Hi All,

If you would suffer an off topic question:

I have noticed with certain vendors and customers
that they no longer will use their eMail, only
their Text, including when they have eMail on
their phones.

Some vendors have contact forms and eMail addresses
posted, but ignore them. They will only respond if
you text them. And when asked why, they say they
no longer use their eMail.

As my cell phone, for reason I will not go into,
is a flip phone, it is a pain in the ass to
text folks.

You guys notice this tread as well?

6 2 66 999 8 44 2 66 55 7777,
-T

On 11-Sept-2023 12:52 pm, T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> If you would suffer an off topic question:
>
> I have noticed with certain vendors and customers
> that they no longer will use their eMail, only
> their Text, including when they have eMail on
> their phones.
>
> Some vendors have contact forms and eMail addresses
> posted, but ignore them.  They will only respond if
> you text them.  And when asked why, they say they
> no longer use their eMail.
>
> As my cell phone, for reason I will not go into,
> is a flip phone, it is a pain in the ass to
> text folks.
>
> You guys notice this tread as well?
>
> 6 2 66 999 8 44 2 66 55 7777,
> -T
>

Haven't noticed this (yet) but if this approach is adopted widely it's
going to a very worrying development - especially for those of us who
live in areas where they won't provide any cellular coverage....

On 9/10/23 18:25, malone wrote:
> On 11-Sept-2023 12:52 pm, T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> If you would suffer an off topic question:
>>
>> I have noticed with certain vendors and customers
>> that they no longer will use their eMail, only
>> their Text, including when they have eMail on
>> their phones.
>>
>> Some vendors have contact forms and eMail addresses
>> posted, but ignore them.  They will only respond if
>> you text them.  And when asked why, they say they
>> no longer use their eMail.
>>
>> As my cell phone, for reason I will not go into,
>> is a flip phone, it is a pain in the ass to
>> text folks.
>>
>> You guys notice this tread as well?
>>
>> 6 2 66 999 8 44 2 66 55 7777,
>> -T
>>
>
> Haven't noticed this (yet) but if this approach is adopted widely it's
> going to a very worrying development - especially for those of us who
> live in areas where they won't provide any cellular coverage....
Or for when you need to be able to string
two coherent sentences together.
You can email to a text address:
https://freecarrierlookup.com/

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:25:53 +1200, malone <malone@nospam.net.nz> wrote:

>On 11-Sept-2023 12:52 pm, T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> If you would suffer an off topic question:
>>
>> I have noticed with certain vendors and customers
>> that they no longer will use their eMail, only
>> their Text, including when they have eMail on
>> their phones.
>>
>> Some vendors have contact forms and eMail addresses
>> posted, but ignore them.  They will only respond if
>> you text them.  And when asked why, they say they
>> no longer use their eMail.
>>
>> As my cell phone, for reason I will not go into,
>> is a flip phone, it is a pain in the ass to
>> text folks.
>>
>> You guys notice this tread as well?
>>
>> 6 2 66 999 8 44 2 66 55 7777,
>> -T
>>
>
>Haven't noticed this (yet) but if this approach is adopted widely it's
>going to a very worrying development - especially for those of us who
>live in areas where they won't provide any cellular coverage....

You're fine if you have WiFi coverage. Modern smartphones can use WiFi to send
or receive texts or to make or receive phone calls.

As for T above, he knows what the solution to his problem is, but he doesn't
want to implement it for reasons he will not go into.

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 20:59:46 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
> You're fine if you have WiFi coverage. Modern smartphones can use WiFi to send
> or receive texts or to make or receive phone calls.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

But it doesn't work for my phone. Consumer Cellular
told me that Wifi calling is not for making calls via
Wifi; it's for improving call quality in areas of low
signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
calling can't help.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 20:59:46 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>> You're fine if you have WiFi coverage. Modern smartphones can use WiFi to send
>> or receive texts or to make or receive phone calls.
>
> You would think so, wouldn't you?
>
> But it doesn't work for my phone. Consumer Cellular
> told me that Wifi calling is not for making calls via
> Wifi; it's for improving call quality in areas of low
> signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
> its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
> calling can't help.
>

Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
transport is over Wifi. Or something.

They would not be saying that, if session initiation
worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?

Paul

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:35:17 -0400, Paul wrote:
> On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> > [quoted text muted]
> > signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
> > its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
> > calling can't help.
> >
>
> Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
> transport is over Wifi. Or something.
>
> They would not be saying that, if session initiation
> worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
> a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
> and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?

I got nothin'. I could fix it by switching to Verizon, but I'm paying
under $30 a month now for unlimited talk and text and a GB of data,
which is way more than I use.

The city's official podcast has recommended that AT&T customers all
cancel their service and give as a reason that there is no coverage
in downtown. (It's highly localized. A couple of blocks north or
south there's a usable signal.)

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 9/11/23 17:41, this is what Stan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:35:17 -0400, Paul wrote:
>> On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>> signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
>>> its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
>>> calling can't help.
>>>
>>
>> Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
>> transport is over Wifi. Or something.
>>
>> They would not be saying that, if session initiation
>> worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
>> a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
>> and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?
>
> I got nothin'. I could fix it by switching to Verizon, but I'm paying
> under $30 a month now for unlimited talk and text and a GB of data,
> which is way more than I use.
>
> The city's official podcast has recommended that AT&T customers all
> cancel their service and give as a reason that there is no coverage
> in downtown. (It's highly localized. A couple of blocks north or
> south there's a usable signal.)
>
Do you have T-Mobile around. They have $30 plan unlimited talk,text and 5G data. My plan got bumped to $27 a year back.
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:21:19 -0700, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 20:59:46 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>> You're fine if you have WiFi coverage. Modern smartphones can use WiFi to send
>> or receive texts or to make or receive phone calls.
>
>You would think so, wouldn't you?
>
>But it doesn't work for my phone. Consumer Cellular

Consumer Cellular is an MVNO, so what you can and can't do is limited to what
they've negotiated with the underlying carrier, in addition to any limits
they've put on their own customers.

>told me that Wifi calling is not for making calls via
>Wifi; it's for improving call quality in areas of low
>signal.

That sounds like doublespeak. Here's a test you might want to try. Enable
Airplane mode to disable all radios. Then enable only WiFi. Can you make or
receive phone calls? Can you send or receive texts?

It's possible, I suppose, that your phone is trying to use cellular data for
calls and texts even when the cellular signal is too weak to support those
activities, but disabling the cellular radio should force the phone to use WIFi,
if it's able and allowed.

>Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
>its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
>calling can't help.

I use WiFi calling and texting frequently, but I'm with Verizon. They not only
allow it, they actively encourage it because it takes traffic off of their
network.

On 2023-09-10 20:52, T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> If you would suffer an off topic question:
>
> I have noticed with certain vendors and customers
> that they no longer will use their eMail, only
> their Text, including when they have eMail on
> their phones.
>
> Some vendors have contact forms and eMail addresses
> posted, but ignore them.  They will only respond if
> you text them.  And when asked why, they say they
> no longer use their eMail.
>
> As my cell phone, for reason I will not go into,
> is a flip phone, it is a pain in the ass to
> text folks.
>
> You guys notice this tread as well?

No.

However, I do know some business that post whatsapp numbers, not email.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:35:17 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 20:59:46 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> You're fine if you have WiFi coverage. Modern smartphones can use WiFi to send
>>> or receive texts or to make or receive phone calls.
>>
>> You would think so, wouldn't you?
>>
>> But it doesn't work for my phone. Consumer Cellular
>> told me that Wifi calling is not for making calls via
>> Wifi; it's for improving call quality in areas of low
>> signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
>> its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
>> calling can't help.
>>
>
>Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
>transport is over Wifi. Or something.

It can all be over cellular, (4G, 5G, doesn't matter.)
Or, it can all be over WiFi.
It can start with one type of transport and switch to the other, and if
necessary, it can switch back again.

>They would not be saying that, if session initiation
>worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
>a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
>and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?

Nope. To be fair, we have Stan's report of what they (Consumer Cellular) said,
(no offense, Stan!), but we don't have the actual words from Consumer Cellular.
What we know is that the carriers that they buy service from*, all support phone
calls and texts via WiFi. Cellular coverage is not required. What we (I, really)
don't know is whether Consumer Cellular has purchased a limited feature set from
their carriers. CC is primarily aimed at an older audience, so it wouldn't
surprise me if they've dumbed things down a bit in order to keep things simple
and inexpensive.

*Consumer Cellular has been reported to be buying service from at&t, T-mobile,
and Verizon. That's the nice thing about being an MVNO, they can buy service
from any carrier. They just have to manage the phones they sell, or manage
expectations for the folks who want to bring their own phone.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:37:21 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

[Consumer Cellular told me that wifi calling will not
work without a phone signal.]

> That sounds like doublespeak.

Not doublespeak, just ridiculous. :-)

> Here's a test you might want to try. Enable
> Airplane mode to disable all radios. Then enable only WiFi. Can you make or
> receive phone calls? Can you send or receive texts?

Our visitor center, where I volunteer, is located
downtown, in the AT&T dead zone. It has good wifi, and
I always sign in to its wifi. Even without going to
airplane mode, I cannot send and receive calls or
texts. And yes, I have wifi calling enabled in
Settings.

Just in case I'm missing something--

Are you saying that even with the above situation,
going into airplane mode and enabling wifi should
enable me to make and receive calls? If that doesn't
work when not in airplane mode I'm skeptical that it
would work in airplane mode, but if you really think
it's worthwhile I'll try the experiment.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 22:46:05 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
> Nope. To be fair, we have Stan's report of what they (Consumer Cellular) said,
> (no offense, Stan!), but we don't have the actual words from Consumer Cellular.
> What we know is that the carriers that they buy service from*, all support phone
> calls and texts via WiFi. Cellular coverage is not required. What we (I, really)
> don't know is whether Consumer Cellular has purchased a limited feature set from
> their carriers.

No offense taken. FWIW, I spent considerable time in
live chat over the web, then with a different rep
(presumably) over the phone, and the message from both
was the same: you must have a phone signal, however
weak, for wifi calling to "work". And by "work" they
explained it would somehow enhance the quality of a
poor signal.

They do not offer anonymous call rejection, and the
reason they gave when I complained is that they are a
reseller of AT&T and T-Mobile and don't offer all of
their features.

They also don't offer the feature -- I don't know its
name -- where during the ring your screen shows some
indication that the caller is spoofing a phone number.
Is that SHAKN/STIRRED or whatever the acronym is, or is
that something different? Anyway, they don't offer
that.
> *Consumer Cellular has been reported to be buying service from at&t, T-mobile,
> and Verizon.

This is the first I've heard of CC using Verizon.
Either that happened a long time ago and doesn't any
more, or they've started it in the last year or so
since I inquired about anonymous call rejection. But
Verizon has excellent signal in downtown Tehachapi, and
I had zero signal in the visitor center downtown as
recently as last Thursday.

(This discussion is making me question my adherence to
Consumer Cellular. The price is great, but there are
definite annoyances.)

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:41:08 -0700, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:35:17 -0400, Paul wrote:
>> On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> > signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
>> > its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
>> > calling can't help.
>> >
>>
>> Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
>> transport is over Wifi. Or something.
>>
>> They would not be saying that, if session initiation
>> worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
>> a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
>> and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?
>
>I got nothin'. I could fix it by switching to Verizon, but I'm paying
>under $30 a month now for unlimited talk and text and a GB of data,
>which is way more than I use.

Just FYI, if you're interested in making a change and saving some
money. I use Mint mobile (which uses T-mobile). I pay $15 a month for
unlimited talk and text and 5GB of data. I've been very happy with
them.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 02:24:03 -0700, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 22:46:05 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>> Nope. To be fair, we have Stan's report of what they (Consumer Cellular) said,
>> (no offense, Stan!), but we don't have the actual words from Consumer Cellular.
>> What we know is that the carriers that they buy service from*, all support phone
>> calls and texts via WiFi. Cellular coverage is not required. What we (I, really)
>> don't know is whether Consumer Cellular has purchased a limited feature set from
>> their carriers.
>
>No offense taken. FWIW, I spent considerable time in
>live chat over the web, then with a different rep
>(presumably) over the phone, and the message from both
>was the same: you must have a phone signal, however
>weak, for wifi calling to "work". And by "work" they
>explained it would somehow enhance the quality of a
>poor signal.

That's just wrong, but I don't think they were intentionally wrong. If you poke
around on the CC website, they say exactly what you've said above - that WiFi
calling can enhance the quality of a poor signal, or something similar.

What they're trying to say, if I'm being most charitable, is that WiFi calling
can turn a bad experience into a good experience. It "enhances" your experience
by allowing you to make/receive calls when you otherwise wouldn't be able to.

According to Consumer Cellular, most of their plans do support WiFi calling,
meaning you'd be able to make/receive calls even with zero cellular signal. Even
in Airplane mode, assuming you enable WiFi (since enabling Airplane mode
disables WiFi along with the cellular radio.)

To make it work, you need 4 things:
1. You must be on a CC plan that supports WiFi calling. Most do, apparently.
2. WiFi calling must be enabled, by them, on your account. (No charge to you.)
3. Your phone must support WiFi calling.
4. WiFi calling must be enabled on your phone.

Here's a non-CC site that gives a somewhat clearer picture of WiFi calling than
anything I found at the actual CC site.
https://robotpoweredhome.com/consumer-cellular-wifi-calling/

>They do not offer anonymous call rejection, and the
>reason they gave when I complained is that they are a
>reseller of AT&T and T-Mobile and don't offer all of
>their features.
>
>They also don't offer the feature -- I don't know its
>name -- where during the ring your screen shows some
>indication that the caller is spoofing a phone number.
>Is that SHAKN/STIRRED or whatever the acronym is, or is
>that something different? Anyway, they don't offer
>that.
>
>> *Consumer Cellular has been reported to be buying service from at&t, T-mobile,
>> and Verizon.
>
>This is the first I've heard of CC using Verizon.
>Either that happened a long time ago and doesn't any
>more, or they've started it in the last year or so
>since I inquired about anonymous call rejection. But
>Verizon has excellent signal in downtown Tehachapi, and
>I had zero signal in the visitor center downtown as
>recently as last Thursday.

From personal experience, I only know of CC using at&t and T-Mobile, but I
noticed that some Reddit users were saying in 2022 that CC was offering service
in areas where Verizon was the only major carrier available. That would make
sense to me.

>(This discussion is making me question my adherence to
>Consumer Cellular. The price is great, but there are
>definite annoyances.)

Ken Blake mentioned Mint Mobile. I've been trying to get my sister to switch to
them but she has a million reasons why she can't. None of her reasons are
legitimate and I've told her so, but it is what it is.

Some of her objections:
They'll make me buy a new phone. (No, they won't. She has a modern smartphone.)
I'll lose coverage. (She'd be on the exact same network that she's on now.)
I'll only be able to call other Mint customers. (Ridiculous)
....and so on.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 08:20:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:41:08 -0700, Stan Brown
><the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:35:17 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>>> > [quoted text muted]
>>> > signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
>>> > its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
>>> > calling can't help.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
>>> transport is over Wifi. Or something.
>>>
>>> They would not be saying that, if session initiation
>>> worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
>>> a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
>>> and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?
>>
>>I got nothin'. I could fix it by switching to Verizon, but I'm paying
>>under $30 a month now for unlimited talk and text and a GB of data,
>>which is way more than I use.
>
>
>Just FYI, if you're interested in making a change and saving some
>money. I use Mint mobile (which uses T-mobile). I pay $15 a month for
>unlimited talk and text and 5GB of data. I've been very happy with
>them.

+1 for Mint Mobile. I know quite a few people who have switched, including some
who did it on my recommendation, and they seem to be happy with it.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 02:07:41 -0700, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:37:21 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>[Consumer Cellular told me that wifi calling will not
>work without a phone signal.]
>
>> That sounds like doublespeak.
>
>Not doublespeak, just ridiculous. :-)
>
>> Here's a test you might want to try. Enable
>> Airplane mode to disable all radios. Then enable only WiFi. Can you make or
>> receive phone calls? Can you send or receive texts?
>
>Our visitor center, where I volunteer, is located
>downtown, in the AT&T dead zone. It has good wifi, and
>I always sign in to its wifi. Even without going to
>airplane mode, I cannot send and receive calls or
>texts. And yes, I have wifi calling enabled in
>Settings.
>
>Just in case I'm missing something--
>
>Are you saying that even with the above situation,
>going into airplane mode and enabling wifi should
>enable me to make and receive calls? If that doesn't
>work when not in airplane mode I'm skeptical that it
>would work in airplane mode, but if you really think
>it's worthwhile I'll try the experiment.

I answered in more detail in another post, but the whole idea of entering
Airplane mode is to disable the cellular radio, then manually enabling just
WiFi, so that WiFi becomes the only option for calls or texts.

Please refer to the other post in this thread where I listed the 4 things that
you need in order to make/receive calls and send/receive texts, even with zero
cellular signal.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:01:04 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
> According to Consumer Cellular, most of their plans do support WiFi calling,
> meaning you'd be able to make/receive calls even with zero cellular signal. Even
> in Airplane mode, assuming you enable WiFi (since enabling Airplane mode
> disables WiFi along with the cellular radio.)
>
> To make it work, you need 4 things:
> 1. You must be on a CC plan that supports WiFi calling. Most do, apparently.
> 2. WiFi calling must be enabled, by them, on your account. (No charge to you.)
> 3. Your phone must support WiFi calling.
> 4. WiFi calling must be enabled on your phone.
>
> Here's a non-CC site that gives a somewhat clearer picture of WiFi calling than
> anything I found at the actual CC site.
> https://robotpoweredhome.com/consumer-cellular-wifi-calling/

Thanks for that, Char. The details of how to enable Wifi calling on
Android didn't match my phone, but I found Wifi Calling easily enough
by doing a Settings search. It was already turned on, as far as my
phone is concerned. I noted that the article said I might need to
have the carrier turn on wifi calling.

So I live chatted with a Consumer Cellular rep and asked her to
enable Wifi calling on my phone. She refused. It wasn't that my plan
doesn't support it, but some sort of policy doubletalk about my
phone. I pointed out that my phone supported it, and she gave me some
different gobbledygook ending with suggesting I upgrade my phone.

I said I was coming to the conclusion I'm with the wrong carrier. No
spam protection, no anonymous call rejection, no warnings of faked
caller ID, and now no wifi calling. Her reply was that I could get
those things through third-party apps, at which point I gave up.

Technically there are apps for those things, but when I tried the
best-reviewed ones earlier this year I found they worked poorly.
NoMoRobo was a particular disappointment. And anyway, why should I
load down my phone with things that can be done by the carrier?

So now I'm looking at Verizon MVNOs online. My current phone is
unlocked, but it's also 5 years old and the manufacturer hasn't
updated it in more than three years, so I'm also looking for a new
phone. Fun!

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:35:31 -0700, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:01:04 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>> According to Consumer Cellular, most of their plans do support WiFi calling,
>> meaning you'd be able to make/receive calls even with zero cellular signal. Even
>> in Airplane mode, assuming you enable WiFi (since enabling Airplane mode
>> disables WiFi along with the cellular radio.)
>>
>> To make it work, you need 4 things:
>> 1. You must be on a CC plan that supports WiFi calling. Most do, apparently.
>> 2. WiFi calling must be enabled, by them, on your account. (No charge to you.)
>> 3. Your phone must support WiFi calling.
>> 4. WiFi calling must be enabled on your phone.
>>
>> Here's a non-CC site that gives a somewhat clearer picture of WiFi calling than
>> anything I found at the actual CC site.
>> https://robotpoweredhome.com/consumer-cellular-wifi-calling/
>
>Thanks for that, Char. The details of how to enable Wifi calling on
>Android didn't match my phone, but I found Wifi Calling easily enough
>by doing a Settings search. It was already turned on, as far as my
>phone is concerned. I noted that the article said I might need to
>have the carrier turn on wifi calling.
>
>So I live chatted with a Consumer Cellular rep and asked her to
>enable Wifi calling on my phone. She refused. It wasn't that my plan
>doesn't support it, but some sort of policy doubletalk about my
>phone. I pointed out that my phone supported it, and she gave me some
>different gobbledygook ending with suggesting I upgrade my phone.
>
>I said I was coming to the conclusion I'm with the wrong carrier. No
>spam protection, no anonymous call rejection, no warnings of faked
>caller ID, and now no wifi calling. Her reply was that I could get
>those things through third-party apps, at which point I gave up.
>
>Technically there are apps for those things, but when I tried the
>best-reviewed ones earlier this year I found they worked poorly.
>NoMoRobo was a particular disappointment. And anyway, why should I
>load down my phone with things that can be done by the carrier?
>
>So now I'm looking at Verizon MVNOs online. My current phone is
>unlocked, but it's also 5 years old and the manufacturer hasn't
>updated it in more than three years, so I'm also looking for a new
>phone. Fun!

Thanks for hanging in there. I think it'll be worth it when you arrive at a
solution.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 08:20:30 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:41:08 -0700, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:35:17 -0400, Paul wrote:
> >> On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> >> > [quoted text muted]
> >> > signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
> >> > its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
> >> > calling can't help.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
> >> transport is over Wifi. Or something.
> >>
> >> They would not be saying that, if session initiation
> >> worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
> >> a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
> >> and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?
> >
> >I got nothin'. I could fix it by switching to Verizon, but I'm paying
> >under $30 a month now for unlimited talk and text and a GB of data,
> >which is way more than I use.
>
> Just FYI, if you're interested in making a change and saving some
> money. I use Mint mobile (which uses T-mobile). I pay $15 a month for
> unlimited talk and text and 5GB of data. I've been very happy with
> them.

Thanks, Ken. I believe I heard that T-Mobile has no cell towers in
the area, but I haven't checked it out.

Instead, after another bad customer service chat this morning
(documented elsewhere in this thread) I'm jettisoning Consumer
Cellular and going with Visual, a Verizon MVNO that is actually a
subsidiary of Verizon. Reviews look good to me, and the price of $25
a month for unlimited talk, text, and data includes all taxes and
fees. I'm buying a new phone(*) at the same time, factory unlocked,
so if Visual's service isn't what I hope I can look at another
Verizon MVNO.

(*)My current phone is almost 5 years old, and Motorola hasn't
updated it since spring 2020, so it was about time anyway. Its latest
quirk is that when the number pad pops up for entering numbers in
response to prompts during a phone call, 1 shows on its button but
the other eleven are blank. The blank buttons work, but there's no
visual confirmation. Again, this isn't the pad for dialing a number,
which works fine, it's the one for entering data during a phone call.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 9/13/23 16:03, this is what Stan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 08:20:30 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:41:08 -0700, Stan Brown
>> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:35:17 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2023 1:21 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>>> signal. Downtown Tehachapi has zero bars for AT&T and
>>>>> its resellers such as Consumer Cellular, and Wifi
>>>>> calling can't help.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which implies that session initiation is over 4G, and
>>>> transport is over Wifi. Or something.
>>>>
>>>> They would not be saying that, if session initiation
>>>> worked without the cell tower. Maybe credentials on
>>>> a phone, are only transmitted over the radio interface,
>>>> and cannot be "scarfed" programmatically for usage on Wifi ?
>>>
>>> I got nothin'. I could fix it by switching to Verizon, but I'm paying
>>> under $30 a month now for unlimited talk and text and a GB of data,
>>> which is way more than I use.
>>
>> Just FYI, if you're interested in making a change and saving some
>> money. I use Mint mobile (which uses T-mobile). I pay $15 a month for
>> unlimited talk and text and 5GB of data. I've been very happy with
>> them.
>
> Thanks, Ken. I believe I heard that T-Mobile has no cell towers in
> the area, but I haven't checked it out.
>
> Instead, after another bad customer service chat this morning
> (documented elsewhere in this thread) I'm jettisoning Consumer
> Cellular and going with Visual, a Verizon MVNO that is actually a
> subsidiary of Verizon. Reviews look good to me, and the price of $25
> a month for unlimited talk, text, and data includes all taxes and
> fees. I'm buying a new phone(*) at the same time, factory unlocked,
> so if Visual's service isn't what I hope I can look at another
> Verizon MVNO.
>
> (*)My current phone is almost 5 years old, and Motorola hasn't
> updated it since spring 2020, so it was about time anyway. Its latest
> quirk is that when the number pad pops up for entering numbers in
> response to prompts during a phone call, 1 shows on its button but
> the other eleven are blank. The blank buttons work, but there's no
> visual confirmation. Again, this isn't the pad for dialing a number,
> which works fine, it's the one for entering data during a phone call.
>
Yep, bought a Blu phone (starter for ~$100) to see if I wanted a smart phone (boy is that a laugh-don't know if I could
live without one now), and moved to Motorola, and it got old and I got a Pixel 6a. New ones about 4 years apart.
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

Carlos E. R.L:

> However, I do know some business that post whatsapp
> numbers, not email.

Which means they cannot be reached by honest means, but the
customer must enlist as a slave into some proprietary
communication system. Same with the publishing of price
lists and other kinds of information as Microsoft Office
documents.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:23:05 +0300, Anton Shepelev
wrote:
> Carlos E. R.L:
>
> > However, I do know some business that post whatsapp
> > numbers, not email.
>
> Which means they cannot be reached by honest means, but the
> customer must enlist as a slave into some proprietary
> communication system. Same with the publishing of price
> lists and other kinds of information as Microsoft Office
> documents.

Or Google Docs, of course.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 9/18/23 03:23, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Same with the publishing of price
> lists and other kinds of information as Microsoft Office
> documents.

I come across that occasionally. Kind of silly
to think everyone have M$ Office.

Both Libre Office and Free Office can read those.

A few times I have come across M$ Office docs that
folks got eMailed that they can not read with
M$ Office. I got lucky and Libre Office was able
to import them and read past the corruption(s).
Docs may have been good and something was wrong
with their M$ Office.

Following up on the problem I documented below ...

That day (Wednesday) I researched Verizon MVNOs and
selected Visible.com (actually a subsidiary of
Verizon). $25 a month, including all taxes and fees,
for unlimited talk, text, and data (4G and 5G,
depending on location). Amazon was having a $100 off
sale on Samsung Galaxy A54 5G phones, so I ordered one,
and for a wonder my Amazon Prime 2-day shipping
actually arrived in just two days. (They've been
averaging about a week. That's not late UPS delivery;
it's right there in my shopping cart.)

The Visible.com website promises an easy signup
experience, but I'm sorry to say that they did not
fulfill that promise. Not one of of their instructional
emails, not one of the scripts in their chat robots,
gave instructions for what to do on the website that
actually matched what was on the website. It was all
"go to the X page and click the Y link", but there was
never a Y link or anything resembling it on the X page.
Either they changed the website after the scripts were
written, or whoever wrote them never looked at the
website and tried to follow their own instructions.
I spent much of yesterday on line to chat, trying
to get a live person. (They promise 24/7 live support,
but like so many companies they do everything they can
to discourage you from getting to a human. I will say
that when the robot finally agreed to connect me to a
person, the wait was short and the reps were helpful.)
But the second such session kicked me off when I
clicked on the "Yes, it's me" verification email that
their rep sent me to click on. Hopefully all of these
were one-time pains.

The good news is that signal quality is excellent. In
my house, a few miles from downtown Tehachapi, I have
half a bar (out of four) on my Samsung phone, but when
I made some test calls we could hear each other
clearly, both on speaker and off speaker. There was
none of the echoing that I sometimes got with Consumer
Cellular, I assume from excessive latency. Downtown I
had a bar and a half, this time with a 5G signal, and
again the call quality was excellent.

One interesting thing is that Visible told me to turn
off Wifi when testing the phone, so that I would be
sure about phone signal quality. I can't test wifi
calling anyway, since I seem to have signal everywhere
I've been so far. It will be interesting to see if I
lose signal in the mountains between here and
Bakersfield next time I go.

As for the phone itself, the 6.4" screen is big enough,
and I think it's higher-res than my Motorola because I
can read smaller print without putting on glasses. It's
also noticeably lighter.
Reviews have said that Samsung fills its phones
with crapware, and that seems to be true. There's even
a separate app to pick up voicemails. Dialing a long-
press 1 on the phone app's numeric screen does work,
but Samsung nags me about giving permissions to its
voicemail app.
Samsung's messaging app is buggy. For instance,
when you say "comma" in voice recognition the next word
bumps up against the comma, with no space, and
"exclamation point" gets written out. The Motorola
never had any problem with dictated punctuation.
So my next task, along with reading a zillion
settings and deciding how I want them, will be to
figure out which if any of the Samsung apps I want to
keep and get Google alternatives for the others. I've
already uninstalled Samsung calendar and installed
Google's.

But overall I think I made the right long-term choice.
Samsung promises phone updates for five years, and
Motorola stopped in less than two.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:35:31 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:01:04 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
> > According to Consumer Cellular, most of their plans do support WiFi calling,
> > meaning you'd be able to make/receive calls even with zero cellular signal. Even
> > in Airplane mode, assuming you enable WiFi (since enabling Airplane mode
> > disables WiFi along with the cellular radio.)
> >
> > To make it work, you need 4 things:
> > 1. You must be on a CC plan that supports WiFi calling. Most do, apparently.
> > 2. WiFi calling must be enabled, by them, on your account. (No charge to you.)
> > 3. Your phone must support WiFi calling.
> > 4. WiFi calling must be enabled on your phone.
> >
> > Here's a non-CC site that gives a somewhat clearer picture of WiFi calling than
> > anything I found at the actual CC site.
> > https://robotpoweredhome.com/consumer-cellular-wifi-calling/
>
> Thanks for that, Char. The details of how to enable Wifi calling on
> Android didn't match my phone, but I found Wifi Calling easily enough
> by doing a Settings search. It was already turned on, as far as my
> phone is concerned. I noted that the article said I might need to
> have the carrier turn on wifi calling.
>
> So I live chatted with a Consumer Cellular rep and asked her to
> enable Wifi calling on my phone. She refused. It wasn't that my plan
> doesn't support it, but some sort of policy doubletalk about my
> phone. I pointed out that my phone supported it, and she gave me some
> different gobbledygook ending with suggesting I upgrade my phone.
>
> I said I was coming to the conclusion I'm with the wrong carrier. No
> spam protection, no anonymous call rejection, no warnings of faked
> caller ID, and now no wifi calling. Her reply was that I could get
> those things through third-party apps, at which point I gave up.
>
> Technically there are apps for those things, but when I tried the
> best-reviewed ones earlier this year I found they worked poorly.
> NoMoRobo was a particular disappointment. And anyway, why should I
> load down my phone with things that can be done by the carrier?
>
> So now I'm looking at Verizon MVNOs online. My current phone is
> unlocked, but it's also 5 years old and the manufacturer hasn't
> updated it in more than three years, so I'm also looking for a new
> phone. Fun!

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...