Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / August 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

? for Justa, Bill Radio and/or Rich re: Michigan priorities

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ron Siegel - 24 Aug 2003 23:03 GMT
Justa, Bill and/or Rich:

Thanks for the all the work on updating PRLs as they are released.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why digital RFB Cellular in Gaylord
and Cheboygan (where we are solid roaming and paying .69/min.) is a higher
priority (Priority 3) than digital Alltel in the same locations (Priority
4), when under Priority 4 we'd be part of AC.  Last week I stopped in at the
Alltel store on M-32 in Gaylord, which is almost right across the streed
from the Cellular One (RFB Cellular) store.  The Alltel folks told me that
they are, indeed, digital in Gaylord, which means that VZW has intentionally
having us pay roaming charges than letting us onto Alltel's SID 244 in
Gaylord.  All I can conclude is that VZW simply doesn't want to pay for
access to SID 244 in Gaylord and Cheboygan (and, since Mackinaw City is now
digital, I'm assuming there as well).

Am I assessing the situation correctly, or is there more to it than simply
VZW's reluctance to give us access to SID 244 throughout the state?

Thanks.
Rich - 25 Aug 2003 04:45 GMT
Your assesment is correct.  Verizon just hasn't put the priorities right
(in my opinion) yet.  It is very annoying when soon the whole I-75
cooridor in the northern LP will be digital with Alltel, and we can't
access it until Verizon changes the PRL around.

I hope they change it around soon as well add the rest of the Alltel
SIDs in Michigan (and Wisconsin would be nice)  That would fill in a big
 hole in the AC map.

Rich

> Justa, Bill and/or Rich:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Thanks.
Bill Radio - 25 Aug 2003 06:13 GMT
I  agree.  Not having Alltel higher in the PRL must be nothing more than an
oversight.  You have no defense while roaming on RFB until it's fixed.  I'm
betting this won't be addressed until the next PRL.  I hope I'm wrong.

-Bill Radio

>Verizon just hasn't put the priorities right
> (in my opinion) yet.  It is very annoying when soon the whole I-75
> cooridor in the northern LP will be digital with Alltel, and we can't
> access it until Verizon changes the PRL around.
Justa Lurker - 26 Aug 2003 02:49 GMT
It was Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:03:59 -0400, and "Ron Siegel"
 <ron@rsspclaw.com> wrote in alt.cellular.verizon:
| which means that VZW has intentionally having us pay roaming
| charges than letting us onto Alltel's SID 244 in Gaylord.

Curiosity, but have you or anyone paid for roaming on the RFB
system where Alltel has CDMA coverage?  There was a time where
roaming on 00386 in Kalamazoo was marked ROAM and billed AC.

| Am I assessing the situation correctly, or is there more to
| it than simply VZW's reluctance to give us access to SID 244
| throughout the state?

Based on the three (so far) versions of the current series of
PRLs I'd say they are hard pressed to get the PRLs right!
I'll be a lot happier when I see 00244 over RFB's SID.

BTW: The changes in 50096 over 50085 show no change in priority.
A group of SIDs have been resorted (all Verizon), one has been
dropped (SPCS), and one new Verizon PCS SID added.  (Plus plenty
of errors later corrected.)  But no swapping of priority.

JL
 
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



©2009 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.