Dropped ATT for Verizon

[Guest]

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

Not that it is a big deal, but I just grew weary of ATT's bad coverage
(GSM in the Washington, DC, area, and southern Maryland suburbs),
atrocious customer service (overseas reps who spoke poor English) and
the snotty and unhelpful attitude of ATT-owned store personnel.

I'd been an ATT Wireless customer for around seven years.

Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
least in my area.

HK

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.

I live in Fredericksburg, VA and go to the DC area quite often (was up
there this morning). I have great reception all around the DC area
including Northern VA and suburban MD (wife's family lives in Wheaton,
MD).

Welcome to Verizon. If you have questions, just ask and we'll try to
help.

Dave

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.

Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
the DC area.

-- Larry

 

[Guest]

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

pltrgyst wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
> <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>>least in my area.
>
> Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
> and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
> the DC area.
>
> -- Larry
>

I've found ATT's GSM "weak" in many of the office buildings I visit, and
in those same buildings, the Verizon CDMA works. Also, Verizon seems to
work in many underground METRO stations. Finally, where I live, adjacent
to Chesapeake Bay, ATT's signals are sketchy, but the Verizon signal is
present.

 

[Guest]

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

I don't have ATT GSM [yet] - have been holding off as it's my
understanding that they have a [ long ? ] way to go in building out
their GSM network.

QE
============


On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:07:29 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

|pltrgyst wrote:
|> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
|> <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>
|>>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in
the
|>>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
|>>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
|>>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless,
at
|>>least in my area.
|>
|> Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and
have both ATT
|> and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance
anywhere in
|> the DC area.
|>
|> -- Larry
|>
|
|I've found ATT's GSM "weak" in many of the office buildings I visit,
and
|in those same buildings, the Verizon CDMA works. Also, Verizon seems
to
|work in many underground METRO stations. Finally, where I live,
adjacent
|to Chesapeake Bay, ATT's signals are sketchy, but the Verizon signal
is
|present.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <2lq5r5FfflonU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Harry Krause <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
>pltrgyst wrote:
>I've found ATT's GSM "weak" in many of the office buildings I visit, and
>in those same buildings, the Verizon CDMA works. Also, Verizon seems to
>work in many underground METRO stations.

Given that Verizon has had antennas in the Metro tunnels for quite a few
years, having coverage in Metro is not suprising. They are now digital.
They were required to share the analog system with the other cellular
provider, but that doesn't help GSM users, who don't have analog.

Do non-AMPS non-CDMA users have any coverage in the D.C. Metro tunnels?

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:45:20 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
><piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>>least in my area.
>
>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>the DC area.

Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?

--
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.
"Well, I'm sorry. We live in a world with heterosexuals. There are a lot of
them and they created us, God bless them." - Boy George, on complaints
about the heterosexual love story at the heart of his autobiographical
musical, 'Taboo.'

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
wrote:

>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>>the DC area.
>
>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?

Yes. 8 One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.

-- Larry

 

[Guest]

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

"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> wrote in message
news:dflif093as0kithsjmtmgtd43sast5muna@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have
both ATT
> >>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance
anywhere in
> >>the DC area.
> >
> >Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
>
> Yes. 8 One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.
>
> -- Larry
>

Strange, I always heard Verizon was CDMA, and doesn't have GSM nor sell or
support GSM phones. Don't see how it can possibly be a Verizon.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:40 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>>>the DC area.
>>
>>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
>
>Yes. 8 One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.

A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.

B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

--
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.
"Cigars and golf--they're not just a habit, they're a lifestyle."
- slogan of the Cigar Smoking Golfers Association

 

[Guest]

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

David S wrote:

> A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
>
> B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

"maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)

I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
charges.

It felt dirty

JS

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:49:19 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:40 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
>chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>everything:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have both ATT
>>>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance anywhere in
>>>>the DC area.
>>>
>>>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
>>
>>Yes. 8 One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.
>
>A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.

And I answered: one of each. The one my wife uses is TDMA (SmartTac), the one I
use is GSM (Ericsson T618).

>B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

Correct. That was an error on my part, sorry. I ported that number from an ATT
GSM account (which was not easy, and took over three weeks).

-- Larry

 

[Guest]

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

"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> wrote in message
news:hp7jf0112b0g4smoob65h83i1t57j7edef@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:49:19 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:40 -0400, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org>
> >chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
> >everything:
> >
> >>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:23:54 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Interesting. I live in Alexandria, well inside the Beltway, and have
both ATT
> >>>>and Verizon -- and I don't see any difference in their performance
anywhere in
> >>>>the DC area.
> >>>
> >>>Is your ATT phone TDMA or GSM?
> >>
> >>Yes. 8 One of each. The Verizon phone is GSM.
> >
> >A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
>
> And I answered: one of each. The one my wife uses is TDMA (SmartTac), the
one I
> use is GSM (Ericsson T618).
>
> >B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
> Correct. That was an error on my part, sorry. I ported that number from an
ATT
> GSM account (which was not easy, and took over three weeks).
>
> -- Larry
>

Actually, now that I think about it, you may actually be in the only part of
the country where verizon even has GSM sites. On embassy row in Wash DC they
run GSM sites for the ambassadorial staff to be able to use their GSM phones
on verizon... No idea how far away you are from there though, and Verizon
does not sell phones or provide service that work on GSM phones outside
those areas (they just provide GSM on verizon for diplomats). (I hear they
do the same near the United Nations too, but have no idea where). The first
part of B above may have to be modified

Don't you just love exceptions

 

[Andrew]

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

Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
: David S wrote:

: > A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
: >
: > B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.

: "maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)

: I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
: made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
: charges.

Sounds like it would be possible if you use analog only (you can after
all do 911 from any phone to any carrier), and if Verizon has roaming
agreements for the analog, you wouldn't get charged for roaming. But,
you can't use GSM or TDMA on a CDMA system - analog only.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Andrew wrote:

> Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
> : David S wrote:
>
> : > A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
> : >
> : > B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
> : "maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)
>
> : I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
> : made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
> : charges.
>
> Sounds like it would be possible if you use analog only (you can after
> all do 911 from any phone to any carrier), and if Verizon has roaming
> agreements for the analog, you wouldn't get charged for roaming. But,
> you can't use GSM or TDMA on a CDMA system - analog only.

Of course. It was analog only here in VZW-only turf (cingular couldn't
be bothered to maintain their tower here). When I drove toward AT&T
service it hopped right onto their TDMA network ([D] on the screen) and
worked just as you'd expect a roaming TDMA call to work.

Its pretty sad that CDMA phones weren't designed to handle TDMA
fallback, at least. The CDMA handset's signal processor could handle a
TDMA call easily with the correct programming. A native TDMA chipset
handling a CDMA call would be impossible...

JS

 

[Guest]

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

A 911 call can not be made from any phone to any carrier. The
different protocols are all mutually exclusive, by definition. A Sprint
PCS phone and a tmobile phone can not make calls on each other's system.
Some (or is it all) tmobile phones and some Sprint PCS phones, I think
some verizon phones now too, can not make an analog call. An analog
call can not be made on a CDMA, tdma or gsm system. However, while some
carriers operate both a digital and an analog system, they do have areas
where all they offer is digital and there may be no other analog signal
available, so if you have an analog only phone, you would not be able to
make any calls, even 911.


Andrew wrote:

> Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
> : David S wrote:
>
> : > A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
> : >
> : > B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
> : "maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)
>
> : I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
> : made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
> : charges.
>
> Sounds like it would be possible if you use analog only (you can after
> all do 911 from any phone to any carrier), and if Verizon has roaming
> agreements for the analog, you wouldn't get charged for roaming. But,
> you can't use GSM or TDMA on a CDMA system - analog only.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>

 

[carole]

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

Killer Madness wrote:

> The T730 doesn't even get 3 hours talk time. That alone I would assume deter
> some one from buying it or spending an money on getting one. Did you know
> the Sony Ericsson gets 9 hour talk time and 12.5 days standby??? That's
> right...if a phone is designed correctly and right, talk times that high are
> very easy. Moto on the other hand knows they make millions on battery sales,
> so there you go. Corporate fat greed takes over.
>
> I still can't believe it...9 hour talk time.

Wow, 9 hours!! I have to get a new phone. I've never had a Sony
Ericsson, only Nokias. Which models do you recommend? I'd like something
more up to date than what I have now, preferable tri-band as I travel to
Europe a lot.

 

[Guest]

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

Mee too about a week ago . Much better signal in Atlanta too . I

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Not that it is a big deal, but I just grew weary of ATT's bad coverage
>(GSM in the Washington, DC, area, and southern Maryland suburbs),
>atrocious customer service (overseas reps who spoke poor English) and
>the snotty and unhelpful attitude of ATT-owned store personnel.
>
>I'd been an ATT Wireless customer for around seven years.
>
>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.
>
>HK

 

[Guest]

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

Carole wrote:
>
> Killer Madness wrote:
>
>> The T730 doesn't even get 3 hours talk time. That alone I would assume deter
>> some one from buying it or spending an money on getting one. Did you know
>> the Sony Ericsson gets 9 hour talk time and 12.5 days standby??? That's
>> right...if a phone is designed correctly and right, talk times that high are
>> very easy. Moto on the other hand knows they make millions on battery sales,
>> so there you go. Corporate fat greed takes over.
>>
>> I still can't believe it...9 hour talk time.
>
> Wow, 9 hours!! I have to get a new phone. I've never had a Sony
> Ericsson, only Nokias. Which models do you recommend? I'd like something
> more up to date than what I have now, preferable tri-band as I travel to
> Europe a lot.
>
>


If your life is such that you think you need nine hours of "talktime" on
a cell phone between recharges...

Many of simply use cellphones as a personal or business convenience, and
have the minimal monthly time plan. I do. I have 400 minutes a month.
Most months, I don't use 400 minutes.

Standby time is worthwhile, though. Five such days seems sufficent.

To each his/her own.

 

[carole]

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

Harry Krause wrote:

> If your life is such that you think you need nine hours of "talktime" on
> a cell phone between recharges...

I don't but I often forget to re-charge the dumb thing as I don't use it
that often. So the longer life would be nicer than what I have now.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:06:30 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>David S wrote:
>
>> A: I asked what your *ATT* phone was.
>>
>> B: Your Verizon *cannot* be GSM. A GSM phone will not work on Verizon.
>
>"maybe". Do GSM phones still have ESNs (or well do the SIM Cards?)
>
>I've activated my TDMA phone (panasonic duramax) on vzw, and actually
>made calls off TDMA systems (AT&T, system is in the PRL) without roaming
>charges.

Okay, so you programmed your ATT TDMA phone with your VZW account
information and went online at VZW and activated this phone. Sounds like
you were still using the ATT (or its roaming partners) towers but your
calls were billed to your VZW account.

>It felt dirty

You rotten, cheating scum...

--
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.
"Such is the power of child nagging that some parents are, incredibly,
still getting through to the toys. So the Institute of Defensive Packaging
is working on a new system: Soon, toys will be immobilized inside Lucite
blocks, like giant paperweights, so the child can only look at them and cry
while the parent checks the Yellow Pages under 'Acetylene Torch Rental.'
Homes will burn down; people will die. But that is the price a society pays
for safe packaging." - Dave Barry

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:38:40 -0700, Carole <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>Harry Krause wrote:
>
>> If your life is such that you think you need nine hours of "talktime" on
>> a cell phone between recharges...
>
>I don't but I often forget to re-charge the dumb thing as I don't use it
>that often. So the longer life would be nicer than what I have now.

That's all well and good, but the source of this claim is a well-known
troll -- take his comments with a pound of salt.

--
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.
"Dr. Atkins' discovery meant that -- incredible though it seemed -- as long
as you avoided carbohydrates, you could, without guilt, eat high-fat,
high-calorie foods such as cheese, bacon, lard, pork rinds and whale. You
could eat an entire pig, as long as the pig had not recently been exposed
to bread." - Dave Barry

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:00:49 -0400, "Killer Madness"
<killermo@cnet.com> wrote:

>The T730 doesn't even get 3 hours talk time. That alone I would assume deter
>some one from buying it or spending an money on getting one. Did you know
>the Sony Ericsson gets 9 hour talk time and 12.5 days standby??? That's
>right...if a phone is designed correctly and right, talk times that high are
>very easy. Moto on the other hand knows they make millions on battery sales,
>so there you go. Corporate fat greed takes over.
>
>I still can't believe it...9 hour talk time.

Sez you. Any proof ??

 

[Guest]

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

Me too in Atlanta. I pay more but what a difference
in coverage . ( VZW in Atlanta is mostly 850 mhz)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:51:42 -0400, Harry Krause


<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Not that it is a big deal, but I just grew weary of ATT's bad coverage
>(GSM in the Washington, DC, area, and southern Maryland suburbs),
>atrocious customer service (overseas reps who spoke poor English) and
>the snotty and unhelpful attitude of ATT-owned store personnel.
>
>I'd been an ATT Wireless customer for around seven years.
>
>Last week, I switched to Verizon, which has much better signals in the
>areas of Washington, DC, metro region I frequent, better customer
>service, and really helpful people in their stores. I don't expect
>perfection from Verizon, but it sure is better than ATT Wireless, at
>least in my area.
>
>HK

 

[Guest]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <wvGQc.3199$yh.1873@fed1read05> on Fri, 6 Aug 2004 00:33:49 -0700,
"Halogen8" <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:

>It really doesnt matter if a technology is supperior on paper. It all comes
>down to real world experience. ...

Amen. Worth repeating.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>