
handset up front
WHY IS THAT???
If you can test-drive a car (and risk damaging it) with no up-front cost
and no obligation to buy, why can't you "test-drive" a cellular handset
before paying for it and signing a contract. WHY?????????? Can anyone
come up with a reasonable explanation? (I didn't think so)
Why don't cellular providers have "loaner" handsets for this purpose?
You'd only need about ten per store, and they wouldn't have to be the
high-end models. For testing purposes, the low-end handsets (that the
cellular providers get for much less than a hundred bucks a piece) would
do. Why can't you just walk into Cingular or Verizon or T-Mo or whatever
and say you want a loaner handset to test the network where you live and
work? WHY???
Yes, I know that all cellular service providers have a "trial" period of
10 days or 15 days or whatever, during which you can cancel your contract.
Only problem is, there is considerable money and paperwork involved just
to GET the "trial", only to learn that you have to cancel it later. THERE
SHOULD BE AN EASIER WAY. If cellular service providers would allow you to
show identification, then take a handset home for a day or two, cellular
service providers would have (literally) nothing to lose and lots of
potential customers to gain. It would be a real win-win situation. SO
WHY ISN'T IT DONE?
*************************************************************
On a side note, what brought this up was, my wife and I recently switched
jobs, only to discover that Cingular had NO SERVICE at either of our new
office locations. Cingular claimed that we should have "good" strength
signal at work. We told them that we had no service. First, they tried
to blame the handset. OK, we tried . . . 4 different Nokia handsets and 2
different Motorola handsets. 2 of the Nokia handsets we tried were
recently re-programmed with the latest list of towers (re-provisioned, or
whatever they call it). Not surprisingly, we had NO SIGNAL on any of
them. Then Cingular told us it was the buildings. Those are some really
odd buildings, blocking Cingular GSM signals both inside AND OUTSIDE, yet
allowing cellular handsets from 3 other networks to have FULL signal
strength both outside AND INSIDE. (!)
Obviously, the problem was that the Cingular network had NO COVERAGE where
we were working. Out of curiosity though, I walked into a local Cingular
store and asked to see the street level coverage map (WHY IS THIS ONLY
ACCESSIBLE IN THE CINGULAR STORE?!?) and sure enough . . . I could confirm
with my own eyes that the Cingular coverage map showed the building where
I work was smack dab in the middle of a "good" signal strength area. So
Cingular didn't lie to us . . . they just fed us information that is
obviously inaccurate. That is, their street level map shows "good" signal
strength in a couple of areas where there is in fact NO SIGNAL AT ALL.
In other words, even the very detailled street level coverage maps are NO
GOOD. If you want to know if a handset will work where you live and/or
where you work, you have to take the handset "home" and "to work" and use
it from there.
So what to do? Well, we'd previously dumped Verizon for Cingular, due to
constant (and outrageous) billing errors on Verizon. We LOVED our
Cingular Nation GSM service for the two years that we used it. NO billing
errors, NO reception problems (until we switched jobs), good quality
handsets that just WORK, nothing to complain about at all with Cingular.
In our experience, Cingular's customer service was pretty good, also. At
least, the few times we did have to call Cingular customer service, our
issue was resolved immediately, on the FIRST phone call. Also, it was
pretty significant that we found Cingular's coverage was at least as good
as Verizon's (and we both travel a lot).
So we really did not want to dump Cingular, and we didn't want to switch
to Verizon, but what other choice did we have? After many years of
headaches trying to use Nextel/Sprint (employer provided handsets), I
wouldn't sign with Nextel. If you held a gun to my head and ordered me to
sign with Nextel, I'd say "SHOOT".
Cingular (no signal at work now, unfortunately . . . otherwise, they are
great)
Verizon (good network, so-so handsets, frequent outrageous billing errors)
Nextel/Sprint (don't even get me started on all the coverage problems with
Nextel . . . in short, the network SUCKS RAW EGGS)
T-Mobile (never had them, don't know anybody else who has them, either)
So shit, it looked like I'd have to sign with T-Mobile. When I went to
the T-Mo web site, their street level map showed "good" signal strength at
both of our work locations (ha ha) and signal strength at home was smack
dab in the middle of "good" and "fair". Considering I already knew that
the street level coverage maps can be horribly inaccurate, it wasn't very
encouraging to note that T-Mo might be just "fair" at home. I called
T-Mobile to ask if I could borrow a handset for a day or so to test it.
You'd think I was asking for the salesman's first born child or something.
Is it so wrong to want to test a network BEFORE signing a contract for
service on that network?
But then I discussed the matter with my wife. She reminded me that we
both had coworkers who used Verizon cellular handsets at our work
locations. So I reminded HER that I'd dumped Verizon as I was sick and
fucking tired of spending hours on the phone every month trying to do
Verizon's work for them. So she came back and told me that all of her
friends and relatives are on Verizon, so most of our phone calls would be
"IN" and thus free. And she REALLY wanted a Verizon handset so that she
could call her best friend for free.
Awwwww, shit . . . I guess I'm a Verizon customer again. Yup, I signed a
contract with Verizon. But take note Verizon . . . I WILL BE WATCHING MY
BILLS EXTREMELY CLOSELY. I dumped you once, and I will fucking dump you
AGAIN if you treat me like you did the last time I was your customer.
"IN" be damned if I get half my calls for free and pay WAY TOO MUCH for
the REST of my calls.
OK, enough venting.
T-Mobile take note: If you'd just let me borrow a handset for a day or
two, you might have gained a contract for service on two cellular handsets
(both Nokia 6101) recently. All I wanted was something that could
reliably make calls from both home AND work (and most areas of the
continental U.S., and I understand that ALL cellular providers do have
"dead spots"). I had no way to know if the T-Mo network would work
without actually USING a T-Mo handset at home and work, and I wasn't about
to sign a contract to find out. I don't care that I know nobody on T-Mo.
If T-Mo would work for me, I WOULD have signed with T-Mo. If I'd signed
with T-Mo, my wife wouldn't have been able to 'twist my arm' hard enough
to make me go back to Verizon.
But I don't mean to pick on T-Mo specifically. It seems like ALL cellular
service providers make you sign a contract if you want to just TEST a
handset at home or YOUR OWN work location. If the cellular service
providers are worried about people borrowing the phones just to make free
phone calls, why not pass out really cheap handsets that are programmed to
ONLY connect calls to 911, other users of THE SAME CELLULAR NETWORK, and
the cellular network's customer service numbers? That is all you'd NEED
to test the network, and it wouldn't cost the cellular service provider
anything. In fact, you really don't need to make phone calls at all to
test the network. Just walk around with the borrowed handset at work and
home and see how many bars of signal strength you get. If you see 3-5 (or
more) bars of signal strength and the name of your prospective service
provider is displayed (not roaming), then you pretty much know that the
handset will work OK for you at that location. If that's not good enough,
call the customer service number (pre-programmed in the phone, probably)
and ask "can you hear me now"???? :)
To Cellular Service providers: Why don't you allow prospective customers
to test a handset at home (and work) without signing a contract? WHY????

[L***@GoForIt.net]

Post by Dave
That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a test drive, simply by
showing your driver's license . . .

snipped.

In a word "Competition" or the lack therof.
There are usually a dozen or more car dealers that want and need your business.
How many phone outfits are there?
Also stealing a card is a big time crime, a phone is bs.

Its also called getting what the market will bear.

Lou

[Quick]

Post by L***@GoForIt.net

Post by Dave
That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a
test drive, simply by showing your driver's license . . .

snipped.
In a word "Competition" or the lack therof.
There are usually a dozen or more car dealers that want
and need your business. How many phone outfits are there?
Also stealing a card is a big time crime, a phone is bs.
Its also called getting what the market will bear.

Not exactly. Go show your driver's license at Circuit City and
see if they will let you take a satellite radio (or Ipod, or CD player)
out for a "test drive". Then try to figure out why. I've signed
up for new service twice. It took less than hour both times. At the
VZW store I spent more than 1/2 hour to completely read the
manuals on three different phones while looking at them and at
the Cingular (ugh) store I spent over 1/2 hour waiting until my
number got called.

-Quick

[L***@GoForIt.net]

Post by Quick

Post by L***@GoForIt.net

Post by Dave
That you can take a brand new ~$35,000 automobile on a
test drive, simply by showing your driver's license . . .

snipped.
In a word "Competition" or the lack therof.
There are usually a dozen or more car dealers that want
and need your business. How many phone outfits are there?
Also stealing a card is a big time crime, a phone is bs.
Its also called getting what the market will bear.

Not exactly. Go show your driver's license at Circuit City and
see if they will let you take a satellite radio (or Ipod, or CD player)
out for a "test drive". Then try to figure out why. I've signed
up for new service twice. It took less than hour both times. At the
VZW store I spent more than 1/2 hour to completely read the
manuals on three different phones while looking at them and at
the Cingular (ugh) store I spent over 1/2 hour waiting until my
number got called.
-Quick

Also stealing a card (oops should be CAR) is a big time crime, a phone is
bs as are ipods etc (by comparison).

Lou

[TabooLexicon]

First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse. Why would any of them charge for half of
their low end phones at all if they cost nothing? They subsidize the
price because they know they'll make it up with rate plans and
features. That means, they paid more for the phone that you are paying
up front.

Test driving phones sounds like a great marketing idea. Perhaps
D-Mobile could do it since the other carriers who have been in the
business for years on end have no idea how to operate effectively in
the industry.

[clifto]

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse. Why would any of them charge for half of
their low end phones at all if they cost nothing?

You've GOT to be kidding.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by clifto

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse. Why would any of them charge for half of
their low end phones at all if they cost nothing?

You've GOT to be kidding.

Because ... ?

[clifto]

Post by John Navas

Post by clifto

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse. Why would any of them charge for half of
their low end phones at all if they cost nothing?

You've GOT to be kidding.

Because ... ?

They do it because they CAN. They do it because there's zero competition;
if you want a phone that works on their network, and you're not one of
the savvy few who can eBay one, you'll pay whatever they want. They do
it because all the others still do it, for the same reasons just given.

When Verizon goes to Motorola and says, "I'll take 10,000 of this one
and 25,000 of that one and 40,000 of this other one," they are paying
only a small fraction of the retail price for each unit.

I see that Cingular *is* giving some low-end phones away (with 2-year
contract, of course, and possibly a rebate). These phones probably
cost them less than a ticket to the movies. Wonder if that's to
entice AT&T TDMA customers?

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by clifto

Post by John Navas

Post by clifto

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse. Why would any of them charge for half of
their low end phones at all if they cost nothing?

You've GOT to be kidding.

Because ... ?

They do it because they CAN. They do it because there's zero competition;
...

In fact cellular is an intensely competitive market.

[clifto]

Post by John Navas

Post by clifto

Post by John Navas

Post by clifto

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse. Why would any of them charge for half of
their low end phones at all if they cost nothing?

You've GOT to be kidding.

Because ... ?

They do it because they CAN. They do it because there's zero competition;
...

In fact cellular is an intensely competitive market.

You've completely missed my meaning. You can't buy a Verizon handset from
anyone but Verizon, unless Verizon deigns to activate phones they didn't
sell. If they decline, they have no competition, and can price phones
as artificially as they like. Same goes for any other carrier.

[SMS]

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse.

"Virtually nothing" is an exaggeration. The low end phones still cost
the carrier around $40. This will fall to around $25 in 2006, and $15 in
2007.

Post by TabooLexicon
Why would any of them charge for half of
their low end phones at all if they cost nothing?

That statement is some kind of a joke, right? Since when do carriers set
their prices based on the cost. Look at Verizon's $30 car chargers!

The reason for no "trial phones" is that the carrier doesn't want you to
find out about coverage issues. They know that even if coverage is poor,
most people won't go through the hassle of returning the phone and
canceling, in time. Furthermore, most people don't even realize how
limited coverage is until they travel around a bit.

[Dave]

Post by SMS
That statement is some kind of a joke, right? Since when do carriers set
their prices based on the cost. Look at Verizon's $30 car chargers!

. . . that sell at a 100% profit margin on ebay for $.99, and the non-oem
ones for a penny!!! :) -Dave

[SMS]

Post by Dave

Post by SMS
That statement is some kind of a joke, right? Since when do carriers set
their prices based on the cost. Look at Verizon's $30 car chargers!

. . . that sell at a 100% profit margin on ebay for $.99, and the non-oem
ones for a penny!!! :) -Dave

\
Yeah, with $6-7 shipping.

[Dave]

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
. . . that sell at a 100% profit margin on ebay for $.99, and the non-oem
ones for a penny!!! :) -Dave

\
Yeah, with $6-7 shipping.

People like to complain about the high shipping charges on ebay, but then
they conveniently forget that sellers need to buy shipping supplies, also.
So the item you paid $7 shipping for only cost the seller three or four
bucks to send ... but it came in a box also, didn't it? It was padded to
protect it in shipping, wasn't it? The box was sealed with packaging tape,
wasn't it? You can get free shipping packages for priority mail, but then
priority mail is more expensive, so the package isn't really free. I've
seen some shipping charges on ebay that were obviously way over-inflated,
but $6-$7 for a small item is not terribly over-inflated . . . especially if
you receive the item fairly quickly. Considering that you can get most car
chargers for less than $10 delivered off of ebay, that's still a bargain
compared to what the cellular providers want to charge you in the retail
stores. -Dave

[kevin weaver]

Your saying it cost 6-7 bucks to send a car charger thru usmail ? Try less
then a buck. I sent one to new york from calif for 92 cents in a padded env.
Staples charged me .45 for the padded env. Total less then 1.50 that's a
5.50 profit.
Item sold for 1.00 which I got for less then that from a friend that gets
them for about .60 ea. But a 100 of them and they go down to .42 ea.

Reason people charge so much shipping on eBay is because eBay does not base
there % on shipping when they bill the listing.
Hell, give them away for one cent (Like a lot do) and rip them on S&H...

Post by Dave

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
. . . that sell at a 100% profit margin on ebay for $.99, and the non-oem
ones for a penny!!! :) -Dave

\
Yeah, with $6-7 shipping.

People like to complain about the high shipping charges on ebay, but then
they conveniently forget that sellers need to buy shipping supplies, also.
So the item you paid $7 shipping for only cost the seller three or four
bucks to send ... but it came in a box also, didn't it? It was padded to
protect it in shipping, wasn't it? The box was sealed with packaging
tape, wasn't it? You can get free shipping packages for priority mail,
but then priority mail is more expensive, so the package isn't really
free. I've seen some shipping charges on ebay that were obviously way
over-inflated, but $6-$7 for a small item is not terribly over-inflated .
. . especially if you receive the item fairly quickly. Considering that
you can get most car chargers for less than $10 delivered off of ebay,
that's still a bargain compared to what the cellular providers want to
charge you in the retail stores. -Dave

[SMS]

Post by kevin weaver
Your saying it cost 6-7 bucks to send a car charger thru usmail ?
Reason people charge so much shipping on eBay is because eBay does not base
there % on shipping when they bill the listing.
Hell, give them away for one cent (Like a lot do) and rip them on S&H...

That does make sense. I wonder how long until eBay does something about
that.

[SMS]

Post by Dave

Post by SMS

Post by Dave
. . . that sell at a 100% profit margin on ebay for $.99, and the non-oem
ones for a penny!!! :) -Dave

\
Yeah, with $6-7 shipping.

People like to complain about the high shipping charges on ebay, but then
they conveniently forget that sellers need to buy shipping supplies, also.
So the item you paid $7 shipping for only cost the seller three or four
bucks to send ... but it came in a box also, didn't it?

<snip>

Many sellers are substituting high shipping charges for higher prices on
the actual items. I.e., I recently ordered some Motorola leather cases
for our V60 phones. I bought eight of them at $1 each, and the total
cost, including shipping, was around $32. So this was $24 shipping, but
of course it was clear that the shipping cost was making up for the
price of the item.

I didn't realize, until someone mentioned it here, the advantage to the
seller of having a low selling price and high shipping charges, as it
relates to eBay fees.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Dave

Post by SMS
That statement is some kind of a joke, right? Since when do carriers set
their prices based on the cost. Look at Verizon's $30 car chargers!

. . . that sell at a 100% profit margin on ebay for $.99, and the non-oem
ones for a penny!!! :) -Dave

Caveat emptor. Decent chargers (like the branded ones) cost more than that.

[clifto]

Post by SMS

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse.

"Virtually nothing" is an exaggeration. The low end phones still cost
the carrier around $40. This will fall to around $25 in 2006, and $15 in
2007.

When Verizon calls Motorola and says, "Gimme 10,000 of the T300p,"
Motorola is going to say something like "That's $10.76 in Q10K."

[SMS]

Post by clifto

Post by SMS

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse.

"Virtually nothing" is an exaggeration. The low end phones still cost
the carrier around $40. This will fall to around $25 in 2006, and $15 in
2007.

When Verizon calls Motorola and says, "Gimme 10,000 of the T300p,"
Motorola is going to say something like "That's $10.76 in Q10K."

Funny. The prices I stated were from an industry trade group, in a
report on low end phones and expansion of the wireless market. The
prices were the cost to the carriers, the production cost is of course less.

"Infineon, and rivals such as Philips (PHG.AS: Quote, Profile, Research)
from the Netherlands, are striving to integrate the key functions of a
mobile phone into a single chip of around $5.

This will help phone producers assemble a complete phone with far fewer
components than the 150 used now, Pratsch said.

"In 2007, we can do 50 components," he said, unveiling the next step of
Infineon's roadmap to cheaper phones.

The company said in July that by early 2006 it would start selling a
low-cost phone platform with less than 100 components for handsets that
cost less than $20 to produce, versus $35 now."

The current low-end handsets cost the carrier about $40 in volume, and
there is not much difference between technologies, though royalties to
Qualcomm do make the CDMA phones slightly more expensive. However this
is partially offset by the slight extra cost for the connector and the
SIM card in GSM phones. Expiring Qualcomm patents will also lower the
cost of CDMA phones, in mid-2006
("http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/biz/200512/kt2005120117101311860.htm").

The declining prices for 2006 and 2007 are due partially to the
declining prices of the electronic components, and greater integration,
but alas they are also looking at cost reductions by using lower quality
plastics, smaller batteries, and reducing features.

[clifto]

Post by SMS

Post by clifto
When Verizon calls Motorola and says, "Gimme 10,000 of the T300p,"
Motorola is going to say something like "That's $10.76 in Q10K."

Funny. The prices I stated were from an industry trade group, in a
report on low end phones and expansion of the wireless market. The
prices were the cost to the carriers, the production cost is of course less.

I am extremely surprised to see this.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by SMS

Post by TabooLexicon
First of all, the premise that even the low-end phones cost providers
virtually nothing is a farse.

"Virtually nothing" is an exaggeration. The low end phones still cost
the carrier around $40. ...

Actually much more than that.

Post by SMS
The reason for no "trial phones" is that the carrier doesn't want you to
find out about coverage issues. ...

How silly. The real reason is cost.