Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"Americas Choice" Roaming

Tags:
  • Verizon
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:38:06 PM

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

I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 days
to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority. I
travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a "Verizon" or
"Extended network" displayed on the screen of my VX6100. Sometimes, but not
lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service
area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a
call?
As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA
--
CorkyF

More about : americas choice roaming

Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:38:07 PM

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

"Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iJHje.159488$Sq.100900@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>
> I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
> choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30
> days to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority.
> I travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
> I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a "Verizon" or
> "Extended network" displayed on the screen of my VX6100. Sometimes, but
> not lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no
> service area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I
> can't make a call?
> As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
> want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA
> --
> CorkyF


When you're in a No Service area, the display on your phone says "No
Service" and if you try to make a call, it won't go. That's how you know;-)

Doc
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:38:07 PM

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

As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Roughrider50 wrote:

>I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
>choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have
>30 days to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first
>priority. I travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
>I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a
>"Verizon" or "Extended network" displayed on the screen of my
>VX6100. Sometimes, but not lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do
>I tell if I'm in a no service area? Do I get the Phone with a slash
>or do I find out when I can't make a call?
>As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the
>way I want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA

"No roaming" with the National Singlerate plan meant that Verizon
would pick up the tab if you were out in the boondocks, but with
the new AC plan you'll simply have no service in those roaming areas
that previously had the flashing triangle. If the phone absolutely,
positively has to work "everywhere", then stay with your old NSR
plan even if it does have fewer minutes. On the other hand, your
observations confirm the fact that the AC network is pretty extensive
and will more than likely fulfill your needs. YMMV.

--
Jafo
Related resources
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:38:07 PM

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

"Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:iJHje.159488
Sometimes, but not
> lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service
> area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a
> call?
> As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
> want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA
> --
> CorkyF


Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming on the "No
Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will get the flashing
triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or is that a solid triangle that
means roaming?!) Did you get the flashing triangle on the current plan or
the old plan? I'm under the impression that your phone will say "Verizon"
or "Extended Network" or "No Service" only. Since there is no roaming in
the plan, the phone now will say no service where it used to roam.

Bob
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:38:08 PM

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

As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Bob A wrote:

>Since there is no roaming in the plan, the phone now will say
>no service where it used to roam.

Makes a good paperweight, though. :) 

--
Jafo
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:38:08 PM

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

Verizon has Native Coverage or a Roaming Agreement with another provider
(Roaming Partner) in almost every wireless market in the country. The
only difference is if Verizon or the roaming partner in that area has
poor coverage, and a non roaming partner good coverage you can't use
the non roaming partner like you do with National Single Rate.

If you need to dail 911 it will work any network that your phone can
connect to. So if your phone says *No Service* it might still be able
to pick up a non roaming partner to get the call threw.


--
agentHibby
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t176194.html
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:04:53 PM

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

If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming
partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle
then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per
my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are
true.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:17:29 PM

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

As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:

>If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
>911.

Incorrect. "No service" can mean "no service that you're qualified to
use". If you're in an NS area and you need to call 911, give it a
try. If there's a cell tower in the area that your phone can possibly
communicate with, the call will go through. And if there isn't, what
have you lost by trying?

--
Jafo
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 11:13:31 PM

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

parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:
> If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
> 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming
> partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle
> then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per
> my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are
> true.

In 911 mode, the phone is supposed to grab whatever signal it can. In normal
mode, it will only search Verizon networks and certain roaming networks that
Verizon programs it to search.

The one time I tried this I was in Verizon digital coverage, but my
neighborhood had lousy VZW digital coverage at the time, so when I needed to
call 911, my tri-mode phone actually grabbed someone else's analog carrier
instead. (Never did find out whose. Sprint had great coverage in our
neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it might have
been Cingular.)

--
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
May 22, 2005 11:08:32 AM

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

You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal.

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:D 6ophc$j6e$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
> parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:
>> If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
>> 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming
>> partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle
>> then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per
>> my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are
>> true.
>
> In 911 mode, the phone is supposed to grab whatever signal it can. In
> normal mode, it will only search Verizon networks and certain roaming
> networks that Verizon programs it to search.
>
> The one time I tried this I was in Verizon digital coverage, but my
> neighborhood had lousy VZW digital coverage at the time, so when I needed
> to call 911, my tri-mode phone actually grabbed someone else's analog
> carrier instead. (Never did find out whose. Sprint had great coverage in
> our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it
> might have been Cingular.)
>
> --
> 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
May 22, 2005 1:52:13 PM

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

Tee Box wrote:
> You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal.

It was absolutely possible a couple years ago. Probably still is. Cingular
(former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time...

It wouldn't be Nextel, but I didn't say I thought it was nextel

--
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"
May 22, 2005 5:04:16 PM

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

Well, could grab a Cingular ANALOG signal....

Dean
_____________________________________
"Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F4CdnSOA0PWQ9Q3fRVn-1w@giganews.com...
> You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal.
>
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:D 6ophc$j6e$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
>> parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
>>> 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming
>>> partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle
>>> then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per
>>> my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are
>>> true.
>>
>> In 911 mode, the phone is supposed to grab whatever signal it can. In
>> normal mode, it will only search Verizon networks and certain roaming
>> networks that Verizon programs it to search.
>>
>> The one time I tried this I was in Verizon digital coverage, but my
>> neighborhood had lousy VZW digital coverage at the time, so when I needed
>> to call 911, my tri-mode phone actually grabbed someone else's analog
>> carrier instead. (Never did find out whose. Sprint had great coverage in
>> our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm guessing it
>> might have been Cingular.)
>>
>> --
>> 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
May 22, 2005 5:04:17 PM

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

Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When a
cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
usable to that cellphone. That's not to say there isn't service around you,
it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else.
That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in
2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't
get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even
if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection.
(But it must be a compatible technology)

"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kr%je.11002$mv5.1992@trndny07...
> Well, could grab a Cingular ANALOG signal....
>
> Dean
> _____________________________________
> "Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:F4CdnSOA0PWQ9Q3fRVn-1w@giganews.com...
>> You're not going to grab a Nextel or Cingular signal.
>>
>> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>> news:D 6ophc$j6e$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
>>> parikhvasantv@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> If your phone states, "no service", then it cannot make any call - even
>>>> 911. There is no service reaching the phone - not even a roaming
>>>> partner's service. On the other hand if you see a blinking triangle
>>>> then it does mean that the call will go thru on a partners network. Per
>>>> my experience while travelling, I can say that the above statements are
>>>> true.
>>>
>>> In 911 mode, the phone is supposed to grab whatever signal it can. In
>>> normal mode, it will only search Verizon networks and certain roaming
>>> networks that Verizon programs it to search.
>>>
>>> The one time I tried this I was in Verizon digital coverage, but my
>>> neighborhood had lousy VZW digital coverage at the time, so when I
>>> needed to call 911, my tri-mode phone actually grabbed someone else's
>>> analog carrier instead. (Never did find out whose. Sprint had great
>>> coverage in our neighborhood, but they never had any analog towers. I'm
>>> guessing it might have been Cingular.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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"
>>
>>
>
>
May 22, 2005 5:04:18 PM

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

Cingular is TDMA and Verizon is CDMS for their DIGITAL services. Both
offer analog services in many areas, which are completely compatable
with each other. So a version tri-mode phone can easilly use a Cingular
Analog signal in emergency situations.

Rich

Tee Box wrote:
> Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When a
> cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
> usable to that cellphone. That's not to say there isn't service around you,
> it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else.
> That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in
> 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't
> get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even
> if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection.
> (But it must be a compatible technology)
>
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:04:18 PM

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

Tee Box wrote:
> Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible.

Well, I lived in Cleveland for over 30 years, and used cellular there from 1993
through the time I moved to California in summer of 2003. Cingular and Verizon
BOTH inherited analog networks from their predecessors, Ameritech Cellular and
AirTouch/CellularONE, respectively. An analog phone can use any analog signal
from any carrier.

> cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
> usable to that cellphone.

You really ought to educate yourself before you post.

When you dial 911, the phone is supposed to grab ANY signal it can grab. If the
phone has analog capability - and back then, my Nokia 3285 most definitely did
- it will grab an analog signal if that's the strongest signal available.

I *might* have gotten a Verizon analog signal, but back in 2001-2002, Verzion
basically had no coverage in the neighborhood where I was living at the time.

> it's saying there's none compatible. You won't get 911 or anything else.
> That's not the FCC's requirement. The regulation, which took effect in
> 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't
> get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even
> if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection.
> (But it must be a compatible technology)

AMPS is AMPS. It DOES NOT MATTER WHICH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY THE CARRIER USES.

Any AMPS phone can run on any AMPS carrier.

--
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
May 22, 2005 9:32:04 PM

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:29:46 -0400, "Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>When a
>cellphone says "no service" that's what it means. There is no service
>usable to that cellphone.

Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a
compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be
used. Such a signal would be used by 911, however.

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 4:08:18 PM

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

Bob Scheurle <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in
news:8dg1919el28lnh4l58ei3tq3lbfj8o1imf@4ax.com:

> Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a
> compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be
> used. Such a signal would be used by 911, however.
>
> --
> Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
> njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
> Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
>

Do new phones work differently from the Motorola V60i PRL?

In the covered service area of Charleston, SC, Verizon has several service
holes that used to roam to Alltel (b-system cellular) or Sprint PCS. The
PRL was changed to exclude roaming to any other system, then the phones
read NO SERVICE. Calls to 911 did NOT hook to Alltel's 800 Mhz B-system
towers on PRL equipped phones, but an old analog flipphone or bagphone set
to STD A/B, that would already be roaming on Alltel B in the dead zone
WOULD dial 911, without exception.

When did this change?

I keep a 3W Motorola bagphone with cigarette lighter power and no dead
battery in all my cars ($1 at thrift shops) so 911 always works, no matter
what the companies do with PRL games....You should, too!

Alltel does not roam to Verizon's 800 Mhz system in Eastern SC, but its PRL
does roam up in the mountains NW of Columbia as this is permitted on its
PRL. No Verizon roaming to Alltel in the whole state, last time I looked.

In Charleston, Alltel just works better....still.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 4:08:19 PM

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

Larry W4CSC wrote:
>
> When did this change?

1978

-Quick
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:40:45 PM

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

"Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I recently switched from "National access single rate" to "Americas
>choice-No Roam". My bucket of minutes cost gets cut in half. I have 30 days
>to switch back if this doesn't work. Connection is my first priority. I
>travel extensively & want a phone that works everywhere.
> I have been watching my screen as I travel & usually I see a "Verizon" or
>"Extended network" displayed on the screen of my VX6100. Sometimes, but not
>lately, I see a flashing triangle. How do I tell if I'm in a no service
>area? Do I get the Phone with a slash or do I find out when I can't make a
>call?
>As I've said I have about 3 weeks left to determine if this is the way I
>want to go, so I want to check this out thoroughly. TIA

Don't think this is a good move. I am a full time RVer on the move
about every 10 - 14 days. I have had the one rate plan for several
years. I have looked at the other plans and in all cases the Verizon
stores have all advised against making a change. My coverage has been
great. Oh yes there have been time that I have not had coverage for
days at a time. But you should have seen where I was. Those were
places where I am surprised that even had a land line. During one of
our mid-west swings we had a Sprint phone as well as the Verizon. In
four months we never had Sprint signal but Verizon was there 90% of
the time.

Bill
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:38:11 PM

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

On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:29:17 -0400, Bob A wrote:

> Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming on the "No
> Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will get the flashing
> triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or is that a solid triangle that
> means roaming?!)

Solid triangle = roaming
Flashing triangle = extended area
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:49:14 AM

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

As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, CellGuy wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:29:17 -0400, Bob A wrote:
>>Just to add some fuel to the fire.. Since there is no roaming
>>on the "No Roam" America's Choice plan...I don't think you will
>>get the flashing triangle since that means you are roaming. (Or
>>is that a solid triangle that means roaming?!)

>Solid triangle = roaming
>Flashing triangle = extended area

I guess I had it backwards, too. Contrary to logic, isn't it?
The one that flashes to get your attention really isn't important.
I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.

--
Jafo
May 24, 2005 1:10:40 PM

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

Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, CellGuy wrote:
>>Solid triangle = roaming
>>Flashing triangle = extended area
>
>
> I guess I had it backwards, too. Contrary to logic, isn't it?
> The one that flashes to get your attention really isn't important.
> I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.
>
> --
> Jafo

It could be that nothing meant not roaming at all, and a solid triangle
meant roaming and paying, and flashing meant part of each. (1/2
triangle, 1/2 nothing)

Rich
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 6:26:07 PM

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

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Cingular
> (former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time...

Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because
Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved.

--
I miss my .signature.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 7:44:44 PM

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

"agentHibby" <agentHibby.1pe47z@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:agentHibby.1pe47z@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> Verizon has Native Coverage or a Roaming Agreement with another provider
> (Roaming Partner) in almost every wireless market in the country. The
> only difference is if Verizon or the roaming partner in that area has
> poor coverage, and a non roaming partner good coverage you can't use
> the non roaming partner like you do with National Single Rate.

Not any more. This was the case on the earlier America's Choice plan. Now
they have changed it, and there is no roaming off of Verizon--period. Not to
a partner, not to a non-partner, even at extra cost. I called them to verify
this. Exisiting America's Choice customers on the earlier plan will still be
able to roam, and can change their number of plan minutes without losing
roaming. However the number of roaming partners, where roaming is included,
will continue to decrease (as has been the problem with AC for a long time).
I.e. a month or two after I vacationed in Alaska, Verizon dropped their
roaming agreement, and I would have had to pay for every call.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 7:47:01 PM

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

"Tee Box" <chilidip@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CcadnYMaSLjILg3fRVn-3Q@giganews.com...
> Nope Cingular is TDMA, Verizon CDMA. The two are not compatible. When
a
> cellphone says "no service" that's what it means.

Not true. A Verizon phone that supports AMPS can grab any AMPS signal, and a
Cingular phone that supports AMPS can grab any AMPS signal.

I have an old Cingular GSM phone that read no-service for all calls, except
it works fine for 911.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 7:49:41 PM

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

"Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965F76A8C76DFw4csc@63.223.7.253...
> Bob Scheurle <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in
> news:8dg1919el28lnh4l58ei3tq3lbfj8o1imf@4ax.com:
>
> > Wrong. The PRL can be written to prohibit the phone from using a
> > compatible signal which, in the absence of that PRL coding, could be
> > used. Such a signal would be used by 911, however.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
> > njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
> > Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
> >
>
> Do new phones work differently from the Motorola V60i PRL?
>
> In the covered service area of Charleston, SC, Verizon has several service
> holes that used to roam to Alltel (b-system cellular) or Sprint PCS. The
> PRL was changed to exclude roaming to any other system, then the phones
> read NO SERVICE.

Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other
carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that
they've excluded all non-Verizon service.
May 24, 2005 7:49:42 PM

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

> Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other
> carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that
> they've excluded all non-Verizon service.

Where are you people getting your information from??? The new America's
Choice plan that doesn't allow roaming, still allows calls on their
extended network which includes many many non-Verizon carriers. If you
want to see what you systems you can use, check out the PRL that shows
you exactly what systems your phone can use.
(http://mallard.rainyday.mb.ca/~dialtone/vzw/vz_50295.ht...) Also, I
don't know where the info about them removing partners has come from,
when the new AC plan first came out, they changed many partners that
used to be paid roaming to be part of the extended network, and each PRL
release usually adds a few more partners.

Part of the confusion is that what Verizon calls roaming isn't the true
definition of roaming. The true definition is placing a call that is
not on your home SID, but Verizon considers roaming to be placing a call
on a system that is not part of their extended network and (prior to the
new AC) you would have to pay for.

Rich
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:32:27 PM

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

"Rich" <mathwhiz@mathwhiz.org> wrote in message
news:vvudndfKYKYD_A7fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> > Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other
> > carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that
> > they've excluded all non-Verizon service.
>
> Where are you people getting your information from???

I called Verizon today. Not that the person that told me this knew what they
were talking about! Even if there is still Extended Network coverage, this
is insufficient. I have been to many areas where I am off the extended
network. Just last month I was up on the Northern California Coast, and was
off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of
Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more.

What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per
minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this!
May 24, 2005 9:32:28 PM

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

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Rich" <mathwhiz@mathwhiz.org> wrote in message
> news:vvudndfKYKYD_A7fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
>>>Verizon has been doing this. If they cover an area, they exclude other
>>>carriers in the same area. But the new AC plan is the first time that
>>>they've excluded all non-Verizon service.
>>
>>Where are you people getting your information from???
>
>
> I called Verizon today. Not that the person that told me this knew what they
> were talking about! Even if there is still Extended Network coverage, this
> is insufficient. I have been to many areas where I am off the extended
> network. Just last month I was up on the Northern California Coast, and was
> off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of
> Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more.

I do not see them reducing the number of Extended Network agreements, I
think they expand the number.

> What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per
> minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this!

Two reasons (not that I completely agree they should do it, but I'm sure
these are the reasons they have)
1) Reduce calls from customers complaining about roaming charges and
having to refund the charges.
2) Competition with other carriers that offer no-roaming plans (who
even have less coverage than Verizon).

Rich
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:32:29 PM

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

Rich wrote:
>
>> What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network
>> roaming at 69¢ per minute? Even their prepaid plan
>> allows this!
>
> Two reasons (not that I completely agree they should do
> it, but I'm sure these are the reasons they have)
> 1) Reduce calls from customers complaining about roaming
> charges and having to refund the charges.

Ding! That's exactly what more than one VZW rep has told
me. Not that they *have* to refund the charges but there is
a lot of overhead involved with dealing with the unhappy
(less than sharp-as-a-tack) customers who incurred roaming
charges.

-Quick
May 25, 2005 1:08:54 AM

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

Could anyone else please verify this?

It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I started
asking.

I was told:

1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers are
included in the AC2 PRL.

2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would give
the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.

3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
"included" calls, but not significantly.

I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when the
marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and elsewhere.
I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area, just
like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No
Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this
for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but
thousands of others didn't.

Please tell me it isn't true.

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:MZHke.9799> Not any more. This was the case on the earlier America's
Choice plan. Now
> they have changed it, and there is no roaming off of Verizon--period. Not
> to
> a partner, not to a non-partner, even at extra cost. I called them to
> verify
> this. Exisiting America's Choice customers on the earlier plan will still
> be
> able to roam, and can change their number of plan minutes without losing
> roaming. However the number of roaming partners, where roaming is
> included,
> will continue to decrease (as has been the problem with AC for a long
> time).
> I.e. a month or two after I vacationed in Alaska, Verizon dropped their
> roaming agreement, and I would have had to pay for every call.
>
>
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:10:46 AM

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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:32:27 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>I called Verizon today. Not that the person that told me this knew what they
>were talking about! Even if there is still Extended Network coverage, this
>is insufficient. I have been to many areas where I am off the extended
>network. Just last month I was up on the Northern California Coast, and was
>off the extended network. And since they keep reducing the number of
>Extended Network agreements, this is happening more and more.

This has been beat to death in this newsgroup already. IIRC, Bill Radio
posted some details showing that the new AC plan actually improves
coverage in some areas.

>What is the upside in them prohibiting off-network roaming at 69¢ per
>minute? Even their prepaid plan allows this!

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:29:29 AM

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

"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GJMke.331$QF3.221@trndny06...

> It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I
started
> asking.
>
> I was told:
>
> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
are
> included in the AC2 PRL.
>
> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
give
> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
>
> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
> "included" calls, but not significantly.
>
> I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when
the
> marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and
elsewhere.
> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,
just
> like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No
> Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this
> for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but
> thousands of others didn't.
>
> Please tell me it isn't true.

It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would
be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists.

I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were
getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought
they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to two
reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on their
handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their PRL
on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that
they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two
identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with the
old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network.

Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at 69¢
per minute.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:29:42 AM

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

"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GJMke.331$QF3.221@trndny06...

> It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I
started
> asking.
>
> I was told:
>
> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
are
> included in the AC2 PRL.
>
> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
give
> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
>
> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
> "included" calls, but not significantly.
>
> I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when
the
> marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and
elsewhere.
> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,
just
> like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No
> Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this
> for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but
> thousands of others didn't.
>
> Please tell me it isn't true.

It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would
be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists.

I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were
getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought
they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to two
reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on their
handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their PRL
on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that
they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two
identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with the
old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network.

Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at 69¢
per minute.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 2:57:00 AM

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: "Americas Choice" Roaming

> So much for the bullshit her new phone will go off the PRL to call 911 on
> "any signal it can find". Hell, Sprint's 1900 Mhz tower damned near blows
> out the receivers in there! Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new
> color LG I didn't recognize.

This violates FCC regulations. Unless there is a good explanation for this,
and there doesn't appear to be, Verizon could get in trouble in the unlikely
event that anyone ever complained to the FCC about it.

Of course you know that there will be some excuse, that makes no sense, if
anyone complains. They will blame the handset, claim that the store has a
dead spot, or blame lunar tides.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 4:40:31 AM

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

I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long time.

Dean,
> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
are
> included in the AC2 PRL.

That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC 1,
were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming
charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were
roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state! This
involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners, to
Cingular analog instead.

> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
give
> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.

As above, in the few areas where a roaming partner was removed, another took
its place. Another example: in the 2.5 counties in Colorado with no Verizon
service, one carrier (Blanca) was switched from roaming charges in AC1, to
no roaming charges in AC II. A second change was in a county where the was
no carrier in the PRL, to a new digital carrier (Commnet) which means new
roaming available, and with no roaming charges.

> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
> "included" calls, but not significantly.

Yes, there is a slight difference, but in my opinion, AC II has increased
the area of coverage, and all with no extra roaming charges. Yes, there are
areas where the coverage is slightly different, which really means the weak
spots may have been re-arranged.

> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,

Then you would never switch to Cingular whose current plans would completely
exclude all of the country where there is only analog coverage. But you
said "included calling area"...yes the AC II has a MUCH larger "included
calling area".

Comments about "there's no coverage here or there anymore..." are greatly
exaggerated. If you switched from Verizon to, say, Alltel, you would be
exchanging one set of weak areas for another. But this is how we optimize
our service. We can choose what's best for us. There are a handful of us
who have evaluated the difference between AC1 and AC II to the extreme, and
conclude that it is a change for the better. We know exactly where coverage
MAY have been diminished, but we have also noted that the net result is a
larger area of coverage, especially considering this larger area is included
at no extra roaming charges.

Many of the people claiming "reduced coverage" have not actually been to
most of these areas affected, and probably never will. But when you see a
"hole" in coverage on Verizon's own Coverage Locator, you cannot rely upon
it. To see a big white area in, say, Oregon, on the new AC map, it is a
very inaccurate view of US Cellular's coverage, which is quite good there.
To base your condemnation on these faulty indicators is just ignorance. You
are to be forgiven.

While I personally have experienced new coverage made available w/AC II, I
found a new area of "No Service" in New Mexico that was a bit troubling,
only to find that a different CDMA carrier has made plans to set up a cell
site in this area, which will automatically appear shortly on Verizon
phones.

Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the coverage issue into my own
hands and carry a TDMA Beyond phone as a backup which costs less than $20
per year. With this kind of simple backup, I'm not at all concerned about
any one carrier's 'adjustments', I've got myself covered.

Bill Radio
Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 6:17:33 AM

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

I'm sure Steve Scharf will be sure to cross post this
correction to the rest of the galaxy he originally cross
posted to.

-Quick

Bill Radio wrote:
> I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long
> time.
>
> Dean,
>> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever
>> "extended" carriers are included in the AC2 PRL.
>
> That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming
> charge areas in AC 1, were replaced with different
> carriers with whom there are NO roaming charges. An
> example, in Texas, there were large areas where there
> were roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in
> the entire state! This involved a change from several
> small analog carriers as roaming partners, to Cingular
> analog instead.
>
>> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the
>> phone will get NO service, except in Emergency Mode
>> (usually triggered by a 911 call), in which case the
>> phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
>> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is
>> the primary difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a
>> non-included carrier would give the user a solid roam
>> signal and incur a roaming charge.
>
> As above, in the few areas where a roaming partner was
> removed, another took its place. Another example: in the
> 2.5 counties in Colorado with no Verizon service, one
> carrier (Blanca) was switched from roaming charges in
> AC1, to no roaming charges in AC II. A second change was
> in a county where the was no carrier in the PRL, to a new
> digital carrier (Commnet) which means new roaming
> available, and with no roaming charges.
>
>> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce
>> the area of "included" calls, but not significantly.
>
> Yes, there is a slight difference, but in my opinion, AC
> II has increased the area of coverage, and all with no
> extra roaming charges. Yes, there are areas where the
> coverage is slightly different, which really means the
> weak spots may have been re-arranged.
>
>> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable
>> included calling area,
>
> Then you would never switch to Cingular whose current
> plans would completely exclude all of the country where
> there is only analog coverage. But you said "included
> calling area"...yes the AC II has a MUCH larger "included
> calling area".
>
> Comments about "there's no coverage here or there
> anymore..." are greatly exaggerated. If you switched
> from Verizon to, say, Alltel, you would be exchanging one
> set of weak areas for another. But this is how we
> optimize our service. We can choose what's best for us.
> There are a handful of us who have evaluated the
> difference between AC1 and AC II to the extreme, and
> conclude that it is a change for the better. We know
> exactly where coverage MAY have been diminished, but we
> have also noted that the net result is a larger area of
> coverage, especially considering this larger area is
> included at no extra roaming charges.
>
> Many of the people claiming "reduced coverage" have not
> actually been to most of these areas affected, and
> probably never will. But when you see a "hole" in
> coverage on Verizon's own Coverage Locator, you cannot
> rely upon it. To see a big white area in, say, Oregon,
> on the new AC map, it is a very inaccurate view of US
> Cellular's coverage, which is quite good there. To base
> your condemnation on these faulty indicators is just
> ignorance. You are to be forgiven.
>
> While I personally have experienced new coverage made
> available w/AC II, I found a new area of "No Service" in
> New Mexico that was a bit troubling, only to find that a
> different CDMA carrier has made plans to set up a cell
> site in this area, which will automatically appear
> shortly on Verizon phones.
>
> Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the
> coverage issue into my own hands and carry a TDMA Beyond
> phone as a backup which costs less than $20 per year.
> With this kind of simple backup, I'm not at all concerned
> about any one carrier's 'adjustments', I've got myself
> covered.
>
> Bill Radio
> Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
> http://www.mountainwireless.com
May 25, 2005 6:56:16 AM

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

So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? South Central
Jersey? Parts of Central Florida?

OK, either this is incorrect, or someone at VZW is about
to lose his/her job. IF TRUE, Cingular must be licking their chops----there
will be a hemorrhage of customers as soon as their contracts are up.

I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding somewhere.

__________________________________________
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:a1Nke.7119$M36.630@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GJMke.331$QF3.221@trndny06...
>
>> It's exactly the opposite of what I've been told many times since I
> started
>> asking.
>>
>> I was told:
>>
>> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
> are
>> included in the AC2 PRL.
>>
>> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
>> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
>> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
>> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
>> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
> give
>> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
>>
>> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
>> "included" calls, but not significantly.
>>
>> I don't like it, as explained that way, but it makes perfect sense when
> the
>> marketing reasons are explained in other posts in this thread and
> elsewhere.
>> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,
> just
>> like the rest of you, but I understand the marketing advantage of a "No
>> Roaming, Ever" plan. Other carriers, notably Sprint, have been doing this
>> for years. We newsgroup hounds saw through the ploy right away, but
>> thousands of others didn't.
>>
>> Please tell me it isn't true.
>
> It is true. I called Verizon three times, to be sure that the answer would
> be the same each time. Also, National Single Rate no longer exists.
>
> I explicitly asked why they did this, and the CSR said that they were
> getting too many complaints about roaming charges from people that thought
> they were on the Extended Network, when they really weren't. This due to
> two
> reasons. First people don't pay attention to the roaming indicator on
> their
> handset. Second, people that do pay attention, often don't update their
> PRL
> on a regular basis; as AC coverage has been reduced, they will think that
> they are on the Extended Network, but they really are not. We have two
> identical phones, one with an up-to-date PRL, one without. The one with
> the
> old PRL shows a lot more coverage on the Extended Network.
>
> Apparently InPulse (Verizon prepaid) still allows off-network roaming at
> 69¢
> per minute.
>
>
>
May 25, 2005 6:56:17 AM

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

Dean wrote:
> So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania? South Central
> Jersey? Parts of Central Florida?
>
> OK, either this is incorrect, or someone at VZW is about
> to lose his/her job. IF TRUE, Cingular must be licking their chops----there
> will be a hemorrhage of customers as soon as their contracts are up.
>
> I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding somewhere.

As far as I know you will not lose any coverage in those areas. IIRC
the only place where there was noticable coverage loss was in the WA/OR
area. Again, for a full listing of all systems that you will be able to
use un AC2 visit http://mallard.rainyday.mb.ca/~dialtone/vzw/vz_50295.ht...

Rich
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 6:56:17 AM

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

Dean wrote:
> So----under AC2, I lose ALL coverage in NE Pennsylvania?
> South Central Jersey? Parts of Central Florida?
>
> OK, either this is incorrect, or someone at VZW is about
> to lose his/her job. IF TRUE, Cingular must be licking
> their chops----there will be a hemorrhage of customers as
> soon as their contracts are up.
>
> I will hold out hope that there's a misunderstanding
> somewhere.

oooo, let me think here. Cingular stock going up?
It's been over 4 months now and millions of VZW
customers haven't noticed yet? Maybe they are just
silently seething and waiting for their 2 year contracts
to expire?

-Quick
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 9:22:50 AM

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

Regions like here in WI where ameritech mobile was one of the two
cellular carriers, they went from analog only to adding cdma then
switching to tdma then to gsm and they still have to maintain their
analog network.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 11:51:26 AM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:1116995631.740592@sj-nntpcache-5:

> Right. Everyone knows that the FCC and the rest of the
> government agencies are complete morons and will
> certainly buy any excuse VZW gives them. It's also
> common knowledge (and therefore absolutely true) that
> VZW pays them off and has them completely in their
> pocket. If anybody would listen to Larry he'd be bigger
> than Ralph Nadar.
>
> -Quick
>
>

Cellular has FCC in their pockets. Otherwise, FCC would have forced them
all to use the same modulation scheme and to require proof-of-performance
to ensure smooth coverages across their licensed areas, like broadcasters
must provide. Cellular carriers would never pass a proof of performance
test properly administered by outside vendors. You all know where the
holes are, like my Wally World. So, don't look to FCC for any action on
anything. They work for the big money boys....not the taxpaying consumers
forced by guns to pay their wages.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 12:16:26 PM

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

couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED??
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:19:26 PM

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

Rich wrote:
> iwantthisname@gmail.com wrote:
> > couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED??
> >
>
> They didn't change anything on existing contracts. The changes to not
> allow roaming and the larger extended network is only for new contracts.
>
> Rich

thanks Rich, I didnt understand that part of it
May 25, 2005 4:13:32 PM

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

iwantthisname@gmail.com wrote:
> couldnt you opt out of contract since there side HAS CHANGED??
>

They didn't change anything on existing contracts. The changes to not
allow roaming and the larger extended network is only for new contracts.

Rich
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 4:52:55 PM

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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:21:12 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
>open and dialed 911. I got the NO SERVICE warning tones....and NO 911
>SERVICE FROM THE GODDAMNED SPRINT TOWER OUT IN THE PARKING LOT OR ALLTEL ON
>'B' 800 MHZ WHICH HAS 5 BARS IN WALLY WORLD, EITHER....
>
>Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new
>color LG I didn't recognize.

Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless.
And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that
particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made:

>If it says NO SERVICE....IT WON'T CALL 911 EITHER...EVEN IF YOU'RE STANDING
>UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!!

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 7:13:51 PM

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

Bill Radio wrote:

> That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC 1,
> were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming
> charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were
> roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state! This
> involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners, to
> Cingular analog instead.

How nice. What if you don't have a tri-mode phone?

Sounds like Sprint. A lot of their roaming is still analog.

--
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
May 25, 2005 11:14:00 PM

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

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:52:55 GMT, Bob Scheurle
<njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:21:12 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>open and dialed 911. I got the NO SERVICE warning tones....and NO 911
>>SERVICE FROM THE SPRINT TOWER OUT IN THE PARKING LOT OR ALLTEL ON
>>'B' 800 MHZ WHICH HAS 5 BARS IN WALLY WORLD, EITHER....
>>
>>Her phone was 4 months old, some kind of new
>>color LG I didn't recognize.
>
>Most likely digital only, so your analog Alltel signal was worthless.

Alltel is CDMA ...

>And since you don't know if the Sprint tower was working at that
>particular instant in time, you cannot make the conclusion you made:

you are correct, but I'd bet LArry is correct and it didn't go to
their working tower.

>>If it says NO SERVICE....IT WON'T CALL 911 EITHER...EVEN IF YOU'RE STANDING
>>UNDER AN ALLTEL OR SPRINT TOWER!!
May 27, 2005 4:41:25 AM

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

Thanks Bill.

I was hoping you'd respond to this post.

I believe you are confirming what I had hoped. I found the other
explanantion difficult to accept, although I don't doubt Steve may have been
given incorrect info by CS. I always confirm any info of that type with a
repeat call asking the same question----even though Steve appears to have
done that, maybe two or three reps in a row didn't know what they were
talking about. I've seen that too.

Dean
_________________________________
"Bill Radio" <Wireless@MountainWirelessNOSPAN.com> wrote in message
news:11987f2pgbt925e@corp.supernews.com...
>I haven't seen so much mis-information here ikn a long time.
>
> Dean,
>> 1/ AC2 covers Verizon native coverage PLUS whatever "extended" carriers
> are
>> included in the AC2 PRL.
>
> That is correct. A few carriers that were .69 roaming charge areas in AC
> 1,
> were replaced with different carriers with whom there are NO roaming
> charges. An example, in Texas, there were large areas where there were
> roaming charges, now there are no roaming charges in the entire state!
> This
> involved a change from several small analog carriers as roaming partners,
> to
> Cingular analog instead.
>
>> 2/ In areas which are not included in the AC2 PRL, the phone will get NO
>> service, except in Emergency Mode (usually triggered by a 911 call), in
>> which case the phone will work for the Emergency call on any compatible
>> network (such as AMPS, or another CDMA carrier). This is the primary
>> difference in the new AC, whereas in AC1, a non-included carrier would
> give
>> the user a solid roam signal and incur a roaming charge.
>
> As above, in the few areas where a roaming partner was removed, another
> took
> its place. Another example: in the 2.5 counties in Colorado with no
> Verizon
> service, one carrier (Blanca) was switched from roaming charges in AC1, to
> no roaming charges in AC II. A second change was in a county where the
> was
> no carrier in the PRL, to a new digital carrier (Commnet) which means new
> roaming available, and with no roaming charges.
>
>> 3/ The AC2 PRL differs from that of AC1, and MAY reduce the area of
>> "included" calls, but not significantly.
>
> Yes, there is a slight difference, but in my opinion, AC II has increased
> the area of coverage, and all with no extra roaming charges. Yes, there
> are
> areas where the coverage is slightly different, which really means the
> weak
> spots may have been re-arranged.
>
>> I don't like anything which may reduce my usable included calling area,
>
> Then you would never switch to Cingular whose current plans would
> completely
> exclude all of the country where there is only analog coverage. But you
> said "included calling area"...yes the AC II has a MUCH larger "included
> calling area".
>
> Comments about "there's no coverage here or there anymore..." are greatly
> exaggerated. If you switched from Verizon to, say, Alltel, you would be
> exchanging one set of weak areas for another. But this is how we optimize
> our service. We can choose what's best for us. There are a handful of us
> who have evaluated the difference between AC1 and AC II to the extreme,
> and
> conclude that it is a change for the better. We know exactly where
> coverage
> MAY have been diminished, but we have also noted that the net result is a
> larger area of coverage, especially considering this larger area is
> included
> at no extra roaming charges.
>
> Many of the people claiming "reduced coverage" have not actually been to
> most of these areas affected, and probably never will. But when you see a
> "hole" in coverage on Verizon's own Coverage Locator, you cannot rely upon
> it. To see a big white area in, say, Oregon, on the new AC map, it is a
> very inaccurate view of US Cellular's coverage, which is quite good there.
> To base your condemnation on these faulty indicators is just ignorance.
> You
> are to be forgiven.
>
> While I personally have experienced new coverage made available w/AC II, I
> found a new area of "No Service" in New Mexico that was a bit troubling,
> only to find that a different CDMA carrier has made plans to set up a cell
> site in this area, which will automatically appear shortly on Verizon
> phones.
>
> Regardless of what Verizon does, I have taken the coverage issue into my
> own
> hands and carry a TDMA Beyond phone as a backup which costs less than $20
> per year. With this kind of simple backup, I'm not at all concerned about
> any one carrier's 'adjustments', I've got myself covered.
>
> Bill Radio
> Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
> http://www.mountainwireless.com
>
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 8:49:23 AM

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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:26:07 -0500, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>Steve Sobol wrote:
>> Cingular
>> (former Ameritech Cellular) had analog coverage for quite some time...
>
>Dunno what region you're talking about, but we're on Verizon because
>Verizon ate GTE after GTE ate Ameritech Cellular. No Cingular involved.

You must be in the Chicago market, like I am. When SBC bought Ameritech, it
absorbed Ameritech Cellular into the Cellular One fold, which soon became
Cingular. BUT, since Cell One already had a presence in Chicago, they had
to divest this market from Ameritech Cellular's overall system and sold it
to GTE (which, as you say, promptly rolled into VZW).

It took me quite a while in this group to come to understand this myself.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"DRUG STORE BODY. Let's get the Good Shape and have a sexy body just like a
pig." - slogan on a pair of Japanese overalls
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!