| Author |
Hey Anyone else in Oklahoma or close.... |
bigdawg
Joined: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 0
From: New Jersey
PM |
| |
|
bigdawg
Joined: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 0
From: New Jersey
PM |
@ highrez
Oh boy, here we go again. Ok,I'm glad you got the point about SMS and International dialing but you jsut don't understand anything when it comes to unlocking the phones. But lets start with MMS. What T-Mobile offers is not true MMS, again they are offering as hybrid version of MMS. I have a friend who happens to be a cell site technician for T-Mobile and has told me that they are in the process of upgrading their network for full MMS capability. They'll have it soon,but not quite there yet! You talk about how bad AT&T is compared to T-Mobile but here is what I find funny. Why was AT&T the 1st GSM carrier to offer GPRS in the US. In fact, they were the 1st carrier to offer next generation Data services in Seattle in july of 2001. I'm sure that AT&T's GSM network is not as good as T-Mobile but what do you think is going to happen when AT&T starts to allocate 850MGz for GSM, When you consider the size the AT&T's TDMA network compared to the GSM network of TMobile and the fact that TDMA will be converted to GSM where needed you start to realize that AT&Ts GSM will Dwarf Tmobile, It's just a matter of time.
Now for my favorite. Unlocking the phones is something that AT&T may start to do,but then again why, as I already explained selling phones is a money loser. In fact,T-mobile was almost sold for $15 billion which is less then half of what DT paid for the company in 1999.Why would they be sold for less then 1/2 of the purchase price. It was because then Voicestream was a money loser. You said that profit doesn't mean the best well I hate to argue but it does. Do you really think that AT&T could afford to spend $11 billion on building a GSM network from Scratch if they were not a profitable company? I think not! Tmobile is great that they couldn't even afford to build their own GSM networks in California and Nevada. They have to use Cingulars and have you heard how bad their GSM coverage is in those 2 states? It's pretty bad but don't take my word for it. Go to jd powers website and you will see that AT&T( who you hate so much) took top honors in 15 of the top 25 markets here in the USA. It would be 16 if yu count Cinncinatti Bell Wireless because they are an affiliate of AT&T. Tmobile only took 2 markets. So much about the great Tmobile service. Remember when you said that good service means happy customers, well it sure looks like AT&T has more happy customers that anyone else including Tmobile. Unlocking phones is not a big deal, you just happen to be one of those people who must have everything yesterday. you want,want ,want but are not patient to wait for the good stuff. Remember these words. AT&T and Cingular will rule the GSM world here in the US.Just because Tmobile unlocks phones doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. If you saw someone jump off a bridge would you follow the?(monkey see, monkey do) No, you seem smarter than that.
All good things come to those who wait, so be a little more patient.
|
highrez
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: 3
From: Seattle, WA
PM |
And the religious war continues. The ATT and Cingular deal is great, but in Washington State Cingular customers can roam to ATT but not vice versa, so it doesn't help me.
Not saying anything abut SMS doesn't mean I agree with you on that point. My point wasn't that they were slow to deploy, its that delivery times on ATT's network tended to suck when I last tested them. They must be using a Nokia SMSC.  (obligatory nokia slander) Could be worse, I worked with an SMSC that wasn't compliant and required nasty keepalives to be sent constantly.
I still disagree with the unlocking bit. I'm not saying make it free, I'm saying offer it. Many people would be willing to pay to have their phones unlocked and ATT still has them on a contract - so whats the point of the lock in the first place?
You haven't addressed the issue of ATT disabling the save picture functionality. Do you believe that ATT is in the right here, or is the omission of comment an admission of ATT being at fault?
And then the last thing I'd have to say is, do you work for or are you an affiliate of ATT? |
bigdawg
Joined: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 0
From: New Jersey
PM |
|
shoei
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 68
From: ***
PM |
Hmmm...seems like i started something.
What? |
bigdawg
Joined: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 0
From: New Jersey
PM |
AT&T or any other carrier do not "cripple the phonees" as you like to say. In fact these are factory settings you are talking about. SE and Nokia and every other phone maker out there are the ones "cripple" the phones based on whick carrier they are making the phones for.
Slow SMS, what do you do time how long they are delivered? C'mon let's get real and NO, I don't work for AT&T. I am a stock holder with an inside track of the company and hate when people talk crap and don't know what they are talking about. It's people like you who like spreading false shit around. One thing I'll agree with you is the fact that Nokia sucks. They are the worst cell phone maker out there! |
Deric
Joined: Oct 06, 2002
Posts: 10
PM |
for the record, to buy a T68i direct from SE whould run you $620.00 |
shoei
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 68
From: ***
PM |
Damn!! I like my phone, but i wouldn't pay 620.00 for it.
What? |
marka2k
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 86
From: USA
PM |
I can d/l backgrounds, screensavers to my phone from wap.esato.com am on AT&T here in Tulsa, Ok been doing it since August. |
Deric
Joined: Oct 06, 2002
Posts: 10
PM |
The T68is won't let you, I'm trying to get to the bottom of this right now... |
shoei
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 68
From: ***
PM |
marka2k:
I was able to do it earlier...but i'm not able to do it anymore...Themes i have no problem with...i just download the theme to my LT and then send it via infared to the phone. It's just the damn backrounds
What? |
okie
Joined: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 3
PM |
I'm in OKC using T-Mobile. Also using a R520m. |
bigdawg
Joined: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 0
From: New Jersey
PM |
@ Highrez
Hey buddy, do you remember a few days ago when you posted in this group about how AT&T sucks and that they have slow SMS? Well I found an article that I would like to share with. This article is about SMS and mentions AT&T and Verizon and your personal favorite Tmobile, I hope you enjoy:
Wireless Operators Lose Short Text Messages-Study
Tue January 14, 2003 11:55 PM ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Millions of short text messages sent between mobile
phones in the United States are lost every month, and the chance of two
parties connecting depends on which networks they use, a study to be
released on Wednesday says, Internet performance measurement company
Keynote Systems Inc. KEYN.O says in its study that 7.5 percent of all
short text messages sent between wireless telephone companies are lost.
The increasingly popular service known as SMS (Short Message Service)
allows mobile phone users to send brief messages instantaneously to
their friends and family. It typically costs 10 cents to send a message
and pennies to nothing to receive one.
In Europe, where it is also known as "text messaging," 10 to 15 percent
of wireless operators' revenue comes from SMS, but adoption of the
service has been slower in the United States, where users were not able
to send messages to networks other than their own until last year.
Still, industry group Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association
estimates that nearly one billion messages were exchanged during the
month of June 2002, the latest figure it has. At a lost-message rate of
7.5 percent, this means millions of messages never reach the intended
recipient.
Chuck Mount, general manager of Keynote's Wireless Perspective Service,
said a significant lost-message rate will not only affect carriers'
revenue but could affect customer usage of the still budding service.
Among the operators, the No. 3 U.S. wireless operator AT&T Wireless
Services Inc. AWE.N had the highest success rate in sending and
receiving messages.
It was the top performer in terms of messages sent to users on other
networks as well as messages sent within its network at 95.5 percent and
97.8 percent, respectively.
While rival Verizon Wireless VZ.N VOD.L , the largest wireless operator,
scored the highest in terms of receiving messages at a 95 percent rate,
AT&T Wireless trailed the largest wireless operator by only 0.2
percent.
T-Mobile USA, the sixth-largest wireless operator, was one of the worst
performers. Only 86 percent of messages sent from a T-Mobile phone to a
user on another network and 87 percent of messages sent to another
T-Mobile phone were successfully received.
The Deutsche Telekom unit DTEGn.DE received 92 percent of messages sent
from other networks.
Keynote said it test-sent nearly 26,000 messages in cities around the
country over a period of two weeks in December as part of the study.
|
highrez
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: 3
From: Seattle, WA
PM |
BigDawg,
Just read the article. Next time just paste a URL, please. I don't think I can agree with this study. For many reasons.
First, you didn't send me the url it came from and I'm too lazy to look for it myself - and the article has holes like swish cheese that if you keep reading you'll understand.
Second, unless I misread what you posted it sounds like this study was about a bunch of guys sending sms's on different networks from a bunch of cities around the US. Thats cool, but the problem is they all apparently sent them to a single carrier in europe, Deutsche Telekom. Correct me if I'm wrong, I really hope I am and Reuters isn't carrying complete crap.
Third, you as a stock holder should stop listening to news sources and do a little more "in depth" review of your portfolio. If you want to know how well a "service company" is doing listen to its customers. Just search for "AT&T Wireless International SMS" on google. You'll get this URL second from top: http://forums.attwireless.com/attws/board/message?board.id=gen&message.id=942 ... A petition to get ATTWS to fix international SMS - which is fairly new and has MANY MANY signatures. Now "Roberto" did a very nice job at explaining that ATT accepts all inbound SMS's. This could very well be true. But he left out the fact that to get those messages routed to att there has to be an SMSC peering relationship. If say an o2 user in the uk wanted to send an sms to an att user the o2 user and att user's smsc's would have to know about eachother. This requires private transport (actually this is fairly often done over the internet, unencrypted!), a username, password, TON, NPI, Address Range etc etc etc. The packets don't just magically know where to go. I don't fault Roberto for not knowing this, it seems he was fed the same crap that the PR machine fed to Reutors - in hopes it'd get to investors, perhaps?
As far as international SMS is concerned the big problem is not getting the sms from your phone to the network, it is getting it routed correctly from there. There are SMS brokers which have already established relationships with a large number of the carriers. The problem with going that route is you have to use their international prefix on numbers routed to you. Also some carriers will (as they should!) filter inbound sms's to a specific range of addresses owned by the peer. So ATT could not say use the broker and still retain its addresses. THAT is the problem with international SMS on ATT. The article you posted does not appear to at all whatsoever even come close to objectively analyzing the quality of international SMS between US carriers. All that spinning is making me dizzy.
Erm, just reread the article. I'm still a little confused why they chose to put DT in the loop, except maybe to compare against them - although that wasn't made entirely clear. Anyways, I don't retract what I said about the international sms problems with att.
As for the article itself. It wasn't clearly written and did not point to any evidince other than the numbers cited - and since they didn't explain exactly how they arrived at those numbers they're still useless to me. Specifically, how they picked locations, verified results etc. That is the type of information that if it were solid might get me to change my opinion about att's sms in the US. Also note that if you hit keynote's page and pull up partners, then click on "business alliances" you'll see AT&T at the top. Nough said.
[ This Message was edited by: highrez on 2003-01-17 11:28 ] |
drfell
Joined: Jan 05, 2003
Posts: 378
PM |
Okie is from oklahoma:-o Btw, okie, we wait 4 u in topic R520! COME AND ENJOY THE SHOW!
This message was posted from a R520 | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2003-01-13 09:11
