Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Verizon Aggressivley Promoting and FORCING PRL Updates (*2..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 6:38:17 AM

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

I talked to VZW customer service and she told me I need to do a PRL
update and that I hadn't done one since June 22.

Also another VZW customer has reported a forced over the air update
WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE. Apparently this person sets their phone to
Sprint PCS during the day, since there is a poor Verizon signal at his
work. Changing lock codes does not prevent these unsolicited PRL
updates. Nor is the phone even a current model. A MOT 270, IIRC. Seems
to be network controlled, and not a function of some newer phone model
software.
Apparently those of us who set their phones to SPCS roaming for long
periods get their account flagged and then the PRL is automatically
updated by Verizon. There _may_ be some advanced progamming tricks to
bypass the loss of a preffered roaming partner, but Verizon is very
aware of exactly who is setting their phones to roam on SPCS/partners
and even the bottom tier CS knows exactly when a customer last did a
PRL update.

Auto PRL updates can't be far away, but I assume there is some
technical manpower involved, so they are asking for *228 first and
then forcing a PRL update, starting with high cost roaming accounts.
Just a heads up.

-
David
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 9:05:22 PM

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

On 12 Oct 2004 02:38:17 -0700, David L wrote:

> I talked to VZW customer service and she told me I need to do a PRL
> update and that I hadn't done one since June 22.
>
> Also another VZW customer has reported a forced over the air update
> WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE. Apparently this person sets their phone to
> Sprint PCS during the day, since there is a poor Verizon signal at his
> work. Changing lock codes does not prevent these unsolicited PRL
> updates. Nor is the phone even a current model. A MOT 270, IIRC. Seems
> to be network controlled, and not a function of some newer phone model
> software.
> Apparently those of us who set their phones to SPCS roaming for long
> periods get their account flagged and then the PRL is automatically
> updated by Verizon. There _may_ be some advanced progamming tricks to
> bypass the loss of a preffered roaming partner, but Verizon is very
> aware of exactly who is setting their phones to roam on SPCS/partners
> and even the bottom tier CS knows exactly when a customer last did a
> PRL update.
>
> Auto PRL updates can't be far away, but I assume there is some
> technical manpower involved, so they are asking for *228 first and
> then forcing a PRL update, starting with high cost roaming accounts.
> Just a heads up.
>
> -
> David

That's why I keep a PRL file archive list for my phone, along with software
to reload which one I want back into the phone.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 9:42:28 PM

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

Alltel has been "pushing" PRL updates since June in my area. Phones
as old as the StarTAC 7868W update silently when the network pushes
out the new PRL. The only way you can tell it happened is by checking
the roaming list version in your phone and noticing the change. Of
couse if something radical changes in the PRL, you may notice your
phone behaving differently, but usually the changes are small. I'm
sure that Verizon will push out updates ASAP since most people never
dial *228 and update it themselves.

royc

davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) wrote in message news:<e1705cb3.0410120138.185bed79@posting.google.com>...
> I talked to VZW customer service and she told me I need to do a PRL
> update and that I hadn't done one since June 22.
>
> Also another VZW customer has reported a forced over the air update
> WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE. Apparently this person sets their phone to
> Sprint PCS during the day, since there is a poor Verizon signal at his
> work. Changing lock codes does not prevent these unsolicited PRL
> updates. Nor is the phone even a current model. A MOT 270, IIRC. Seems
> to be network controlled, and not a function of some newer phone model
> software.
> Apparently those of us who set their phones to SPCS roaming for long
> periods get their account flagged and then the PRL is automatically
> updated by Verizon. There _may_ be some advanced progamming tricks to
> bypass the loss of a preffered roaming partner, but Verizon is very
> aware of exactly who is setting their phones to roam on SPCS/partners
> and even the bottom tier CS knows exactly when a customer last did a
> PRL update.
>
> Auto PRL updates can't be far away, but I assume there is some
> technical manpower involved, so they are asking for *228 first and
> then forcing a PRL update, starting with high cost roaming accounts.
> Just a heads up.
>
> -
> David
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 13, 2004 8:10:33 AM

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

What's the big deal with getting an updated PRL? Isn't it better to
reduce roaming charges? Or am I naive enough to have beleive what I
have been told by Verizon?

TC


On 12 Oct 2004 02:38:17 -0700, davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) wrote:

>I talked to VZW customer service and she told me I need to do a PRL
>update and that I hadn't done one since June 22.
>
>Also another VZW customer has reported a forced over the air update
>WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE. Apparently this person sets their phone to
>Sprint PCS during the day, since there is a poor Verizon signal at his
>work. Changing lock codes does not prevent these unsolicited PRL
>updates. Nor is the phone even a current model. A MOT 270, IIRC. Seems
>to be network controlled, and not a function of some newer phone model
>software.
>Apparently those of us who set their phones to SPCS roaming for long
>periods get their account flagged and then the PRL is automatically
>updated by Verizon. There _may_ be some advanced progamming tricks to
>bypass the loss of a preffered roaming partner, but Verizon is very
>aware of exactly who is setting their phones to roam on SPCS/partners
>and even the bottom tier CS knows exactly when a customer last did a
>PRL update.
>
>Auto PRL updates can't be far away, but I assume there is some
>technical manpower involved, so they are asking for *228 first and
>then forcing a PRL update, starting with high cost roaming accounts.
>Just a heads up.
>
>-
>David
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 8:03:10 PM

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

x-no-archive:yes
>from: TC fake@fake.fak:

"... What's the big deal with getting an updated PRL? Isn't it better to
reduce roaming charges? Or am I naive enough to have beleive what I
have been told by Verizon?..."

"Generally" you are correct. However, VZW has removed some Roaming parters (&
added others), over the last couple of years, & there are isolated cases where
an Extended partner was removed from the PRL, causing some people to lose
receive at specific places where they live, travel or work.
Sprint, for example, was removed from the PRL about 2 yrs ago from many areas,
including NY/NJ & LA. While VZW has excellent networks there, there's no doubt
a few isolated places where Sprint has a signal & VZW doesn't, so someone
living / working in these spots would be able to place a call w/the "old" PRL
but not the current.
At this point though, a 2yr old PRL would be a big detriment to overall
national coverage as a whole......
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 12:16:02 AM

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

ADVANSPEC wrote:

> Sprint, for example, was removed from the PRL about 2 yrs ago from many areas,
> including NY/NJ & LA. While VZW has excellent networks there, there's no doubt
> a few isolated places where Sprint has a signal & VZW doesn't

YES YES YES

The Sycamore Rocks subdivision of Apple Valley, California, for example.
(That's where I live. Literally just a mile or so outside the edge of Verizon
coverage! My Verizon phone only worked sometimes. My Sprint phone works
consistently.)

Had a similar problem where I lived up until last year, too, in Mentor on the
Lake, Ohio. Verizon coverage along Lake Shore Boulevard was also spotty there,
until they beefed up coverage. Meanwhile, Sprint owns the tower at Reynolds and
Lake Shore (tower location verified at SprintSitesUSA.com) two minutes from my
old house. :)  I don't think it's an issue anymore, as they made some big
improvements in coverage along the lake just before I moved here.

--
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
October 15, 2004 5:46:30 PM

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

TC <fake@fake.fak> wrote in
news:9kapm0p1pk07g6n2tdee51739dvte3e8fk@4ax.com:

> What's the big deal with getting an updated PRL? Isn't it better to
> reduce roaming charges? Or am I naive enough to have beleive what I
> have been told by Verizon?
>
> TC
>
I believe the correct term would be "denial of service" as the PRLs on all
carriers constantly seem to be shrinking the systems the phones will
continue to attach themselves to......reducing the service you receive for
your money.....

PRLs and digital telephones were all about making the companies more money,
not giving the consumer better service....from day one.
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 12:07:12 AM

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

In article <Xns9583638AF5A54w4csc@63.223.5.244>,
Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
>PRLs and digital telephones were all about making the companies more money,
>not giving the consumer better service....from day one.

Or, to say it with the opposite spin, PRLs allow the providers to more
cheaply provide service by directing you to roaming partners with whom
they have more favorable roaming aggreements, thus keeping down their
costs, and permitting them (if they so chose) to offer the service at
a lower price.
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 1:47:40 PM

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

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:07:12 +0000, CharlesH wrote:

> In article <Xns9583638AF5A54w4csc@63.223.5.244>, Larry W4CSC
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>PRLs and digital telephones were all about making the companies more
>>money, not giving the consumer better service....from day one.
>
> Or, to say it with the opposite spin, PRLs allow the providers to more
> cheaply provide service by directing you to roaming partners with whom
> they have more favorable roaming aggreements, thus keeping down their
> costs, and permitting them (if they so chose) to offer the service at a
> lower price.

As I understand, the P in PRL stands for Preferred. A true PRL would
not prevent the phone from connecting to another carrier when that is
the only signal available. Especially if the location is within the
published coverage map. If the PRL forces the phone to NO SVC when in
fact a signal is available, then it is mislabeled.

--
Chuck Forsberg caf@omen.com www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 8:17:09 PM

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

hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote in
news:Q5Wbd.30870$QJ3.25694@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> In article <Xns9583638AF5A54w4csc@63.223.5.244>,
> Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>PRLs and digital telephones were all about making the companies more
>>money, not giving the consumer better service....from day one.
>
> Or, to say it with the opposite spin, PRLs allow the providers to more
> cheaply provide service by directing you to roaming partners with whom
> they have more favorable roaming aggreements, thus keeping down their
> costs, and permitting them (if they so chose) to offer the service at
> a lower price.
>
>
Not in Charleston, SC. PRLs used to include Alltel and Sprint PCS CDMA
systems. The phones roamed in many major areas over to Alltel or Sprint
because even in the parking lot of a shopping center your call was better
if you were STANDING OUTSIDE YOUR CAR.

In those same areas, today, with new VZW PRLs, the phones simply say "NO
SERVICE", even though you can see the Sprint PCS CDMA tower less than 400
yards from your car.

PRL changes in SC were simply a way to ELIMINATE in-market roaming....plain
and simple.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 1:30:05 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:47:40 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
<caf@omen.com> wrote:

>As I understand, the P in PRL stands for Preferred. A true PRL would
>not prevent the phone from connecting to another carrier when that is
>the only signal available. Especially if the location is within the
>published coverage map. If the PRL forces the phone to NO SVC when in
>fact a signal is available, then it is mislabeled.

With Alltel, in NC on I77 near the VA border, the phone will get SID
1522, Carolina West Wireless, which is not in the Prl as I see it.

So, in that case, your understancing is correct.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 2:27:08 AM

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

A good example of why the PRL benefits Verison and not the customer.

When Sprint roaming was removed from the PRL a couple of years ago, Carolina
West was programmed as the perferred roaming partner in their 3-4 county
coverage area. Carolina West at the time was a TDMA carrier and so you
roamned on analog there, even though there was a good Sprint digital signal
available in many of those areas.

Within the last 6 months, Carolina West turned on CDMA finally and so now
you get digial roaming in this area of NC.

I go tired of waiting with erizon's enforced analog roaming with the lower
battery life and lack of features and I switched to Cingular.

Another good example is central and eastern KY and the lack of digital A/C
coverage. There is coverage but it is analog on Bulegrass cellular (another
TDMA carrier). Who knows when Bluegrass will change over to CDMA.

Obviosuly this does not affect you if you do not ever travel in KY or NC but
it is very frusrating for those that do with A/C plan.
"GeorgeB" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:8li3n09mm7kpjnd0k9ge08nrcr52kt22ok@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:47:40 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
> <caf@omen.com> wrote:
>
>>As I understand, the P in PRL stands for Preferred. A true PRL would
>>not prevent the phone from connecting to another carrier when that is
>>the only signal available. Especially if the location is within the
>>published coverage map. If the PRL forces the phone to NO SVC when in
>>fact a signal is available, then it is mislabeled.
>
> With Alltel, in NC on I77 near the VA border, the phone will get SID
> 1522, Carolina West Wireless, which is not in the Prl as I see it.
>
> So, in that case, your understancing is correct.
>
!