|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > May 2005 > "Americas Choice" Roaming
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
"Americas Choice" Roaming
|
|
| Roughrider50 2005-05-21, 4:55 pm |
|
I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 days
to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority. I
travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a "Verizon" or
"Extended network" displayed on the screen of my VX6100. Sometimes, but not
lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service
area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a
call?
As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA
--
CorkyF
| |
| J.H. Holliday 2005-05-21, 4:55 pm |
| "Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iJHje.159488$Sq.100900@fe05.news.easynews.com...[vbcol=darkred]
>
> I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
> choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30
> days to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority.
> I travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
> I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a "Verizon" or
> "Extended network" displayed on the screen of my VX6100. Sometimes, but
> not lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no
> service area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I
> can't make a call?
> As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
> want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA
> --
> CorkyF[/color]
When you're in a No Service area, the display on your phone says "No
Service" and if you try to make a call, it won't go. That's how you know;-)
Doc
| |
|
| As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Roughrider50 wrote:
[vbcol=darkred]
>I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
>choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have
>30 days to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first
>priority. I travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
>I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a
>"Verizon" or "Extended network" displayed on the screen of my
>VX6100. Sometimes, but not lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do
>I tell if I'm in a no service area? Do I get the Phone with a slash
>or do I find out when I can't make a call?
>As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the
>way I want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA[/color]
"No roaming" with the National Singlerate plan meant that Verizon
would pick up the tab if you were out in the boondocks, but with
the new AC plan you'll simply have no service in those roaming areas
that previously had the flashing triangle. If the phone absolutely,
positively has to work "everywhere", then stay with your old NSR
plan even if it does have fewer minutes. On the other hand, your
observations confirm the fact that the AC network is pretty extensive
and will more than likely fulfill your needs. YMMV.
--
Jafo
| |
|
|
"Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:iJHje.159488
Sometimes, but not[vbcol=darkred]
> lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service
> area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a
> call?
> As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
> want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA
> --
> CorkyF[/color]
Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming on the "No
Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will get the flashing
triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or is that a solid triangle that
means roaming?!) Did you get the flashing triangle on the current plan or
the old plan? I'm under the impression that your phone will say "Verizon"
or "Extended Network" or "No Service" only. Since there is no roaming in
the plan, the phone now will say no service where it used to roam.
Bob
| |
|
| As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Bob A wrote:
[vbcol=darkred]
>Since there is no roaming in the plan, the phone now will say
>no service where it used to roam.[/color]
Makes a good paperweight, though. :)
--
Jafo
| |
| agentHibby 2005-05-21, 4:55 pm |
|
Verizon has Native Coverage or a Roaming Agreement with another provider
(Roaming Partner) in almost every wireless market in the country. The
only difference is if Verizon or the roaming partner in that area has
poor coverage, and a non roaming partner good coverage you can't use
the non roaming partner like you do with National Single Rate.
If you need to dail 911 it will work any network that your phone can
connect to. So if your phone says *No Service* it might still be able
to pick up a non roaming partner to get the call threw.
--
agentHibby
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t176194.html
| |
| parikhvasantv@yahoo.com 2005-05-21, 10:55 pm |
| If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming
partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle
then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per
my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are
true.
| |
|
| As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:
quote:
>If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
>911.
Incorrect. "No service" can mean "no service that you're qualified to
use". If you're in an NS area and you need to call 911, give it a
try. If there's a cell tower in the area that your phone can possibly
communicate with, the call will go through. And if there isn't, what
have you lost by trying?
--
Jafo
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-05-22, 6:55 am |
| parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:
quote:
> If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
> 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming
> partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle
> then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per
> my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are
> true.
In 911 mode, the phone is supposed to grab whatever signal it can. In normal
mode, it will only search Verizon networks and certain roaming networks that
Verizon programs it to search.
The one time I tried this I was in Verizon digital coverage, but my
neighborhood had lousy VZW digital coverage at the time, so when I needed to
call 911, my tri-mode phone actually grabbed someone else's analog carrier
instead. (Never did find out whose. Sprint had great coverage in our
neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it might have
been Cingular.)
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
| Tee Box 2005-05-22, 9:55 am |
| You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal.
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:d6ophc$j6e$2@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
quote:
> parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> In 911 mode, the phone is supposed to grab whatever signal it can. In
> normal mode, it will only search Verizon networks and certain roaming
> networks that Verizon programs it to search.
>
> The one time I tried this I was in Verizon digital coverage, but my
> neighborhood had lousy VZW digital coverage at the time, so when I needed
> to call 911, my tri-mode phone actually grabbed someone else's analog
> carrier instead. (Never did find out whose. Sprint had great coverage in
> our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it
> might have been Cingular.)
>
> --
> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>
> "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
> --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
|
| Well, could grab a Cingular ANALOG signal....
Dean
____________________
_________________
"Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F4CdnSOA0PWQ9Q3
fRVn-1w@giganews.com...
quote:
> You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal.
>
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:d6ophc$j6e$2@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
>
>
| |
| Tee Box 2005-05-22, 4:55 pm |
| Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When a
cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
usable to that cellphone. That's not to say there isn't service around you,
it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else.
That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in
2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't
get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even
if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection.
(But it must be a compatible technology)
"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kr%je.11002$mv5.1992@trndny07...
quote:
> Well, could grab a Cingular ANALOG signal....
>
> Dean
> ____________________
_________________
> "Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:F4CdnSOA0PWQ9Q3
fRVn-1w@giganews.com...
>
>
| |
|
| Cingular is TDMA and Verizon is CDMS for their DIGITAL services. Both
offer analog services in many areas, which are completely compatable
with each other. So a version tri-mode phone can easilly use a Cingular
Analog signal in emergency situations.
Rich
Tee Box wrote:
quote:
> Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When a
> cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
> usable to that cellphone. That's not to say there isn't service around you,
> it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else.
> That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in
> 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't
> get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even
> if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection.
> (But it must be a compatible technology)
>
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-05-22, 4:55 pm |
| Tee Box wrote:
quote:
> You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal.
It was absolutely possible a couple years ago. Probably still is. Cingular
(former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time...
It wouldn't be Nextel, but I didn't say I thought it was nextel
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-05-22, 4:55 pm |
| Tee Box wrote:
quote:
> Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible.
Well, I lived in Cleveland for over 30 years, and used cellular there from 1993
through the time I moved to California in summer of 2003. Cingular and Verizon
BOTH inherited analog networks from their predecessors, Ameritech Cellular and
AirTouch/CellularONE, respectively. An analog phone can use any analog signal
from any carrier.
quote:
> cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
> usable to that cellphone.
You really ought to educate yourself before you post.
When you dial 911, the phone is supposed to grab ANY signal it can grab. If the
phone has analog capability - and back then, my Nokia 3285 most definitely did
- it will grab an analog signal if that's the strongest signal available.
I *might* have gotten a Verizon analog signal, but back in 2001-2002, Verzion
basically had no coverage in the neighborhood where I was living at the time.
quote:
> it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else.
> That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in
> 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't
> get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even
> if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection.
> (But it must be a compatible technology)
AMPS is AMPS. It DOES NOT MATTER WHICH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY THE CARRIER USES.
Any AMPS phone can run on any AMPS carrier.
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
| Bob Scheurle 2005-05-22, 4:55 pm |
| On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:29:46 -0400, "Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com>
wrote:
quote:
>When a
>cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
>usable to that cellphone.
Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a
compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be
used. Such a signal would be used by 911, however.
--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
| |
| no_one@no_where.invalid 2005-05-23, 4:55 pm |
| "Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
>choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 days
>to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority. I
>travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
> I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a "Verizon" or
>"Extended network" displayed on the screen of my VX6100. Sometimes, but not
>lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service
>area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a
>call?
>As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
>want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA
Don't think this is a good move. I am a full time RVer on the move
about every 10 - 14 days. I have had the one rate plan for several
years. I have looked at the other plans and in all cases the Verizon
stores have all advised against making a change. My coverage has been
great. Oh yes there have been time that I have not had coverage for
days at a time. But you should have seen where I was. Those were
places where I am surprised that even had a land line. During one of
our mid-west swings we had a Sprint phone as well as the Verizon. In
four months we never had Sprint signal but Verizon was there 90% of
the time.
Bill
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
| |
| Larry W4CSC 2005-05-23, 4:55 pm |
| Bob Scheurle <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in
news:8dg1919el28lnh4
l58ei3tq3lbfj8o1imf@
4ax.com:
quote:
> Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a
> compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be
> used. Such a signal would be used by 911, however.
>
> --
> Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
> njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
> Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
>
Do new phones work differently from the Motorola V60i PRL?
In the covered service area of Charleston, SC, Verizon has several service
holes that used to roam to Alltel (b-system cellular) or Sprint PCS. The
PRL was changed to exclude roaming to any other system, then the phones
read NO SERVICE. Calls to 911 did NOT hook to Alltel's 800 Mhz B-system
towers on PRL equipped phones, but an old analog flipphone or bagphone set
to STD A/B, that would already be roaming on Alltel B in the dead zone
WOULD dial 911, without exception.
When did this change?
I keep a 3W Motorola bagphone with cigarette lighter power and no dead
battery in all my cars ($1 at thrift shops) so 911 always works, no matter
what the companies do with PRL games....You should, too!
Alltel does not roam to Verizon's 800 Mhz system in Eastern SC, but its PRL
does roam up in the mountains NW of Columbia as this is permitted on its
PRL. No Verizon roaming to Alltel in the whole state, last time I looked.
In Charleston, Alltel just works better....still.
| |
|
| Larry W4CSC wrote:
quote:
>
> When did this change?
1978
-Quick
| |
| CellGuy 2005-05-23, 10:55 pm |
| On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:29:17 -0400, Bob A wrote:
quote:
> Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming on the "No
> Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will get the flashing
> triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or is that a solid triangle that
> means roaming?!)
Solid triangle = roaming
Flashing triangle = extended area
| |
|
| As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, CellGuy wrote:
quote:
>On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:29:17 -0400, Bob A wrote:
[vbcol=darkred]
>Solid triangle = roaming
>Flashing triangle = extended area
I guess I had it backwards, too. Contrary to logic, isn't it?
The one that flashes to get your attention really isn't important.
I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.
--
Jafo
| |
|
| Jafo wrote:
quote:
> As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, CellGuy wrote:
>
>
> I guess I had it backwards, too. Contrary to logic, isn't it?
> The one that flashes to get your attention really isn't important.
> I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.
>
> --
> Jafo
It could be that nothing meant not roaming at all, and a solid triangle
meant roaming and paying, and flashing meant part of each. (1/2
triangle, 1/2 nothing)
Rich
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 4:55 pm |
|
"Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iJHje.159488$Sq.100900@fe05.news.easynews.com...
quote:
>
> I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
> choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30
days
quote:
> to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority. I
> travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
You may want to get a prepaid phone from something like Beyond Wireless,
for times when you're out of Verizon's coverage.
The new Americas Choice plan really sucks. There are lots of areas where
Verizon is not a carrier, and to not have service, even at extra cost, is
ridiculous. What is the reason behind not letting you roam at an extra
charge?
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 4:55 pm |
| "agentHibby" <agentHibby.1pe47z@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:agentHibby.1pe47z@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
quote:
>
> Verizon has Native Coverage or a Roaming Agreement with another provider
> (Roaming Partner) in almost every wireless market in the country. The
> only difference is if Verizon or the roaming partner in that area has
> poor coverage, and a non roaming partner good coverage you can't use
> the non roaming partner like you do with National Single Rate.
Not any more. This was the case on the earlier America's Choice plan. Now
they have changed it, and there is no roaming off of Verizon--period. Not to
a partner, not to a non-partner, even at extra cost. I called them to verify
this. Exisiting America's Choice customers on the earlier plan will still be
able to roam, and can change their number of plan minutes without losing
roaming. However the number of roaming partners, where roaming is included,
will continue to decrease (as has been the problem with AC for a long time).
I.e. a month or two after I vacationed in Alaska, Verizon dropped their
roaming agreement, and I would have had to pay for every call.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 4:55 pm |
| "Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CcadnYMaSLjILg3
fRVn-3Q@giganews.com...
quote:
> Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When
a
quote:
> cellphone says "no service" that's what it means.
Not true. A Verizon phone that supports AMPS can grab any AMPS signal, and a
Cingular phone that supports AMPS can grab any AMPS signal.
I have an old Cingular GSM phone that read no-service for all calls, except
it works fine for 911.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 4:55 pm |
|
"Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965F76A8C76D
Fw4csc@63.223.7.253...
quote:
> Bob Scheurle <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in
> news:8dg1919el28lnh4
l58ei3tq3lbfj8o1imf@
4ax.com:
>
>
> Do new phones work differently from the Motorola V60i PRL?
>
> In the covered service area of Charleston, SC, Verizon has several service
> holes that used to roam to Alltel (b-system cellular) or Sprint PCS. The
> PRL was changed to exclude roaming to any other system, then the phones
> read NO SERVICE.
Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other
carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that
they've excluded all non-Verizon service.
| |
|
| > Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other
quote:
> carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that
> they've excluded all non-Verizon service.
Where are you people getting your information from??? The new America's
Choice plan that doesn't allow roaming, still allows calls on their
extended network which includes many many non-Verizon carriers. If you
want to see what you systems you can use, check out the PRL that shows
you exactly what systems your phone can use.
(http://mallard.rainyday.mb.ca/~dial...w/vz_50295.html) Also, I
don't know where the info about them removing partners has come from,
when the new AC plan first came out, they changed many partners that
used to be paid roaming to be part of the extended network, and each PRL
release usually adds a few more partners.
Part of the confusion is that what Verizon calls roaming isn't the true
definition of roaming. The true definition is placing a call that is
not on your home SID, but Verizon considers roaming to be placing a call
on a system that is not part of their extended network and (prior to the
new AC) you would have to pay for.
Rich
| |
|
| Steven M. Scharf wrote:
quote:
> "Rich" <mathwhiz@mathwhiz.org> wrote in message
> news:vvudndfKYKYD_A7
fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> I called Verizon today. Not that the person that told me this knew what they
> were talking about! Even if there is still Extended Network coverage, this
> is insufficient. I have been to many areas where I am off the extended
> network. Just last month I was up on the Northern California Coast, and was
> off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of
> Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more.
I do not see them reducing the number of Extended Network agreements, I
think they expand the number.
quote:
> What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per
> minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this!
Two reasons (not that I completely agree they should do it, but I'm sure
these are the reasons they have)
1) Reduce calls from customers complaining about roaming charges and
having to refund the charges.
2) Competition with other carriers that offer no-roaming plans (who
even have less coverage than Verizon).
Rich
| |
|
| Rich wrote:
quote:
>
>
> Two reasons (not that I completely agree they should do
> it, but I'm sure these are the reasons they have)
> 1) Reduce calls from customers complaining about roaming
> charges and having to refund the charges.
Ding! That's exactly what more than one VZW rep has told
me. Not that they *have* to refund the charges but there is
a lot of overhead involved with dealing with the unhappy
(less than sharp-as-a-tack) customers who incurred roaming
charges.
-Quick
| |
| clifto 2005-05-24, 10:55 pm |
| Steve Sobol wrote:
quote:
> Cingular
> (former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time...
Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because
Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved.
--
I miss my .signature.
| |
|
| Could anyone else please verify this?
It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I started
asking.
I was told:
1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers are
included in the AC2 PRL.
2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would give
the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
"included" calls, but not significantly.
I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when the
marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and elsewhere.
I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area, just
like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No
Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this
for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but
thousands of others didn't.
Please tell me it isn't true.
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:MZHke.9799> Not any more. This was the case on the earlier America's
Choice plan. Now
quote:
> they have changed it, and there is no roaming off of Verizon--period. Not
> to
> a partner, not to a non-partner, even at extra cost. I called them to
> verify
> this. Exisiting America's Choice customers on the earlier plan will still
> be
> able to roam, and can change their number of plan minutes without losing
> roaming. However the number of roaming partners, where roaming is
> included,
> will continue to decrease (as has been the problem with AC for a long
> time).
> I.e. a month or two after I vacationed in Alaska, Verizon dropped their
> roaming agreement, and I would have had to pay for every call.
>
>
| |
| Bob Scheurle 2005-05-24, 10:55 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:32:27 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
quote:
>I called Verizon today. Not that the person that told me this knew what they
>were talking about! Even if there is still Extended Network coverage, this
>is insufficient. I have been to many areas where I am off the extended
>network. Just last month I was up on the Northern California Coast, and was
>off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of
>Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more.
This has been beat to death in this newsgroup already. IIRC, Bill Radio
posted some details showing that the new AC plan actually improves
coverage in some areas.
quote:
>What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per
>minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this!
--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 10:55 pm |
| "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GJMke.331$QF3.221@trndny06...
quote:
> It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I
started
quote:
> asking.
>
> I was told:
>
> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
are
quote:
> included in the AC2 PRL.
>
> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
give
quote:
> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
>
> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
> "included" calls, but not significantly.
>
> I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when
the
quote:
> marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and
elsewhere.
quote:
> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,
just
quote:
> like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No
> Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this
> for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but
> thousands of others didn't.
>
> Please tell me it isn't true.
It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would
be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists.
I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were
getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought
they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to two
reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on their
handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their PRL
on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that
they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two
identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with the
old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network.
Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at 69¢
per minute.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 10:55 pm |
| "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GJMke.331$QF3.221@trndny06...
quote:
> It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I
started
quote:
> asking.
>
> I was told:
>
> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
are
quote:
> included in the AC2 PRL.
>
> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
give
quote:
> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
>
> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
> "included" calls, but not significantly.
>
> I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when
the
quote:
> marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and
elsewhere.
quote:
> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,
just
quote:
> like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No
> Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this
> for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but
> thousands of others didn't.
>
> Please tell me it isn't true.
It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would
be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists.
I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were
getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought
they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to two
reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on their
handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their PRL
on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that
they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two
identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with the
old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network.
Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at 69¢
per minute.
| |
| Larry W4CSC 2005-05-24, 10:55 pm |
| "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in
news:p2Ike.9805$w21.4390@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
quote:
> Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other
> carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that
> they've excluded all non-Verizon service.
>
>
>
Ok, I was in WalMart, Oakbrook Area of Summerville, SC, a bedroom suburb of
Charleston, today. I saw a lady trying to use her phone in the store,
about in the middle of the store, so asked her who her carrier was. BINGO!
Verizon...(c; My phone, except my 3W bagphone, used to work just like that
after they dumped Sprint PCS roaming from the Sprint tower in the parking
lot....
Armed with that information, I let her borrow my powerful V60i megawatt
flipphone on Alltel to call her husband. Alltel has service in Oakbrook.
After she hung up, I asked her if I could test her 911 service when her
phone had NO SERVICE. Reluctantly, she agreed. I flipped the dead phone
open and dialed 911. I got the NO SERVICE warning tones....and NO 911
SERVICE FROM THE GODDAMNED SPRINT TOWER OUT IN THE PARKING LOT OR ALLTEL ON
'B' 800 MHZ WHICH HAS 5 BARS IN WALLY WORLD, EITHER....
So much for the bullshit her new phone will go off the PRL to call 911 on
"any signal it can find". Hell, Sprint's 1900 Mhz tower damned near blows
out the receivers in there! Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new
color LG I didn't recognize.
She asked me how my phone worked in other places around town on Alltel. I
believe she will be porting her number as soon as her contract is up.
She'll have to buy another phone from Alltel. They won't activate any
Verizon phones on Alltel any more....dammit. I got a nearly new LG brand
with the GPS and color screen from a friend who dumped VZW to Nextel. Cool
phone but Alltel refused....dammit.
If it says NO SERVICE....IT WON'T CALL 911 EITHER...EVEN IF YOU'RE STANDING
UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!!
| |
|
| So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? South Central
Jersey? Parts of Central Florida?
OK, either this is incorrect, or someone at VZW is about
to lose his/her job. IF TRUE, Cingular must be licking their chops----there
will be a hemorrhage of customers as soon as their contracts are up.
I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding somewhere.
____________________
____________________
__
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:a1Nke.7119$M36.630@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
quote:
> "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GJMke.331$QF3.221@trndny06...
>
> started
> are
> give
> the
> elsewhere.
> just
>
> It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would
> be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists.
>
> I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were
> getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought
> they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to
> two
> reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on
> their
> handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their
> PRL
> on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that
> they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two
> identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with
> the
> old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network.
>
> Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at
> 69¢
> per minute.
>
>
>
| |
|
| Dean wrote:
quote:
> So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? South Central
> Jersey? Parts of Central Florida?
>
> OK, either this is incorrect, or someone at VZW is about
> to lose his/her job. IF TRUE, Cingular must be licking their chops----there
> will be a hemorrhage of customers as soon as their contracts are up.
>
> I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding somewhere.
As far as I know you will not lose any coverage in those areas. IIRC
the only place where there was noticable coverage loss was in the WA/OR
area. Again, for a full listing of all systems that you will be able to
use un AC2 visit http://mallard.rainyday.mb.ca/~dial...w/vz_50295.html
Rich
| |
|
| Steven M. Scharf wrote:
quote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:21 PM
> Subject: Re: "Americas Choice" Roaming
>
>
> This violates FCC regulations. Unless there is a good
> explanation for this, and there doesn't appear to be,
> Verizon could get in trouble in the unlikely event that
> anyone ever complained to the FCC about it.
Yea, right. Why don't you drop a dime on them and
shut them down?
quote:
> Of course you know that there will be some excuse, that
> makes no sense, if anyone complains. They will blame the
> handset, claim that the store has a dead spot, or blame
> lunar tides.
Right. Everyone knows that the FCC and the rest of the
government agencies are complete morons and will
certainly buy any excuse VZW gives them. It's also
common knowledge (and therefore absolutely true) that
VZW pays them off and has them completely in their
pocket. If anybody would listen to Larry he'd be bigger
than Ralph Nadar.
-Quick
| |
|
| Dean wrote:
quote:
> So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania?
> South Central Jersey? Parts of Central Florida?
>
> OK, either this is incorrect, or someone at VZW is about
> to lose his/her job. IF TRUE, Cingular must be licking
> their chops----there will be a hemorrhage of customers as
> soon as their contracts are up.
>
> I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding
> somewhere.
oooo, let me think here. Cingular stock going up?
It's been over 4 months now and millions of VZW
customers haven't noticed yet? Maybe they are just
silently seething and waiting for their 2 year contracts
to expire?
-Quick
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-05-25, 6:55 am |
| Regions like here in WI where ameritech mobile was one of the two
cellular carriers, they went from analog only to adding cdma then
switching to tdma then to gsm and they still have to maintain their
analog network.
| |
| Bill Radio 2005-05-25, 6:55 am |
| I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long time.
Dean,
quote:
> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
are
quote:
> included in the AC2 PRL.
That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC 1,
were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming
charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were
roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state! This
involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners, to
Cingular analog instead.
quote:
> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
give
quote:
> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
As above, in the few areas where a roaming partner was removed, another took
its place. Another example: in the 2.5 counties in Colorado with no Verizon
service, one carrier (Blanca) was switched from roaming charges in AC1, to
no roaming charges in AC II. A second change was in a county where the was
no carrier in the PRL, to a new digital carrier (Commnet) which means new
roaming available, and with no roaming charges.
quote:
> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
> "included" calls, but not significantly.
Yes, there is a slight difference, but in my opinion, AC II has increased
the area of coverage, and all with no extra roaming charges. Yes, there are
areas where the coverage is slightly different, which really means the weak
spots may have been re-arranged.
quote:
> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,
Then you would never switch to Cingular whose current plans would completely
exclude all of the country where there is only analog coverage. But you
said "included calling area"...yes the AC II has a MUCH larger "included
calling area".
Comments about "there's no coverage here or there anymore..." are greatly
exaggerated. If you switched from Verizon to, say, Alltel, you would be
exchanging one set of weak areas for another. But this is how we optimize
our service. We can choose what's best for us. There are a handful of us
who have evaluated the difference between AC1 and AC II to the extreme, and
conclude that it is a change for the better. We know exactly where coverage
MAY have been diminished, but we have also noted that the net result is a
larger area of coverage, especially considering this larger area is included
at no extra roaming charges.
Many of the people claiming "reduced coverage" have not actually been to
most of these areas affected, and probably never will. But when you see a
"hole" in coverage on Verizon's own Coverage Locator, you cannot rely upon
it. To see a big white area in, say, Oregon, on the new AC map, it is a
very inaccurate view of US Cellular's coverage, which is quite good there.
To base your condemnation on these faulty indicators is just ignorance. You
are to be forgiven.
While I personally have experienced new coverage made available w/AC II, I
found a new area of "No Service" in New Mexico that was a bit troubling,
only to find that a different CDMA carrier has made plans to set up a cell
site in this area, which will automatically appear shortly on Verizon
phones.
Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the coverage issue into my own
hands and carry a TDMA Beyond phone as a backup which costs less than $20
per year. With this kind of simple backup, I'm not at all concerned about
any one carrier's 'adjustments', I've got myself covered.
Bill Radio
Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com
| |
|
| I'm sure Steve Scharf will be sure to cross post this
correction to the rest of the galaxy he originally cross
posted to.
-Quick
Bill Radio wrote:
quote:
> I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long
> time.
>
> Dean,
>
> That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming
> charge areas in AC 1, were replaced with different
> carriers with whom there are NO roaming charges. An
> example, in Texas, there were large areas where there
> were roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in
> the entire state! This involved a change from several
> small analog carriers as roaming partners, to Cingular
> analog instead.
>
>
> As above, in the few areas where a roaming partner was
> removed, another took its place. Another example: in the
> 2.5 counties in Colorado with no Verizon service, one
> carrier (Blanca) was switched from roaming charges in
> AC1, to no roaming charges in AC II. A second change was
> in a county where the was no carrier in the PRL, to a new
> digital carrier (Commnet) which means new roaming
> available, and with no roaming charges.
>
>
> Yes, there is a slight difference, but in my opinion, AC
> II has increased the area of coverage, and all with no
> extra roaming charges. Yes, there are areas where the
> coverage is slightly different, which really means the
> weak spots may have been re-arranged.
>
>
> Then you would never switch to Cingular whose current
> plans would completely exclude all of the country where
> there is only analog coverage. But you said "included
> calling area"...yes the AC II has a MUCH larger "included
> calling area".
>
> Comments about "there's no coverage here or there
> anymore..." are greatly exaggerated. If you switched
> from Verizon to, say, Alltel, you would be exchanging one
> set of weak areas for another. But this is how we
> optimize our service. We can choose what's best for us.
> There are a handful of us who have evaluated the
> difference between AC1 and AC II to the extreme, and
> conclude that it is a change for the better. We know
> exactly where coverage MAY have been diminished, but we
> have also noted that the net result is a larger area of
> coverage, especially considering this larger area is
> included at no extra roaming charges.
>
> Many of the people claiming "reduced coverage" have not
> actually been to most of these areas affected, and
> probably never will. But when you see a "hole" in
> coverage on Verizon's own Coverage Locator, you cannot
> rely upon it. To see a big white area in, say, Oregon,
> on the new AC map, it is a very inaccurate view of US
> Cellular's coverage, which is quite good there. To base
> your condemnation on these faulty indicators is just
> ignorance. You are to be forgiven.
>
> While I personally have experienced new coverage made
> available w/AC II, I found a new area of "No Service" in
> New Mexico that was a bit troubling, only to find that a
> different CDMA carrier has made plans to set up a cell
> site in this area, which will automatically appear
> shortly on Verizon phones.
>
> Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the
> coverage issue into my own hands and carry a TDMA Beyond
> phone as a backup which costs less than $20 per year.
> With this kind of simple backup, I'm not at all concerned
> about any one carrier's 'adjustments', I've got myself
> covered.
>
> Bill Radio
> Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
> http://www.mountainwireless.com
| |
| Carl Keehn 2005-05-25, 9:55 am |
|
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:zOHke.7234$uR4.5602@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
quote:
>
> "Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:iJHje.159488$Sq.100900@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> days
>
> You may want to get a prepaid phone from something like Beyond Wireless,
> for times when you're out of Verizon's coverage.
>
> The new Americas Choice plan really sucks. There are lots of areas where
> Verizon is not a carrier, and to not have service, even at extra cost, is
> ridiculous. What is the reason behind not letting you roam at an extra
> charge?
>
>
Except that with ACII Extended area still exists, still allows service
including IN calling and shows up on the account as nonbilled roaming.
The reason for curtailing roaming at an extra charge has been covered over
and over. I came to verizon from ATT (Not ATTWS) TDMA service. On the
Eastern Shore of Maryland, I was always in Extended Area. I could never get
a clear answer as to whether it was roaming or not and was sometimes charged
roaming fees and sometimes not charged roaming fees.
| |
| Larry W4CSC 2005-05-25, 9:55 am |
| "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:1116995631.740592@sj-nntpcache-5:
quote:
> Right. Everyone knows that the FCC and the rest of the
> government agencies are complete morons and will
> certainly buy any excuse VZW gives them. It's also
> common knowledge (and therefore absolutely true) that
> VZW pays them off and has them completely in their
> pocket. If anybody would listen to Larry he'd be bigger
> than Ralph Nadar.
>
> -Quick
>
>
Cellular has FCC in their pockets. Otherwise, FCC would have forced them
all to use the same modulation scheme and to require proof-of-performance
to ensure smooth coverages across their licensed areas, like broadcasters
must provide. Cellular carriers would never pass a proof of performance
test properly administered by outside vendors. You all know where the
holes are, like my Wally World. So, don't look to FCC for any action on
anything. They work for the big money boys....not the taxpaying consumers
forced by guns to pay their wages.
| |
| Bob Scheurle 2005-05-25, 4:55 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:21:12 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
quote:
>open and dialed 911. I got the NO SERVICE warning tones....and NO 911
>SERVICE FROM THE GODDAMNED SPRINT TOWER OUT IN THE PARKING LOT OR ALLTEL ON
>'B' 800 MHZ WHICH HAS 5 BARS IN WALLY WORLD, EITHER....
>
>Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new
>color LG I didn't recognize.
Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless.
And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that
particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made:
quote:
>If it says NO SERVICE....IT WON'T CALL 911 EITHER...EVEN IF YOU'RE STANDING
>UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!!
--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
| |
|
| I got the solution to every one's problem. Why don't we all just dump all
the cell phones and go back to horse and buggy and for get all the tech
gadgets, cell phones, PDA's, computers, ect.
"Carl Keehn" <carlkeehn@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MsYke.826571$w62.37530@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
quote:
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:zOHke.7234$uR4.5602@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Except that with ACII Extended area still exists, still allows service
> including IN calling and shows up on the account as nonbilled roaming.
>
> The reason for curtailing roaming at an extra charge has been covered over
> and over. I came to verizon from ATT (Not ATTWS) TDMA service. On the
> Eastern Shore of Maryland, I was always in Extended Area. I could never
> get
> a clear answer as to whether it was roaming or not and was sometimes
> charged
> roaming fees and sometimes not charged roaming fees.
>
>
| |
| iwantthisname@gmail.com 2005-05-25, 4:55 pm |
| couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED??
| |
|
| iwantthisname@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED??
>
They didn't change anything on existing contracts. The changes to not
allow roaming and the larger extended network is only for new contracts.
Rich
| |
| iwantthisname@gmail.com 2005-05-25, 4:55 pm |
|
Rich wrote:
quote:
> iwantthisname@gmail.com wrote:
>
> They didn't change anything on existing contracts. The changes to not
> allow roaming and the larger extended network is only for new contracts.
>
> Rich
thanks Rich, I didnt understand that part of it
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-05-25, 10:55 pm |
| Bill Radio wrote:
quote:
> That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC 1,
> were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming
> charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were
> roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state! This
> involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners, to
> Cingular analog instead.
How nice. What if you don't have a tri-mode phone?
Sounds like Sprint. A lot of their roaming is still analog.
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
| GeorgeB 2005-05-25, 10:55 pm |
| On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:52:55 GMT, Bob Scheurle
<njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:
quote:
>On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:21:12 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless.
Alltel is CDMA ...
quote:
>And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that
>particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made:
you are correct, but I'd bet LArry is correct and it didn't go to
their working tower.
[vbcol=darkred]
| |
| Larry W4CSC 2005-05-26, 6:55 am |
| Bob Scheurle <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in
news:85t891tu5p1fcur
q8je6dmp2ejqbdtk7it@
4ax.com:
quote:
> Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless.
> And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that
> particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made:
>
Er, ah, the Alltel signal is CDMA, not AMPS. It was working just fine,
FULL SCALE, when she was talking to her husband on Alltel. Sprint detected
the 911 and shut down their whole cell so it wouldn't make VZW look
good...oh, sure.
Next excuse......
When the PRL says NO, it means NO.....
| |
|
| Quickie,
Do I detect a note of sarcasm there? No problem, I'm not insulted, just
wanted to know exactly what you meant. I think you are trying to say I'm
wrong about the flight to Cingular, which I may be, but remember a couple of
things:
Since the explosion of cell phones everywhere, including middle and
elementary schools, and unlike the "good old days" when many of us were
radio guys (Hi, Larry), or other electronic hobbyists, or gadget freaks, the
vast majority of cell phone users today are absolutely CLUELESS about how
this stuff works. PRL what??, does it make a phone call?
The two things most of them know for sure are 1/When their phone doesn't
work when and where they need it to, and 2/ They are locked into a two-year
contract from which it costs $175 to escape. So don't laugh so fast about
people seething, waiting for their contracts to expire.
One thing I learned from this NG is not to be so smug about Verizon's
superior network. It IS true for me at home, but it isn't true for everyone.
Sprint is garbage here, but I've read posts by others who frequent the NG
who swear by them. Same for Cingular. I have been a VZW customer since the
BAM days, their service is excellent a majority of the time, and their CS,
if quirky, is also very good, but if my contract were up and I lost the
areas I mentioned under AC2, I'd be .....where'd he go?...gone.
.....And I can't be the only one who lives in an area where AC1 was perfect
for me (NY Metro), but travels to South Jersey or the Poconos on weekends,
and vacations in Florida. Take those areas away, and what do you expect me
to do?
There are so many variables involved---for instance, many are, in fact,
locked in to the end of the contract. Some will know enough to avoid AC2 by
staying on month-to-month. Many won't know any better until they take a ride
to Lake Wallenpaupack for the weekend and get "No Service", and some of THEM
won't realize they've been "had" by AC2.
IF what was said was true, and I still have my doubts, I do stand corrected
to some extent. For the above reasons, and others, it won't be a
"hemorrhage", but a slow steady bleed-out. Aw, crap, competition's good for
the consumer anyway...
Dean
____________________
___________________
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116995881.184815@sj-nntpcache-5...
quote:
> Dean wrote:
>
> oooo, let me think here. Cingular stock going up?
> It's been over 4 months now and millions of VZW
> customers haven't noticed yet? Maybe they are just
> silently seething and waiting for their 2 year contracts
> to expire?
>
> -Quick
>
>
| |
|
| Thanks Bill.
I was hoping you'd respond to this post.
I believe you are confirming what I had hoped. I found the other
explanantion difficult to accept, although I don't doubt Steve may have been
given incorrect info by CS. I always confirm any info of that type with a
repeat call asking the same question----even though Steve appears to have
done that, maybe two or three reps in a row didn't know what they were
talking about. I've seen that too.
Dean
____________________
_____________
"Bill Radio" < Wireless@MountainWir
elessNOSPAN.com> wrote in message
news:11987f2pgbt925e
@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
>I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long time.
>
> Dean,
> are
>
> That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC
> 1,
> were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming
> charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were
> roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state!
> This
> involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners,
> to
> Cingular analog instead.
>
> give
>
> As above, in the few areas where a roaming partner was removed, another
> took
> its place. Another example: in the 2.5 counties in Colorado with no
> Verizon
> service, one carrier (Blanca) was switched from roaming charges in AC1, to
> no roaming charges in AC II. A second change was in a county where the
> was
> no carrier in the PRL, to a new digital carrier (Commnet) which means new
> roaming available, and with no roaming charges.
>
>
> Yes, there is a slight difference, but in my opinion, AC II has increased
> the area of coverage, and all with no extra roaming charges. Yes, there
> are
> areas where the coverage is slightly different, which really means the
> weak
> spots may have been re-arranged.
>
>
> Then you would never switch to Cingular whose current plans would
> completely
> exclude all of the country where there is only analog coverage. But you
> said "included calling area"...yes the AC II has a MUCH larger "included
> calling area".
>
> Comments about "there's no coverage here or there anymore..." are greatly
> exaggerated. If you switched from Verizon to, say, Alltel, you would be
> exchanging one set of weak areas for another. But this is how we optimize
> our service. We can choose what's best for us. There are a handful of us
> who have evaluated the difference between AC1 and AC II to the extreme,
> and
> conclude that it is a change for the better. We know exactly where
> coverage
> MAY have been diminished, but we have also noted that the net result is a
> larger area of coverage, especially considering this larger area is
> included
> at no extra roaming charges.
>
> Many of the people claiming "reduced coverage" have not actually been to
> most of these areas affected, and probably never will. But when you see a
> "hole" in coverage on Verizon's own Coverage Locator, you cannot rely upon
> it. To see a big white area in, say, Oregon, on the new AC map, it is a
> very inaccurate view of US Cellular's coverage, which is quite good there.
> To base your condemnation on these faulty indicators is just ignorance.
> You
> are to be forgiven.
>
> While I personally have experienced new coverage made available w/AC II, I
> found a new area of "No Service" in New Mexico that was a bit troubling,
> only to find that a different CDMA carrier has made plans to set up a cell
> site in this area, which will automatically appear shortly on Verizon
> phones.
>
> Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the coverage issue into my
> own
> hands and carry a TDMA Beyond phone as a backup which costs less than $20
> per year. With this kind of simple backup, I'm not at all concerned about
> any one carrier's 'adjustments', I've got myself covered.
>
> Bill Radio
> Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
> http://www.mountainwireless.com
>
>
| |
| David S 2005-05-27, 6:55 am |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:26:07 -0500, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
quote:
>Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because
>Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved.
You must be in the Chicago market, like I am. When SBC bought Ameritech, it
absorbed Ameritech Cellular into the Cellular One fold, which soon became
Cingular. BUT, since Cell One already had a presence in Chicago, they had
to divest this market from Ameritech Cellular's overall system and sold it
to GTE (which, as you say, promptly rolled into VZW).
It took me quite a while in this group to come to understand this myself.
--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"DRUG STORE BODY. Let's get the Good Shape and have a sexy body just like a
pig." - slogan on a pair of Japanese overalls
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-27, 6:55 am |
| "Bill Radio" < Wireless@MountainWir
elessNOSPAN.com> wrote in message
<snip>
quote:
> Comments about "there's no coverage here or there anymore..." are greatly
> exaggerated.
The areas where there is now no coverage as a result of AC2 are indeed
small, but they are not as rare as some people want to believe. If indeed
they were that rare, then Verizon would not have bothered to eliminate paid
roaming, since it would happen so rarely that it would be a non-issue.
I believe the explanation I received from Verizon as to why they eliminated
it, too many complaints about unexpected roaming charges from people that
thought that they had coverage. It really shouldn't be Verizon's problem
that these people failed to update their PRLs, or didn't pay attention to
the roaming indicator, but Verizon doesn't want to alienate customers, so
they absorb the loss and credit the account. However I also think that
perhaps they made this change to force smaller carriers to execute roaming
agreements, rather than gouge on roaming.
Of course you are correct that anyone that cares about coverage would never
sign up with Cingular (except perhaps with a T62u or 6340i). I've sent
several people to Cingular's Western Regional contact, after she told me
that anyone that wanted a GAIT phone with off-network roaming, could
actually obtain it directly from Cingular (they were not selling these in
stores or on-line, in the western region).
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-27, 6:55 am |
|
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:4294F89F.6060908@JustThe.net...
quote:
> Bill Radio wrote:
>
AC 1,[vbcol=darkred]
This[vbcol=darkred]
partners, to[vbcol=darkred]
>
> How nice. What if you don't have a tri-mode phone?
Hopefully no one is dumb enough to buy a phone without AMPS.
quote:
> Sounds like Sprint. A lot of their roaming is still analog.
Yep. Without AMPS there would be vast areas of the U.S. with no coverage at
all. Some rural carriers are still selling 3W AMPS bag phones.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-05-27, 6:55 am |
| David S wrote:
quote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:26:07 -0500, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> chose to add
> this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>
Well, I am aware that's what happened in Chicago. It's NOT what happened
across the rest of the US. Ameritech Cellular became Cingular everywhere
else in the Midwest *except* the Chicago market where they had to deal
with the GTE/Primeco/Ameritech crap.
[vbcol=darkred]
> It took me quite a while in this group to come to understand this myself.
I was talking in generalities about 99% of the country. I wasn't
discussing Chicago in particular.
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-05-27, 6:55 am |
| Steven M. Scharf wrote:
quote:
>
> Hopefully no one is dumb enough to buy a phone without AMPS.
You *say* that, but for most people, a cell phone is a black box. They
don't know the difference. Nor (IMHO) should they have to worry about it.
quote:
>
> Yep. Without AMPS there would be vast areas of the U.S. with no coverage at
> all. Some rural carriers are still selling 3W AMPS bag phones.
Yes, but up north of here between here and Barstow, in the rural areas
where Sprint doesn't have coverage, Verizon does. Sprint could have
their users roam digital on Verizon CDMA (but they don't).
This is the case in many places, just as there are many places Verizon
doesn't have coverage, or has holes, where Sprint does have good
coverage, where Verizon phones won't roam on Sprint.
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-05-27, 4:55 pm |
| Well here in WI there are no areas where Sprint PCS does not have
coverage and verizon does. The opposite is true, but I think verizon
has uscellular CDMA or alltel CDMA higher on the prl. The map shows
digital and extended digital, but no analog. amps would be unnecessary
on an AC2 plan.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-27, 4:55 pm |
|
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:d76g5a$2v2$2@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
quote:
> This is the case in many places, just as there are many places Verizon
> doesn't have coverage, or has holes, where Sprint does have good
> coverage, where Verizon phones won't roam on Sprint.
This is true. At my previous job, one of the buildings happened to be a
Verizon dead spot. I roamed on Sprint, but those with newer PRLs could not.
quote:
>
> --
> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>
> "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
> --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
| |
| clifto 2005-05-27, 4:55 pm |
| Steven M. Scharf wrote:
quote:
> Of course you are correct that anyone that cares about coverage would never
> sign up with Cingular (except perhaps with a T62u or 6340i).
Please elaborate. I have a friend who travels all over the eastern US
and claims to have great coverage everywhere with Cingular.
--
I miss my .signature.
| |
| clifto 2005-05-27, 4:55 pm |
| Steve Sobol wrote:
quote:
> David S wrote:
>
> Well, I am aware that's what happened in Chicago. It's NOT what happened
> across the rest of the US. Ameritech Cellular became Cingular everywhere
> else in the Midwest *except* the Chicago market where they had to deal
> with the GTE/Primeco/Ameritech crap.
And I completely forgot about that until you and David brought it up.
--
I miss my .signature.
| |
| whirled_peas_man@yahoo.com 2005-05-28, 6:55 am |
|
quote:
> Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the coverage issue into my own
> hands and carry a TDMA Beyond phone as a backup which costs less than $20
> per year.
Bill, How does one get ahold of "Beyond Phone"?
Wern't you on a Single rate west plan in the past?
Is that still the best for worryless Verizon roaming?
Brian
| |
| Mitchell Regenbogen 2005-05-28, 6:55 am |
| clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in
news:d60km2-54l.ln1@remote.clifto.com:
quote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
would[vbcol=darkred]
>
> Please elaborate. I have a friend who travels all over the eastern
US
quote:
> and claims to have great coverage everywhere with Cingular.
>
No one has great coverage everywhere with Cingular. No one has great
coverage everywhere with any wireless carrier.
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2005-05-28, 6:55 am |
|
In news:Xns966449945179
mregpanixcom@166.84.1.69,
Mitchell Regenbogen <mreg@panix.spam.com> typed:
quote:
> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in
> news:d60km2-54l.ln1@remote.clifto.com:
>
>
> No one has great coverage everywhere with Cingular. No one has great
> coverage everywhere with any wireless carrier.
It depends on where a person is. I have a friend who claims to get great
coverage from T-Mobile. But T-Mobile on their own coverage maps show hudge
areas of no coverage. All carriers provide great coverage some place.
Finding the carrier that provides good coverage where you will be is
sometimes challenging. There is no best carrier for everyone. Personally I
have found VZW to work where I travel which is why I still have their
service.
| |
| Bill Radio 2005-05-28, 6:55 am |
| Bryan,
Go to: http://www.gobeyondwireless.com. They have refurbs, but eBay has
more. Any AT&T branded TDMA phone.
Yes, it was very dark day when I decided to give up my SRW plan. But the
temptation of 50% more minutes for only $5 more was too great. Also, I
travel east to Ohio several times a year and my plan of forwarding calls to
my standby AT&T phone fell short. AT&T has inferior coverage there.
Yes, there was nothing like the Single Rate plans. But the difference over
my regular travels was I lost one cell site completely, but gained four that
went from .69 roaming to included roaming. I made the switch from AC1 to AC
II with equally great care. Four sites for one was an ne.unquestionable
improvement. Results will be different for everyone.
-Bill
quote:
>
> Bill, How does one get ahold of "Beyond Phone"?
> Wern't you on a Single rate west plan in the past?
>
> Is that still the best for worryless Verizon roaming?
> Brian
>
| |
| David S 2005-05-30, 4:55 pm |
| On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:57:30 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
quote:
>David S wrote:
Why did you pretend that I wrote that, delete my correct response to it,
then say the same thing I did?
[vbcol=darkred]
>Well, I am aware that's what happened in Chicago. It's NOT what happened
>across the rest of the US. Ameritech Cellular became Cingular everywhere
>else in the Midwest *except* the Chicago market where they had to deal
>with the GTE/Primeco/Ameritech crap.
>
>
>I was talking in generalities about 99% of the country. I wasn't
>discussing Chicago in particular.
We know that. I only brought up Chicago because of clifto's statement that
would be correct *only* if he's in Chicago and unaware of (or, as he says,
forgot about) the actual events.
--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"The future will be better tomorrow." - Dan Quayle
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-05-30, 4:55 pm |
| David S wrote:
quote:
> Why did you pretend that I wrote that, delete my correct response to it,
> then say the same thing I did?
I didn't pretend you wrote it. I obviously failed to cut out the attribution
(which I should have), but anyone actually paying attention would have seen
the attribution to Clifto right below it.
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
|
|
|
|
|