 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / May 2005"Americas Choice" Roaming
I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 days to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority. I travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere. I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a "Verizon" or "Extended network" displayed on the screen of my VX6100. Sometimes, but not lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a call? As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA  SignatureCorkyF > I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas > choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I > want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA When you're in a No Service area, the display on your phone says "No Service" and if you try to make a call, it won't go. That's how you know;-) Doc >I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas >choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the >way I want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA "No roaming" with the National Singlerate plan meant that Verizon would pick up the tab if you were out in the boondocks, but with the new AC plan you'll simply have no service in those roaming areas that previously had the flashing triangle. If the phone absolutely, positively has to work "everywhere", then stay with your old NSR plan even if it does have fewer minutes. On the other hand, your observations confirm the fact that the AC network is pretty extensive and will more than likely fulfill your needs. YMMV. -- Jafo "Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:iJHje.159488 Sometimes, but not > lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service > area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a > call? > As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I > want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming on the "No Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will get the flashing triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or is that a solid triangle that means roaming?!) Did you get the flashing triangle on the current plan or the old plan? I'm under the impression that your phone will say "Verizon" or "Extended Network" or "No Service" only. Since there is no roaming in the plan, the phone now will say no service where it used to roam. Bob >Since there is no roaming in the plan, the phone now will say >no service where it used to roam. Makes a good paperweight, though. :) -- Jafo Verizon has Native Coverage or a Roaming Agreement with another provide (Roaming Partner) in almost every wireless market in the country. Th only difference is if Verizon or the roaming partner in that area ha poor coverage, and a non roaming partner good coverage you can't us the non roaming partner like you do with National Single Rate. If you need to dail 911 it will work any network that your phone ca connect to. So if your phone says *No Service* it might still be abl to pick up a non roaming partner to get the call threw If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are true. >If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even >911. Incorrect. "No service" can mean "no service that you're qualified to use". If you're in an NS area and you need to call 911, give it a try. If there's a cell tower in the area that your phone can possibly communicate with, the call will go through. And if there isn't, what have you lost by trying? -- Jafo > If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even > 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming > partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle > then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per > my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are > true. In 911 mode, the phone is supposed to grab whatever signal it can. In normal mode, it will only search Verizon networks and certain roaming networks that Verizon programs it to search. The one time I tried this I was in Verizon digital coverage, but my neighborhood had lousy VZW digital coverage at the time, so when I needed to call 911, my tri-mode phone actually grabbed someone else's analog carrier instead. (Never did find out whose. Sprint had great coverage in our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it might have been Cingular.) SignatureJustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal. >> If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even >> 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it > might have been Cingular.) Well, could grab a Cingular ANALOG signal.... Dean _____________________________________ > You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it >> might have been Cingular.) Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When a cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service usable to that cellphone. That's not to say there isn't service around you, it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else. That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection. (But it must be a compatible technology) > Well, could grab a Cingular ANALOG signal.... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>> coverage in our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm >>> guessing it might have been Cingular.) Cingular is TDMA and Verizon is CDMS for their DIGITAL services. Both offer analog services in many areas, which are completely compatable with each other. So a version tri-mode phone can easilly use a Cingular Analog signal in emergency situations. Rich > Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When a > cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection. > (But it must be a compatible technology) > Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. Well, I lived in Cleveland for over 30 years, and used cellular there from 1993 through the time I moved to California in summer of 2003. Cingular and Verizon BOTH inherited analog networks from their predecessors, Ameritech Cellular and AirTouch/CellularONE, respectively. An analog phone can use any analog signal from any carrier. > cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service > usable to that cellphone. You really ought to educate yourself before you post. When you dial 911, the phone is supposed to grab ANY signal it can grab. If the phone has analog capability - and back then, my Nokia 3285 most definitely did - it will grab an analog signal if that's the strongest signal available. I *might* have gotten a Verizon analog signal, but back in 2001-2002, Verzion basically had no coverage in the neighborhood where I was living at the time. > it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else. > That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in > 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't > get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even > if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection. > (But it must be a compatible technology) AMPS is AMPS. It DOES NOT MATTER WHICH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY THE CARRIER USES. Any AMPS phone can run on any AMPS carrier. SignatureJustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" >When a >cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service >usable to that cellphone. Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be used. Such a signal would be used by 911, however. SignatureBob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software." Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980 > Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a > compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be > used. Such a signal would be used by 911, however. Do new phones work differently from the Motorola V60i PRL? In the covered service area of Charleston, SC, Verizon has several service holes that used to roam to Alltel (b-system cellular) or Sprint PCS. The PRL was changed to exclude roaming to any other system, then the phones read NO SERVICE. Calls to 911 did NOT hook to Alltel's 800 Mhz B-system towers on PRL equipped phones, but an old analog flipphone or bagphone set to STD A/B, that would already be roaming on Alltel B in the dead zone WOULD dial 911, without exception. When did this change? I keep a 3W Motorola bagphone with cigarette lighter power and no dead battery in all my cars ($1 at thrift shops) so 911 always works, no matter what the companies do with PRL games....You should, too! Alltel does not roam to Verizon's 800 Mhz system in Eastern SC, but its PRL does roam up in the mountains NW of Columbia as this is permitted on its PRL. No Verizon roaming to Alltel in the whole state, last time I looked. In Charleston, Alltel just works better....still. > > Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a > > compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > PRL was changed to exclude roaming to any other system, then the phones > read NO SERVICE. Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that they've excluded all non-Verizon service. > Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other > carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that > they've excluded all non-Verizon service. Where are you people getting your information from??? The new America's Choice plan that doesn't allow roaming, still allows calls on their extended network which includes many many non-Verizon carriers. If you want to see what you systems you can use, check out the PRL that shows you exactly what systems your phone can use. (http://mallard.rainyday.mb.ca/~dialtone/vzw/vz_50295.html) Also, I don't know where the info about them removing partners has come from, when the new AC plan first came out, they changed many partners that used to be paid roaming to be part of the extended network, and each PRL release usually adds a few more partners. Part of the confusion is that what Verizon calls roaming isn't the true definition of roaming. The true definition is placing a call that is not on your home SID, but Verizon considers roaming to be placing a call on a system that is not part of their extended network and (prior to the new AC) you would have to pay for. Rich > > Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other > > carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that > > they've excluded all non-Verizon service. > > Where are you people getting your information from??? I called Verizon today. Not that the person that told me this knew what they were talking about! Even if there is still Extended Network coverage, this is insufficient. I have been to many areas where I am off the extended network. Just last month I was up on the Northern California Coast, and was off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more. What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this! >>>Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other >>>carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of > Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more. I do not see them reducing the number of Extended Network agreements, I think they expand the number. > What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per > minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this! Two reasons (not that I completely agree they should do it, but I'm sure these are the reasons they have) 1) Reduce calls from customers complaining about roaming charges and having to refund the charges. 2) Competition with other carriers that offer no-roaming plans (who even have less coverage than Verizon). Rich >> What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network >> roaming at 69¢ per minute? Even their prepaid plan [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1) Reduce calls from customers complaining about roaming > charges and having to refund the charges. Ding! That's exactly what more than one VZW rep has told me. Not that they *have* to refund the charges but there is a lot of overhead involved with dealing with the unhappy (less than sharp-as-a-tack) customers who incurred roaming charges. -Quick >I called Verizon today. Not that the person that told me this knew what they >were talking about! Even if there is still Extended Network coverage, this >is insufficient. I have been to many areas where I am off the extended >network. Just last month I was up on the Northern California Coast, and was >off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of >Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more. This has been beat to death in this newsgroup already. IIRC, Bill Radio posted some details showing that the new AC plan actually improves coverage in some areas. >What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per >minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this! SignatureBob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software." Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980 > Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other > carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that > they've excluded all non-Verizon service. Ok, I was in WalMart, Oakbrook Area of Summerville, SC, a bedroom suburb of Charleston, today. I saw a lady trying to use her phone in the store, about in the middle of the store, so asked her who her carrier was. BINGO! Verizon...(c; My phone, except my 3W bagphone, used to work just like that after they dumped Sprint PCS roaming from the Sprint tower in the parking lot.... Armed with that information, I let her borrow my powerful V60i megawatt flipphone on Alltel to call her husband. Alltel has service in Oakbrook. After she hung up, I asked her if I could test her 911 service when her phone had NO SERVICE. Reluctantly, she agreed. I flipped the dead phone open and dialed 911. I got the NO SERVICE warning tones....and NO 911 SERVICE FROM THE GODDAMNED SPRINT TOWER OUT IN THE PARKING LOT OR ALLTEL ON 'B' 800 MHZ WHICH HAS 5 BARS IN WALLY WORLD, EITHER.... So much for the bullshit her new phone will go off the PRL to call 911 on "any signal it can find". Hell, Sprint's 1900 Mhz tower damned near blows out the receivers in there! Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new color LG I didn't recognize. She asked me how my phone worked in other places around town on Alltel. I believe she will be porting her number as soon as her contract is up. She'll have to buy another phone from Alltel. They won't activate any Verizon phones on Alltel any more....dammit. I got a nearly new LG brand with the GPS and color screen from a friend who dumped VZW to Nextel. Cool phone but Alltel refused....dammit. If it says NO SERVICE....IT WON'T CALL 911 EITHER...EVEN IF YOU'RE STANDING UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!! Verizon could and most likely will eventually get sued for this. This is a law suit waiting to happen!!! >> Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other >> carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > STANDING > UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:21 PM Subject: Re: "Americas Choice" Roaming > So much for the bullshit her new phone will go off the PRL to call 911 on > "any signal it can find". Hell, Sprint's 1900 Mhz tower damned near blows > out the receivers in there! Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new > color LG I didn't recognize. This violates FCC regulations. Unless there is a good explanation for this, and there doesn't appear to be, Verizon could get in trouble in the unlikely event that anyone ever complained to the FCC about it. Of course you know that there will be some excuse, that makes no sense, if anyone complains. They will blame the handset, claim that the store has a dead spot, or blame lunar tides. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Verizon could get in trouble in the unlikely event that > anyone ever complained to the FCC about it. Yea, right. Why don't you drop a dime on them and shut them down? > Of course you know that there will be some excuse, that > makes no sense, if anyone complains. They will blame the > handset, claim that the store has a dead spot, or blame > lunar tides. Right. Everyone knows that the FCC and the rest of the government agencies are complete morons and will certainly buy any excuse VZW gives them. It's also common knowledge (and therefore absolutely true) that VZW pays them off and has them completely in their pocket. If anybody would listen to Larry he'd be bigger than Ralph Nadar. -Quick > Right. Everyone knows that the FCC and the rest of the > government agencies are complete morons and will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -Quick Cellular has FCC in their pockets. Otherwise, FCC would have forced them all to use the same modulation scheme and to require proof-of-performance to ensure smooth coverages across their licensed areas, like broadcasters must provide. Cellular carriers would never pass a proof of performance test properly administered by outside vendors. You all know where the holes are, like my Wally World. So, don't look to FCC for any action on anything. They work for the big money boys....not the taxpaying consumers forced by guns to pay their wages. >open and dialed 911. I got the NO SERVICE warning tones....and NO 911 >SERVICE FROM THE GODDAMNED SPRINT TOWER OUT IN THE PARKING LOT OR ALLTEL ON >'B' 800 MHZ WHICH HAS 5 BARS IN WALLY WORLD, EITHER.... > >Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new >color LG I didn't recognize. Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless. And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made: >If it says NO SERVICE....IT WON'T CALL 911 EITHER...EVEN IF YOU'RE STANDING >UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!! SignatureBob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software." Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980 >>open and dialed 911. I got the NO SERVICE warning tones....and NO 911 >>SERVICE FROM THE SPRINT TOWER OUT IN THE PARKING LOT OR ALLTEL ON [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless. Alltel is CDMA ... >And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that >particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made: you are correct, but I'd bet LArry is correct and it didn't go to their working tower. >>If it says NO SERVICE....IT WON'T CALL 911 EITHER...EVEN IF YOU'RE STANDING >>UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!! > Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless. > And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that > particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made: Er, ah, the Alltel signal is CDMA, not AMPS. It was working just fine, FULL SCALE, when she was talking to her husband on Alltel. Sprint detected the 911 and shut down their whole cell so it wouldn't make VZW look good...oh, sure. Next excuse...... When the PRL says NO, it means NO..... > Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When a > cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. Not true. A Verizon phone that supports AMPS can grab any AMPS signal, and a Cingular phone that supports AMPS can grab any AMPS signal. I have an old Cingular GSM phone that read no-service for all calls, except it works fine for 911. > You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal. It was absolutely possible a couple years ago. Probably still is. Cingular (former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time... It wouldn't be Nextel, but I didn't say I thought it was nextel SignatureJustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" > Cingular > (former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time... Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved. SignatureI miss my .signature. Regions like here in WI where ameritech mobile was one of the two cellular carriers, they went from analog only to adding cdma then switching to tdma then to gsm and they still have to maintain their analog network. >> Cingular >> (former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time... > >Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because >Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved. You must be in the Chicago market, like I am. When SBC bought Ameritech, it absorbed Ameritech Cellular into the Cellular One fold, which soon became Cingular. BUT, since Cell One already had a presence in Chicago, they had to divest this market from Ameritech Cellular's overall system and sold it to GTE (which, as you say, promptly rolled into VZW). It took me quite a while in this group to come to understand this myself. SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "DRUG STORE BODY. Let's get the Good Shape and have a sexy body just like a pig." - slogan on a pair of Japanese overalls >>>Cingular >>>(former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time... >> >>Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because >>Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved. Well, I am aware that's what happened in Chicago. It's NOT what happened across the rest of the US. Ameritech Cellular became Cingular everywhere else in the Midwest *except* the Chicago market where they had to deal with the GTE/Primeco/Ameritech crap. > It took me quite a while in this group to come to understand this myself. I was talking in generalities about 99% of the country. I wasn't discussing Chicago in particular. SignatureJustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" >>>Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because >>>Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > else in the Midwest *except* the Chicago market where they had to deal > with the GTE/Primeco/Ameritech crap. And I completely forgot about that until you and David brought it up. SignatureI miss my .signature. >>>>Cingular >>>>(former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time... >>> >>>Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because >>>Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved. Why did you pretend that I wrote that, delete my correct response to it, then say the same thing I did? >Well, I am aware that's what happened in Chicago. It's NOT what happened >across the rest of the US. Ameritech Cellular became Cingular everywhere [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I was talking in generalities about 99% of the country. I wasn't >discussing Chicago in particular. We know that. I only brought up Chicago because of clifto's statement that would be correct *only* if he's in Chicago and unaware of (or, as he says, forgot about) the actual events. SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "The future will be better tomorrow." - Dan Quayle > Why did you pretend that I wrote that, delete my correct response to it, > then say the same thing I did? I didn't pretend you wrote it. I obviously failed to cut out the attribution (which I should have), but anyone actually paying attention would have seen the attribution to Clifto right below it. SignatureJustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" > Verizon has Native Coverage or a Roaming Agreement with another provider > (Roaming Partner) in almost every wireless market in the country. The > only difference is if Verizon or the roaming partner in that area has > poor coverage, and a non roaming partner good coverage you can't use > the non roaming partner like you do with National Single Rate. Not any more. This was the case on the earlier America's Choice plan. Now they have changed it, and there is no roaming off of Verizon--period. Not to a partner, not to a non-partner, even at extra cost. I called them to verify this. Exisiting America's Choice customers on the earlier plan will still be able to roam, and can change their number of plan minutes without losing roaming. However the number of roaming partners, where roaming is included, will continue to decrease (as has been the problem with AC for a long time). I.e. a month or two after I vacationed in Alaska, Verizon dropped their roaming agreement, and I would have had to pay for every call. Could anyone else please verify this? It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I started asking. I was told: 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers are included in the AC2 PRL. 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would give the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge. 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of "included" calls, but not significantly. I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when the marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and elsewhere. I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area, just like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but thousands of others didn't. Please tell me it isn't true. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:MZHke.9799> Not any more. This was the case on the earlier America's Choice plan. Now > they have changed it, and there is no roaming off of Verizon--period. Not > to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I.e. a month or two after I vacationed in Alaska, Verizon dropped their > roaming agreement, and I would have had to pay for every call. > It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I started > asking. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Please tell me it isn't true. It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists. I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to two reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on their handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their PRL on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with the old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network. Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at 69¢ per minute. > It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I started > asking. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Please tell me it isn't true. It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists. I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to two reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on their handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their PRL on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with the old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network. Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at 69¢ per minute. So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? South Central Jersey? Parts of Central Florida? OK, either this is incorrect, or someone at VZW is about to lose his/her job. IF TRUE, Cingular must be licking their chops----there will be a hemorrhage of customers as soon as their contracts are up. I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding somewhere. __________________________________________ >> It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I > started [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > 69¢ > per minute. > So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? South Central > Jersey? Parts of Central Florida? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding somewhere. As far as I know you will not lose any coverage in those areas. IIRC the only place where there was noticable coverage loss was in the WA/OR area. Again, for a full listing of all systems that you will be able to use un AC2 visit http://mallard.rainyday.mb.ca/~dialtone/vzw/vz_50295.html Rich > So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? > South Central Jersey? Parts of Central Florida? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding > somewhere. oooo, let me think here. Cingular stock going up? It's been over 4 months now and millions of VZW customers haven't noticed yet? Maybe they are just silently seething and waiting for their 2 year contracts to expire? -Quick Quickie, Do I detect a note of sarcasm there? No problem, I'm not insulted, just wanted to know exactly what you meant. I think you are trying to say I'm wrong about the flight to Cingular, which I may be, but remember a couple of things: Since the explosion of cell phones everywhere, including middle and elementary schools, and unlike the "good old days" when many of us were radio guys (Hi, Larry), or other electronic hobbyists, or gadget freaks, the vast majority of cell phone users today are absolutely CLUELESS about how this stuff works. PRL what??, does it make a phone call? The two things most of them know for sure are 1/When their phone doesn't work when and where they need it to, and 2/ They are locked into a two-year contract from which it costs $175 to escape. So don't laugh so fast about people seething, waiting for their contracts to expire. One thing I learned from this NG is not to be so smug about Verizon's superior network. It IS true for me at home, but it isn't true for everyone. Sprint is garbage here, but I've read posts by others who frequent the NG who swear by them. Same for Cingular. I have been a VZW customer since the BAM days, their service is excellent a majority of the time, and their CS, if quirky, is also very good, but if my contract were up and I lost the areas I mentioned under AC2, I'd be .....where'd he go?...gone. ....And I can't be the only one who lives in an area where AC1 was perfect for me (NY Metro), but travels to South Jersey or the Poconos on weekends, and vacations in Florida. Take those areas away, and what do you expect me to do? There are so many variables involved---for instance, many are, in fact, locked in to the end of the contract. Some will know enough to avoid AC2 by staying on month-to-month. Many won't know any better until they take a ride to Lake Wallenpaupack for the weekend and get "No Service", and some of THEM won't realize they've been "had" by AC2. IF what was said was true, and I still have my doubts, I do stand corrected to some extent. For the above reasons, and others, it won't be a "hemorrhage", but a slow steady bleed-out. Aw, crap, competition's good for the consumer anyway... Dean _______________________________________ >> So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? >> South Central Jersey? Parts of Central Florida? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -Quick I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long time. Dean, > 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers are > included in the AC2 PRL. That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC 1, were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state! This involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners, to Cingular analog instead. > 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO > service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in > which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible > network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary > difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would give > the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge. As above, in the few areas where a roaming partner was removed, another took its place. Another example: in the 2.5 counties in Colorado with no Verizon service, one carrier (Blanca) was switched from roaming charges in AC1, to no roaming charges in AC II. A second change was in a county where the was no carrier in the PRL, to a new digital carrier (Commnet) which means new roaming available, and with no roaming charges. > 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of > "included" calls, but not significantly. Yes, there is a slight difference, but in my opinion, AC II has increased the area of coverage, and all with no extra roaming charges. Yes, there are areas where the coverage is slightly different, which really means the weak spots may have been re-arranged. > I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area, Then you would never switch to Cingular whose current plans would completely exclude all of the country where there is only analog coverage. But you said "included calling area"...yes the AC II has a MUCH larger "included calling area". Comments about "there's no coverage here or there anymore..." are greatly exaggerated. If you switched from Verizon to, say, Alltel, you would be exchanging one set of weak areas for another. But this is how we optimize our service. We can choose what's best for us. There are a handful of us who have evaluated the difference between AC1 and AC II to the extreme, and conclude that it is a change for the better. We know exactly where coverage MAY have been diminished, but we have also noted that the net result is a larger area of coverage, especially considering this larger area is included at no extra roaming charges. Many of the people claiming "reduced coverage" have not actually been to most of these areas affected, and probably never will. But when you see a "hole" in coverage on Verizon's own Coverage Locator, you cannot rely upon it. To see a big white area in, say, Oregon, on the new AC map, it is a very inaccurate view of US Cellular's coverage, which is quite good there. To base your condemnation on these faulty indicators is just ignorance. You are to be forgiven. While I personally have experienced new coverage made available w/AC II, I found a new area of "No Service" in New Mexico that was a bit troubling, only to find that a different CDMA carrier has made plans to set up a cell site in this area, which will automatically appear shortly on Verizon phones. Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the coverage issue into my own hands and carry a TDMA Beyond phone as a backup which costs less than $20 per year. With this kind of simple backup, I'm not at all concerned about any one carrier's 'adjustments', I've got myself covered. Bill Radio Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at: http://www.mountainwireless.com I'm sure Steve Scharf will be sure to cross post this correction to the rest of the galaxy he originally cross posted to. -Quick > I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long > time. [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at: > http://www.mountainwireless.com > That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC 1, > were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming > charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were > roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state! This > involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners, to > Cingular analog instead. How nice. What if you don't have a tri-mode phone? Sounds like Sprint. A lot of their roaming is still analog. SignatureJustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" > > That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC 1, > > were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How nice. What if you don't have a tri-mode phone? Hopefully no one is dumb enough to buy a phone without AMPS. > Sounds like Sprint. A lot of their roaming is still analog. Yep. Without AMPS there would be vast areas of the U.S. with no coverage at all. Some rural carriers are still selling 3W AMPS bag phones. >>How nice. What if you don't have a tri-mode phone? > > Hopefully no one is dumb enough to buy a phone without AMPS. You *say* that, but for most people, a cell phone is a black box. They don't know the difference. Nor (IMHO) should they have to worry about it. >>Sounds like Sprint. A lot of their roaming is still analog. > > Yep. Without AMPS there would be vast areas of the U.S. with no coverage at > all. Some rural carriers are still selling 3W AMPS bag phones. Yes, but up north of here between here and Barstow, in the rural areas where Sprint doesn't have coverage, Verizon does. Sprint could have their users roam digital on Verizon CDMA (but they don't). This is the case in many places, just as there are many places Verizon doesn't have coverage, or has holes, where Sprint does have good coverage, where Verizon phones won't roam on Sprint. SignatureJustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" Well here in WI there are no areas where Sprint PCS does not have coverage and verizon does. The opposite is true, but I think verizon has uscellular CDMA or alltel CDMA higher on the prl. The map shows digital and extended digital, but no analog. amps would be unnecessary on an AC2 plan. > This is the case in many places, just as there are many places Verizon > doesn't have coverage, or has holes, where Sprint does have good > coverage, where Verizon phones won't roam on Sprint. This is true. At my previous job, one of the buildings happened to be a Verizon dead spot. I roamed on Sprint, but those with newer PRLs could not. > -- > JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED > > "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" > --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" Thanks Bill. I was hoping you'd respond to this post. I believe you are confirming what I had hoped. I found the other explanantion difficult to accept, although I don't doubt Steve may have been given incorrect info by CS. I always confirm any info of that type with a repeat call asking the same question----even though Steve appears to have done that, maybe two or three reps in a row didn't know what they were talking about. I've seen that too. Dean _________________________________ >I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long time. > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at: > http://www.mountainwireless.com "Bill Radio" <Wireless@MountainWirelessNOSPAN.com> wrote in message <snip> > Comments about "there's no coverage here or there anymore..." are greatly > exaggerated. The areas where there is now no coverage as a result of AC2 are indeed small, but they are not as rare as some people want to believe. If indeed they were that rare, then Verizon would not have bothered to eliminate paid roaming, since it would happen so rarely that it would be a non-issue. I believe the explanation I received from Verizon as to why they eliminated it, too many complaints about unexpected roaming charges from people that thought that they had coverage. It really shouldn't be Verizon's problem that these people failed to update their PRLs, or didn't pay attention to the roaming indicator, but Verizon doesn't want to alienate customers, so they absorb the loss and credit the account. However I also think that perhaps they made this change to force smaller carriers to execute roaming agreements, rather than gouge on roaming. Of course you are correct that anyone that cares about coverage would never sign up with Cingular (except perhaps with a T62u or 6340i). I've sent several people to Cingular's Western Regional contact, after she told me that anyone that wanted a GAIT phone with off-network roaming, could actually obtain it directly from Cingular (they were not selling these in stores or on-line, in the western region). > Of course you are correct that anyone that cares about coverage would never > sign up with Cingular (except perhaps with a T62u or 6340i). Please elaborate. I have a friend who travels all over the eastern US and claims to have great coverage everywhere with Cingular. SignatureI miss my .signature. >> Of course you are correct that anyone that cares about coverage would >> never sign up with Cingular (except perhaps with a T62u or 6340i). > > Please elaborate. I have a friend who travels all over the eastern US > and claims to have great coverage everywhere with Cingular. No one has great coverage everywhere with Cingular. No one has great coverage everywhere with any wireless carrier. >>> Of course you are correct that anyone that cares about coverage >>> would never sign up with Cingular (except perhaps with a T62u or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No one has great coverage everywhere with Cingular. No one has great > coverage everywhere with any wireless carrier. It depends on where a person is. I have a friend who claims to get great coverage from T-Mobile. But T-Mobile on their own coverage maps show hudge areas of no coverage. All carriers provide great coverage some place. Finding the carrier that provides good coverage where you will be is sometimes challenging. There is no best carrier for everyone. Personally I have found VZW to work where I travel which is why I still have their service. > Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the coverage issue into my own > hands and carry a TDMA Beyond phone as a backup which costs less than $20 > per year. Bill, How does one get ahold of "Beyond Phone"? Wern't you on a Single rate west plan in the past? Is that still the best for worryless Verizon roaming? Brian Bryan, Go to: http://www.gobeyondwireless.com. They have refurbs, but eBay has more. Any AT&T branded TDMA phone. Yes, it was very dark day when I decided to give up my SRW plan. But the temptation of 50% more minutes for only $5 more was too great. Also, I travel east to Ohio several times a year and my plan of forwarding calls to my standby AT&T phone fell short. AT&T has inferior coverage there. Yes, there was nothing like the Single Rate plans. But the difference over my regular travels was I lost one cell site completely, but gained four that went from .69 roaming to included roaming. I made the switch from AC1 to AC II with equally great care. Four sites for one was an ne.unquestionable improvement. Results will be different for everyone. -Bill > > per year. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is that still the best for worryless Verizon roaming? > Brian > Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming on the "No > Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will get the flashing > triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or is that a solid triangle that > means roaming?!) Solid triangle = roaming Flashing triangle = extended area >>Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming >>on the "No Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will >>get the flashing triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or >>is that a solid triangle that means roaming?!) >Solid triangle = roaming >Flashing triangle = extended area I guess I had it backwards, too. Contrary to logic, isn't it? The one that flashes to get your attention really isn't important. I wonder whose brilliant idea that was. -- Jafo >>Solid triangle = roaming >>Flashing triangle = extended area [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Jafo It could be that nothing meant not roaming at all, and a solid triangle meant roaming and paying, and flashing meant part of each. (1/2 triangle, 1/2 nothing) Rich >I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas >choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 days [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I >want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA Don't think this is a good move. I am a full time RVer on the move about every 10 - 14 days. I have had the one rate plan for several years. I have looked at the other plans and in all cases the Verizon stores have all advised against making a change. My coverage has been great. Oh yes there have been time that I have not had coverage for days at a time. But you should have seen where I was. Those were places where I am surprised that even had a land line. During one of our mid-west swings we had a Sprint phone as well as the Verizon. In four months we never had Sprint signal but Verizon was there 90% of the time. Bill SignatureA: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas > choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 days > to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority. I > travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere. You may want to get a prepaid phone from something like Beyond Wireless, for times when you're out of Verizon's coverage. The new Americas Choice plan really sucks. There are lots of areas where Verizon is not a carrier, and to not have service, even at extra cost, is ridiculous. What is the reason behind not letting you roam at an extra charge? > > I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas > > choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ridiculous. What is the reason behind not letting you roam at an extra > charge? Except that with ACII Extended area still exists, still allows service including IN calling and shows up on the account as nonbilled roaming. The reason for curtailing roaming at an extra charge has been covered over and over. I came to verizon from ATT (Not ATTWS) TDMA service. On the Eastern Shore of Maryland, I was always in Extended Area. I could never get a clear answer as to whether it was roaming or not and was sometimes charged roaming fees and sometimes not charged roaming fees. I got the solution to every one's problem. Why don't we all just dump all the cell phones and go back to horse and buggy and for get all the tech gadgets, cell phones, PDA's, computers, ect. >> > I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas >> > choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > charged > roaming fees and sometimes not charged roaming fees. couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED?? > couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED?? They didn't change anything on existing contracts. The changes to not allow roaming and the larger extended network is only for new contracts. Rich > > couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED?? > > They didn't change anything on existing contracts. The changes to not > allow roaming and the larger extended network is only for new contracts. > > Rich thanks Rich, I didnt understand that part of it |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2008 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.