|
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
|
|
| Larry W4CSC 2005-05-28, 9:55 am |
| "617 Phones" <617@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:1117231185.308673.310210@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
quote:
> Verizon has chosen for marketing reasons, as clearly stated in Bill
> Radio's post, to exclude service from providers that are, in their
> determination, too expensive. It's their decision, and allows them to
> market a "national" plan with no roaming charges. They obviously
> b
I like to call it, "denial of service". All the CDMA "partners" that used
to share, including Alltel, no longer share in-market. In places where VZW
used to provide roaming to Alltel and SPCS in their dead zones, they no
longer provide their customers with cellular service.
This issue isn't just Verizon. It's FCC. If the FCC had been doing its
job, in the interest of its taxpayers, not the corporations, America would
have ONE modulation scheme, chosen by the industry because it would have
had to with the FCC engineers blessings, so that all this phone
incompatibility wouldn't be an issue. Then, FCC should have implemented a
"Proof of Performance" on each of its licensees, to prove to the FCC the
companies are providing complete service across the licensed area...same as
any broadcast station must provide, the test done by an independent
company. Failing the test, say in your subdivision, its signal below the
regulated level, the company would be given X days to correct the problem.
Refusing to correct the problem, FCC fines $10K/day/occurance until the
problem is corrected. FCC could also allow companies not in compliance to
buy or share resources with other carriers, encouraging them all to have
lots of cooperation because none of them are in compliance with such a
standardized level of service, now. Petty marketing wars become moot when
ones license is in jeopardy. Companies refusing to correct problems would
simply have their licenses revoked so FCC could issue new licenses to
companies more cooperative in providing users better service. Using
incompatibility of modulation schemes and other deceptions now used on
consumers to prevent churning would cease. Any FCC type-approved phone
would work on any system as they would all be talking to compatible
systems. Refusal to put a consumer-owned phone on your system just because
you are trying to sell them an anti-churning contract would cost you
$10K/day/occurance for not being in compliance with the rules.
Everyone wins. Consumers win with phones NOT hobbled up by petty PRL
schemes and marketing gimmicks. Massive denial offices trying to cover up
deficiencies in service are no longer necessary as consumer complaints
dwindle, making it cheaper to operate the company. Increased competition
leads to more service innovations not involved in excluding the company's
customers from churning. This competition makes the company more
responsive to its consumers.
FCC simply needs to regain control over its licensees, probably at the
expense of a few congressmen's campaign contributions.
It wouldn't be "too expensive" for them to share services, as they would
all be in the same boat staring at serious fines for lack of
coverage/service to the public paying the bills.
|
|
|
|
|