 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / January 2007Why is it so "impossible" to upgrade analog OnStar?
Analog OnStar is being shut down in 2008. What I don't understand is why GM says that the old analog equipment cannot be upgraded. These days upgrades are available for cars that are much more sophisticated than cell phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the engine crankshaft or something? They may sell a few extra cars that way....... > Analog OnStar is being shut down in 2008. What I don't understand is why > GM says that the old analog equipment cannot be upgraded. These days > upgrades are available for cars that are much more sophisticated than cell > phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the engine > crankshaft or something? who says its impossible? > Analog OnStar is being shut down in 2008. What I don't understand is why > GM says that the old analog equipment cannot be upgraded. These days > upgrades are available for cars that are much more sophisticated than cell > phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the engine > crankshaft or something? sorry, just reread the post, and I see that you said it was GM that says its impossible. It seems that you could just go get the parts from the parts catalog for a model with the digital one, get the correct sensors, connectors, and wires. Maybe it is controlled through the pcm. Maybe you could swap out a newer pcm to get it to work. Whatever it is, it will have to be a do-it-yourself job, but NOTHING is impossible. > who says its impossible? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> cell phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the >> engine crankshaft or something? How much would you be willing to pay to upgrade your car. The unit is integrated throughout the electronics of the car. The ECM,dash and all components would have to be reengineered. It would be cheaper to buy a new car. > Analog OnStar is being shut down in 2008. What I don't understand is why > GM says that the old analog equipment cannot be upgraded. These days > upgrades are available for cars that are much more sophisticated than cell > phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the engine > crankshaft or something? > How much would you be willing to pay to upgrade your car. The unit is > integrated throughout the electronics of the car. The ECM,dash and all > components would have to be reengineered. It would be cheaper to buy a new > car. I'd not pay a penny. I have it installed in my LeSabre, but after the first year ran out, I never renewed. Too expensive for what you get, IMO. If the $400 service was $150, I'd go for it. How deeply is it "integrated" with the car? That is my key question. Do you have to replace the vehicle computer because the cell phone uses analog instead of digital? Does the antenna have to be swapped out, etc.? What part of the dash would have to be replaced, the air bag too? > How much would you be willing to pay to upgrade your car. The unit is > integrated throughout the electronics of the car. The ECM,dash and all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> cell phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the >> engine crankshaft or something? Or you could just use you cell phone! > How deeply is it "integrated" with the car? That is my key question. Do > you have to replace the vehicle computer because the cell phone uses analog [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> cell phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the >>> engine crankshaft or something? OK I'll use my cell phone when I'm unconscious after an accident. > Or you could just use you cell phone! > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>>> than cell phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to >>>> the engine crankshaft or something? > OK I'll use my cell phone when I'm unconscious after an accident. Heavens - what ever did people do before the days of OnStar? You make this sound life threatening.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Analog OnStar is being shut down in 2008. What I don't understand is why GM > says that the old analog equipment cannot be upgraded. These days upgrades > are available for cars that are much more sophisticated than cell phone > equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the engine crankshaft > or something? It is especially annoying that GM knew this day was coming and yet still kept selling non-upgradeable systems. I know that our 2002 minivan had the non-upgradeable system. Six years from purchase to useless feature is unacceptable. John Heres an idea... Buy a cell phone and a GPS unit, transfer them to any car you want. That won't do much good. The best part of OnStar is that it will automatically call for emergency help in case the air bag inflates. > Heres an idea... Buy a cell phone and a GPS unit, transfer them to any > car you want. > That won't do much good. The best part of OnStar is that it will > automatically call for emergency help in case the air bag inflates. If that's the best part of OnStar, that sure isn't much justification for the system. Marginal value at best in my opinion. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net OnStar is also a vehicle tracking system. So my theft-recovery system will "expire" too. > If that's the best part of OnStar, that sure isn't much justification for > the system. Marginal value at best in my opinion. Before asking why GM is dropping the analog service or why it cant be upgraded, you should be asking why the big Cell Phone companies have either dropped or will be dropping analog service within the next 3 years. Onstar service "piggy backs" on a cell phone service. currently there are 2 types of cell systems one type is GSM (GSRM) the other is AMPS (CDMA). all cell comunication is done on these 2 systems. I don't know about in the USA but here in Canada, Bell and telus use the AMPS(CDMA) and Rogers and Fido use the GSM(GSRM). So when Rogers or Bell (not sure who GM uses as its service provider) drops the analog service in the next 2 years Gm analog Onstar won't work. As for asking if you can upgrade your Onstar from analog to digital, sure you can... but do you really want too spend all that money? It will cost more for you to "upgrade" then it is worth. Price out the cost of sensors at the dealer, as I doubt these will ever be available aftermarket. Snow... Analog service is ancient, it is obsolete technology, and it doesn't make sense to force companies to support old technologies. For example we can't tell Sony to make 8-track players. The real issue is that GM used a technology that was already obsolete when they put it in my 2001 Yukon Denali, and the company should come up with an upgrade path at least. > Before asking why GM is dropping the analog service or why it cant be > upgraded, you should be asking why the big Cell Phone companies have [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Snow... First off, I thought the decision to go analog for OnStar was incredibly short-sighted. Unless they INTENDED to be phased out and not have to support it in the future. That means that if it didn't sell, they could let it phase out and then not even have to worry about support for existing customers. If it was a success, then fine, convert to new technology. Bottom line is the conversion is probably pretty darn simple. There's NO WAY it's incorporated into the airbag or other vehicle systems, EXCEPT that it can monitor them. I'll bet long odds the OnStar module contains a vehicle network connector an interface unit, a controller, and then a cell phone module with GPS. If it were impossible to upgrade without other vehicle changes and upgrades, then GM would be home to the most incompetent asinine corrupt engineers I can imagine. Then again, remember what Ford did years ago. Routing the starter relay through the Ford factory provided radio, and if you replaced it with an upgraded unit (wasn't that how Delco originally got it's start?) they would attempt to void your factory warrantee. > Analog service is ancient, it is obsolete technology, and it doesn't make > sense to force companies to support old technologies. For example we can't [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > Snow... Thank you Mike, finally a well-thought response for the discussion. > First off, I thought the decision to go analog for OnStar was incredibly > short-sighted. Unless they INTENDED to be phased out and not [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> > >> > Snow... They do, It's called a 2007 GMC Yukon :) > Analog service is ancient, it is obsolete technology, and it doesn't make > sense to force companies to support old technologies. For example we can't > tell Sony to make 8-track players. The real issue is that GM used a > technology that was already obsolete when they put it in my 2001 Yukon > Denali, and the company should come up with an upgrade path at least. > Analog service is ancient, it is obsolete technology, and it doesn't make > sense to force companies to support old technologies. For example we can't > tell Sony to make 8-track players. The real issue is that GM used a > technology that was already obsolete when they put it in my 2001 Yukon > Denali, and the company should come up with an upgrade path at least. Probably because OnStar was originally not a GM product. They bought it when the folks at OnStar convinced GM that it was a good system to have and a lot of car buyers decided they were correct. When it was developed they used analog for the difference in coverage. Digital coverage was only available in limited areas and didn't have the infrastructure to support the OnStar equipment. The coverage problem is still something that they have to contend with, some areas just are not profitable for companies to drop a tower so you have holes. You must live in an area near a city if you think that analog was obsolete in 2001. At that time in NY if you had a digital only phone you would find that you had coverage only around the larger markets and on the interstates. NONE in between. With analog you had coverage in those areas as well as in the non digital areas. In the vehicles which don't have all the additional services, an upgrade should not be very hard, you would have to replace the antenna and the transceiver unit and get that system activated with OnStar but it shouldn't be that hard. After all the transceiver is nothing more than a cell unit with integrated GPS. The complaint I have with OnStar will come about in 2007, ALL GM vehicles will have OnStar standard. I don't want it on a vehicle I own. I went looking for another used vehicle for snow use and found a really nice 2004 TrailBlazer for a great price. Two things killed the deal. One was the auto 4X4 it had and the other was OnStar. I still may buy it and strip out the OnStar crap. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York >> Analog service is ancient, it is obsolete technology, and it doesn't >> make sense to force companies to support old technologies. For [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Probably because OnStar was originally not a GM product. BS. Onstar was developed by Hughes when Hughes was still a 100% owned subsidiary of GM. > BS. Onstar was developed by Hughes when Hughes was still a 100% owned > subsidiary of GM. I thought OnStar was developed by IBM. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Analog service is ancient, it is obsolete technology, and it doesn't make > sense to force companies to support old technologies. For example we can't > tell Sony to make 8-track players. The real issue is that GM used a > technology that was already obsolete when they put it in my 2001 Yukon > Denali, and the company should come up with an upgrade path at least. They should? I don't think so. You bought a product and you got what you paid for. The company - no company is responsible to make sure you get what you want out of a product indefinitely. Technology advances and old technologies are obsoleted. That's just the way of the world. GM owes you no such upgrade path. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net I don't like the idea of three non-functional buttons on the dash, and a bunch of useless electronic equipment taking up space and weight inside the car, because the company cannot come up with an upgrade path. Even my Alpine navigation unit or XM radio is unlikely to "expire" anytime soon. I have never seen anything like this OnStar debacle. > They should? I don't think so. You bought a product and you got what you > paid for. The company - no company is responsible to make sure you get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you > no such upgrade path. >> They should? I don't think so. You bought a product and you got what >> you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Alpine navigation unit or XM radio is unlikely to "expire" anytime soon. I >have never seen anything like this OnStar debacle. I agree with Mike. Go back to your "8-track tape" reference. Many people used to have them, but Sony didn't build them to be upgradeable to CD. And analog wasn't outdated in 2001, by the way. > >I don't like the idea of three non-functional buttons on the dash, and a > >bunch of useless electronic equipment taking up space and weight inside the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > used to have them, but Sony didn't build them to be upgradeable to CD. And > analog wasn't outdated in 2001, by the way. OK, I can pull the 8-track out and put in a CD. And even to the end, there was no 'dead date' for 8-track. (Although the music industry would love that for CDs. Not the players, the media!) Analog WAS outdated in 2001. Even before that date, analog was on it's way out. Yes, they still built analog equipment, but there was almost no new SUPPORT for analog. Mike > Analog WAS outdated in 2001. Even before that date, analog was on > it's way out. Yes, they still built analog equipment, but there was almost > no new SUPPORT for analog. Such is the nature of technology Mike. Cellular technology in particular. Virtually every cell carrier has announced drop dead dates for analog. They kept it alive until they could build out the infrastructure for digital and then allowed it to go away. None of those cell carriers offer you any form of upgrade path other than to buy into the new technology. Again - such is the way of technology. I know that it is frustrating to lose a functionality and to feel that you don't want to replace a car you like simply because something like OnStar no longer works, but... (ain't there always a but...), it's life. I can understand your frustration. The part I can't get behind is your feeling that GM owes you something. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > Analog WAS outdated in 2001. Even before that date, analog was on > > it's way out. Yes, they still built analog equipment, but there was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > always a but...), it's life. I can understand your frustration. The part I > can't get behind is your feeling that GM owes you something. Oh, GM doesn't owe me anything. I don't have OnStar in my vehicles. I just find it incredible the attitude that GM took with the 'system direction' kind of thing. I was serious when I compared it to Ford and the tiff with add on radios years ago. > Oh, GM doesn't owe me anything. I don't have OnStar in my vehicles. > I just find it incredible the attitude that GM took with the 'system > direction' > kind of thing. I was serious when I compared it to Ford and the tiff with > add on radios years ago. Argh!!! Sorry Mike - got your reply confused with the OP's expectations of GM. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net I don't remember saying that GM "owes" me anything, but I do know that if they don't provide an upgrade path I will be quite disappointed with the brand... it just comes across as sloppy engineering or design management... a car's SAFETY feature is not supposed to expire without an upgrade path. By the way, I am a longtime GM customer, I have only owned GM vehicles since the 1980s. I've always been the cheerleader for GM products but this OnStar debacle is kind of irritating. >... The part I > can't get behind is your feeling that GM owes you something. > I don't remember saying that GM "owes" me anything, but I do know that if > they don't provide an upgrade path I will be quite disappointed with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the 1980s. I've always been the cheerleader for GM products but this OnStar > debacle is kind of irritating. You didn't come out and say it, but you more than implied that GM owes you something - an upgrade at the very least. A lot has been posted here regarding OnStar and the various implementations of it. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what he/she wants to call all of that. But - the point could be made that (as you have already made clear) you knew you were buying a dead end, "obsolete" technology when you bought your car with OnStar. There were other OnStar technologies either available or announced when your was on the way out. Seems kind of late to be pitching a bitch about a technology at this point. Why the caps on the word "SAFETY" above? That alone makes it clear you are trying to emphasize a point in attempt to bolster your case. OnStar is an adjunct. It does nothing for "SAFETY". It's a convenience. Anything you can say about OnStar as a "SAFETY" component can equally be said of a cell phone. If the "SAFETY" aspects of OnStar are really important, then make sure you have a cell phone and you're all set. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > I don't remember saying that GM "owes" me anything, but I do know that if > > they don't provide an upgrade path I will be quite disappointed with the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > phone. If the "SAFETY" aspects of OnStar are really important, then make > sure you have a cell phone and you're all set. BTW - I hope this does not sound overly critical of your opinion. Mine is a different opinion and I'm just hashing the stuff about - not trying to be too critical. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net I really do believe it is a safety and security feature that I'm losing in Jan 2008. If you get in a head-on crash and the air bag deploys on a remote rural road, you may not be conscious to dial a cell phone. On the other hand OnStar would automatically call for help. There are a number of news stories recently speculating on whether a system like OnStar would have helped James Kim lost in the Oregon Wildnerness (probably not, but searchers detected a cell phone ping and even erected a temporary cell tower near the location). Another news story in the past couple days described how a carjacker was tracked down and caught using OnStar. If you are in danger and you don't know your location (or don't really have time to describe it to the 911 operator) the OnStar system can pinpoint where you are and send for help with the push of one button. If your car is carjacked with your baby in the back seat, OnStar will help the cops find it fast. Or even if it is stolen and you've got valuables inside worth more than what the insurance company will pay, it's worthwhile to use OnStar to recover the stolen vehicle and put the bad guys in jail. The examples are endless. So yes, it is all about safety and security. >> I don't remember saying that GM "owes" me anything, but I do know that if >> they don't provide an upgrade path I will be quite disappointed with the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > phone. If the "SAFETY" aspects of OnStar are really important, then make > sure you have a cell phone and you're all set. > I really do believe it is a safety and security feature that I'm losing in > Jan 2008. If you get in a head-on crash and the air bag deploys on a remote > rural road, you may not be conscious to dial a cell phone. On the other > hand OnStar would automatically call for help. If it makes you feel more secure in those thoughts, then I'd agree it's a security feature - your personal sense of security. But, there are still so many areas around the country - especially in those remote rural areas, where cell signals are weak to non-existant, so I just could not place a lot of value in the added security that it *might* be helpful if I was involved in an accident that had all of the specific requirements such as above. I guess it comes down to my belief that you can create specifics enough to justify anything you want but really - it's all about what you want. So, given that you really like OnStar and want to believe it is a true safety and security value for you (which is fine), then I believe you'll just have to embrace the notion of keeping up with the technology. Sucks in a way maybe, but that's just the way it is. Maybe with enough uproar from analog users GM will come out with some reduced price, one-time offer to swap out units for you guys. > There are a number of news > stories recently speculating on whether a system like OnStar would have > helped James Kim lost in the Oregon Wildnerness (probably not, but searchers > detected a cell phone ping and even erected a temporary cell tower near the > location). So - for all that the news folk's (who love to speculate and build things up) hype, if the cell phone didn't help Kim, how would OnStar? It's the same technology. > Another news story in the past couple days described how a > carjacker was tracked down and caught using OnStar. I'm sure there was. OnStar can indeed work and provide some usefulness. I don't deny what OnStar can do - but this is a convenience in my opinion. > If you are in danger > and you don't know your location (or don't really have time to describe it > to the 911 operator) the OnStar system can pinpoint where you are and send > for help with the push of one button. Yes, and a bigger gun can be helpful as well. Really - there is a lot of "if you are... OnStar *may* be able..." stuff in scenarios like this. It's easy to create scenarios where anything from a bigger gun to OnStar to magic disappearing powder could be helpful. But - those are not safety features in a car. Safety features fall into a different category of responsibility for the manufacturer. OnStar offers a lot of features, but most of them are conveniences and the others are largely what-if scenarios contrived to make OnStar appear more necessary in your life than it really is. > If your car is carjacked with your > baby in the back seat, OnStar will help the cops find it fast. See above. > Or even if > it is stolen and you've got valuables inside worth more than what the > insurance company will pay, it's worthwhile to use OnStar to recover the > stolen vehicle and put the bad guys in jail. By the time you've got the insurance company involved, your car and your valuables do not exist in any recognizable form. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net I remember one time I was driving north on the 57 freeway in Brea, CA when a truck changed lanes into a compact car's path, and the lady swerved out of control, failing to properly counter-steer the skid, and spun around several times hitting the center divider. It was right in front of me. I wanted to report the location of the accident right away but there were no freeway exits for a few miles and I didn't remember the last exit or landmark. Then I realized I have OnStar and I just pushed the button and told the operator, who summoned help to the scene based on my GPS position. Who knows if the quick response and precise location could have helped someone who is bleeding to death, in cardiac arrest, etc. Maybe this was the time when I realized OnStar is not just a toy but it can really save lives just like seatbelts and air bags. >I remember one time I was driving north on the 57 freeway in Brea, CA when >a truck changed lanes into a compact car's path, and the lady swerved out [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the time when I realized OnStar is not just a toy but it can really save >lives just like seatbelts and air bags. My cell phone can do the same thing. It has a GPS tracker built into it. I call 911, and they know exactly where I am. Yes, OnStar can be helpful, but it all depends on what is going on. How many people have the OnStar system in there vehicle, but don't use it? "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > My cell phone can do the same thing. It has a GPS tracker built into it. I > call 911, and they know exactly where I am. Yes, OnStar can be helpful, > but it all depends on what is going on. How many people have the OnStar > system in there vehicle, but don't use it? It does have value to it, just not the value the folks at the OnStar pricing office seem to have for it. Never renewed the service after the first free year. Basic was $200, the extended price is $400. More than I'm willing to pay for what I'd get. Half that, I'd do it. > "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > first free year. Basic was $200, the extended price is $400. More than > I'm willing to pay for what I'd get. Half that, I'd do it. Exactly my point. To some, OnStar is a great service to have. To others, it's nothing new. >> I really do believe it is a safety and security feature that I'm losing in >> Jan 2008. If you get in a head-on crash and the air bag deploys on a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it makes you feel more secure in those thoughts, then I'd agree it's a > security feature - your personal sense of security. Don't forget that this is the core feature of OnStar which GM has advertised relentlessly, at least on the radio! > I really do believe it is a safety and security feature that I'm > losing in Jan 2008. If you get in a head-on crash and the air bag [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > bad guys in jail. The examples are endless. So yes, it is all about > safety and security. and I remember a case in Louisiana, where OnStar helped find a stolen vehicle.... sent coordinates to PD, and there it was, safe and sound >> >I don't like the idea of three non-functional buttons on the dash, and a >> >bunch of useless electronic equipment taking up space and weight inside [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > almost > no new SUPPORT for analog. According to GM's website, OnStar was first put in GM cars back in 1996. There are 3 different types of OnStar in GM vehicles. Analog Only, Analog/Digital Ready, and Dual Mode (Analog/Digital). The first one, Analog Only will expire in 2008, however, the Analog/Digital Ready models can be upgraded to still be used after 2008. From the GM website: "The Dual-mode (analog/digital) upgrade kits are now available for many GM vehicles. Eligible OnStar subscribers who purchase a prepaid, non-refundable, non-transferable 1-year OnStar subscription (plus applicable subscription tax) will receive an equipment upgrade for $15." Not bad, seeing how a cell phone upgrade is usually over $100. "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Not bad, seeing how a cell phone upgrade is usually over $100. Really? I've never paid a penny for a phone upgrade. > "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> Not bad, seeing how a cell phone upgrade is usually over $100. > > Really? I've never paid a penny for a phone upgrade. You must have a really nice cell phone provider. I am with Bell (In Canada) and they gave me a credit to start up my account, but only because I signed up for a 3 year contract. In a year, when my Razr is out of date (it actually kind of is already), Bell only offers discounts on upgrades, not free phones. Who are you with? "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> Really? I've never paid a penny for a phone upgrade. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (it actually kind of is already), Bell only offers discounts on upgrades, > not free phones. Who are you with? Cingular. They offer a selection from seven "free", a bunch of $9.99 on up to about $200. IIRC, there would have been a $79 charge for the Razr, but a Motorola Bluetooth phone was a freebie. , > "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> Really? I've never paid a penny for a phone upgrade. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > up to about $200. IIRC, there would have been a $79 charge for the Razr, > but a Motorola Bluetooth phone was a freebie. , Very interesting. When do you get these phones? As in, how long must you be with them to get the freebie? Like I said, with me and Bell, when I first signed up for a 3 year contract, they gave me a credit to get my Razr, and the credit would have been enough to buy a cheaper phone (the Razr was over $300 CDN), but after being with Bell for say, 2 and a half years, they will only give me a certain percent off the regular purchase price should I decide to upgrade. > Analog OnStar is being shut down in 2008. What I don't understand is why > GM says that the old analog equipment cannot be upgraded. These days > upgrades are available for cars that are much more sophisticated than cell > phone equipment. Is the analog receiver unit connected to the engine > crankshaft or something? Which year, make, and model of car do you have OnStar in? 2001 GMC Yukon Denali > Which year, make, and model of car do you have OnStar in? > 2001 GMC Yukon Denali Are you certain your Denali is Analog only? Like I said in another post, some vehicles are Analog/Digital Ready, where as an upgrade is possible, and only cost $15. That would be nice, but I have been reading that all of the pre-2002 vehicles are analog, and the analog/digital were made from around 2002-2004. Also I received a letter from GM about cancelling the service in 2008, which I guess they mailed me based on my VIN number. > Are you certain your Denali is Analog only? Like I said in another post, > some vehicles are Analog/Digital Ready, where as an upgrade is possible, > and only cost $15. Probably true, though there is a number on GM's OnStar site you can call just to double check. As for now, I would suggest getting a good cell phone, with GPS built into it. My Motorola Razr has GPS in it. I can't really use it as a navigation system, but should I ever need 911 assistance, the phone transmit's my location to the 911 operator. I guess the only other thing you can do is try to find a forum that deals with Yukon's. They may have found a way to convert your Analog system to Digital, and if the price is right, you may want to look into that. I use the BonnevilleClub all the time for all my Bonnie's needs. > That would be nice, but I have been reading that all of the pre-2002 > vehicles are analog, and the analog/digital were made from around [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> some vehicles are Analog/Digital Ready, where as an upgrade is possible, >> and only cost $15. Yes I confirmed it is analog only... I connected to OnStar and the rep confirmed this. A lot of analog-only subscribers will be in for a surprise one year from now. >> 2001 GMC Yukon Denali > > Are you certain your Denali is Analog only? Like I said in another post, > some vehicles are Analog/Digital Ready, where as an upgrade is possible, > and only cost $15. > Yes I confirmed it is analog only... I connected to OnStar and the rep > confirmed this. A lot of analog-only subscribers will be in for a surprise > one year from now. Yep, it is crazy how long GM kept installing analog only hardwired sets into vehicles. They were doing this many, many years after the cellular companies had stopped offering analog only handsets or any hardwired sets. I've read all of the arguments about the inevitability of technology obsolescence that some have posted here and it doesn't add up. GM was well aware that analog cell phone systems were being phased out and chose to wait longer than any other cell phone hardware company in the business to adapt. John So true John. All GM would have to do to keep 2001-2002 OnStar owners happy is to find a way to remove just the cell phone dialing components of the analog unit, and replace it with a digital circuit/wiring/antenna in the replacement design. Give us an option to upgrade for a couple hundred bucks. Why can't they do that for us? I have not heard a single logical answer to this question. Hello, anyone out there from GM listening? If so, forward this entire thread to your senior management please. > Yep, it is crazy how long GM kept installing analog only hardwired sets > into vehicles. They were doing this many, many years after the cellular [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John Oh for .... sake... You people want some cheese with your never ending whine? > So true John. > > All GM would have to do to keep 2001-2002 OnStar owners happy is to find a > way to remove just the cell phone dialing components of the analog unit, and > replace it with a digital circuit/wiring/antenna in the replacement design. > Give us an option to upgrade for a couple hundred bucks. It would not surprise me to see something hit the market that does this before the cutoff of the analog systems. Maybe not from GM, maybe from the aftermarket. > Why can't they do that for us? I have not heard a single logical answer to > this question. Hello, anyone out there from GM listening? If so, forward > this entire thread to your senior management please. I'd be willing to bet that even if this is not being considered at this point, it has at least, already been considered. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net I think it probably has already been considered and they nixed it. We have a Chevy Impala '01 with analog only OnStar. For the past 2 years we have been informed that we will lose service in 2008, but analog only providers would be contacted for more information as the time nears. More information - that I won't have service. Well, they could have told me that 2 years ago. Why didn't they? They made it sound like there would be something done. Could it be they didn't want people to drop them 2 years ago? A posibility being that wireless companies will still keep the analog running and we would continue to have service. I even spoke to an On-Star representative who stated that this was a very good possibility. The letter we recieved notes that this was an FCC mandate that required the copmanies to go digital. I remember reading an article that stated the government wanted the analog network for themselves. You konw there are those pockets where only analog will still be available. As well as the wireless companies still having analog around as they convert everything over to digital. There is a phase out process that the companies have yet to state. As stated above, the letter states FCC mandate that the wireless companies are not required to support analog. Doesn't say that they won't. Yet Onstar (owned by GM) has decided to not provide service to those vehicles with analog only as of 2008. This was a GM choice. And I think the reason being was at the end of their notice stating "and we want you to know that there are many 2006 and 2007 GM models available with the digital network". So they want me to buy another $30,000 or more car. Also, they are not giving me a year renewal, but monthly - which if I remember correctly costs more. We purchased the Impala for the safety of the car, good mileage and because of OnStar. Onstar was the deciding point between the Impala and a few other manufacturers. My husband uses for commuting 100 miles round trip, 5 days a week. We have it for the air-bag deployment and anti-theft only. When we were looking to purchase a house here 6 years ago, we saw an accident. Man had a heart attack and he crashed off the road into some trees. No-one saw it and he was there for hours. Died because of it. If he had OnStar, his airbags would have deployed and he would have had help and still be alive. We purchased with this in mind and that when it was time for our son to start driving we would have OnStar available. Well now we won't. We have this piece of crap in the car coming from the ceiling into the mirror. You can see the wires if you look closely at how it comes down to the mirror. And we no longer have it for our piece of mind for our son who is a new driver. I know, I know - what did people do years ago. But years ago there weren't as many cars on the road. And all cars were pretty much the same size. People weren't driving around in Hummers and Avalanches while others in a compact car. We didn't have all the illegals driving around without licenses and insurance. Of course you always had people driving around without a license and insurance, but not at such a rate as today. Technology doesn't change that much in 5 years. It was already there and the BIG companies continued to use the old cheaper methods. GM knew this was going to happen, yet even after the FCC mandated they continued to install analog only. Yes, companies aren't responsible for outdated technology, but they should be when in such a short time frame. You were able to relpace 8 Tracks with a cassette player in your car. Or you were still able to use your 8 track deck because you had the tapes to play still. So its not like you had equipment in the car they you weren't able to use. Our Impala still has a cassette player. Granted you don't see many cassettes being offered in the stores anymore, but I do have a good amount at home that doesn't render the casette player useless. Same with VHS tapes. You don't see many around any longer, but you have enough at home that doesn't render the equipment useless. Unlike OnStar. GM made OnStar directly into the car (or so it seems) so that it could not be replaced. I now have something in the car I cannot use. GM should replace or give a nice discount to those analog customers to have OnStar replaced with digital equipment. I can't see OnStar being hooked up to every single part in the car. It has to be hooked to the computer chip somehow and obtain readings from there. Just like your technician in the dealership reads the chip, so can Onstar. We had an issue with the car 2X, and contacted on-Star while driving, and they read us a code that they diagosed. Same code the dealership obtained when reading the computer chip. So like someone mentioned in the thread, I think just the cellular portion needs to be changed. Do we have any wireless techs out there who might know anything? I wonder if there is going to be a class action suit? Excellent post! I'd suggest printing this out and sending it to GM management. They could design an upgrade kit if they wanted to. They might have assumed that 2001 customers don't really care. If we speak up maybe they will listen. >I think it probably has already been considered and they nixed it. > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > I wonder if there is going to be a class action suit? > Excellent post! I'd suggest printing this out and sending it to GM > management. They could design an upgrade kit if they wanted to. They > might have assumed that 2001 customers don't really care. If we speak up > maybe they will listen. No, they won't listen, they want you to buy a new car. To auto maker executives, a 2001 is very old and you should buy a new one to keep the economy going. After 6 model years, you are not worth helping. My local dealer is the same way. Any time I had any sort of problem, even minor, they suggested trading it in for a new car. Do you think the CEO of GM will suggest a way to keep it longer? What do you think keeps his company going, new car sales or retrofits for older models? Good point Edwin. However the executive should also consider loyalty to the brand. This might be the last time I buy from GM. Before this I had a Silverado truck, and before that a C/K truck. I also have a 2006 GM Pontiac GTO. I have been very loyal to GM products, but when they screw me with the OnStar system I will go to some other automaker where the safety features don't expire. > No, they won't listen, they want you to buy a new car. To auto maker > executives, a 2001 is very old and you should buy a new one to keep the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of GM will suggest a way to keep it longer? What do you think keeps his > company going, new car sales or retrofits for older models? > Good point Edwin. However the executive should also consider loyalty to > the brand. This might be the last time I buy from GM. Before this I had > a Silverado truck, and before that a C/K truck. I also have a 2006 GM > Pontiac GTO. I have been very loyal to GM products, but when they screw > me with the OnStar system I will go to some other automaker where the > safety features don't expire. As far as I know, no other auto maker has a device like Onstar. "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > As far as I know, no other auto maker has a device like Onstar. Only thing I know of is just the theft protection from Lo Jack. To integrate all of they systems that On Star as in an aftermarket product would be very involved. I just wish the price of On Star was a bit more reasonable. At $400 a year, I never renewed after the first year that was included. > "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> As far as I know, no other auto maker has a device like Onstar. > > Only thing I know of is just the theft protection from Lo Jack. I am not familiar with that. What is it? > To integrate all of they systems that On Star as in an aftermarket product > would be very involved. I am surprised there isn't an aftermarket version that can work on any car. Sure, it would be expensive, but then again, so are those in-dash DVD players. If people want it, they will buy it. > I just wish the price of On Star was a bit more reasonable. At $400 a > year, I never renewed after the first year that was included. That does sound a little high, but then again, I pay around $600 ($50 or so a month) ((Canadian)) a year just for my cell phone. "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > That does sound a little high, but then again, I pay around $600 ($50 or > so a month) ((Canadian)) a year just for my cell phone. About what I pay. A cell phone and an Auto club does most of what On Star does. The airbag thing is nice, but if you look at the added cost just for that, the whole deal is pricey. They do have a $200 plan with limited features. In the year that I had On Star, I used it twice. Once was just because it was there and they were of no help getting around a traffic jam (there was no alternate routes), the other was for some directions to a hard to find address. It was good, but not $400 good. > "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for that, the whole deal is pricey. They do have a $200 plan with limited > features. I would have to agree. OnStar seems like a nice toy to have, but I can't see the point (in my case anyhow) in paying $50 a month for my cell phone, and another $30 for OnStar. I have my car insurance set up as a road-side assistance type deal. It's only a couple of extra dollars a month (literally), and they will do just about anything from driving directions, to bringing me gas (should I run out), to towing. > In the year that I had On Star, I used it twice. Once was just because it > was there and they were of no help getting around a traffic jam (there was > no alternate routes), the other was for some directions to a hard to find > address. It was good, but not $400 good. The only time I have ever pressed the OnStar button in a car was in a rental. My sister had been in an accident with her Grand Am, so they gave us an '04 Grand Prix as a rental. Nice car, but of course the OnStar was disabled. All we could do was press the button and speak with customer service, who couldn't do anything (such as activate the service) because it was a rental car. Wait, that was the second time. The first time was when my sister was thinking about buying her Grand Am, and GM had there "ring in to win" contest going. You go and sit in a car with the salesman at the dealership, he presses the buttons, they ask a few questions and tell you how much you have won off your new car. Using the Onstar gave me a kind of "Big Brother" worry. Using the Onstar gave me a kind of > "Big Brother" worry. I agree with you comments, except for this last one. Maybe I am enured to Big Brother, since he is everywhere nowadays. Onstar is not something I would buy, for the same reasons you cite. Heck, I even got rid of my subscription cellphone. Bill was running me $70 per month when I retired. Got a TracFone which I use for my convenience, it is as good as or better than the subscription service, and I get by for maybe $10 per month. > Using the Onstar gave me a kind of >> "Big Brother" worry. > > I agree with you comments, except for this last one. Maybe I am enured to > Big Brother, > since he is everywhere nowadays. It seems they are, it doesn't it? Quite a world we live in. > Onstar is not something I would buy, for the same reasons you cite. Heck, > I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the subscription > service, and I get by for maybe $10 per month. A lot of people I know are switching to "Pay as you Go" type deals, where they buy a $10 card, and only use that in a month. However, then the cell phone companies just charge you full price for the phone. That's why I am stuck on a 3 year contract. It got me my $600 phone for 3 something. They always know how to get there money. "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > A lot of people I know are switching to "Pay as you Go" type deals, where > they buy a $10 card, and only use that in a month. However, then the cell > phone companies just charge you full price for the phone. That's why I am > stuck on a 3 year contract. It got me my $600 phone for 3 something. They > always know how to get there money. The TracFones are available at places like WalMart for less than a hundred bucks...\ much less. The better ones have most of the bells and whistles. You have to buy a new phone card every two months to hold your number, so I buy a twenty buck card that gives me 60 minutes, just to keep the two month cycle. I have bought a much larger card which gives me enough minutes to do anything I want (and the minutes carry over...they do not expire at the two month intervals.) Lots of people live with their phone in their ear, and this might not be good for them. Works for me.. A benefit is that the TracFone works across many different cell zones, whereas some of the dedicated ones occasionally run out of coverage. From what I've seen advertised, Wal-Marts lowest price for a TracFone is only $14.49 mike > "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> A lot of people I know are switching to "Pay as you Go" type deals, where [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > cell zones, whereas some of the dedicated ones occasionally run out of > coverage. > "80 Knight" <NOMORESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> A lot of people I know are switching to "Pay as you Go" type deals, where [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > cell zones, whereas some of the dedicated ones occasionally run out of > coverage. Interesting. I will have to take a look for those TracFones next time I am at WalMart, as I have never seen them before. From what you say, the closest I have seen here is the 'pay as you go' method. > A lot of people I know are switching to "Pay as you Go" type deals, where > they buy a $10 card, and only use that in a month. However, then the cell > phone companies just charge you full price for the phone. That's why I am > stuck on a 3 year contract. It got me my $600 phone for 3 something. They > always know how to get there money. The phone is low cost if you watch for deals. Here in Canada Pay as You Go phones are about $50 on sales and the $10 monthly charge is billed automatically to my credit card. The time (billed at 29¢ per local minute) accumulates such that we occasionally use it for long distance to eat up the time. A 3 yr contract phone is free, but the service cost is about $30 / mth. minimum. If you use the phone a lot the contract phone is best, but for occasional use the non contract is best. That's a strange reason to change brands, it seem to me. Particularly when GM is the ONLY manufacture to even offer 'OnStar" Do you think Motorola, or any other any manufacture, would 'upgrade' their analog cell phones in todays digital/wireless market? LOL mike > Good point Edwin. However the executive should also consider loyalty to > the brand. This might be the last time I buy from GM. Before this I had > a Silverado truck, and before that a C/K truck. I also have a 2006 GM > Pontiac GTO. I have been very loyal to GM products, but when they screw > me with the OnStar system I will go to some other automaker where the > safety features don't expire. If GM comes out with a neat new in-dash heads-up display with integrated road map, traffic jam monitoring, Internet streaming 3D Google-map display, etc.. I won't believe they will "support" it 5 years later. It will just go black. > That's a strange reason to change brands, it seem to me. Particularly > when GM is the ONLY manufacture to even offer 'OnStar" Do you think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > mike It isn't GM's fault that analog was phased out. I don't usually agree with anything Mike Hunter says, but he has a point. I have a couple of Motorola StarTac cell phones laying around, which will also be useless after the swap, and Motorola (or Bell, my cell phone service provider) isn't offering me an upgrade in the slightest. You complain that all GM would do was offer you a discount on a new car. They don't really have to do anything. > If GM comes out with a neat new in-dash heads-up display with integrated > road map, traffic jam monitoring, Internet streaming 3D Google-map [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> mike They didn't offer any discount for a new car. If I implied that previously it was in error. They just sent a letter saying my OnStar will be useless next year and that I should consider buying one of their new models. >You complain that all GM would do was offer you a discount on a new car. >They don't really have to do anything. <snip> My mistake. I must have been reading someone else's post when I responded to yours. Still (and with no offence towards you intended), I stand by the rest of my post. > They didn't offer any discount for a new car. If I implied that > previously it was in error. They just sent a letter saying my OnStar will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <snip> > It isn't GM's fault that analog was phased out. I don't usually agree with > anything Mike Hunter says, but he has a point. I do recall GM saying that they chose analog because for their purposes it was better than digital. Better coverage was one reason IIRC. I think they probably got "caught" in that they started a business just as the decision to change was made and it was too late to do anything else. Kind of like equipping every new car with a Beta tape player and a year later, "oh sh.t, what do we do now?" >> It isn't GM's fault that analog was phased out. I don't usually agree >> with anything Mike Hunter says, but he has a point. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of like equipping every new car with a Beta tape player and a year later, > "oh sh.t, what do we do now?" I remember, 'back in the day', Analog used to be much better then Digital, for the reason you just gave. You could get an Analog signal just about anywhere, whereas Digital was only starting to come in. I didn't get a pure digital cell phone until around 2 years ago. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.