Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

About to give up on Verizon!

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
July 14, 2004 6:44:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I live in the Monterey California area. Have a new Verizon service with the
free LX3100 that I started in November 03

Didn't start using it much till March as I am now self employed. I have had
bad reception; talk cuts out, with signal bars varying a lot. This happens
in areas that I always had fine reception with before using my 6 year old
Nokea phones on Cingular. Have been on the phone with the techies at Verizon
about 10 times, have reset-downloaded, etc. over and over, set recection to
local, etc. ...nothing helped. They had me change the phone for a new
refurbished one, didn't help. I then noticed that when it is on the charger
at home, it works fine, if I take it off the charger, even though the
battery is fully charged, the reception suffers. They said the battery must
be bad, so I spent $40 and bought a brand new battery... didn't help. Today,
I was on the phone again and they had me get a brand new LX3100 free
replacement... didn't help.
I know it sounds wierd... if I talk to my brother from my house, with just
the battery (fully charged) it cuts out. If I then plug it into the charger
and talk, it works fine with no cutouts.
Any on want to comment?

Thanks,

More about : give verizon

July 14, 2004 6:44:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

When a phone is in a very weak signal area
many movements, relocations, and even
placing it on a charger may help or hinder. Being
in a low signal area makes communications
difficult and impossible at times. I live in
Huntington Beach which has tower height
restrictions and in some areas none will
work. I would ask VZW where the nearest
VZW tower to your place is and try to work
from that. Or, jokingly, you could move
closer to a tower. If a tower is over 200
feet in height, its location can be found under the
FCC database. Luck
Anonymous
July 14, 2004 1:34:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

You have a wireless product



"Gator" <gator2@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:2ljqn8Fdhbr9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> When a phone is in a very weak signal area
> many movements, relocations, and even
> placing it on a charger may help or hinder. Being
> in a low signal area makes communications
> difficult and impossible at times. I live in
> Huntington Beach which has tower height
> restrictions and in some areas none will
> work. I would ask VZW where the nearest
> VZW tower to your place is and try to work
> from that. Or, jokingly, you could move
> closer to a tower. If a tower is over 200
> feet in height, its location can be found under the
> FCC database. Luck
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 14, 2004 8:54:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Al:
Am not following you, I have a "wireless product?" ...what does that mean?

***********************************


"Big Al" <BigletterA@sd.nyt> wrote in message
news:K67Jc.19517$_b.9554740@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> You have a wireless product
>
>
>
> "Gator" <gator2@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:2ljqn8Fdhbr9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > When a phone is in a very weak signal area
> > many movements, relocations, and even
> > placing it on a charger may help or hinder. Being
> > in a low signal area makes communications
> > difficult and impossible at times. I live in
> > Huntington Beach which has tower height
> > restrictions and in some areas none will
> > work. I would ask VZW where the nearest
> > VZW tower to your place is and try to work
> > from that. Or, jokingly, you could move
> > closer to a tower. If a tower is over 200
> > feet in height, its location can be found under the
> > FCC database. Luck
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
July 14, 2004 9:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Gator:
Thing is, that my old Nokea phones on Cingular, worked just fine here, same
house we live in... And, when my brother comes to visit, he can use his LX
phone (more expensive model with camera) just fine from our house, with out
the cut out.


"Gator" <gator2@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:2ljqn8Fdhbr9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> When a phone is in a very weak signal area
> many movements, relocations, and even
> placing it on a charger may help or hinder. Being
> in a low signal area makes communications
> difficult and impossible at times. I live in
> Huntington Beach which has tower height
> restrictions and in some areas none will
> work. I would ask VZW where the nearest
> VZW tower to your place is and try to work
> from that. Or, jokingly, you could move
> closer to a tower. If a tower is over 200
> feet in height, its location can be found under the
> FCC database. Luck
>
>
July 14, 2004 10:26:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Gator:
: Thing is, that my old Nokea phones on Cingular, worked just fine here, same
: house we live in... And, when my brother comes to visit, he can use his LX
: phone (more expensive model with camera) just fine from our house, with out
: the cut out.

Cingular and Verizon use entirely different technologies and probably
use different towers. The quality of Cingular service at your house
would have no bearing on the quality of Verizon service there.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 1:51:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Maybe, but I heard from everyone how Verizon has such better coverage then
any one else, that seems to be their main advertising also.
*************************

"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
news:cacuacdd52962239209@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : Gator:
> : Thing is, that my old Nokea phones on Cingular, worked just fine here,
same
> : house we live in... And, when my brother comes to visit, he can use his
LX
> : phone (more expensive model with camera) just fine from our house, with
out
> : the cut out.
>
> Cingular and Verizon use entirely different technologies and probably
> use different towers. The quality of Cingular service at your house
> would have no bearing on the quality of Verizon service there.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
July 16, 2004 2:10:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Maybe, but I heard from everyone how Verizon has such better coverage then
: any one else, that seems to be their main advertising also.

Verizon has better coverage ON AVERAGE than everyone else. That
doesn't mean they have better coverage EVERYWHERE. If you live 1000
feet from a Cingular tower and nowhere near a Verizon tower, obviously
you're going to get better Cingular coverage.

That's why it's important to try out any cell service you get in the
areas you live, work, and will use it. If you are unfortunate enough
to live in a Verizon dead zone, it may be best to try another
carrier.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 2:10:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Andrew <usenetMYSHOES@bizavemyshoes.com> wrote:
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : Maybe, but I heard from everyone how Verizon has such better coverage then
> : any one else, that seems to be their main advertising also.
>
> Verizon has better coverage ON AVERAGE than everyone else. That
> doesn't mean they have better coverage EVERYWHERE. If you live 1000
> feet from a Cingular tower and nowhere near a Verizon tower, obviously
> you're going to get better Cingular coverage.

Yup. And there are issues of network maintenance, too. I've had very good
service and great coverage from Verizon in the past. In my particular part
of California, at this time, however, I cannot recommend them.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
July 16, 2004 7:32:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <Xq6dnRvnEInThWrdRVn-jg@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net says...
> Andrew <usenetMYSHOES@bizavemyshoes.com> wrote:
> > Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > : Maybe, but I heard from everyone how Verizon has such better coverage then
> > : any one else, that seems to be their main advertising also.
> >
> > Verizon has better coverage ON AVERAGE than everyone else. That
> > doesn't mean they have better coverage EVERYWHERE. If you live 1000
> > feet from a Cingular tower and nowhere near a Verizon tower, obviously
> > you're going to get better Cingular coverage.
>
> Yup. And there are issues of network maintenance, too. I've had very good
> service and great coverage from Verizon in the past. In my particular part
> of California, at this time, however, I cannot recommend them.
>
>
What part of CA is that?

Louise
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 7:32:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:

> What part of CA is that?

Specifically, Victorville/Apple Valley (the High Desert). Good coverage,
but they have repair issues that didn't get fixed for months.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 9:30:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I would not even say on average better than everyone else. In
some places they are better and in some worse and in some non existent.


Andrew wrote:
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : Maybe, but I heard from everyone how Verizon has such better coverage then
> : any one else, that seems to be their main advertising also.
>
> Verizon has better coverage ON AVERAGE than everyone else. That
> doesn't mean they have better coverage EVERYWHERE. If you live 1000
> feet from a Cingular tower and nowhere near a Verizon tower, obviously
> you're going to get better Cingular coverage.
>
> That's why it's important to try out any cell service you get in the
> areas you live, work, and will use it. If you are unfortunate enough
> to live in a Verizon dead zone, it may be best to try another
> carrier.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 7:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Actually, from what I understand, Cingular and Verizon use the same service
here. I'm not quite sure how this works, but I was told that when you travel
in certain areas, they use shared services, and this area happens to be one.
Does that sound right?

************************************************


"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
news:cacuacdd52962239209@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : Gator:
> : Thing is, that my old Nokea phones on Cingular, worked just fine here,
same
> : house we live in... And, when my brother comes to visit, he can use his
LX
> : phone (more expensive model with camera) just fine from our house, with
out
> : the cut out.
>
> Cingular and Verizon use entirely different technologies and probably
> use different towers. The quality of Cingular service at your house
> would have no bearing on the quality of Verizon service there.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 8:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

And, you're ignoring the fact that when my brother visits here, his Verizon
phone works fine. His phone is also an LG, but a different, more expensive
model with a camera built in.

Don't you think it's possible that the LG3100 I have is possibly a bad
design and that's what is causing the reception problem, not the tower,
location, etc.? Don't you think that it's odd that it works fine, or at
least, a lot better, when it's on the charger. It sounds like this phone has
a design problem that drains the battery or puts too much of a load on it,
there for, when it's on the charger, it works. I've also noticed, when on
the battery, it takes about 15-30 seconds, or so before it starts cutting
out each time you start talking on a call. Since this is now my third phone
replacement, sounds like a design problem. Also, the phone has lousy battery
life talk time, probably 1/10 of the time I had on my old Nokea 5160 & my
wife's Nokea 616 we owned.

*************************************************



"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
news:cacuacdd52962239209@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : Gator:
> : Thing is, that my old Nokea phones on Cingular, worked just fine here,
same
> : house we live in... And, when my brother comes to visit, he can use his
LX
> : phone (more expensive model with camera) just fine from our house, with
out
> : the cut out.
>
> Cingular and Verizon use entirely different technologies and probably
> use different towers. The quality of Cingular service at your house
> would have no bearing on the quality of Verizon service there.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
July 16, 2004 8:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Actually, from what I understand, Cingular and Verizon use the same service
: here. I'm not quite sure how this works, but I was told that when you travel
: in certain areas, they use shared services, and this area happens to be one.
: Does that sound right?

If you are in a very rural area, you might be using Analog service,
which Cingular and Verizon might share. But Analog service is on its
way out - I think it will be gone in just a few years, replaced by
Digital (so says an FCC rule I believe - no doubt someone else will
post giving the accurate details).

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
July 16, 2004 8:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
: And, you're ignoring the fact that when my brother visits here, his Verizon
: phone works fine. His phone is also an LG, but a different, more expensive
: model with a camera built in.

: Don't you think it's possible that the LG3100 I have is possibly a bad
: design and that's what is causing the reception problem, not the tower,
: location, etc.?

Of course. Not all phones are created equal. Your LG 3100 is also a
dual-band (all digital) phone without Analog service. Perhaps you do
live in a fringe area which uses Analog service, and his phone is a
tri-mode (digital + analog) phone and it can pick up the Analog
service that your phone cannot. And it's possible I suppose that your
old Cingular phone was using Analog, too. But I kinda doubt this.

If you are talking digital service, then no - Cingular and Verizon do
not use the same service. One uses CDMA, one uses GSM and TDMA.

: Don't you think that it's odd that it works fine, or at
: least, a lot better, when it's on the charger. It sounds like this phone has
: a design problem that drains the battery or puts too much of a load on it,
: there for, when it's on the charger, it works.

All I said originally was that Cingular and Verizon do not use the
same (digital) wireless technologies. If you want to compare phones,
you need to compare phones on the same provider. Comparing your
Verizon phone to your old Cingular phone is meaningless (except in the
unlikely case that we are talking about Analog). Comparing your
Verizon phone to your brother's Verizon phone is more meaningful.

FYI, before switching to Verizon from AT&T, I read up on the Nokia
3589i and found it had great reception - one big reason I got it.
I've been very happy with the phone.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 8:33:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Andrew wrote:

> FYI, before switching to Verizon from AT&T, I read up on the Nokia
> 3589i and found it had great reception - one big reason I got it.
> I've been very happy with the phone.

Have fun with your lockups and your random roaming issues.

When Nokia can manage to even half-ass fix their older products, I might
trust their new ones. They should stick to what they know - making SUV
Flippers.

JS
July 17, 2004 2:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
: Andrew wrote:

: > FYI, before switching to Verizon from AT&T, I read up on the Nokia
: > 3589i and found it had great reception - one big reason I got it.
: > I've been very happy with the phone.

: Have fun with your lockups and your random roaming issues.

My Nokia 3589i has been great with Verizon after seven months - no
lockups or random roaming issues here. Just great reception and
battery life. My Verizon service is light years better than AT&T's
TDMA service was.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 6:33:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I still have the old manual for the Nokia 5160 (the one I used all the time
that worked fine here from the same house location)
Tech Info:
freq. band: lowband 824.04-848.97 mhz (TX)
869.04-893.97mhz (RX)
highband 1850.04-1909.92 mhz (TX)
1930.08-1989.96 mhz (RX)
Number of Chanels 832 lowband
1997 highband
Number of NAMs 2
Memory locations 100

Does any of this mean anything insightful? I couldn't find anything in the
manual specifically, is this what is called a dual band?

My brother's phone is an LG VX4400 and mine, again, is an LG3100

Thanks,
*************************************



"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
news:cuuaxczcasd66704645839609@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : And, you're ignoring the fact that when my brother visits here, his
Verizon
> : phone works fine. His phone is also an LG, but a different, more
expensive
> : model with a camera built in.
>
> : Don't you think it's possible that the LG3100 I have is possibly a bad
> : design and that's what is causing the reception problem, not the tower,
> : location, etc.?
>
> Of course. Not all phones are created equal. Your LG 3100 is also a
> dual-band (all digital) phone without Analog service. Perhaps you do
> live in a fringe area which uses Analog service, and his phone is a
> tri-mode (digital + analog) phone and it can pick up the Analog
> service that your phone cannot. And it's possible I suppose that your
> old Cingular phone was using Analog, too. But I kinda doubt this.
>
> If you are talking digital service, then no - Cingular and Verizon do
> not use the same service. One uses CDMA, one uses GSM and TDMA.
>
> : Don't you think that it's odd that it works fine, or at
> : least, a lot better, when it's on the charger. It sounds like this phone
has
> : a design problem that drains the battery or puts too much of a load on
it,
> : there for, when it's on the charger, it works.
>
> All I said originally was that Cingular and Verizon do not use the
> same (digital) wireless technologies. If you want to compare phones,
> you need to compare phones on the same provider. Comparing your
> Verizon phone to your old Cingular phone is meaningless (except in the
> unlikely case that we are talking about Analog). Comparing your
> Verizon phone to your brother's Verizon phone is more meaningful.
>
> FYI, before switching to Verizon from AT&T, I read up on the Nokia
> 3589i and found it had great reception - one big reason I got it.
> I've been very happy with the phone.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
July 17, 2004 6:57:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
: I still have the old manual for the Nokia 5160 (the one I used all the time
: that worked fine here from the same house location)
: Tech Info:
: freq. band: lowband 824.04-848.97 mhz (TX)
: 869.04-893.97mhz (RX)
: highband 1850.04-1909.92 mhz (TX)
: 1930.08-1989.96 mhz (RX)
: Number of Chanels 832 lowband
: 1997 highband
: Number of NAMs 2
: Memory locations 100

: Does any of this mean anything insightful? I couldn't find anything in the
: manual specifically, is this what is called a dual band?

Technically your 5160 is a tri-band (TDMA 1900MHZ, TDA 800MHZ, and Analog).
But again, TDMA is completely different from Verizon's CDMA
technology. See

http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/5160/1,1761,,00.html

TDMA and CDMA don't use the same towers - like VHS and Beta if you
know what I mean.

: My brother's phone is an LG VX4400 and mine, again, is an LG3100

I think the VX4400 is a tri-mode phone. So his phone gets Analog and
yours doesn't. Next time he comes over, see if you can determine
whether it's operating in the analog bands often. If so, that could
be your problem (still, I doubt it). Or, see if he can force the
VX4400 into digital-only mode and see if his service gets worse.

I think the most likely bet is that your LG 3100 isn't a very good
phone for reception.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 8:09:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 16 Jul 2004 16:23:13 GMT, usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
>: Actually, from what I understand, Cingular and Verizon use the same service
>: here. I'm not quite sure how this works, but I was told that when you travel
>: in certain areas, they use shared services, and this area happens to be one.
>: Does that sound right?
>
>If you are in a very rural area, you might be using Analog service,
>which Cingular and Verizon might share. But Analog service is on its
>way out - I think it will be gone in just a few years, replaced by
>Digital (so says an FCC rule I believe - no doubt someone else will
>post giving the accurate details).

You are correct that Cingular and Verizon can only share towers in analog,
but it's pretty damned unlikely unless both of them are roaming on a third
carrier.

The FCC has ordered that all existing analog service remain until, IIRC,
February, 2008, a date which might change in either direction. After that,
the carriers are free to take it down or leave it up as they wish.

--
David 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.
"4077th MASH, what'd I do wrong now?" - Klinger
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 8:17:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:58:31 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>Andrew wrote:
>
>> FYI, before switching to Verizon from AT&T, I read up on the Nokia
>> 3589i and found it had great reception - one big reason I got it.
>> I've been very happy with the phone.
>
>Have fun with your lockups and your random roaming issues.

Are you basing that on experience with that specific model or only older
ones?

>When Nokia can manage to even half-ass fix their older products, I might
>trust their new ones. They should stick to what they know - making SUV
>Flippers.

Obviously, the older phones were of inferior design. It escapes me how you
expect them to fix an old phone when the problem with it is poor design,
especially if they no longer make it. People are saying the 3589i is a good
phone, so don't you think it's *possible* that Nokia has, in fact, figured
out how to make a good CDMA phone?

BTW, I do not have a Nokia phone, I just don't get your logic.

--
David 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.
"Frank, it's after six o'clock, you can stop being snotty." - Henry Blake
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 8:17:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

David S wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:58:31 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
> everything:
>
>
>>Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
>>>FYI, before switching to Verizon from AT&T, I read up on the Nokia
>>>3589i and found it had great reception - one big reason I got it.
>>>I've been very happy with the phone.
>>
>>Have fun with your lockups and your random roaming issues.
>
>
> Are you basing that on experience with that specific model or only older
> ones?

Older units. If you sell me junk once, you're automatically demoted to
the back of the list. I was never offered a software update (beyond "go
update your roaming list by dialing *228" - which didn't help...)

>>When Nokia can manage to even half-ass fix their older products, I might
>>trust their new ones. They should stick to what they know - making SUV
>>Flippers.
>
>
> Obviously, the older phones were of inferior design. It escapes me how you
> expect them to fix an old phone when the problem with it is poor design,
> especially if they no longer make it. People are saying the 3589i is a good
> phone, so don't you think it's *possible* that Nokia has, in fact, figured
> out how to make a good CDMA phone?

It wasn't just the fact they were inferior - they were BROKEN and
between vzw and nokia the answer was either "dial *228" (GTE
Mobilenet/VZW) or "its the carrier" (Nokia).

> BTW, I do not have a Nokia phone, I just don't get your logic.

The issue is they fully knew the phones were *SCREWED* before they even
shipped them. The fact they allowed themselves to ship garbage left me
not trusting them at all. I was equally angry at GTE Mobilenet for
selling me the phone. It cost them my usage for a year (I went to ATTWS
and DAMN did I ever screw up) while I struggled trying to actually find
service on AT&T's scarce and Cingular's piss poor network in southeast
Texas.

JS
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 3:31:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 17 Jul 2004 02:57:10 GMT, usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew)
wrote:
>TDMA and CDMA don't use the same towers - like VHS and Beta if you
>know what I mean.

TDMA and CDMA could use the same towers, just like you could buy VHS and
Beta in the same stores. I think you meant to say they can't use the
same transmitters. But you certainly could have two different carriers
using two different technologies with separate antennas renting space on
the same tower.

A tower used by Verizon near my house has five (5) sets of antennas, and
they're mounted in at least two different orientations. There's no way
that Verizon needs all 5 sets of antennas. There's probably multiple
carriers on that tower, so there could be a mix of CDMA and TDMA.
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 7:40:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

OK, Andrew, thanks for your help.
Next time he comes down, I'll see what happens.
************************************


"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
news:zcasdaxcrkrhjfy114203839609@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : I still have the old manual for the Nokia 5160 (the one I used all the
time
> : that worked fine here from the same house location)
> : Tech Info:
> : freq. band: lowband 824.04-848.97 mhz (TX)
> : 869.04-893.97mhz (RX)
> : highband 1850.04-1909.92 mhz (TX)
> : 1930.08-1989.96 mhz (RX)
> : Number of Chanels 832 lowband
> : 1997 highband
> : Number of NAMs 2
> : Memory locations 100
>
> : Does any of this mean anything insightful? I couldn't find anything in
the
> : manual specifically, is this what is called a dual band?
>
> Technically your 5160 is a tri-band (TDMA 1900MHZ, TDA 800MHZ, and
Analog).
> But again, TDMA is completely different from Verizon's CDMA
> technology. See
>
> http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/5160/1,1761,,00.html
>
> TDMA and CDMA don't use the same towers - like VHS and Beta if you
> know what I mean.
>
> : My brother's phone is an LG VX4400 and mine, again, is an LG3100
>
> I think the VX4400 is a tri-mode phone. So his phone gets Analog and
> yours doesn't. Next time he comes over, see if you can determine
> whether it's operating in the analog bands often. If so, that could
> be your problem (still, I doubt it). Or, see if he can force the
> VX4400 into digital-only mode and see if his service gets worse.
>
> I think the most likely bet is that your LG 3100 isn't a very good
> phone for reception.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 7:50:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

By the way... I may have to bite the bullet and just take Verizon's offer of
$50 towards a new, different model/make of phone as a hopefull solution.

Does anyone have any known reviews or test information on what might be the
best, but least expensive, phone that Verizon currantly sells, that would
have the best reception? I don't need any bells and whistles...cameras,
color, etc.
Is one brand, say Motorola, supposed to be better then another, etc.?
Thanks,

************************



"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
news:zcasdaxcrkrhjfy114203839609@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
> Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : I still have the old manual for the Nokia 5160 (the one I used all the
time
> : that worked fine here from the same house location)
> : Tech Info:
> : freq. band: lowband 824.04-848.97 mhz (TX)
> : 869.04-893.97mhz (RX)
> : highband 1850.04-1909.92 mhz (TX)
> : 1930.08-1989.96 mhz (RX)
> : Number of Chanels 832 lowband
> : 1997 highband
> : Number of NAMs 2
> : Memory locations 100
>
> : Does any of this mean anything insightful? I couldn't find anything in
the
> : manual specifically, is this what is called a dual band?
>
> Technically your 5160 is a tri-band (TDMA 1900MHZ, TDA 800MHZ, and
Analog).
> But again, TDMA is completely different from Verizon's CDMA
> technology. See
>
> http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/5160/1,1761,,00.html
>
> TDMA and CDMA don't use the same towers - like VHS and Beta if you
> know what I mean.
>
> : My brother's phone is an LG VX4400 and mine, again, is an LG3100
>
> I think the VX4400 is a tri-mode phone. So his phone gets Analog and
> yours doesn't. Next time he comes over, see if you can determine
> whether it's operating in the analog bands often. If so, that could
> be your problem (still, I doubt it). Or, see if he can force the
> VX4400 into digital-only mode and see if his service gets worse.
>
> I think the most likely bet is that your LG 3100 isn't a very good
> phone for reception.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>
July 17, 2004 8:10:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Doane <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
: By the way... I may have to bite the bullet and just take Verizon's offer of
: $50 towards a new, different model/make of phone as a hopefull solution.

: Does anyone have any known reviews or test information on what might be the
: best, but least expensive, phone that Verizon currantly sells, that would
: have the best reception? I don't need any bells and whistles...cameras,
: color, etc.

Well...I love my Nokia 3589i. Great reception. It's also an
entry-level phone without too many bells or whistles.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 8:45:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:50:14 GMT, "Doane" <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Is one brand, say Motorola, supposed to be better then another, etc.?
>Thanks,

I have found Motorola to be pretty darn fragile. I used my T720 in normal
usage, not anything unusual that is, and had it fail in about 6 months. The
repair center said "customer abuse" and "liquid damage". This should not have
happened with the usage I gave it. Motorola's have poor warranties and fragile
equipment that seems particularly sensitive to moisture.

Get an insurance policy on it. According to a salesman at Circuit City that I
talked to last night, Verizon has a $5 a month insurance offer that replaces
the phone if you lose it, its damaged in any way, its stolen, etc. I'm going
to investigate that this afternoon.

Dave Head
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 8:45:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Dave Head wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:50:14 GMT, "Doane" <doane.hoag@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Is one brand, say Motorola, supposed to be better then another, etc.?
>>Thanks,
>
>
> I have found Motorola to be pretty darn fragile. I used my T720 in normal
> usage, not anything unusual that is, and had it fail in about 6 months. The
> repair center said "customer abuse" and "liquid damage". This should not have
> happened with the usage I gave it. Motorola's have poor warranties and fragile
> equipment that seems particularly sensitive to moisture.
>
> Get an insurance policy on it. According to a salesman at Circuit City that I
> talked to last night, Verizon has a $5 a month insurance offer that replaces
> the phone if you lose it, its damaged in any way, its stolen, etc. I'm going
> to investigate that this afternoon.
>
> Dave Head

I'll include my bit here...

My v120e went totally apeshit a few weeks ago.. nothing would work.

Ended up being a mangled data connector. Do note I only use a REAL
MOTOROLA BRANDED DATA CABLE and three MOTOROLA BRANDED CHARGERS.

Piss poor connector is what it is, and I see the trash spreads from the
C343, V120 and V60's... unacceptable.

JS
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 2:12:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Simply not true. Cingular in California is all 1900 GSM (formerly Pac
Bell Mobile). Verizon in California is all 800 CDMA & 800 Analog
(formerly GTE Wireless). No overlap, no sharing of network. But both
can (and do) sometimes have independent cell sites mounted on the same
tower or building.

It is true that T-Mobile shares Cingular's 1900 GSM network in
California, though this will change after Cingular acquires ATTWS in 2005.

Doane wrote:

> Actually, from what I understand, Cingular and Verizon use the same service
> here. I'm not quite sure how this works, but I was told that when you travel
> in certain areas, they use shared services, and this area happens to be one.
> Does that sound right?
>

--
Frank Harris in San Francisco
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 10:14:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <cdq6no$r8m$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>,
Frank Harris <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote:
>Simply not true. Cingular in California is all 1900 GSM (formerly Pac
>Bell Mobile). Verizon in California is all 800 CDMA & 800 Analog
>(formerly GTE Wireless). No overlap, no sharing of network. But both
>can (and do) sometimes have independent cell sites mounted on the same
>tower or building.
>
>It is true that T-Mobile shares Cingular's 1900 GSM network in
>California, though this will change after Cingular acquires ATTWS in 2005.

In California, T-Mobile uses the Cingular infrastucture. After the
acquisition, Cingular customers will be moved to the current AT&T GSM
network, which will be renamed to be Cingular, and T-Mobile will get
the current Cingular infrastructure. Not to be confused with the new,
totally unrelated AT&T Corporation wireless venture, which will have no
infrastructure of its own, and will resell SprintPCS.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 9:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

HELP!!! :~)
***************
"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
news:cdrkhr22s2s@news1.newsguy.com...
> In article <cdq6no$r8m$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>,
> Frank Harris <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote:
> >Simply not true. Cingular in California is all 1900 GSM (formerly Pac
> >Bell Mobile). Verizon in California is all 800 CDMA & 800 Analog
> >(formerly GTE Wireless). No overlap, no sharing of network. But both
> >can (and do) sometimes have independent cell sites mounted on the same
> >tower or building.
> >
> >It is true that T-Mobile shares Cingular's 1900 GSM network in
> >California, though this will change after Cingular acquires ATTWS in
2005.
>
> In California, T-Mobile uses the Cingular infrastucture. After the
> acquisition, Cingular customers will be moved to the current AT&T GSM
> network, which will be renamed to be Cingular, and T-Mobile will get
> the current Cingular infrastructure. Not to be confused with the new,
> totally unrelated AT&T Corporation wireless venture, which will have no
> infrastructure of its own, and will resell SprintPCS.
>
!