Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who will VZW buy?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
November 24, 2004 12:02:53 AM

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

With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
have any idea if something like that will happen?

Is it likely that VZW will continue to battle Cingular and AT&T on its
own with partnerships or do you think they will make a big purchase?

Who would be a likely candidate for VZW to buy that would provide the
type of coverage that could help VZW?

Just looking for opinions here. I know there are probably no absolute
answers that anyone can provide on the group, but it's an interesting
topic.

More about : vzw buy

Anonymous
November 24, 2004 12:04:50 AM

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

Stephen wrote:

> With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
> to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
> have any idea if something like that will happen?
>
> Is it likely that VZW will continue to battle Cingular and AT&T on its
> own with partnerships or do you think they will make a big purchase?
>
> Who would be a likely candidate for VZW to buy that would provide the
> type of coverage that could help VZW?

A carrier that has coverage in the Plains states and has compatible technology,
but the only major carrier I know that fits that description is Sprint PCS and
I don't think they're selling...


--
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
November 24, 2004 1:43:55 AM

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

Verizon has been following a much more economical acquision program. They
are picking up spectrum at relatively bargain prices. They were intitially
offered the whole Qwest Wireless network for $2 Billion. They waited a
couple years and picked it ALL up for only $400 Million, minus the
customers.

Today, they agreed to buy the NTelos network in PA, also at a "bargain." If
they buy a large network, they would overpay. Their current plan to buy
right and keep costs low, seems to be prudent. It will keeps the stock
price high, and their money goes to the network, not to the bankers who
financed Cingular.

Bill Radio
Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com



"Stephen" <hatethatspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1101272573.274775.201840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
> to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
> have any idea if something like that will happen?
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 2:09:13 AM

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

Bill is right on the money. He has one VERY educated opinion. At this time
the purchase of AT&T Wireless by Cingular isn't too big of a threat to
Verizon Wireless as it will take at least three years for them to "get their
stuff together." And the three year timeframe isn't my opinion, but the
publicly stated opinion of Stan Sigman, Cingular CEO.

-julie

"Bill Radio" <Wireless@MountainWirelessNOSPAN.com> wrote in message
news:10q87sl78tluta2@corp.supernews.com...
> Verizon has been following a much more economical acquision program. They
> are picking up spectrum at relatively bargain prices. They were
> intitially
> offered the whole Qwest Wireless network for $2 Billion. They waited a
> couple years and picked it ALL up for only $400 Million, minus the
> customers.
>
> Today, they agreed to buy the NTelos network in PA, also at a "bargain."
> If
> they buy a large network, they would overpay. Their current plan to buy
> right and keep costs low, seems to be prudent. It will keeps the stock
> price high, and their money goes to the network, not to the bankers who
> financed Cingular.
>
> Bill Radio
> Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
> http://www.mountainwireless.com
>
>
>
> "Stephen" <hatethatspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1101272573.274775.201840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
>> to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
>> have any idea if something like that will happen?
>>
>
>
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 2:14:38 AM

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

Stephen, did you know that thanks to Vodafone (the 49% owners of VZW)
Cingular paid $41 Billion for AWE? If you recall AWE was put on the auction
block.

"Stephen" <hatethatspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1101272573.274775.201840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
> to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
> have any idea if something like that will happen?
>
> Is it likely that VZW will continue to battle Cingular and AT&T on its
> own with partnerships or do you think they will make a big purchase?
>
> Who would be a likely candidate for VZW to buy that would provide the
> type of coverage that could help VZW?
>
> Just looking for opinions here. I know there are probably no absolute
> answers that anyone can provide on the group, but it's an interesting
> topic.
>
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 3:19:18 AM

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

In news:co14n7$h4q$2@ratbert.glorb.com,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> typed:
[ ... ]
> A carrier that has coverage in the Plains states and has compatible
> technology, but the only major carrier I know that fits that
> description is Sprint PCS and I don't think they're selling...

ALLTEL might be a possibility - but for AC they pretty well blend together
already.
When I roam on ALLTEL in KS - everything works - except internet access is
low speed.
November 24, 2004 4:14:19 AM

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

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:43:55 -0700, "Bill Radio"
<Wireless@MountainWirelessNOSPAN.com> wrote:

>Today, they agreed to buy the NTelos network in PA, also at a "bargain." If
>they buy a large network, they would overpay.

Is this the entire nTelos network, or just spectrum in PA?

nTelos is actually a PCS carrier that serves a large chunk of areas
like West Virginia and Virginia. It's based in the Shenandoah Valley
area of VA, I believe. It was PCS CDMA when I was in Roanoke (VZW is
A side CDMA/cellular and U.S. Cellular was B side).

Mike
November 24, 2004 4:18:24 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:14:19 -0500, Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:43:55 -0700, "Bill Radio"
><Wireless@MountainWirelessNOSPAN.com> wrote:
>
>>Today, they agreed to buy the NTelos network in PA, also at a "bargain." If
>>they buy a large network, they would overpay.
>
>Is this the entire nTelos network, or just spectrum in PA?

Answering myself:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041123/nytu105_1.html

(quoting:) 

BEDMINSTER, N.J., Nov. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless and NTELOS
Inc. today announced a definitive agreement for Verizon Wireless to
purchase from NTELOS 10MHz spectrum licenses in Pennsylvania for $15.5
million.

The agreement includes spectrum licenses for the Harrisburg,
Lancaster, Reading and York areas, which cover a population of 2.1
million people. These licenses, all in the 1900 MHz frequency range,
will be used to expand the company's network capacity in those markets
to meet growing demand for the company's voice and data services.
November 24, 2004 11:22:31 AM

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

Sounds like Vodafone did a number on them. I just hope this helps open
up some additional "extras" (like unlimited text messaging for a flat
fee) at VZW. I don't mind paying a little more for VZW because I
believe the network is just so much better. However, I would like to
have them compete on some of the extras.
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 7:17:24 PM

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

Bill Radio wrote:

>Verizon has been following a much more economical acquision program. They
>are picking up spectrum at relatively bargain prices. They were intitially
>offered the whole Qwest Wireless network for $2 Billion. They waited a
>couple years and picked it ALL up for only $400 Million, minus the
>customers.
>
>Today, they agreed to buy the NTelos network in PA, also at a "bargain." If
>they buy a large network, they would overpay. Their current plan to buy
>right and keep costs low, seems to be prudent. It will keeps the stock
>price high, and their money goes to the network, not to the bankers who
>financed Cingular.
>
>Bill Radio
>Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
>http://www.mountainwireless.com
>
>
>
>"Stephen" <hatethatspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1101272573.274775.201840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
>>to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
>>have any idea if something like that will happen?
>>
smart people..... don't think the want their corp to be paying gobs of
interest to the bankers.
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 10:09:58 PM

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

"Stephen" <hatethatspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1101313351.618820.14740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Sounds like Vodafone did a number on them. I just hope this helps open
> up some additional "extras" (like unlimited text messaging for a flat
> fee) at VZW. I don't mind paying a little more for VZW because I
> believe the network is just so much better. However, I would like to
> have them compete on some of the extras.
>

VZW has Text Bundles. However I don't see a Unlimited. But hey who knows.

Elector
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 1:58:06 PM

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

Personally I would be happy just to see VZW improve its SMS system. It's
quite lousy and unreliable.

I would also alike VZW to improve it's international calling rates,
international roaming rates. I still don't understand why I can't take my
VZW CDMA handset anywhere in the Americas (i.e. Central and South) and use
it if there are CDMA networks built out.

I guess VZW is being compassionate to AT&T-Cingular by allowing them to be
the best as something and therefore still capture some business.

-julie

"Stephen" <hatethatspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1101313351.618820.14740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Sounds like Vodafone did a number on them. I just hope this helps open
> up some additional "extras" (like unlimited text messaging for a flat
> fee) at VZW. I don't mind paying a little more for VZW because I
> believe the network is just so much better. However, I would like to
> have them compete on some of the extras.
>
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 5:12:59 PM

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

hatethatspam@gmail.com (Stephen) wrote in <1101272573.274775.201840
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

>With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
>to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
>have any idea if something like that will happen?

VZW just announced that it's going to acquire NextWave, the company that
scammed the FCC out of billions of dollars in PCS auction revenue via the
bankruptcy process. Nextwave had won a long court battle against the FCC,
enabling it to keep licenses that it hadn't paid for. But they had not
built out on time (well, they couldn't without knowing they had the
licenses, but that's their problem), putting most of the licenses in
jeopardy. So they settled last year, returning some of the licenses (re-
auction begins Jan. 26) and keeping some. VZW first bought some NYC
bandwidth, and now has agreed to pick up the rest of the ones Nextwave
kept. So that fills in some gaps and gives them more bandwidth in other
markets.

I don't expect VZW to acquire a major competitor (they're too big already)
but they're more than willing to buy 10 MHz here, 20 MHz there.

--
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at" wn.net
These are my own opinions. You expect anyone else to agree?
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 11:29:59 PM

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

What in the world are you talking about? I've had VZW for a couple of
years now. Typically I have a 150-200 SMS message count each month. I
message to a couple of pagers, the rest wireless phones. RARELY do I have
to resend a message. And the incoming messages are delivered promptly ...
except those coming from AT&T customers (delay can range from 2 minutes to
ONE DAY). I'm in the Orange County/San Bernardino county area mostly. I
think your experience is either local or with your phone.
--

- Philip



Julie Ruin wrote:
> Personally I would be happy just to see VZW improve its SMS system.
> It's quite lousy and unreliable.
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 11:30:00 PM

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

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bhrpd.1449$Ua.352@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> What in the world are you talking about? I've had VZW for a couple of years now.

SMS messages are supposed to be reliable (I they get delivered or you
are notified of failure). Try this as a little test - send a message
to your home landline phone.

Roger
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 11:30:01 PM

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

Roger Binns wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bhrpd.1449$Ua.352@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>What in the world are you talking about? I've had VZW for a couple of years now.
>
>
> SMS messages are supposed to be reliable (I they get delivered or you
> are notified of failure). Try this as a little test - send a message
> to your home landline phone.

You can't. Strawman. Or, if you prefer seafood, red herring. :) 


--
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
November 26, 2004 3:28:07 AM

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

"Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
news:kj0i72-9kr.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...
>
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bhrpd.1449$Ua.352@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> What in the world are you talking about? I've had VZW for a couple of
>> years now.
>
> SMS messages are supposed to be reliable (I they get delivered or you
> are notified of failure). Try this as a little test - send a message
> to your home landline phone.
>
> Roger

Ok. I sent an SMS to my landline. The phone shows it sent the message.
After five minutes, no response back (ie, undeliverable). (shrug)

~Philip
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 3:28:08 AM

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

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:rMupd.747$Z%5.562@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Ok. I sent an SMS to my landline. The phone shows it sent the message. After five minutes, no response back (ie, undeliverable).
> (shrug)

When I do it, the phone says the message was sent successfully.
Nothing else happens at any later point. Do you actually get
a second message 5 minutes saying it wasn't delivered?

Roger
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 8:25:11 AM

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

Roger Binns wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rMupd.747$Z%5.562@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Ok. I sent an SMS to my landline. The phone shows it sent the
>> message. After five minutes, no response back (ie, undeliverable).
>> (shrug)
>
> When I do it, the phone says the message was sent successfully.
> Nothing else happens at any later point. Do you actually get
> a second message 5 minutes saying it wasn't delivered?
>
> Roger

I never got an "Message Underliverable" (like you do from web based email)
response from the system.

--

- Philip
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 1:08:48 PM

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

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:co67jt$moe$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> You can't. Strawman. Or, if you prefer seafood, red herring. :) 

Care to translate that into something we can understand?

Roger
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 1:11:32 PM

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

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:X6zpd.873$Z%5.441@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Roger Binns wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:rMupd.747$Z%5.562@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> Ok. I sent an SMS to my landline. The phone shows it sent the
>>> message. After five minutes, no response back (ie, undeliverable).
>>> (shrug)
>>
>> When I do it, the phone says the message was sent successfully.
>> Nothing else happens at any later point. Do you actually get
>> a second message 5 minutes saying it wasn't delivered?
>
> I never got an "Message Underliverable" (like you do from web based email) response from the system.

This was to prove my point that Verizon's SMS system lets you send
to numbers that don't even have SMS and will say it has been successfully
delivered when it hasn't. There are quite a few more scenarios under
which it does this, but this was the easiest demonstration. This is
IMHO a problem if you ever accidentally transpose digits, write down numbers
and type them in, pick the wrong number from a contact ever. ie not
a problem for infallible people, but certainly an issue for normal
people.

Roger
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 6:07:28 PM

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

Roger Binns wrote:
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:co67jt$moe$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
>
>>You can't. Strawman. Or, if you prefer seafood, red herring. :) 
>
>
> Care to translate that into something we can understand?

"The fact that you can't send SMS to a landline is irrelevant to the argument
at hand."

strawman = argument irrelevant to the point you're making
red herring = essentially the same thing (except IIRC, it's a point made to
intentionally confuse the issue, whereas a strawman argument isn't)

--
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
November 26, 2004 9:38:49 PM

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

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:co8csm$6kv$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> "The fact that you can't send SMS to a landline is irrelevant to the argument at hand."

It is *totally* relevant. Someone contended that the VZW SMS implementation
was very good. I am showing one hole, which is that it will claim messages
to be delivered when they cannot possibly be delivered, with an example
proof as you state above.

Roger
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 10:42:26 PM

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

Roger Binns wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:X6zpd.873$Z%5.441@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Roger Binns wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:rMupd.747$Z%5.562@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>> Ok. I sent an SMS to my landline. The phone shows it sent the
>>>> message. After five minutes, no response back (ie,
>>>> undeliverable). (shrug)
>>>
>>> When I do it, the phone says the message was sent successfully.
>>> Nothing else happens at any later point. Do you actually get
>>> a second message 5 minutes saying it wasn't delivered?
>>
>> I never got an "Message Underliverable" (like you do from web
>> based email) response from the system.
>
> This was to prove my point that Verizon's SMS system lets you send
> to numbers that don't even have SMS and will say it has been
> successfully delivered when it hasn't. There are quite a few more
> scenarios
> under which it does this, but this was the easiest demonstration. This is
> IMHO a problem if you ever accidentally transpose digits, write
> down numbers and type them in, pick the wrong number from a contact ever.
> ie not
> a problem for infallible people, but certainly an issue for normal
> people.
>
> Roger

Well... this may border on a matter of semantics. What my phone displays is
the word "Successful". To me that simply means the transmission insofar as
the phone itself is concerned was ... "successful." But you are
interpreting "successful" to mean a confirmation response from the
recipient's system. ;-) I also tried sending an SMS to my email account.
Before doing this, I reset Outlook Express to always send a receipt for read
email and reset my phone to "Delivery Acknowledgement." Still no
confirmation message from my email account back to my phone. Is it supposed
to?

~Philip
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 10:42:27 PM

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

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:CGLpd.192$6K5.75@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Well... this may border on a matter of semantics. What my phone displays is
> the word "Successful". To me that simply means the transmission insofar as
> the phone itself is concerned was ... "successful."

My phone tells me when the message was saved, when it was sent, and
when it was delivered. If you have two mobile lines, turn the second
one off and then send a message to it from the first. For me there
will be no delivered field. Once the second line is turned on, the
delivered field will be updated within a few minutes.

> But you are
> interpreting "successful" to mean a confirmation response from the
> recipient's system. ;-)

You are confusing SMS with email. SMS is a *reliable* message
delivery mechanism. SMS tracks the actual delivery.

Email is not a reliable message delivery mechanism. The delivery/read
acknowledgements are a hack, and are delivered by the same mechanism
as the original message

For email messages, they can only track as far as dumping the message
onto the next hop on the Internet and I am fine with that. For SMS
they have no excuse. It is either failed delivery, pending somewhere
or delivered. And they get that wrong.

Roger

Roger
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 1:15:59 AM

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

"Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
news:0p8k72-hsu.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...
>
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:X6zpd.873$Z%5.441@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>> I never got an "Message Underliverable" (like you do from web based
>> email) response from the system.
>
> This was to prove my point that Verizon's SMS system lets you send
> to numbers that don't even have SMS and will say it has been successfully
> delivered when it hasn't. There are quite a few more scenarios under
> which it does this, but this was the easiest demonstration. This is
> IMHO a problem if you ever accidentally transpose digits, write down
> numbers
> and type them in, pick the wrong number from a contact ever. ie not
> a problem for infallible people, but certainly an issue for normal
> people.
>
> Roger

Roger: I took went a bit further with this SMS 'message sent' business. On
my phone (Audiovox 9155) there is a 'setting' called "enhanced
acknowledgement" (two other choices are Normal and None). When set to
"enhanced" I get back a time/date stamped message even IF the recipient is
just a land line. LOL

Philip
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 6:42:50 AM

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

Roger Binns wrote:
snip
> For email messages, they can only track as far as dumping the
> message onto the next hop on the Internet and I am fine with that. For
> SMS
> they have no excuse. It is either failed delivery, pending
> somewhere or delivered. And they get that wrong.
>
> Roger


Interesting. I'll have to leave the 'delivery confirmation' feature turned
ON for a day or two to see for myself how reliable it is in phone to phone
SMS. Just curious. I've sent three such messages this evening and got a
prompt 'message delivered' back within 30 seconds each time. Does this
return confirmation count as an additional SMS on my message allotment for
the month? There's no record of these confirmations in my phone's Inbox.

--

- Philip
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 6:49:15 AM

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

Roger Binns wrote:
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:co8csm$6kv$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
>> "The fact that you can't send SMS to a landline is irrelevant to
>> the argument at hand."
>
> It is *totally* relevant. Someone contended that the VZW SMS
> implementation was very good. I am showing one hole, which is that it
> will claim
> messages to be delivered when they cannot possibly be delivered, with an
> example proof as you state above.
>
> Roger

Er... umm ... my "Sending" screen only comes back with the word
"Successful". Apparently that only means the phone completed a transmission
.... into the abyss if the recipient is not another phone, pager, or web
address. Poor little message got pushed off into space! LOL But if the
message is picked up by a 'reliable' recipient, a "Delivered" confirmation
bounces back.

--

- Philip
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 11:06:06 AM

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

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:%OSpd.690$6K5.342@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Er... umm ... my "Sending" screen only comes back with the word "Successful".

Have a look in your "Outbox" or equivalent on the phone. On mine
that is where it shows the times and status of the messages.

> message is picked up by a 'reliable' recipient, a "Delivered" confirmation bounces back.

Presumably your phone is showing the delivery as a second message.
My phone updates the message in the Outbox.

Note that I am only talking about SMS to SMS here, not email or anything
else.

Roger
November 28, 2004 9:59:55 PM

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

No, the delivery confirmation does not take away from your message
bucket nor does it charge you. My wife has a Kyocera that will not
allow you to turn off delivery confirmation. It pops up a message
after the SMS is received by another VZW phone. I asked VZW customer
support how to turn it off once because it was annoying, but they said
the manufacturer will not allow it to be turned off (even though I
thought I saw an option in the menu.. that didn't work of course). At
that point I raised the question of being billed for confirmations to
the rep and she said I would not be billed. I have received many bills
since then and have not seen evidence of billing for the confirmation
messages.

My VX6000 shows the delivery confirmation in the outbox (which is very
cool). Same concept as the Kyocera, just a different mechanism for
displaying it.
December 14, 2004 10:20:17 PM

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

Found this article and thought it might be on topic...


The once-stable wireless scene has gone nuts: Cingular purchased AT&T
Wireless, then Sprint went after Nextel, and now there's word that Verizon
has received approval from its investment partner Vodaphone to also make a
bid for Nextel. There's even some word that Verizon will wait for Sprint to
purchase Nextel, then purchase the merged companies. All this would
certainly put Phase II into a different light, and there's lots of
speculation about what the maneuvering might do for the 800 MHz
reorganization recently proposed by the FCC.






"Fred Goldstein" <fgoldstein@wn.DO-NOT-SPAM-ME.net> wrote in message
news:95AC5E529fgwnnet@204.127.199.17...
> hatethatspam@gmail.com (Stephen) wrote in <1101272573.274775.201840
> @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>With the merger of Cingular and AT&T, I have just been waiting for VZW
>>to announce a merger that will turn things upside down. Does anyone
>>have any idea if something like that will happen?
>
> VZW just announced that it's going to acquire NextWave, the company that
> scammed the FCC out of billions of dollars in PCS auction revenue via the
> bankruptcy process. Nextwave had won a long court battle against the FCC,
> enabling it to keep licenses that it hadn't paid for. But they had not
> built out on time (well, they couldn't without knowing they had the
> licenses, but that's their problem), putting most of the licenses in
> jeopardy. So they settled last year, returning some of the licenses (re-
> auction begins Jan. 26) and keeping some. VZW first bought some NYC
> bandwidth, and now has agreed to pick up the rest of the ones Nextwave
> kept. So that fills in some gaps and gives them more bandwidth in other
> markets.
>
> I don't expect VZW to acquire a major competitor (they're too big already)
> but they're more than willing to buy 10 MHz here, 20 MHz there.
>
> --
> Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at" wn.net
> These are my own opinions. You expect anyone else to agree?
!