Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / February 2007
Questions From A Cingular Customer
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ric - 21 Feb 2007 20:13 GMT I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to switch the SIM card between their GSM phones . The thing is, my girlfriend and just about everybody else I know uses Verizon here in central New Jersey, so I've started to consider switching...mainly because the GF runs up her bill calling me and, as I understand it, it would be a free call if I was using the Verizon network. I like the Moto Krazr and I'm fishing for opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. TIA.
Martin Kallikak, Jr. - 21 Feb 2007 21:07 GMT > I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major > complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. > TIA. Best network and service-- but highest prices...
George - 21 Feb 2007 23:43 GMT >> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major >> complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Best network and service-- but highest prices... Agreed, but not about the prices. Both VZW and Cingular have the same exact cost for 3 plans I just compared:
450 min $40 900 min $60 1,350 min $80
Todd Allcock - 22 Feb 2007 00:49 GMT > Agreed, but not about the prices. Both VZW and Cingular have the same > exact cost for 3 plans I just compared: > > 450 min $40 > 900 min $60 > 1,350 min $80 Except Cingular's minutes "rollover" while VZW's do not. Theoretically, if your usage varies a bit from month-to-month, you could take a cheaper plan on Cingular than you would on VZW, since you then "bank" your leftover Cingular minutes each month, to be used for future overages.
Most of us, I suspect, have a slightly higher plan than we need, because the overage penalties are so steep.
kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net - 21 Feb 2007 21:51 GMT Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as well. It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change. :)
> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major > complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > opinions on the Verizon version of this phone vs Cingulars. I'd also be > interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. TIA. Ric - 21 Feb 2007 22:25 GMT > Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as well. > It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change. :) Don't I wish...but her whole family is on Verizon and that's not happening.
Peter Pan - 22 Feb 2007 01:22 GMT >> Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as >> well. It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change. >> :) > > Don't I wish...but her whole family is on Verizon and that's not > happening. Have you considered just getting the cheapest plan/phone etc from verizon and keep the cingular for other stuff, and just use the verizon phone for the free calls to your GF?
Hate to be negative, but consider what it would be like if you changed providers for her, and then broke up?
George - 22 Feb 2007 12:06 GMT >>> Or have her switch to cingular. Calls between the two are free as >>> well. It depends on which one of you is willing to make the change. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hate to be negative, but consider what it would be like if you changed > providers for her, and then broke up? But he also said "just about everybody else I know uses Verizon..."
Dean - 22 Feb 2007 00:56 GMT Your opinion of any current, "full-featured" Verizon phone will be largely dependent on how much of a "power user" you are. Verizon has taken the stance, with many phones, of not including, or disabling, features that other providers' versions of the "same" model phone include. Then they substitute their own version of the same features for an extra charge. What I'm saying is that the KRZR for Verizon, compared to someone else's version, will probably operate exactly the same as a telephone instrument, and quite possibly better, however you will likely find quite a few features on, say, Cingular's version, missing on the VZW piece.
You'll find many discussions about these features on this group. One of the most common is "full Bluetooth functionality". Verizon has stripped just about the whole range of Bluetooth capability from their phones, with the exception of using wireless headsets.
Fact is, though, I happen to be a "power phone CALLER". No pix/flix/get-it-now/games/iPod phone/garage door opener. I can only speak for myself, but Verizon's mix of excellent network coverage, Bluetooth headset capability, and unlimited "IN-network" minutes is enough for me. I don't disagree with other opinions, but I will not trade coverage for any other capability at this point. I don't need rollover minutes, I burn over 1000 "IN-network" minutes most months.
I sincerely hope that other carriers improve their coverage, as I am firm in the belief that like-quality competition will benefit us all.
I have been with Verizon since the Bell Atlantic Mobile days (12-13 years) and have consistently found them to be on par, if not better, than friends' and relatives' experiments with other carriers. A close friend lives in Brooklyn NYC, and works in Manhattan. She should have excellent coverage virtually all the time. She recently dropped Cingular in favor of Verizon, and notes that her coverage improved noticeably.
Good luck in your search.
> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major > complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. > TIA. jdoe - 22 Feb 2007 11:25 GMT I used to have 5 lines with V. I now have 4 and one with Cingular. I will soon be all Cingular (maybe all T-Mo) but for sure no more V. I am tired of the crippling of my phones (3 E815s) features being crippled. I am sick of the fact that I cannot get a BT headset from Motorola to work effectively thanks to this. (Told so by a Motorola tech). It seems their heavy handed profit schmeing causes other issues they don't care to address. Are you landline free? If so do you ever call overseas? If so you won't like those prices on V either. Bend over and grab the jar of Vaseline cause you'll need it!
> I've been with Cingular since way before it was Cingular. No major > complaints. I do like the rollover minutes that build up and being able to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. > TIA. kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net - 22 Feb 2007 12:00 GMT In all fairness. Cingular also cripples there phones. One I know about is the I7-I Can't transfer ring tones. No bluetooth headset (Stereo) for listening to the built in Ipod. Can't save videos to the mini-sd card.
I've got another week with verizon then I'm out. Not going to cingular because of the ringtone's. looks like t-mobile.
> I used to have 5 lines with V. I now have 4 and one with Cingular. I will > soon be all Cingular (maybe all T-Mo) but for sure no more V. I am tired of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> interested in reading about others experiences with Verizon in general. >> TIA. Larry - 22 Feb 2007 17:43 GMT > Are you > landline free? Yes....(c;
>If so do you ever call overseas? If so you won't like > those prices on V either. Bend over and grab the jar of Vaseline cause > you'll need it! http://www.skype.com/ $US0.021/min, not $1.49/min get Skype installed at overseas location and it's FREE, even from your cellphone! No Vaseline or KY-jelly necessary...save more money.
Call 'em from your cellphone on Skype: http://www.voxlib.com/ and Skype In number (which is really cheap) You call your Skype In number, Voxlib on your desktop answers, recognizes your caller ID and talks to you. Dial European number through Voxlib and pay airtime you'd pay anyways plus 3.9c connect + 2.1c/min to Skype Out precharged account. Over 7 hours for $10...not 10 minutes. Load your Skype In number into the phone's contact list and only dial the Euro number manually on touchtones after Vox answers at home. It's like owning your own telephone long distance company!...(c; If the European you're calling has Skype on his computer, call him skype-to-skype for free from your Skype contact list Vox reads to you. You enter the first 3 letters of his Skype Name on your cellphone pad. If HE has Skype set to forward his calls to his cell...you both can talk from US to Europe for just cellular airtime on both ends....Skype to Skype is FREE, with color video from your computer to his if you wait until everyone is home.
Get a separate European phone number on Skype In so they can call you! Skype lets you buy up to 10 Skype In phone numbers anywhere they provide Skype In service. I have numbers in Charleston, SC and London, UK. Local call in for them...Skype In call for you ($US38/YEAR, not month/number!) If someone in London calls my London number, Skype In forwards the call to my cellphone if I'm not on Skype....much cheaper for everyone. Here's the country list for Skype In:
"You can get up to 10 SkypeIn numbers in total from United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland."
Hmm...I've never had an Estonian phone number....(c;
Don't believe the bullshit that Skype sounds awful. It's codec is BROADBAND, much wider and faster than your cellphone codec. Skype is hifi compared to cellular's 8K or 11Kbps. Music on hold sound fine on Skype. Skype REQUIRES a broadband connection...no dialups. That's why.
Screw that paying VZW to call Europe...(shudder)...Yecch!
Larry
 Signature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo&mode=related&search=
jdoe - 23 Feb 2007 11:14 GMT Sorry Skype blows pondwater imo. I have tried to talk on it and recieve calls from people using it. It blows big time.
>> Are you >> landline free? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Larry Larry - 24 Feb 2007 03:21 GMT > Sorry Skype blows pondwater imo. I have tried to talk on it and recieve > calls from people using it. It blows big time. > " Joe, do you get internet service from MSN? You have a bandwidth and latency issue on your internet connection.
I have Skype installed, with full motion color video, on a laptop at a local electronics warehouse store linked through the store's open wireless router, 24/7 because they never shut any computer off when they close.
I got into a conversation about Skype with another customer as we were standing there and he had had similar results as you long ago. I logged the little laptop onto Skype with my username, not the freebie I installed at the store when noone was looking, so we'd have POTS/Cellphone access on my Skype In and Out for calling his cellphone.
I gave him my Skype In local phone number and he dialed it on his cellphone. We could hear the combination short delay of his digital cellphone and the Skype system by listening to our own echo. Then, I had him call my Alltel cellphone in my pocket for comparison. Cellular to Skype had LESS delay, very noticibly less delay, than listening to our own echos from cellphone to cellphone! The call was clearer on Skype as we were only using one slow codec, his cellphone.
I called a local number from the Skype laptop that always puts music-on- hold on the line while you wait and wait to talk to the lady at the electric company. We listened to the elevator music..yecch..on Skype and noted its fidelity. Then we called it from his Cingular cellphone and my Alltel cellphone, both on different digital schemes to compare. The Skype rendition of the same music-on-hold was MUCH better. That stands to reason because as anyone knows music on digital cellular just SUCKS because of the awful slow codec cellular uses to increase traffic. The nice HP speakers in this store laptop sounded really hifi for a telephone music machine.
What do your traceroutes look like to www.skype.com or some other IP address outside your ISP's system? What are the ping times and how many pings are lost? How busy is your system processor when you're using Skype? Is this an old machine with a slow processor? Skype warns it will not work properly on slow machines as they add a lot of local latency processing Skype's encryption and AtoD/DtoA conversions. Encrypting your audio takes quite a bit of computer power. Unlike your cellphone, government bureaucrats aren't listening to what you say on Skype, to another computer, until it comes out into the POTS phone system or to another cellular user.
Something is wrong with your setup. Skype to my buds in Iraq in a tent sound just like they're sitting in the room with me....I can even hear the MORTARS and RPGs go off!
Larry
 Signature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo&mode=related&search=
jdoe - 24 Feb 2007 13:03 GMT I do not have a bandwidth issue as VOIP works crystal clear for me. As good as a reguular landline.
>> Sorry Skype blows pondwater imo. I have tried to talk on it and recieve >> calls from people using it. It blows big time. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Larry Dennis Ferguson - 25 Feb 2007 05:43 GMT > own echos from cellphone to cellphone! The call was clearer on Skype as > we were only using one slow codec, his cellphone. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to reason because as anyone knows music on digital cellular just SUCKS > because of the awful slow codec cellular uses to increase traffic. If you look in the Advanced section in Skype Preferences (on my Mac at least, I don't know the PC equivalent) and tick of "Display Call Technical Info", then when you make a Skype call it will pop open a window which tells you, among other things, the codec being used. For SkypeIn and SkypeOut calls the codec is always listed as G.729, the same as all VoIP providers, as it must be since this is the standard used by the operators who deliver Skype calls to the PSTN. If you look at the overview here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.729
you'll find that this is an 8 kbps codec, compared to the 12 kbps codec used for GSM and the up to 12 kbps codec used for CDMA. I'm not sure what this codec does to music, but note that that DTMF tones can't be sent through this codec with sufficient fidelity to be reliably decoded and instead need special-case handling (a complexity which I suspect is the source of the periodic griping on Skype forums about DTMF not working reliably). There's nothing "fast" about this codec, the "fast" codec (iSAC) is only used for Skype-Skype calls.
Despite this, I too have noticed that Skype-PSTN calls seem to me to sound better at both ends than cell phone-cell phone calls. For what it is worth my current theory is that this is because the quality of PC audio hardware is sufficiently higher than the audio hardware in a typical handset for you to hear the difference. It certainly has nothing to do with the codec in use, even if one accepted the premise that using a better codec for only part of the connection would improve anything.
> Encrypting your audio takes quite a bit of computer power. While encryption can consume lots of CPU cycles at high data rates, the data rate for a voice call is tiny. I suspect most of the CPU is consumed by the codec, since squeezing even phone-quality voice down into 8 kbps with reasonable fidelity takes some work.
Dennis Ferguson
Larry - 25 Feb 2007 16:44 GMT > but note that that DTMF tones can't be > sent through this codec with sufficient fidelity to be reliably decoded > and instead need special-case handling (a complexity which I suspect > is the source of the periodic griping on Skype forums about DTMF not > working reliably). There's nothing "fast" about this codec, the "fast" > codec (iSAC) is only used for Skype-Skype calls. If that were true, Vox for Skype would be unable to control it remotely from my calling Skype from my crappy cellphone. DTMF controls VOX and Skype perfectly from my cellphone. Skype sounds better than my cellphone on any occasion. Maybe it's the better fidelity of my Netgear SPH101 Skype wifi phone or Linksys CIT200 wireless Skype phone plugged into my laptop's USB port.
Noone is forcing anyone to use Skype. I'm simply pointing out this outstanding, FREE, alternative to calling on cellular. It's really hard to argue with FREE, or even nearly FREE (Skype out ($30/year) + Skype In ($38/year)), when compared to my $46x12=$552/year, 700 min/mo cellular phone service.
Of course, I must be attacked for even THINKING the unthinkable...calling on something much cheaper or free....right?
Do you think cellular sounds 8.11 times as good as Skype? (price/price) Which is better at home?...cellular's barely useable signal inside the house...or Skype's full scale signal from my powerful wifi router on the Netgear SPH101? Everything is a compromise....One is better here, the other is better in the car.
Larry
 Signature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo&mode=related&search=
Dennis Ferguson - 26 Feb 2007 02:17 GMT >> but note that that DTMF tones can't be >> sent through this codec with sufficient fidelity to be reliably decoded [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Skype wifi phone or Linksys CIT200 wireless Skype phone plugged into my > laptop's USB port. I haven't heard much griping about the handling of incoming DTMF tones in Skype, but considerable complaints about outgoing. If you search for DTMF in Skype forums you'll find dozens of posts about it. Here's a typical example:
http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=66652&hl=DTMF
They work about half the time from my Mac when I call from abroad to pick up voice mail.
Dennis Ferguson
Larry - 26 Feb 2007 13:31 GMT > I haven't heard much griping about the handling of incoming DTMF tones > in Skype, but considerable complaints about outgoing. If you search [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dennis Ferguson Seems like they'd do DTMF generation at the point where it enters the POTS, not inside your computer. Sure would save on the data stream bandwidth going out just sending numbers instead of voice data converted tones.
I've checked Skype voicemail hundreds of times from my cellphone through Vox on my computer, a double set of conversions across the POTS. It seemed to work fine.
Well, we have to find some nit to pick to trash it, eh?
Larry
 Signature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo&mode=related&search=
Todd Allcock - 26 Feb 2007 07:42 GMT > Of course, I must be attacked for even THINKING the > unthinkable...calling > on something much cheaper or free....right? No, you need to be attacked for pretending Voip is a replacement for cellular, instead of a (limited-use) augmentation.
> Do you think cellular sounds 8.11 times as good as Skype? (price/price) No, But it works 800-1100 times farther away from my wireless router ;-)
> Which is better at home?...cellular's barely useable signal inside the > house...or Skype's full scale signal from my powerful wifi router on >the Netgear SPH101? My T-Mobile phone shows full signal in my basement. so YMMV. It generally sounds better than Skype on my two year old Celeron laptop and 1.5mbps DSL connection as well.
> Everything is a compromise....One is better here, the other is better > in the car. Fair enough.
Larry - 26 Feb 2007 13:33 GMT Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:eru32f$aeu$3 @aioe.org:
> My T-Mobile phone shows full signal in my basement. You are very lucky to have a tower in your yard. Most cellular customers walk around to one of their house hotspots where the damned phone will connect through the poor signal and multipath reflections to use it.
Some would kill to have full bars in a basement!
Larry
 Signature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo&mode=related&search=
Ness_net - 26 Feb 2007 19:18 GMT Larry, we've had the CDMA / multipath discussion before...
Didn't you learn something about CDMA last time...?
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:eru32f$aeu$3 > @aioe.org: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Larry Larry - 25 Feb 2007 16:49 GMT > While encryption can consume lots of CPU cycles at high data rates, the > data rate for a voice call is tiny. I suspect most of the CPU is > consumed by the codec, since squeezing even phone-quality voice down > into 8 kbps with reasonable fidelity takes some work. Don't tell Verizon, but we're using Skype on some laptops through Verizon's aircards on EVDO with great results.
As to the data-audio audio-data conversions, that doesn't take much of a modern PCs CPU capacity. Look at how easily you can play a 328Kbps MP3 with Winamp in full stereo. It hardly bothers the processor's free time to do other things. I suppose it depends on how complex the encryption scheme is once the data conversion has been done. I talk on Skype on my Athelon desktop through a USB headset at the same time I'm watching a DivX movie with VLC and downloading from Usenet more movies and nothing balks. That wouldn't have been true 5 years ago on Win98SE...(c;
Larry
 Signature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo&mode=related&search=
Ric - 22 Feb 2007 12:06 GMT Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones. Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.
fdcom3 - 22 Feb 2007 13:47 GMT Ric Wrote:
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizo > disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones > Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes m > wonder why so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming. Not everybody uses all the phones "features". Most people just want phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cel phone is for
Edgar - 22 Feb 2007 22:02 GMT > Ric Wrote: >> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cell > phone is for. Or like the other post, power users just re-enable those features by a little work on the internet (and a lot of work by nice people out there with time and skill). For example the last Windows Mobile 5.0 AKU available for my phone (XV6700) through verizon and HTC is the 2.2 ROM but I am actually using a 3.3 ROM right now that some enterprising users at PPC Geeks enabled for our phone. You take your own risks of course. Also using Windows Mobile Phones as appose to others allow you to do almost anything through your computer.
 Signature Edgar
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ric - 23 Feb 2007 00:15 GMT > Not everybody uses all the phones "features". Most people just want a > phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cell > phone is for. What you say is true for many, but I'm a big fan of convergence. I'm anxiously waiting to see if the Nokia N95 will ever be available in the U.S. Phone, 5MP cam and full GPS ! I'm making do with a Treo for now...it's huge, but I'm addicted to all the things I can do with it. I keep a full medical reference library in the thing...and if I can't get my answer there, I go to the web.
Edgar - 23 Feb 2007 00:50 GMT >> Not everybody uses all the phones "features". Most people just want a >> phone that they can use to talk to other people. That is what a cell [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > keep a full medical reference library in the thing...and if I can't get my > answer there, I go to the web. I'm with you man, I love everything I can do with my XV6700. I think I saw some statistics recently that the majority of people don't like convergence either, but there is definitely a market for it, and you can surely charge a premium for it.
 Signature Edgar
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dean - 23 Feb 2007 01:08 GMT Ric,
Put yourself in my place. I'm very happy with the coverage. A majority of the people I call are "IN-network", and overage hasn't been an issue, even though I'm on a 450 minute plan and use 1200-1600 minutes a month. We travel mainly on weekends, when calls are free. My phone works from Provincetown to Key West, with a side trip to Phoenix. (Yeah, somebody can't wait to jump on THAT one----the wife and I love P'town, and Key West was a one-time sightseeing tour LOL). We get a group discount, and my bill is about $38 per month total. I get a new phone every 10 months at little or no out-of-pocket cost.
I own a digital camera, and I use it to take pictures. If an "emergency photo-op" arises, I can use my phone/camera and transfer the picture to my computer via micro-SD card. I can't use an iPod at work, it's unsafe to use one while driving, and I have no need for one at home.
While I can't deny the "cool" factor of the newer crop of multi-tasking phones, I'm not a huge fan, for much the same reason I wouldn't buy a combination clothes washer/clothes dryer. (break one machine and lose everything).
I just wanted a phone that worked, and didn't cost me a fortune. My VZW service gives me that. I don't particularly like the fact that they disable features to make money, but for my purposes, where's my complaint? And if I have nothing to complain about, does that make me irrationally loyal?
Dean
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon > disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones. Thanks > for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why > so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming. Ric - 23 Feb 2007 02:04 GMT > Ric, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > And if I have nothing to complain about, does that make me irrationally > loyal? A lot of what you say has merit for many people, but as another poster said, some do like convergence. For example, I enjoy candid photography. I don't leave the house without a camera and I'm grateful that digital cams are now available with great resolution, but I'd never attempt to take a photo I intended to keep with the current crop of phone-cams. My all my phones have had built in cameras...never used any of them. When they get to five MP and above with a real flash, I'll consider it. I also work out at the gym pretty much every day. A built in MP3 player sure does come in handy...for me. So, if my dream phone comes on the market, it will be nice to carry one device instead three or four.
tdstr - 23 Feb 2007 16:26 GMT > A lot of what you say has merit for many people, but as another poster said, > some do like convergence. For example, I enjoy candid photography. I don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > if my dream phone comes on the market, it will be nice to carry one device > instead three or four. When I first heard of cell phones with a integrated camera I thought the idea was just about the worst idea of all time. When I saw the pictures take with a cell phone then I was sure that a camera cell phone was the worst idea.
Then I finally found the *perfect* use for a camera phone no matter how bad the picture quality is...
When you park in a large ramp with many many many levels it is often hard to remember exactly what level/area where you parked. Just use the phone cam to take a pic of the sign that states what level and space your parked in.
There you go...the perfect use for a camera cell phone.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
pltrgyst - 23 Feb 2007 18:08 GMT >When you park in a large ramp with many many many levels it is often >hard to remember exactly what level/area where you parked. Just use the >phone cam to take a pic of the sign that states what level and space >your parked in. > >There you go...the perfect use for a camera cell phone. Perhaps -- but totally useless if you always have a digital camera in your pocket, as I do. 8;)
-- Larry
Ness_net - 23 Feb 2007 01:35 GMT A point that needs to be made.
You get a cell phone to MAKE and GET CALLS. Which requires a good SYSTEM to do the above. General consensus is that Verizon has the best overall. Sure YRMV, but generally this holds true.
People that make a decision based on the phone itself are being extremely short sighted and stupid. Find the best SYSTEM for your needs, THEN choose a phone.
Now, as to the phones. With very little effort, people are able to restore whatever functionality they want to their phones. 815, V3C, V3m - all are easily made to do whatever you want.
Sure, I also agree that the hobbling of phones is crap. But, again, I just do a little research, then follow the instructions and I have the best system AND a phone that does what I want.
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon disabling some features that manufacturers > build into their phones. Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why so many > customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming. jdoe - 23 Feb 2007 11:18 GMT May be "easy" to you. But I don't care to chance hosing my phone, or having to go through all the work just so I can have a properly functioning BT set.
>A point that needs to be made. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> Thanks for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me >> wonder why so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming. jdoe - 23 Feb 2007 11:15 GMT I'm not loyal I am a "hostage"
> Thanks to all for the informative posts. I have heard rumors of Verizon > disabling some features that manufacturers build into their phones. Thanks > for confirming that this practice is still going on. Makes me wonder why > so many customers are so loyal. I'd be fuming.
|
|
|