Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Keep your minutes?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
April 10, 2005 7:27:11 AM

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

Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes you pay
for each month?

More about : minutes

Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:05:56 PM

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

Each carrier has features that differentiate themselves from the
competition.
Cingular has roll-over minutes, large geographic coverage (better than
Verizon
in my home states of OR/WA), and transparent roaming even for data. I
also tend to like GSM phone selection better than CDMA generally. The
service for in-town use around Eugene is mediocre at best-- holes in
coverage spanning years have never been addressed (LCC 30th). System busy
errors when trying to place a call are common, as are dropped calls.

Verizon doesn't offer roll-over, has a large geographic coverage area,
no transparency for roaming, Ugly phones etc. The service here in
Eugene (and for that matter places I travel) tends to be excellent.
I literally cannot remember the last time I received an all-circuits-busy
problem, or a dropped call.

So yes, it's a mixed bag and you have to pick what you care about.
I've often thought I wish I could pick what I want from the smorgasboard
i.e. Verizon's network, and someone else's phone for example.
It just doesn't work that way.

-Dan

PS: If Cingular had great coverage in my home town, and most places
I travel, I'd seriously consider them despite the poor job they've done
making former AT&T customers feel welcome. Each of these major cellular
companies have some policies that make them feel cold and callous. I've
hit more of those with Cingular than any other carrier I've used. In other
words, customer service does matter, and Verizon tends to do a good job
in that regard.

--

=======================
Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

--

"Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
news:115hl99qpbmq386@corp.supernews.com...
> Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes you
> pay for each month?
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:38:32 PM

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

Have you tried Sprint in your area? They have a much better selection of
phones than Verizon.

Regards,

Bubba

"Dan Albrich" <dalbrich@uoregon.edui> wrote in message
news:0PadnZkzMpBtwcTfRVn-og@comcast.com...
> Each carrier has features that differentiate themselves from the
> competition.
> Cingular has roll-over minutes, large geographic coverage (better than
> Verizon
> in my home states of OR/WA), and transparent roaming even for data. I
> also tend to like GSM phone selection better than CDMA generally. The
> service for in-town use around Eugene is mediocre at best-- holes in
> coverage spanning years have never been addressed (LCC 30th). System busy
> errors when trying to place a call are common, as are dropped calls.
>
> Verizon doesn't offer roll-over, has a large geographic coverage area,
> no transparency for roaming, Ugly phones etc. The service here in
> Eugene (and for that matter places I travel) tends to be excellent.
> I literally cannot remember the last time I received an all-circuits-busy
> problem, or a dropped call.
>
> So yes, it's a mixed bag and you have to pick what you care about.
> I've often thought I wish I could pick what I want from the smorgasboard
> i.e. Verizon's network, and someone else's phone for example.
> It just doesn't work that way.
>
> -Dan
>
> PS: If Cingular had great coverage in my home town, and most places
> I travel, I'd seriously consider them despite the poor job they've done
> making former AT&T customers feel welcome. Each of these major cellular
> companies have some policies that make them feel cold and callous. I've
> hit more of those with Cingular than any other carrier I've used. In
> other
> words, customer service does matter, and Verizon tends to do a good job
> in that regard.
>
> --
>
> =======================
> Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>
> --
>
> "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
> news:115hl99qpbmq386@corp.supernews.com...
>> Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes you
>> pay for each month?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:38:49 PM

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

Yes, you can keep all your minutes. And you don't even have to pay
anymore. The service is free, and they'll send you a new phone for
free every six months.

"Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in
news:115hl99qpbmq386@corp.supernews.com:

> Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes
> you pay for each month?
>
April 10, 2005 9:35:56 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:11 -0400, "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote:

>Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes you pay
>for each month?
>
>


No and they never will.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:35:57 PM

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

runner wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:11 -0400, "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote:
>
> >Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes you pay
> >for each month?
> >
> >
>
> No and they never will.

Correction, runner:

While they currently do not, we don't know what they'll do in the future.

Unless, of course, you know something that the rest of us don't! <g>

Notan
April 10, 2005 11:24:05 PM

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

On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 15:38:21 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:

>rvnner wrote:
>>
>> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:11 -0400, "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let yov keep the minvtes yov pay
>> >for each month?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No and they never will.
>
>Correction, rvnner:
>
>While they cvrrently do not, we don't know what they'll do in the fvtvre.
>
>Unless, of covrse, yov know something that the rest of vs don't! <g>
>
>Notan


I agree that I do not have a crystal ball bvt I have worked for them
for 34 years starting with the land line when AT&T was the only land
line in the covntry.

NYNEX wireless was the beginnings and worked hard as hell to separate
themselves from the land line becavse they did not want the CWA, the
vnion, involved in any way, shape or form in the their wireless
bvsiness. This they accomplished.

Skipping all the name changes vp to now, which 48% of VZW is now owned
by the British company Vodoaphone, I base my assvmptions of what they
will never do on my lifetime experience with them.

They never make any changes to their bvsiness model vnless they are
forced to by the competition, which is vnderstandable in the bvsiness
world, which inclvdes their latest changes IN calling and no roaming
calling plans, American Choice 2, lowering by $10 adding another line,
all originated by their competition, none by them, many moons ago.

So, I gvess, I shovld write this day down when I claim that they will
never go to roll-over minvtes, ever, and make it my Nostradamvs
statement of the year.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:24:06 PM

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

rvnner wrote:
>
> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 15:38:21 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
> >rvnner wrote:
> >>
> >> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:11 -0400, "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let yov keep the minvtes yov pay
> >> >for each month?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> No and they never will.
> >
> >Correction, rvnner:
> >
> >While they cvrrently do not, we don't know what they'll do in the fvtvre.
> >
> >Unless, of covrse, yov know something that the rest of vs don't! <g>
> >
> >Notan
>
> I agree that I do not have a crystal ball bvt I have worked for them
> for 34 years starting with the land line when AT&T was the only land
> line in the covntry.
>
> NYNEX wireless was the beginnings and worked hard as hell to separate
> themselves from the land line becavse they did not want the CWA, the
> vnion, involved in any way, shape or form in the their wireless
> bvsiness. This they accomplished.
>
> Skipping all the name changes vp to now, which 48% of VZW is now owned
> by the British company Vodoaphone, I base my assvmptions of what they
> will never do on my lifetime experience with them.
>
> They never make any changes to their bvsiness model vnless they are
> forced to by the competition, which is vnderstandable in the bvsiness
> world, which inclvdes their latest changes IN calling and no roaming
> calling plans, American Choice 2, lowering by $10 adding another line,
> all originated by their competition, none by them, many moons ago.
>
> So, I gvess, I shovld write this day down when I claim that they will
> never go to roll-over minvtes, ever, and make it my Nostradamvs
> statement of the year.

With all the bvsiness acqvisitions and mergers going on these days,
the old adage, "Never say never" has never been trver! <g>

Notan
April 10, 2005 11:55:50 PM

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

On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 17:35:54 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:

>rvnner wrote:
>>
>> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 15:38:21 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>>
>> >rvnner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:11 -0400, "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let yov keep the minvtes yov pay
>> >> >for each month?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> No and they never will.
>> >
>> >Correction, rvnner:
>> >
>> >While they cvrrently do not, we don't know what they'll do in the fvtvre.
>> >
>> >Unless, of covrse, yov know something that the rest of vs don't! <g>
>> >
>> >Notan
>>
>> I agree that I do not have a crystal ball bvt I have worked for them
>> for 34 years starting with the land line when AT&T was the only land
>> line in the covntry.
>>
>> NYNEX wireless was the beginnings and worked hard as hell to separate
>> themselves from the land line becavse they did not want the CWA, the
>> vnion, involved in any way, shape or form in the their wireless
>> bvsiness. This they accomplished.
>>
>> Skipping all the name changes vp to now, which 48% of VZW is now owned
>> by the British company Vodoaphone, I base my assvmptions of what they
>> will never do on my lifetime experience with them.
>>
>> They never make any changes to their bvsiness model vnless they are
>> forced to by the competition, which is vnderstandable in the bvsiness
>> world, which inclvdes their latest changes IN calling and no roaming
>> calling plans, American Choice 2, lowering by $10 adding another line,
>> all originated by their competition, none by them, many moons ago.
>>
>> So, I gvess, I shovld write this day down when I claim that they will
>> never go to roll-over minvtes, ever, and make it my Nostradamvs
>> statement of the year.
>
>With all the bvsiness acqvisitions and mergers going on these days,
>the old adage, "Never say never" has never been trver! <g>
>
>Notan


And look who VZW winds vp, MCI. the most illegitimate crooked company
in the world. They make Enron look good.

What is ironic abovt it is that MCI is the company that originally
promoted the breakvp of the phone company, from AT&T to 7 regional
operating companies.

They moaned and cried to the feds that AT&T's monopoly was illegal and
they wanted a piece of the long distance bvsiness. Then the infamovs
Jvdge Green, who probably didn't even know how to dial a phone finally
rvled the AT&T monopoly illegal.

The joke was that after the split then MCI wovld brag that they now
were the second largest long distance company in the covntry. What
they didn't brag abovt was that is was less than 5% and AT&T still
held on to 95% of long distance.

Now yov know why, even after VZ payed me then and now my retirement I
still have no love for them. Also, when they sold ovt to the Brits I
completely lost all faith in them.

Footnote: After having VZW since 1988 I am now a Cingvlar cvstomer and
love them ;-)
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:43:18 AM

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

Keeping the minutes you pay for each month shouldn't be a feature. So, why
don't I get a refund or pro-rate each month if I don't use them all? Yea, I
voice my opinions here quite often...most of the time offending people very
easily cause they can't handle it for some odd reason. Anyway, people that
can't take other people's opinion without getting bent out of shape have
their own problems to begin with...let alone to worry about not being able
to keep the minutes they pay for each month.

"Dan Albrich" <dalbrich@uoregon.edui> wrote in message
news:0PadnZkzMpBtwcTfRVn-og@comcast.com...
> Each carrier has features that differentiate themselves from the
> competition.
> Cingular has roll-over minutes, large geographic coverage (better than
> Verizon
> in my home states of OR/WA), and transparent roaming even for data. I
> also tend to like GSM phone selection better than CDMA generally. The
> service for in-town use around Eugene is mediocre at best-- holes in
> coverage spanning years have never been addressed (LCC 30th). System busy
> errors when trying to place a call are common, as are dropped calls.
>
> Verizon doesn't offer roll-over, has a large geographic coverage area,
> no transparency for roaming, Ugly phones etc. The service here in
> Eugene (and for that matter places I travel) tends to be excellent.
> I literally cannot remember the last time I received an all-circuits-busy
> problem, or a dropped call.
>
> So yes, it's a mixed bag and you have to pick what you care about.
> I've often thought I wish I could pick what I want from the smorgasboard
> i.e. Verizon's network, and someone else's phone for example.
> It just doesn't work that way.
>
> -Dan
>
> PS: If Cingular had great coverage in my home town, and most places
> I travel, I'd seriously consider them despite the poor job they've done
> making former AT&T customers feel welcome. Each of these major cellular
> companies have some policies that make them feel cold and callous. I've
> hit more of those with Cingular than any other carrier I've used. In
> other
> words, customer service does matter, and Verizon tends to do a good job
> in that regard.
>
> --
>
> =======================
> Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>
> --
>
> "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
> news:115hl99qpbmq386@corp.supernews.com...
>> Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes you
>> pay for each month?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:43:19 AM

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

Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
> Keeping the minutes you pay for each month shouldn't be a feature.

So go to Cingular.

(Gee whiz, haven't I said that before?)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:46:15 AM

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

I have Cingular through work and it's fantastic. The phones I have used
through that service were incredible. No game, teenaged geared bullshit.
Just some real useful phones with all the technology built right in with NO
crippling of the features. Just think of having too many phone with
bluetooth....rather then just one to select from. Really a bluetooth
wireless headset is a nice feature on a cell phone...especially if you use
it a lot.


"Bubba DeBub" <BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote in message
news:swd6e.1835$lv1.1208@fed1read06...
> Have you tried Sprint in your area? They have a much better selection of
> phones than Verizon.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bubba
>
> "Dan Albrich" <dalbrich@uoregon.edui> wrote in message
> news:0PadnZkzMpBtwcTfRVn-og@comcast.com...
>> Each carrier has features that differentiate themselves from the
>> competition.
>> Cingular has roll-over minutes, large geographic coverage (better than
>> Verizon
>> in my home states of OR/WA), and transparent roaming even for data. I
>> also tend to like GSM phone selection better than CDMA generally. The
>> service for in-town use around Eugene is mediocre at best-- holes in
>> coverage spanning years have never been addressed (LCC 30th). System busy
>> errors when trying to place a call are common, as are dropped calls.
>>
>> Verizon doesn't offer roll-over, has a large geographic coverage area,
>> no transparency for roaming, Ugly phones etc. The service here in
>> Eugene (and for that matter places I travel) tends to be excellent.
>> I literally cannot remember the last time I received an all-circuits-busy
>> problem, or a dropped call.
>>
>> So yes, it's a mixed bag and you have to pick what you care about.
>> I've often thought I wish I could pick what I want from the smorgasboard
>> i.e. Verizon's network, and someone else's phone for example.
>> It just doesn't work that way.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> PS: If Cingular had great coverage in my home town, and most places
>> I travel, I'd seriously consider them despite the poor job they've done
>> making former AT&T customers feel welcome. Each of these major cellular
>> companies have some policies that make them feel cold and callous. I've
>> hit more of those with Cingular than any other carrier I've used. In
>> other
>> words, customer service does matter, and Verizon tends to do a good job
>> in that regard.
>>
>> --
>>
>> =======================
>> Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
>> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
>> news:115hl99qpbmq386@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes you
>>> pay for each month?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:46:16 AM

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

Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
> I have Cingular through work and it's fantastic.

Hmm, Mikey, you've claimed that Verizon, while pretty bad, still is the least
horrible carrier in your area. Were you lying?

Why don't you hop on over to alt.cellular.cingular - there's a former
alt.cellular.sprintpcs troll I'd like you to meet. You and he would get along
famously and I wouldn't have to read either your idiocy OR his anymore.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:56:02 AM

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

At a drop of a dime things can change that qvick. Experience and time spent
with a company doesn't give yov anymore special crystal ball assvmptions
then Joe Smith. Althovgh I may as well ask...since yov didn't answer my
original qvestion. Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's cvstomer's keep the
minvtes they pay for or refvnd/prorate the minvtes yov haven't vsed?

"rvnner" <notvalidaddress@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:jncj51l0qslmrlehsjfegsv7ggm9r76b7h@4ax.com...
> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 15:38:21 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
>>rvnner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:11 -0400, "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let yov keep the minvtes yov
>>> >pay
>>> >for each month?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> No and they never will.
>>
>>Correction, rvnner:
>>
>>While they cvrrently do not, we don't know what they'll do in the fvtvre.
>>
>>Unless, of covrse, yov know something that the rest of vs don't! <g>
>>
>>Notan
>
>
> I agree that I do not have a crystal ball bvt I have worked for them
> for 34 years starting with the land line when AT&T was the only land
> line in the covntry.
>
> NYNEX wireless was the beginnings and worked hard as hell to separate
> themselves from the land line becavse they did not want the CWA, the
> vnion, involved in any way, shape or form in the their wireless
> bvsiness. This they accomplished.
>
> Skipping all the name changes vp to now, which 48% of VZW is now owned
> by the British company Vodoaphone, I base my assvmptions of what they
> will never do on my lifetime experience with them.
>
> They never make any changes to their bvsiness model vnless they are
> forced to by the competition, which is vnderstandable in the bvsiness
> world, which inclvdes their latest changes IN calling and no roaming
> calling plans, American Choice 2, lowering by $10 adding another line,
> all originated by their competition, none by them, many moons ago.
>
> So, I gvess, I shovld write this day down when I claim that they will
> never go to roll-over minvtes, ever, and make it my Nostradamvs
> statement of the year.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:56:03 AM

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

"Xman(AKA Mike)" wrote:
>
> At a drop of a dime things can change that quick. Experience and time spent
> with a company doesn't give you anymore special crystal ball assumptions
> then Joe Smith. Although I may as well ask...since you didn't answer my
> original question. Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's customer's keep the
> minutes they pay for or refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?

That's easy...

A) From a business standpoint, it's more lucrative not to.
B) They don't have to.
C) All of the above.

The correct answer is "C."

Notan
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:56:03 AM

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

Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
> At a drop of a dime things can change that quick.
> Experience and time spent with a company doesn't give you
> anymore special crystal ball assumptions then Joe Smith.
> Although I may as well ask...since you didn't answer my
> original question. Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's
> customer's keep the minutes they pay for or
> refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?

If you only use your cable 2 weeks out of the month
does Comcast (angelic choir sounds) refund/prorate?
I can't imagine you would work for a company with
those practices... of course I can't figure out why
you continue to subscribe to VZW service for your
personal phones either...

-Quick
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:50:15 AM

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

[Sorry, this is kinda long post]

I remember buying my first 14,400 modem -- metal chasis Supra. I paid $400
at the time which was a real price breakthrough. At the time, US Robotics
Courier was the next best game in town -- and while likely had a superior
modem their 9600 baud was like $1200. I waited about 9 months to receive
that Supra.

Anyway, I remember reading about how caller ID would be implemented and my
new modem would support it. Woo Hoo! I thought. It never occured to me that
telephone companies could charge for this feature. I mean it's electronic,
and the feature itself costs the telephone company nothing to provide. In
fact, in some cases they have to go through some effort to turn off features
you don't want like call waiting or caller ID as opposed to the other way
around. I had already imagined in my mind that my PC would have contact
software (which does now exist i.e. ACT) that could automatically display
the name and information for the calling party in advance. I also imagined
text-to-speech software that could announce a caller. Anyway, saw these
things coming years in advance, and I looked forward to them eagerly.

When caller ID finally hit the scene, I was shocked to find my telephone
company wanted me to pay $7 per month! All for a feature that costs them
nothing to provide! I literally called to complain I was so shocked they
would consider charging for something so basic.

The lesson I learned at that time is that in the technological world, things
are not generally priced because of the cost to provide the service --
unless you think about it in the broadest sense. Things that cost you money
are simply chosen by what they think you might be willing to pay for. That's
pretty much it.

In the material retail world, I'm used to paying for a product based on a
simple formula. The cost to produce the product, plus some profit.
Further, anything that is cheap to produce, can and should be low cost.

Anyway, the technological world is like that. Not everything you pay for is
something that itself costs what the provider charges for it. The provider
simply needs a revenue model. You can disagree with a revenue model, but
there has to be one.

It's like saying I shouldn't have to pay for incoming text messages. Fine,
make them free. They will make up for those charges someplace else-- you can
bet on it.

I for one don't mind the "get it now" junk for two reasons:
1) I have not, and will never use it.
2) It likely subsidizes the services I do use.

-Dan

--

=======================
Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

--
April 11, 2005 11:04:03 AM

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

MCI became crooked when Worldcom took over. That was long after Jvdge
Green's rvling.

On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 19:55:50 -0400, rvnner
<notvalidaddress@invalid.org> wrote:

>On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 17:35:54 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
>>rvnner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 15:38:21 -0600, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >rvnner wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Svn, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:11 -0400, "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let yov keep the minvtes yov pay
>>> >> >for each month?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> No and they never will.
>>> >
>>> >Correction, rvnner:
>>> >
>>> >While they cvrrently do not, we don't know what they'll do in the fvtvre.
>>> >
>>> >Unless, of covrse, yov know something that the rest of vs don't! <g>
>>> >
>>> >Notan
>>>
>>> I agree that I do not have a crystal ball bvt I have worked for them
>>> for 34 years starting with the land line when AT&T was the only land
>>> line in the covntry.
>>>
>>> NYNEX wireless was the beginnings and worked hard as hell to separate
>>> themselves from the land line becavse they did not want the CWA, the
>>> vnion, involved in any way, shape or form in the their wireless
>>> bvsiness. This they accomplished.
>>>
>>> Skipping all the name changes vp to now, which 48% of VZW is now owned
>>> by the British company Vodoaphone, I base my assvmptions of what they
>>> will never do on my lifetime experience with them.
>>>
>>> They never make any changes to their bvsiness model vnless they are
>>> forced to by the competition, which is vnderstandable in the bvsiness
>>> world, which inclvdes their latest changes IN calling and no roaming
>>> calling plans, American Choice 2, lowering by $10 adding another line,
>>> all originated by their competition, none by them, many moons ago.
>>>
>>> So, I gvess, I shovld write this day down when I claim that they will
>>> never go to roll-over minvtes, ever, and make it my Nostradamvs
>>> statement of the year.
>>
>>With all the bvsiness acqvisitions and mergers going on these days,
>>the old adage, "Never say never" has never been trver! <g>
>>
>>Notan
>
>
>And look who VZW winds vp, MCI. the most illegitimate crooked company
>in the world. They make Enron look good.
>
>What is ironic abovt it is that MCI is the company that originally
>promoted the breakvp of the phone company, from AT&T to 7 regional
>operating companies.
>
>They moaned and cried to the feds that AT&T's monopoly was illegal and
>they wanted a piece of the long distance bvsiness. Then the infamovs
>Jvdge Green, who probably didn't even know how to dial a phone finally
>rvled the AT&T monopoly illegal.
>
>The joke was that after the split then MCI wovld brag that they now
>were the second largest long distance company in the covntry. What
>they didn't brag abovt was that is was less than 5% and AT&T still
>held on to 95% of long distance.
>
>Now yov know why, even after VZ payed me then and now my retirement I
>still have no love for them. Also, when they sold ovt to the Brits I
>completely lost all faith in them.
>
>Footnote: After having VZW since 1988 I am now a Cingvlar cvstomer and
>love them ;-)
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:38:11 PM

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

Quick wrote:
> Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
>> Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's
>> customer's keep the minutes they pay for or
>> refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?
>
> If you only use your cable 2 weeks out of the month
> does Comcast (angelic choir sounds) refund/prorate?

Comcast doesn't charge for usage by the minute. But to use your invalid
analogy anyway, if you only use 100 minutes of Comcast cable this month
and use 300 minutes next month, they don't charge you extra.

--
I miss my .signature.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:38:12 PM

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

clifto wrote:
> Quick wrote:
>> Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
>>> Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's
>>> customer's keep the minutes they pay for or
>>> refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?
>>
>> If you only use your cable 2 weeks out of the month
>> does Comcast (angelic choir sounds) refund/prorate?
>
> Comcast doesn't charge for usage by the minute. But to
> use your invalid analogy anyway, if you only use 100
> minutes of Comcast cable this month and use 300 minutes
> next month, they don't charge you extra.

Sure they charge by the minute. They charge by the month.
There are a fixed number of minutes in the month. Users
pay for each and every one of those minutes whether they
use their cable or not. So you ARE paying for all the minutes
you didn't use...

Nice scam... Pay Comcast for 43,200 minutes each and every
month. One month use 4000 minutes. Next month use 12000
minutes and Comcast will tell you that they didn't charge you
any more for the extra usage.

-Quick
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:23:26 PM

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

runner wrote:
> They never make any changes to their business model unless

they are trying to reduce service, or

> they are
> forced to by the competition, which is understandable in the business
> world, which includes their latest changes IN calling and no roaming
> calling plans, American Choice 2, lowering by $10 adding another line,
> all originated by their competition, none by them, many moons ago.

--
I miss my .signature.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:42:58 PM

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

Quick wrote:

> Sure they charge by the minute. They charge by the month.

I agree with Clifto - your analogy is somewhat dodgy.

A better comparison might be to the unlimited flat-rate cell carriers (Cricket,
MetroPCS, Northcoast), but even that's questionable as they'd never charge per
minute anyhow. (Not for airtime. Perhaps for long distance, but not airtime.)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:19:31 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:38:11 -0500, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:

>Quick wrote:
>> Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
>>> Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's
>>> customer's keep the minutes they pay for or
>>> refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?
>>
>> If you only use your cable 2 weeks out of the month
>> does Comcast (angelic choir sounds) refund/prorate?
>
>Comcast doesn't charge for usage by the minute. But to use your invalid
>analogy anyway, if you only use 100 minutes of Comcast cable this month
>and use 300 minutes next month, they don't charge you extra.


You have to have sympathy for those who base their replies that start
with the word "if".
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:19:32 PM

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

fudge wrote:
>
> You have to have sympathy for those who base their
> replies that start with the word "if".

I tried. I can't parse the sentence above.

'...those who base their replies that start with the work "if"'

Is this some reference to the knights that go "neep!"?

-Quick
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:13:58 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:47:32 -0700, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>fudge wrote:
>>
>> You have to have sympathy for those who base their
>> replies that start with the word "if".
>
>I tried. I can't parse the sentence above.
>
>'...those who base their replies that start with the work "if"'
>
>Is this some reference to the knights that go "neep!"?
>
>-Quick
>

It's in reference to those who have no answer to start with. Like,
"If" you didn't post your if answer I wouldn't see what a jerk you
are.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:56:22 AM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113250887.866122@sj-nntpcache-3...
> clifto wrote:
> > Quick wrote:
> >> Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
> >>> Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's
> >>> customer's keep the minutes they pay for or
> >>> refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?
> >>
> >> If you only use your cable 2 weeks out of the month
> >> does Comcast (angelic choir sounds) refund/prorate?
> >
> > Comcast doesn't charge for usage by the minute. But to
> > use your invalid analogy anyway, if you only use 100
> > minutes of Comcast cable this month and use 300 minutes
> > next month, they don't charge you extra.
>
> Sure they charge by the minute. They charge by the month.
> There are a fixed number of minutes in the month. Users
> pay for each and every one of those minutes whether they
> use their cable or not. So you ARE paying for all the minutes
> you didn't use...
>
> Nice scam... Pay Comcast for 43,200 minutes each and every
> month. One month use 4000 minutes. Next month use 12000
> minutes and Comcast will tell you that they didn't charge you
> any more for the extra usage.

In the early days of cable TV (the Mid 1950's) some cable providers
had meters on top of TV sets and charged by the minute. Some were like
parking meters others took tokens. This scheme never got very far.
--
Chas. verktyg@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail me)
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:38:18 AM

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

* * Chas wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113250887.866122@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> clifto wrote:
>>> Quick wrote:
>>>> Xman(AKA Mike) wrote:
>>>>> Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's
>>>>> customer's keep the minutes they pay for or
>>>>> refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?
>>>>
>>>> If you only use your cable 2 weeks out of the month
>>>> does Comcast (angelic choir sounds) refund/prorate?
>>>
>>> Comcast doesn't charge for usage by the minute. But to
>>> use your invalid analogy anyway, if you only use 100
>>> minutes of Comcast cable this month and use 300 minutes
>>> next month, they don't charge you extra.
>>
>> Sure they charge by the minute. They charge by the month.
>> There are a fixed number of minutes in the month. Users
>> pay for each and every one of those minutes whether they
>> use their cable or not. So you ARE paying for all the
>> minutes you didn't use...
>>
>> Nice scam... Pay Comcast for 43,200 minutes each and
>> every month. One month use 4000 minutes. Next month use
>> 12000 minutes and Comcast will tell you that they didn't
>> charge you any more for the extra usage.
>
> In the early days of cable TV (the Mid 1950's) some cable
> providers had meters on top of TV sets and charged by the
> minute. Some were like parking meters others took tokens.
> This scheme never got very far.

See? See? Did you read that Xman? They *used* to charge
by the minute but your company changed all that so they
could charge their customers for minutes they didn't use.
Then they hired people like you to tell them they are lucky
they don't get charge more when they use more ('cause
they're already getting charge 24x7).

-Quick
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:37:57 PM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113291833.958520@sj-nntpcache-3...
<snip>
> >
> > In the early days of cable TV (the Mid 1950's) some cable
> > providers had meters on top of TV sets and charged by the
> > minute. Some were like parking meters others took tokens.
> > This scheme never got very far.
>
> See? See? Did you read that Xman? They *used* to charge
> by the minute but your company changed all that so they
> could charge their customers for minutes they didn't use.
> Then they hired people like you to tell them they are lucky
> they don't get charge more when they use more ('cause
> they're already getting charge 24x7).
>
> -Quick

I think that you missed the point....

It was not very popular because of the inconvenience. If you ran out
of change or tokens in the middle of a program, the cable signal
turned off plus the hassle of someone coming around to you home to
collect from the meters and so on.

The original cable systems were set up to provide TV reception to
rural areas. There was a lot of resistance to cable connections from
all quarters throughout the TV industry.

Many of the early systems were community owned tower mounted TV
antennas. Users bought in to the community plan to cover the costs of
construction and maintenance plus the individual cost of running the
cable to their homes. They only received standard TV broadcasts. Since
TV uses the FM radio band the coverage is "line of site" and only
reaches 50 -100 miles depending on weather conditions.

The early commercial cable companies offered standard broadcast
service via cable for those areas that were beyond the range of FM
reception.

A few years later a new generation of TV cable companies started
offering service in urban areas with the promise of advertisement free
television at a substantial cost per month.

That didn't last long, now cable networks have more advertising per
hour than standard broadcast TV because there is less regulation. You
pay for up to 15 minutes an hour of advertising with many cable
channels!
--
Chas. verktyg@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail me)
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:53:48 PM

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

* * Chas wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113291833.958520@sj-nntpcache-3...
> <snip>
>>>
>>> In the early days of cable TV (the Mid 1950's) some
>>> cable providers had meters on top of TV sets and
>>> charged by the minute. Some were like parking meters
>>> others took tokens. This scheme never got very far.
>>
>> See? See? Did you read that Xman? They *used* to charge
>> by the minute but your company changed all that so they
>> could charge their customers for minutes they didn't use.
>> Then they hired people like you to tell them they are
>> lucky they don't get charge more when they use more
>> ('cause they're already getting charge 24x7).
>>
>> -Quick
>
> I think that you missed the point....

No. I didn't. I just get some small amusement in getting
Xman fired up... sorry.

> That didn't last long, now cable networks have more
> advertising per hour than standard broadcast TV because
> there is less regulation. You pay for up to 15 minutes an
> hour of advertising with many cable channels!

(oh! oh! keep 'em coming -:) )
Xman, you are working for a giant spammer that charges
their customers for the privilege of being spammed.

-Quick
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:24:13 PM

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

> PS: If Cingular had great coverage in my home town, and most places
> I travel, I'd seriously consider them despite the poor job they've done
> making former AT&T customers feel welcome. Each of these major cellular
> companies have some policies that make them feel cold and callous. I've
> hit more of those with Cingular than any other carrier I've used. In other
> words, customer service does matter, and Verizon tends to do a good job
> in that regard.

Speaking of customer service, I hear a lot of complaints on these
cellular usenet groups about how customer service and technical support
are outsourced to other countries. I've also heard that ALL of
Cingular's support is in the United States, but people complain that
it's terrible. It almost seems that the better service is coming from
outside the nation...

Any thoughts? If the above is true, you can't have your cake and eat
it, too. You'd have to pick on whether you want poor LOCAL support or
GOOD international support.

TH
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:30:49 PM

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

>> I have Cingular through work and it's fantastic.
>
> Hmm, Mikey, you've claimed that Verizon, while pretty bad, still is the
> least horrible carrier in your area. Were you lying?
>
> Why don't you hop on over to alt.cellular.cingular - there's a former
> alt.cellular.sprintpcs troll I'd like you to meet. You and he would get
> along famously and I wouldn't have to read either your idiocy OR his
> anymore.

What? You don't fine Philippe's posts (I mean Jack Zwick's posts) of
the utmost highest quality?

I'm shocked. I find them both informative, knowledgeable, and useful.
Of course, I also find that Wal-Mart has the greatest selection of high
quality products with the best customer service in the industry.

TH
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:39:57 PM

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

> And look who VZW winds up, MCI. the most illegitimate crooked company
> in the world. They make Enron look good.

Speaking of MCI, I remember hearing on the Canadian news in the not so
distant past that MCI was being investigated by the Canadian Government
for orchestrating the affiliation of small companies and routing large
amounts of U.S. long distance through those small carriers, which would
soon go bankrupt.

AT&T has a bad name in Canada, but MCI makes AT&T in Canada look like
the best thing since sliced bread.

TH
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:42:30 PM

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

> Speaking of customer service, I hear a lot of complaints on these cellular
> usenet groups about how customer service and technical support are
> outsourced to other countries. I've also heard that ALL of Cingular's
> support is in the United States, but people complain that it's terrible.
> It almost seems that the better service is coming from outside the
> nation...
>
> Any thoughts? If the above is true, you can't have your cake and eat it,
> too. You'd have to pick on whether you want poor LOCAL support or GOOD
> international support.
>
> TH

Ironic isn't it?
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:45:50 PM

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

> At a drop of a dime things can change that quick. Experience and time spent
> with a company doesn't give you anymore special crystal ball assumptions
> then Joe Smith. Although I may as well ask...since you didn't answer my
> original question. Why doesn't Verizon Wireless let it's customer's keep the
> minutes they pay for or refund/prorate the minutes you haven't used?

I had heard that it was possible for Cingular to have some kind of
"business patent" on Rollover, which would prevent other companies from
offering rollover. I wan't able to verify whether Cingular could patent
a business practice, but they sure could patent hardward that allowed
rollover take place, and the patent could be vague to cover quite a bit.

TH
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:53:51 PM

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

"Tropical Haven" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:425C256E.1050908@example.net...
> I had heard that it was possible for Cingular to have some kind of
> "business patent" on Rollover, which would prevent other companies from
> offering rollover. I wan't able to verify whether Cingular could patent a
> business practice, but they sure could patent hardward that allowed
> rollover take place, and the patent could be vague to cover quite a bit.
>
> TH

I'm sure Cingular has *copyrighted* the rollover term--- but the concept is
hardly a patentable business practice.

Cleburne
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:22:15 PM

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

"Patrick Cleburne" <reb@_rebyell.xcom> wrote in message
news:jHV6e.8662$44.844@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tropical Haven" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> news:425C256E.1050908@example.net...
> > I had heard that it was possible for Cingular to have some kind of
> > "business patent" on Rollover, which would prevent other companies
from
> > offering rollover. I wan't able to verify whether Cingular could
patent a
> > business practice, but they sure could patent hardward that
allowed
> > rollover take place, and the patent could be vague to cover quite
a bit.
> >
> > TH
>
> I'm sure Cingular has *copyrighted* the rollover term--- but the
concept is
> hardly a patentable business practice.

Business practices are not patentable in the US but some concepts can
be copyrighted.

Patents are associated with producing or manufacturing a tangible
product. That said.... I've seen some flaky US patents in the past
few years. The major reason for getting a patent is not to protect
your idea or development but to keep from getting sued buy someone
else who gets a patent for the same or similar concept.

Intellectual property is generally not a "business practice" so can
sometimes be patented.

--
Chas. verktyg@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail me)
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:38:04 PM

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

If Cingular is fantastic why are you posting here dipshit?



"Xman\(AKA Mike\)" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in
news:115jln8tfj6eb00@corp.supernews.com:

> I have Cingular through work and it's fantastic. The phones I have
> used through that service were incredible. No game, teenaged geared
> bullshit. Just some real useful phones with all the technology built
> right in with NO crippling of the features. Just think of having too
> many phone with bluetooth....rather then just one to select from.
> Really a bluetooth wireless headset is a nice feature on a cell
> phone...especially if you use it a lot.
>
>
> "Bubba DeBub" <BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote in message
> news:swd6e.1835$lv1.1208@fed1read06...
>> Have you tried Sprint in your area? They have a much better selection
>> of phones than Verizon.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bubba
>>
>> "Dan Albrich" <dalbrich@uoregon.edui> wrote in message
>> news:0PadnZkzMpBtwcTfRVn-og@comcast.com...
>>> Each carrier has features that differentiate themselves from the
>>> competition.
>>> Cingular has roll-over minutes, large geographic coverage (better
>>> than Verizon
>>> in my home states of OR/WA), and transparent roaming even for data.
>>> I also tend to like GSM phone selection better than CDMA generally.
>>> The service for in-town use around Eugene is mediocre at best--
>>> holes in coverage spanning years have never been addressed (LCC
>>> 30th). System busy errors when trying to place a call are common, as
>>> are dropped calls.
>>>
>>> Verizon doesn't offer roll-over, has a large geographic coverage
>>> area, no transparency for roaming, Ugly phones etc. The service here
>>> in Eugene (and for that matter places I travel) tends to be
>>> excellent. I literally cannot remember the last time I received an
>>> all-circuits-busy problem, or a dropped call.
>>>
>>> So yes, it's a mixed bag and you have to pick what you care about.
>>> I've often thought I wish I could pick what I want from the
>>> smorgasboard i.e. Verizon's network, and someone else's phone for
>>> example. It just doesn't work that way.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> PS: If Cingular had great coverage in my home town, and most places
>>> I travel, I'd seriously consider them despite the poor job they've
>>> done making former AT&T customers feel welcome. Each of these major
>>> cellular companies have some policies that make them feel cold and
>>> callous. I've hit more of those with Cingular than any other
>>> carrier I've used. In other
>>> words, customer service does matter, and Verizon tends to do a good
>>> job in that regard.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> =======================
>>> Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
>>> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
>>> news:115hl99qpbmq386@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes
>>>> you pay for each month?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

A
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:24:37 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:38:32 -0700, "Bubba DeBub"
<BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote:

>Have you tried Sprint in your area? They have a much better selection of
>phones than Verizon.

<Cringe>. To be able to use Sprint in Sunnyvale, CA, I had to
literally sit about 3 inches from a window in my house. Not a problem
with Verizon. I took a job in Pleasanton now and work till 10 PM. I
call my girlfriend on my way home through the Sunol grade. And like
clockwork, <DROP> at a certain area. We quickly found out where this
area is, so I can now say "About to drop the call."

The second day this happened, when I called my girlfriend back, she
said "What, did you go back to Sprint?"
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:23:21 PM

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

how customer service and technical support
>are outsourced to other countries.

My daughter worked in customer service here in Washington for Verizon
and later for Comcast so they are definitely local.


To reply to my e-mail address, remove clothes
My travel page
http://www.rvtravel.8k.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:23:22 PM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:23:21 GMT, piotor <nortonclothes@blarg.net>
wrote:

>My daughter worked in customer service here in Washington for Verizon
>and later for Comcast so they are definitely local.

A lot of companies outsource part of technical support (for overflow)
to other countries. So just because a company has a call center here
doesn't mean they don't have one overseas too.
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:41:16 AM

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

Hey buddy...BLOW ME.

"Gordy" <pego101@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96376202EA68Chghtghff@216.196.97.131...
> If Cingular is fantastic why are you posting here dipshit?
>
>
>
> "Xman\(AKA Mike\)" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in
> news:115jln8tfj6eb00@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> I have Cingular through work and it's fantastic. The phones I have
>> used through that service were incredible. No game, teenaged geared
>> bullshit. Just some real useful phones with all the technology built
>> right in with NO crippling of the features. Just think of having too
>> many phone with bluetooth....rather then just one to select from.
>> Really a bluetooth wireless headset is a nice feature on a cell
>> phone...especially if you use it a lot.
>>
>>
>> "Bubba DeBub" <BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote in message
>> news:swd6e.1835$lv1.1208@fed1read06...
>>> Have you tried Sprint in your area? They have a much better selection
>>> of phones than Verizon.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Bubba
>>>
>>> "Dan Albrich" <dalbrich@uoregon.edui> wrote in message
>>> news:0PadnZkzMpBtwcTfRVn-og@comcast.com...
>>>> Each carrier has features that differentiate themselves from the
>>>> competition.
>>>> Cingular has roll-over minutes, large geographic coverage (better
>>>> than Verizon
>>>> in my home states of OR/WA), and transparent roaming even for data.
>>>> I also tend to like GSM phone selection better than CDMA generally.
>>>> The service for in-town use around Eugene is mediocre at best--
>>>> holes in coverage spanning years have never been addressed (LCC
>>>> 30th). System busy errors when trying to place a call are common, as
>>>> are dropped calls.
>>>>
>>>> Verizon doesn't offer roll-over, has a large geographic coverage
>>>> area, no transparency for roaming, Ugly phones etc. The service here
>>>> in Eugene (and for that matter places I travel) tends to be
>>>> excellent. I literally cannot remember the last time I received an
>>>> all-circuits-busy problem, or a dropped call.
>>>>
>>>> So yes, it's a mixed bag and you have to pick what you care about.
>>>> I've often thought I wish I could pick what I want from the
>>>> smorgasboard i.e. Verizon's network, and someone else's phone for
>>>> example. It just doesn't work that way.
>>>>
>>>> -Dan
>>>>
>>>> PS: If Cingular had great coverage in my home town, and most places
>>>> I travel, I'd seriously consider them despite the poor job they've
>>>> done making former AT&T customers feel welcome. Each of these major
>>>> cellular companies have some policies that make them feel cold and
>>>> callous. I've hit more of those with Cingular than any other
>>>> carrier I've used. In other
>>>> words, customer service does matter, and Verizon tends to do a good
>>>> job in that regard.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> =======================
>>>> Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
>>>> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> "Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:115hl99qpbmq386@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> Has Verizon changed their policies yet and let you keep the minutes
>>>>> you pay for each month?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> A
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:44:00 AM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113444842.279823@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Xman,
>
> Thanks for the great idea. Can you help me with that?
>
> When I get ready to watch a ball game can I call
> and subscribe 5 minutes before and cancel 5 minutes
> after? I'd be willing to pay the 10 minutes extra. Please
> tell us the number and process to do this. I'd recommend
> everybody do the same. Don't let Comcast rip you off
> for unused service.
>

But, Quick- don't forget that you'd have to be very good about planning
ahead. Your best bet would be to put both orders in (connect and
disconnect) about 4 weeks ahead of time to insure you were on the calendar
for that day. It's not like cellular, where you can get immediate service
and immediate disconnection of service. In fact, you can rarely get same
day service for any issue. And what about those interruptions in service
not initiated by the customer? Why aren't those automatically credited to
the customer's account? You would think that an industry whose prices have
risen 5 times the rate of inflation over the last 10 years could afford the
technology to do that. Where is the 'customer friendly' aspect of all this?

And Mike- would the penalties imposed for early termination of a promotional
package not be considered early termination fees? You should really read
the fine print of some of those cable promotions before claiming there are
no ETF's. In fact, cable operates the same way as cellular- if you sign up
for a promotional deal, additional fees can be added if the contract is
broken. However, if you go month-to-month, no such fees will apply.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:07:35 AM

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

"Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:4blq51t1rebt7u13qgmkpl47cf5k89v389@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:38:32 -0700, "Bubba DeBub"
> <BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote:
>
> >Have you tried Sprint in your area? They have a much better
selection of
> >phones than Verizon.
>
> <Cringe>. To be able to use Sprint in Sunnyvale, CA, I had to
> literally sit about 3 inches from a window in my house. Not a
problem
> with Verizon. I took a job in Pleasanton now and work till 10 PM. I
> call my girlfriend on my way home through the Sunol grade. And like
> clockwork, <DROP> at a certain area. We quickly found out where this
> area is, so I can now say "About to drop the call."
>
> The second day this happened, when I called my girlfriend back, she
> said "What, did you go back to Sprint?"

Screw phone selection, how about coverage!

I live up in Oakland. I had Cellular1 analog for a long time which was
great! With a Fujitsu 3W phone I could talk all the way to Reno except
for a few miles down in Trukee Canyon. Most people couldn't tell I was
on a cell phone!

I was living up in Seattle for a while, traveling back and forth to
the Bay Area. I switched to AT&T and kept their service until about 3
months ago. AT&T's TDMA coverage was great throughout most of the
country except for parts of the east coast and most of CA.

I signed up with Verizon last June and up until two weeks ago I've
been very happy with their service. There are a few dead spots: in
Alameda near the Oakland Airport, large parts of Sonoma County, the
Sears Point area, Mare Island, 580 through Richmond and so on. Most
carriers have problems in those areas.

Two weeks ago my phone started giving me problems in my home in the
Oakland hills. I have a clear view all the way to the Golden Gate
Bridge. I've tried 4 different phones, 3 of them new and still no joy.
Up to 90% of my calls are garbled or get dropped, plus I have problems
in other parts of Oakland. The signal picks up again as soon as I get
past Emeryville on I-80 east or on I-880 south.

I feel very uncomfortable about the pact I made with the devil last
weekend. I picked up a new Sprint Nokia 6016i which I'm trying for 30
days. It's working everywhere I'm having problems with Verizon. I have
a brand new Verizon Nokia 6015i which I'm returning tomorrow as it
doesn't work any better than my 3 Nokia 3285s.

I've spent a number of hours on the line with Verizon CS. No it's not
my phone! It's your service, something has changed!

I don't want to do it but unless service improves, I'm going to have
to dump Verizon so that I can port my number to Sprint (the company
with the most number of complaints to the BBB of any business in the
US)!
--
Chas. verktyg@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail me)
April 17, 2005 5:51:19 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:44:00 -0600, "Scott Stephenson"
<scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>the customer's account? You would think that an industry whose prices have
>risen 5 times the rate of inflation over the last 10 years could afford the
>technology to do that. Where is the 'customer friendly' aspect of all this?
>

Also to mention, if you think the cable companies have much to do with
pricing you are greatly mistaken. Why don't you do a little research
first before you blame rising cable TV prices on the cable TV company.
Yea, I post out of the blue myself too some times...but you'll find
out very quickly cable companies have very little control over their
prices.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 10:56:19 PM

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

"Xman" <Xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
news:97u361t6okrenf602bmh694ki8s9egs1uv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:44:00 -0600, "Scott Stephenson"
> <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >the customer's account? You would think that an industry whose prices
have
> >risen 5 times the rate of inflation over the last 10 years could afford
the
> >technology to do that. Where is the 'customer friendly' aspect of all
this?
> >
>
> Also to mention, if you think the cable companies have much to do with
> pricing you are greatly mistaken.

Really? Last time I looked, they set the pricing. And if you are talking
about the cost of programming, they have total control- if it gets too high,
stop carrying it. I seem to remeber someone doing this a few months back,
and it was theprogrammer that blinked, not the service provider

>Why don't you do a little research
> first before you blame rising cable TV prices on the cable TV company.

Plenty of research has been done- I'll find a few articles for you.

> Yea, I post out of the blue myself too some times...but you'll find
> out very quickly cable companies have very little control over their
> prices.
>

On the contrary- most independent research claims exactly the opposite.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:18:48 PM

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

"Xman" <Xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
news:97v361t6okrenf602bmh694ki8s9egs1vv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:44:00 -0600, "Scott Stephenson"
> <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >the cvstomer's accovnt? Yov wovld think that an indvstry whose prices
have
> >risen 5 times the rate of inflation over the last 10 years covld afford
the
> >technology to do that. Where is the 'cvstomer friendly' aspect of all
this?
> >
>
> Also to mention, if yov think the cable companies have mvch to do with
> pricing yov are greatly mistaken. Why don't yov do a little research
> first before yov blame rising cable TV prices on the cable TV company.

Here's a few things for yov to read:

http://www.consvmerfed.org/mpcableindvstry.pdf

http://www.consvmersvnion.org/pdf/CFA103.pdf

http://www.annenberg.nwv.edv/pvbs/cable/cable02.htm

Need more?
April 20, 2005 2:41:16 AM

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

Dvde, these are biased reports with lobbyists against the cable TV indvstry.
Ummm, yov need to find nevtral information regarding the information yov
think yov know abovt. Anyone can find a grovp that's against a company or
services and dig vp some PDF's with nvmbers on it. Check ovt the BPU or
FCC....

"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote in message
news:ntmdnZv48MOzwfnfRVn-jQ@adelphia.com...
>
> "Xman" <Xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
> news:97v361t6okrenf602bmh694ki8s9egs1vv@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:44:00 -0600, "Scott Stephenson"
>> <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >the cvstomer's accovnt? Yov wovld think that an indvstry whose prices
> have
>> >risen 5 times the rate of inflation over the last 10 years covld afford
> the
>> >technology to do that. Where is the 'cvstomer friendly' aspect of all
> this?
>> >
>>
>> Also to mention, if yov think the cable companies have mvch to do with
>> pricing yov are greatly mistaken. Why don't yov do a little research
>> first before yov blame rising cable TV prices on the cable TV company.
>
> Here's a few things for yov to read:
>
> http://www.consvmerfed.org/mpcableindvstry.pdf
>
> http://www.consvmersvnion.org/pdf/CFA103.pdf
>
> http://www.annenberg.nwv.edv/pvbs/cable/cable02.htm
>
> Need more?
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:41:17 AM

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

"Xman" <xman@cdripper.com> wrote in message
news:116bgaf1p07rv49@corp.supernews.com...
> Dude, these are biased reports with lobbyists against the cable TV
industry.
> Ummm, you need to find neutral information regarding the information you
> think you know about. Anyone can find a group that's against a company or
> services and dig up some PDF's with numbers on it. Check out the BPU or
> FCC....
>

Dude, you need to come into the 21st century:

The FCC relinquished its regulatory power over cable television pricing in
1992, turning very limited control back to the municipalities. The only
areas of cable pricing subject to any government regulation are basic cable
services and franchise fees, and this is exercised by the local governments.
By order of the FCC, any other form of cable entertainment is exempt from
regulation by any level of government. Translation- anything other than
basic cable rates are set at the sole discretion of the service provider,
with no review or approval by any level of government. And because of the
lack of natural competition, which many believe to be due to collusion by
the big players, competition does not figure into the equation when pricing
is determined. If you don't believe me, try this- send a complaint about
cable pricing to the FCC and wait for the response. Then, send a complaint
to your local franchise board about the pricing of non-basic service and
wait for the response. You'll notice that the responses will be identical
and neither will provide any help.

Because they no longer have any regulatory power over the industry, the FCC
has not felt the need to report or comment on the industry at any time this
century, except during the DirecTv/Echostar merger talks. If you had done
any research yourself, you would have already known this. In fact, there is
precious little available from the government voicing any kind of opinion-
an indication that the 'numbers' you are trying to dismiss must be doing
their job.

I love the fact that you are so quick to dismiss the material I mentioned-
it proves that you have anything but an unbiased opinion of the situation.
You are so quick to point out your pain with wireless and then jump blindly
to the defense of your beloved cable television, claiming that it is such a
customer friendly bunch. Hidden fees, constantly rising prices, packages
that meet the company's needs but not the customer's, a limited selection of
equipment and the crippling of said equipment to force customers to purchase
additional functionality. If the list sounds familiar, its because it is
everything you complain about here on a regular basis.

You can point to no ETF's as the only differentiation between the two
industries, but its not. I can pretty much pick and choose the cellular
functionality I want to have on my account- almost an a-la-carte ability.
With cable, I am forced to buy programming that I have no interest in or use
for in order to get the precious little that I am interested in. If I
analyze my viewing behavior, I count 30 channels that I would view in a
year's time. In order to get those 30, I have to order four different tiers
of service that include 175 channels. Hardly a friendly approach.

So, you can tell yourself that I may only think that I know the subject.
However, I posted three different reports about the industry and just laid
out a series of facts. You have yet to do the same. So, who is it that
thinks they know something here?
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 4:03:28 PM

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

Xman wrote:
> Dvde, these are biased reports with lobbyists against the
> cable TV indvstry. Ummm, yov need to find nevtral
> information regarding the information yov think yov know
> abovt. Anyone can find a grovp that's against a company
> or services and dig vp some PDF's with nvmbers on it.
> Check ovt the BPU or FCC....
>>
>> http://www.consvmersvnion.org/pdf/CFA103.pdf

Consvmers Union? Biased by lobbyists? That's news
to me.

-Qvick
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 3:44:54 AM

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

Xman wrote:
> If the technology allowed and hopefully in the future,
> customer's will be able to pick and choose EVERY
> channel they want and discard all the others. Right
> now, the technology does not allow this.

Really? Please explain. How come I can call up, say
I want Cinemax, and it magically becomes unscrambled?

> It's a real hard comparison to make....while
> Comcast has VOD, digital music services, Internet, and a
> whole bunch of other services there's really a lot of
> combinations and packages a customer can choose from.
> Hey, you pay a premium and very expensive cellular phone
> bill...(the most expensive of any other) so there should
> be no reason to bitch about cable TV.

Hey, you pay a lot for your car so there should be no
reason to bitch about cell service. Nice argument...

-Quick
!