|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > May 2005 > Re: Verizon Worsens America's Choice Calling Plan--No more roaming, even at extra cost, No more Nat
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 |
Re: Verizon Worsens America's Choice Calling Plan--No more roaming, even at extra cost, No more Nat
|
|
| Bill Radio 2005-05-27, 6:55 am |
| Steven,
You have been a provider of good information especially on your web sites,
and I like the opinionated reviews. But you are making a lot of statements
that don't add up. Please realize I am not arguing your point, because I
know what you're getting at.
Under AC II:
-In Alaska there has been no change in roaming partners, nothing was lost.
-In Oakdale and Yosemite, nothing has changed. Golden State still provides
the same service as before. The exception is for those who have chosen
digital-only phones and had no service there to begin with.
Also, you state, "The fact is that there are still many areas where Verizon
does not have a
roaming partner." That is not true. Verizon has a roaming agreement with
EVERY carrier in the country, with the likely exception of Nextel and
T-Mobile. The difference is the rate of that agreement. Rates vary from
..04 to almost $1 per minute. Therefore, it is only accurate to say there
are a few markets, maybe 1 or 2, where Verizon has decided not to include
any of the available carriers due to unfavorable roaming charges. The
market excluded in 2 counties of N. UT has but one carrier, UBET. This just
isn't a big loss. There's only one carrier for a reason.
Who knows what response CS will give you on the reasoning of changing
roaming partners. The REAL reason is strictly Marketing. Verizon has done
what is economically smart for them so they can advertise "No Roaming
Charges". They are not responding to excessive roaming charges from other
plans like NSR, they are responding to the overwhelming popularity of the AC
plans. Eventually VZW will see no competitive advantage in offering NSR.
The cost and coverage of the AC plan is what is bringing people through the
door to sign up, not NSR.
In talking to these smaller roaming carriers, we find Verizon has been
hammering on them since day one for lower roaming charges. When a carrier
is excluded from the PRL, they usually have no clue that this has happened
until we tell them. They certainly don't feel coerced about their roaming
charges by the PRL. They do get the hard sell from time to time.
And then there are the mistakes. Could some of these changes be
unintential? One carrier charges just a nickle for roaming (reciprical) and
could not understand why they were excluded! It was a mistake that got
fixed with a new PRL released within 2 weeks. Could there be others?
-Bill
..
quote:
>
> The fact is that there are still many areas where Verizon does not have a
> roaming partner. Sometimes its because there is no CDMA coverage, often it
> is because the carrier in that area feels that it is more profitable to
> charger for roaming. One thing that Verizon's new plan may do, is to force
> recalcitrant carriers into signing roaming agreements, since they will no
> longer be able to count on roaming revenue on a per call basis.
>
>
> Yes, that's always been the case.
>
>
|
|
|
|
|