| dr.news 2005-08-19, 5:48 pm |
| Success: just this morning, with VZW's help, we took a damanged old bag
phone (analog only) out of service, and did an esn swap to another old bag
phone (analog only). We were firm with the customer service representative;
and asked for a supervisor. The supervisor completely understood, and
easily helped put the bag phone on the line. Now programming the phone,
that is another issue.
The conversation with VZW went like this: *** 08/19/2005 12:55 pm ***
Kyle, xxxxxxxx has a radio remote bag phone that broke; , and needed to swap
(esn change) with another bag phone. As his phone was non aGps, we had to
ask for a Supv. He said "that it is a VZW rule, perhaps overzealous. As
VZW is not actively asking current non aGps users to change their phone,
this circumstance is handled one-on-one, and as an exception." Feeling that
I had to tell him what I knew about the FCC....he politely cut me off and
said he understood. He went to the switch and made the change to the backup
bag phone (non aGps), and also notified his systems supervisor and his
manager so that if the change triggers any type of alert, that he can catch
it early.
The bag phone was part of a radio stations "remote" setup. And only a bag
phone works in their kit.
Eventually, it won't work as it is only analog, but for today, it is back in
service. dr
Forget what if; we knew the rules, they know the rules, and they were nice
enough to help. It may have helped that we had Motorola tech support on the
line as well. It at least added some credibility to the conversation.
Eventually, all will have to be aGps; but until they "make" every customer
move to aGps, at least one supervisor has seen to it that both the customer
/ FCC / Verizon were satisfied.
Call me if you have an impossible situation; we will try and help. But we
won't break any rules. dr
--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:fZGdnZ2dnZ1nO_3
xnZ2dnbf6nN6dnZ2dRVn
-yZ2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
>
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
> news:JUcMe.1073$AT7.465@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> has
>
> At some point, very likely- 100% penetration is mandated by a certain
> date.
> As quoted directly from the FCC, "Within two years or by December 31,
> 2004,
> whichever is later, undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent
> penetration of ALI-capable handsets in its total subscriber base."
> Because
> of the delays granted by the FCC to implement, this will now be required
> by
> 2007, if I do the math correctly.
>
> phones.
>
> Won't help in the long run, as 100% penetration is around the corner.
>
>
> And your point? Is it that the needs of a few outweigh the need for a
> uniform public safety policy? Sounds kind of shallow and self-centered,
> if
> you ask me.
>
>
> I didn't blame anyone- I merely pointed out government mandates that you
> failed to cite. I can't help it if the mandate soils your attempt to
> portray Verizon as the bully here.
>
>
> The part that you mentioned, yes. The complete mandate reads a little
> different and requires that non-GPS phones represent a steadily decreasing
> percentage of active phones. What I find hilarious is that the section I
> origianlly quoted is contained exactly one line below the portion you
> mention in the revised mandate dated 3/22/05:
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...FCC-05-79A1.pdf
>
> See the two bullet points at the top of page 5. You'll notice that one of
> them is almost exactly as I posted.
>
>
> I'm sorry- where did I say that it was fair? All I did was cite complete
> information. What is "fair" is for people reading here to get the
> complete
> story, not just the facts needed by a disgruntled ex-dealer (who was
> booted
> by Verizon) to seek his revenge against the company. Your poisoned attack
> here makes your signature ad almost moot- who is going to think you have
> enough credibility to deal with?
>
> Now, you can continue to bash if you choose- the bottom line is that the
> fact sdo not lie and they do not apply to just Verizon. I'm sorry if all
> of
> this puts a kink in your crusade to destroy Verizon, but the facts don't
> lie. You should really seek counseling- this obsession you have is
> unhealthy.
>
>
|