Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Beware of trying to activate older phones

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 4:07:04 PM

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

My most recently upgraded phone, a Samsung, developed problems and I wanted
to reactivate an older LG VX1 that I have here. Verizon is refusing to
activate the phone because it isn't e911 capable. This has to do with
getting their network in compliance with a government law requiring e911
percentages. I was told that I will have to buy a new phone. Isn't that
just great for Verizon....not so great for the comsumer. The arrogant
little pr*ck at customer service was about as unsympathetic as he could be
about my situation, which really ticked me off.
Anyway, think twice before buying any used phone, or using one of your old
ones. It must be compliant or Verizon won't activate it.
August 13, 2005 5:52:20 PM

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

Your problem isn't verizon it is the government. Why is your hatred towards
Verizon. You make no sense, but again you are very uninformed about current
law and probably about many things in life.



"Dan V." <davander@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KradnZ57bsETtWPfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> My most recently upgraded phone, a Samsung, developed problems and I
> wanted to reactivate an older LG VX1 that I have here. Verizon is
> refusing to activate the phone because it isn't e911 capable. This has to
> do with getting their network in compliance with a government law
> requiring e911 percentages. I was told that I will have to buy a new
> phone. Isn't that just great for Verizon....not so great for the comsumer.
> The arrogant little pr*ck at customer service was about as unsympathetic
> as he could be about my situation, which really ticked me off.
> Anyway, think twice before buying any used phone, or using one of your old
> ones. It must be compliant or Verizon won't activate it.
>
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 9:57:00 PM

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:07:04 -0500, "Dan V." <davander@comcast.net>
wrote:
>My most recently upgraded phone, a Samsung, developed problems and I wanted
>to reactivate an older LG VX1 that I have here. Verizon is refusing to
>activate the phone because it isn't e911 capable. This has to do with
>getting their network in compliance with a government law requiring e911
>percentages. I was told that I will have to buy a new phone.

Try doing it online. People have said they were able to activate a
non-GPS phone online.

>Isn't that
>just great for Verizon....not so great for the comsumer. The arrogant
>little pr*ck at customer service was about as unsympathetic as he could be
>about my situation, which really ticked me off.

Tell them you'll switch to another carrier and see what they do.

>Anyway, think twice before buying any used phone, or using one of your old
>ones. It must be compliant or Verizon won't activate it.

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Related resources
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 9:57:01 PM

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

I told them I wanted to out of my contract - little arrogant one said no,
not without buying my way out.
Also, have tried several times on line to activate with no luck, that's why
I called them .
Once again, it's all about Big Business -- and screw the customer.

"Bob Scheurle" <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:g0dsf158fbnt341f60igkh6rl4d21391u7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:07:04 -0500, "Dan V." <davander@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>My most recently upgraded phone, a Samsung, developed problems and I
>>wanted
>>to reactivate an older LG VX1 that I have here. Verizon is refusing to
>>activate the phone because it isn't e911 capable. This has to do with
>>getting their network in compliance with a government law requiring e911
>>percentages. I was told that I will have to buy a new phone.
>
> Try doing it online. People have said they were able to activate a
> non-GPS phone online.
>
>>Isn't that
>>just great for Verizon....not so great for the comsumer. The arrogant
>>little pr*ck at customer service was about as unsympathetic as he could be
>>about my situation, which really ticked me off.
>
> Tell them you'll switch to another carrier and see what they do.
>
>>Anyway, think twice before buying any used phone, or using one of your old
>>ones. It must be compliant or Verizon won't activate it.
>
> --
> Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
> njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
> Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
August 13, 2005 9:57:02 PM

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

DV wrote:
> I told them I wanted to out of my contract - little arrogant one said no,
> not without buying my way out.
> Also, have tried several times on line to activate with no luck, that's why
> I called them .
> Once again, it's all about Big Business -- and screw the customer.
>


I'll be the fist to speak up about big business tactics but your issue
is a direct result of the e911 mandate required by the government.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 9:57:03 PM

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

I don't care what the root cause is...Verizon management needs to find a way
to comply without penalizing their long time customers. That's MY issue
with them.

"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:04ednWwpnJOz3GPfRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
> DV wrote:
>> I told them I wanted to out of my contract - little arrogant one said no,
>> not without buying my way out.
>> Also, have tried several times on line to activate with no luck, that's
>> why I called them .
>> Once again, it's all about Big Business -- and screw the customer.
>>
>
>
> I'll be the fist to speak up about big business tactics but your issue is
> a direct result of the e911 mandate required by the government.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 11:40:26 PM

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

VZW should give you a new phone since you're such a good customer. Get real,
crybaby, it's the government's fault, not VZW.

"DV" <davander@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Su-dnW1UFqQf2mPfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>I don't care what the root cause is...Verizon management needs to find a
>way to comply without penalizing their long time customers. That's MY
>issue with them.
>
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:04ednWwpnJOz3GPfRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
>> DV wrote:
>>> I told them I wanted to out of my contract - little arrogant one said
>>> no, not without buying my way out.
>>> Also, have tried several times on line to activate with no luck, that's
>>> why I called them .
>>> Once again, it's all about Big Business -- and screw the customer.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll be the fist to speak up about big business tactics but your issue is
>> a direct result of the e911 mandate required by the government.
>
>
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 12:21:52 AM

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

"Dan V." <davander@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KradnZ57bsETtWPfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> My most recently upgraded phone, a Samsung, developed problems and I
> wanted to reactivate an older LG VX1 that I have here. Verizon is
> refusing to activate the phone because it isn't e911 capable. This has to
> do with getting their network in compliance with a government law
> requiring e911 percentages. I was told that I will have to buy a new
> phone. Isn't that just great for Verizon....not so great for the comsumer.
> The arrogant little pr*ck at customer service was about as unsympathetic
> as he could be about my situation, which really ticked me off.
> Anyway, think twice before buying any used phone, or using one of your old
> ones. It must be compliant or Verizon won't activate it.
Just logon to your account on the Verizon Wireless website, go to the
"Activate Phone" tab and you can do it yourself-- no matter what the store
dweeb wouldn't do for you...

X
August 14, 2005 12:33:24 PM

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

"DV" <davander@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Su-dnW1UFqQf2mPfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> I don't care what the root cause is...Verizon management needs to find a
way
> to comply without penalizing their long time customers. That's MY issue
> with them.
>

What do YOU suggest- a special dispensation for you because you're too
stubborn to buy a new phone? Any idea how long the line would be for one of
those? Ready to have your rates increase so that Verizon can pay the fines
when they don't comply?

Another perfect example of, "ME, ME, ME, ME."
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 5:02:28 AM

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

Dan V. wrote:
> The arrogant
> little pr*ck at customer service was about as unsympathetic as he could be
> about my situation, which really ticked me off.

Two options when faced with bad customer service reps:

(1) Ask for his badge number and report him.

(2) If you don't have the patience for (1), simply hang up on the SOB in
mid-sentence and call back. You'll get a different rep. Most of the
reps are basically OK.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 7:39:58 AM

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

Call CS, and ask for a supv. Remind them that you are putting your old
phone back onto your plan, aka: that was on your plan previously. (Your own
old phone, didn't you say). That is called grandfathered, and you shouldn't
have that much problem. Each CS can put a grandfathered phone back onto the
line.

Concerning an FCC mandate, I disagree, the edict is new phones, not uses
phones. There is a target goal for vzw to meet, but it shouldn't be at your
expense, but as a growth target. As others disagree with me concerning my
position that the FCC doesn't mandate anything on used phones, we will leae
it at that. Good Luck; because my/our opinions mean nothing if VZW won't
allow it. dr.
--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"DV" <davander@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nfqdnXoS0auJoGPfRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>I told them I wanted to out of my contract - little arrogant one said no,
>not without buying my way out.
> Also, have tried several times on line to activate with no luck, that's
> why I called them .
> Once again, it's all about Big Business -- and screw the customer.
>
> "Bob Scheurle" <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
> news:g0dsf158fbnt341f60igkh6rl4d21391u7@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:07:04 -0500, "Dan V." <davander@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>My most recently upgraded phone, a Samsung, developed problems and I
>>>wanted
>>>to reactivate an older LG VX1 that I have here. Verizon is refusing to
>>>activate the phone because it isn't e911 capable. This has to do with
>>>getting their network in compliance with a government law requiring e911
>>>percentages. I was told that I will have to buy a new phone.
>>
>> Try doing it online. People have said they were able to activate a
>> non-GPS phone online.
>>
>>>Isn't that
>>>just great for Verizon....not so great for the comsumer. The arrogant
>>>little pr*ck at customer service was about as unsympathetic as he could
>>>be
>>>about my situation, which really ticked me off.
>>
>> Tell them you'll switch to another carrier and see what they do.
>>
>>>Anyway, think twice before buying any used phone, or using one of your
>>>old
>>>ones. It must be compliant or Verizon won't activate it.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
>> njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
>> Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
>
>
August 15, 2005 7:39:59 AM

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

"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
news:i8ULe.1134$r54.354@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

>
> Concerning an FCC mandate, I disagree, the edict is new phones, not uses
> phones. There is a target goal for vzw to meet, but it shouldn't be at
your
> expense, but as a growth target. As others disagree with me concerning my
> position that the FCC doesn't mandate anything on used phones, we will
leae
> it at that. Good Luck; because my/our opinions mean nothing if VZW won't
> allow it. dr.
> --

Ummm....... I didn't post opinions. I posted facts as posted on the FCC
website. Verizon is mandated to have 95% of their phones GPS- capable by
the end of the year. The numbers posted at the FCC site are far below that
and Verizon admits it will have difficulty meeting it. There is no
exemption for phones previously on the network. The fact is that the
government is doing this and Verizon has a legal obligation to meet. The
fact that you are not aware of the entire mandate and are focusing on a
single portion of it means that you are forming an opinion based on a
limited and incomplete set of facts. Your assertion that the mandate only
concerns new phones is incorrect, as I have pointed out previously. You
can't ignore the second part of the mandate in hopes that it will go away.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 7:16:57 AM

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

Oh, oh kay, I do opinions, you do facts. If V's numbers are low, then V has
limited choices to meet the mandate:
1) MAKE all the people with old phones change to an updated aGps phone
(unlikely)
2) Do incredible growth by signing up a zillion new people with aGps phones.
(unlikely as well)
3) Piss off loyal customers who are just trying to make ends meet; by
putting their old (grandfathered) phone back on the line. (Guess so)

You bet V has a choice. And stuffing it onto the existing person and you
blaiming the government is just BS, in my opinion. The FCC does "NOT"
regulate or mandate that used phones can/can't be put into service because
they have don't have aGps. The FCC rules for for new phones. And if you
think that it is "fair" for V to force you into a new phone, so they can
make their numbers: o kee dough kee.

--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:MbadnS2d_pH5jZ3eRVn-1g@adelphia.com...
>
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
> news:i8ULe.1134$r54.354@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>> Concerning an FCC mandate, I disagree, the edict is new phones, not uses
>> phones. There is a target goal for vzw to meet, but it shouldn't be at
> your
>> expense, but as a growth target. As others disagree with me concerning
>> my
>> position that the FCC doesn't mandate anything on used phones, we will
> leae
>> it at that. Good Luck; because my/our opinions mean nothing if VZW won't
>> allow it. dr.
>> --
>
> Ummm....... I didn't post opinions. I posted facts as posted on the FCC
> website. Verizon is mandated to have 95% of their phones GPS- capable by
> the end of the year. The numbers posted at the FCC site are far below
> that
> and Verizon admits it will have difficulty meeting it. There is no
> exemption for phones previously on the network. The fact is that the
> government is doing this and Verizon has a legal obligation to meet. The
> fact that you are not aware of the entire mandate and are focusing on a
> single portion of it means that you are forming an opinion based on a
> limited and incomplete set of facts. Your assertion that the mandate only
> concerns new phones is incorrect, as I have pointed out previously. You
> can't ignore the second part of the mandate in hopes that it will go away.
>
>
August 16, 2005 7:16:58 AM

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

"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
news:JUcMe.1073$AT7.465@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Oh, oh kay, I do opinions, you do facts. If V's numbers are low, then V
has
> limited choices to meet the mandate:
> 1) MAKE all the people with old phones change to an updated aGps phone
> (unlikely)

At some point, very likely- 100% penetration is mandated by a certain date.
As quoted directly from the FCC, "Within two years or by December 31, 2004,
whichever is later, undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent
penetration of ALI-capable handsets in its total subscriber base." Because
of the delays granted by the FCC to implement, this will now be required by
2007, if I do the math correctly.

> 2) Do incredible growth by signing up a zillion new people with aGps
phones.
> (unlikely as well)

Won't help in the long run, as 100% penetration is around the corner.

> 3) Piss off loyal customers who are just trying to make ends meet; by
> putting their old (grandfathered) phone back on the line. (Guess so)

And your point? Is it that the needs of a few outweigh the need for a
uniform public safety policy? Sounds kind of shallow and self-centered, if
you ask me.

>
> You bet V has a choice. And stuffing it onto the existing person and you
> blaiming the government is just BS, in my opinion.

I didn't blame anyone- I merely pointed out government mandates that you
failed to cite. I can't help it if the mandate soils your attempt to
portray Verizon as the bully here.

> The FCC does "NOT"
> regulate or mandate that used phones can/can't be put into service because
> they have don't have aGps. The FCC rules for for new phones.

The part that you mentioned, yes. The complete mandate reads a little
different and requires that non-GPS phones represent a steadily decreasing
percentage of active phones. What I find hilarious is that the section I
origianlly quoted is contained exactly one line below the portion you
mention in the revised mandate dated 3/22/05:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-0...

See the two bullet points at the top of page 5. You'll notice that one of
them is almost exactly as I posted.

> And if you
> think that it is "fair" for V to force you into a new phone, so they can
> make their numbers: o kee dough kee.

I'm sorry- where did I say that it was fair? All I did was cite complete
information. What is "fair" is for people reading here to get the complete
story, not just the facts needed by a disgruntled ex-dealer (who was booted
by Verizon) to seek his revenge against the company. Your poisoned attack
here makes your signature ad almost moot- who is going to think you have
enough credibility to deal with?

Now, you can continue to bash if you choose- the bottom line is that the
fact sdo not lie and they do not apply to just Verizon. I'm sorry if all of
this puts a kink in your crusade to destroy Verizon, but the facts don't
lie. You should really seek counseling- this obsession you have is
unhealthy.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 7:33:52 AM

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

dr.news wrote:
> Oh, oh kay, I do opinions, you do facts.

Very good. This part made sense. You should
have quit here.

> If V's numbers
> are low, then V has limited choices to meet the mandate:
> 1) MAKE all the people with old phones change to an
> updated aGps phone (unlikely)
> 2) Do incredible growth by signing up a zillion new
> people with aGps phones. (unlikely as well)
> 3) Piss off loyal customers who are just trying to make
> ends meet; by putting their old (grandfathered) phone
> back on the line. (Guess so)

Oh, you left out.

4) pay large fines or lose licenses?
5) just close the doors so they don't have to piss anyone
off.

Did you bother to read the FCC mandate (not necessary
to voice opinions, only if you wanted to state facts)? What
are the provisions for non-compliance?

> You bet V has a choice.

Care to share?

> And stuffing it onto the existing person and you blaiming
> the government is just BS, in my opinion.

Ahhh, I see you qualified that as an opinion again.

> The FCC does "NOT" regulate or mandate that used
> phones can/can't be put into service because they have
> don't have aGps. The FCC rules for for new phones.

Was this an opinion? Or do you care to cite any references?
The FCC isn't ruling for new phones either. They are saying
a certain percentage in service on this date must meet certain
criteria. How would you propose any company comply without
"pissing off" some customers? Please share your solution.

> And if you think that it is "fair" for V to force you into a
> new phone, so they can make their numbers: o kee dough kee.

Again. Do you have any thoughts as to what would be "fair"?

-Quick
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:23:28 PM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:11:23 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>Won't help in the long run, as 100% penetration is around the corner.

It seems to me that we customers are the ones being penetrated.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:23:06 PM

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

Success: just this morning, with VZW's help, we took a damanged old bag
phone (analog only) out of service, and did an esn swap to another old bag
phone (analog only). We were firm with the customer service representative;
and asked for a supervisor. The supervisor completely understood, and
easily helped put the bag phone on the line. Now programming the phone,
that is another issue.

The conversation with VZW went like this: *** 08/19/2005 12:55 pm ***
Kyle, xxxxxxxx has a radio remote bag phone that broke; , and needed to swap
(esn change) with another bag phone. As his phone was non aGps, we had to
ask for a Supv. He said "that it is a VZW rule, perhaps overzealous. As
VZW is not actively asking current non aGps users to change their phone,
this circumstance is handled one-on-one, and as an exception." Feeling that
I had to tell him what I knew about the FCC....he politely cut me off and
said he understood. He went to the switch and made the change to the backup
bag phone (non aGps), and also notified his systems supervisor and his
manager so that if the change triggers any type of alert, that he can catch
it early.

The bag phone was part of a radio stations "remote" setup. And only a bag
phone works in their kit.

Eventually, it won't work as it is only analog, but for today, it is back in
service. dr

Forget what if; we knew the rules, they know the rules, and they were nice
enough to help. It may have helped that we had Motorola tech support on the
line as well. It at least added some credibility to the conversation.
Eventually, all will have to be aGps; but until they "make" every customer
move to aGps, at least one supervisor has seen to it that both the customer
/ FCC / Verizon were satisfied.

Call me if you have an impossible situation; we will try and help. But we
won't break any rules. dr
--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:fZGdnZ2dnZ1nO_3xnZ2dnbf6nN6dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
>
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
> news:JUcMe.1073$AT7.465@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> Oh, oh kay, I do opinions, you do facts. If V's numbers are low, then V
> has
>> limited choices to meet the mandate:
>> 1) MAKE all the people with old phones change to an updated aGps phone
>> (unlikely)
>
> At some point, very likely- 100% penetration is mandated by a certain
> date.
> As quoted directly from the FCC, "Within two years or by December 31,
> 2004,
> whichever is later, undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent
> penetration of ALI-capable handsets in its total subscriber base."
> Because
> of the delays granted by the FCC to implement, this will now be required
> by
> 2007, if I do the math correctly.
>
>> 2) Do incredible growth by signing up a zillion new people with aGps
> phones.
>> (unlikely as well)
>
> Won't help in the long run, as 100% penetration is around the corner.
>
>> 3) Piss off loyal customers who are just trying to make ends meet; by
>> putting their old (grandfathered) phone back on the line. (Guess so)
>
> And your point? Is it that the needs of a few outweigh the need for a
> uniform public safety policy? Sounds kind of shallow and self-centered,
> if
> you ask me.
>
>>
>> You bet V has a choice. And stuffing it onto the existing person and you
>> blaiming the government is just BS, in my opinion.
>
> I didn't blame anyone- I merely pointed out government mandates that you
> failed to cite. I can't help it if the mandate soils your attempt to
> portray Verizon as the bully here.
>
>> The FCC does "NOT"
>> regulate or mandate that used phones can/can't be put into service
>> because
>> they have don't have aGps. The FCC rules for for new phones.
>
> The part that you mentioned, yes. The complete mandate reads a little
> different and requires that non-GPS phones represent a steadily decreasing
> percentage of active phones. What I find hilarious is that the section I
> origianlly quoted is contained exactly one line below the portion you
> mention in the revised mandate dated 3/22/05:
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-0...
>
> See the two bullet points at the top of page 5. You'll notice that one of
> them is almost exactly as I posted.
>
>> And if you
>> think that it is "fair" for V to force you into a new phone, so they can
>> make their numbers: o kee dough kee.
>
> I'm sorry- where did I say that it was fair? All I did was cite complete
> information. What is "fair" is for people reading here to get the
> complete
> story, not just the facts needed by a disgruntled ex-dealer (who was
> booted
> by Verizon) to seek his revenge against the company. Your poisoned attack
> here makes your signature ad almost moot- who is going to think you have
> enough credibility to deal with?
>
> Now, you can continue to bash if you choose- the bottom line is that the
> fact sdo not lie and they do not apply to just Verizon. I'm sorry if all
> of
> this puts a kink in your crusade to destroy Verizon, but the facts don't
> lie. You should really seek counseling- this obsession you have is
> unhealthy.
>
>
August 19, 2005 11:20:57 PM

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

"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in
news:espNe.4804$Hn3.4153@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

> / FCC / Verizon were satisfied

FCC was happy because the other rule is that if you ever HAD AMPS service
from them they MUST offer you AMPS service, now, until the ever-extending
cut off dates.

Shh...don't confuse them. They think THEY are in control of OUR
airwaves...(c;

Glad it wasn't bloody for the station's sake.....the knowledge of the media
being the reason it wasn't bloody or nasty. If one of the kids on here
wanted it, he would have been told no. He doesn't own a radio
station...(c;

--
Larry
August 20, 2005 12:19:29 AM

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

"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
news:espNe.4804$Hn3.4153@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> Success: just this morning, with VZW's help, we took a damanged old bag
> phone (analog only) out of service, and did an esn swap to another old bag
> phone (analog only). We were firm with the customer service
representative;
> and asked for a supervisor. The supervisor completely understood, and
> easily helped put the bag phone on the line. Now programming the phone,
> that is another issue.
>

The fact that it was also an analog only to analog only swap plays into the
equation. You'll notice that the order concerns CDMA service where Verizon
is concerned. You being firm really had no effect- the chances of a
front-line rep doing anolog to analog swaps on a regular basis are
practically nil and the rules also explain why the Supervisor was so willing
to do the swap.

Nice try- you should really read up on this and understand all of it before
you start offering your services and advice. However, I do seem to have a
much better understanding of why you are no longer a Verizon dealer.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:41:14 AM

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

Larry wrote:
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in
> news:espNe.4804$Hn3.4153@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
>
> > / FCC / Verizon were satisfied
>
> FCC was happy because the other rule is that if you ever HAD AMPS service
> from them they MUST offer you AMPS service, now, until the ever-extending
> cut off dates.
>
> Larry

One more time. Here we go again. Larry is making false claims on what
he wishes were the case.

Maybe Larry doesn't remember, but I specifically asked and received an
answer from an FCC Wireless Division official about his previous claim
of this "fact".

The FCC official's reply was that cellular band providers must continue
to provide analog service until the sunset date, but that they were NOT
mandated to activate analog service for anyone, including those who had
previously had analog only service, even if their account was in good
standing.

If necessary, I'll repost the actual reply.

Of course, he includes his other favorite analog fantasy, the
"ever-extending cut off dates". The original date, set in late 2002 was
February 18, 2008. That has now been moved forward all the way to--are
you ready for this--February 18, 2008. Amazing!

As I've said before, I'm hardly anti-analog. But reality is reality.
August 20, 2005 4:40:27 AM

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

Ha, ha ha...hey "Scott"...you're a FUNNY GUY! You should take your act on
the road. I've read some of your stuff, and you CRACK ME UP.....

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:CJudnZ2dnZ0lfI7NnZ2dnXMPm96dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
>
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
> news:espNe.4804$Hn3.4153@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> Success: just this morning, with VZW's help, we took a damanged old bag
>> phone (analog only) out of service, and did an esn swap to another old
>> bag
>> phone (analog only). We were firm with the customer service
> representative;
>> and asked for a supervisor. The supervisor completely understood, and
>> easily helped put the bag phone on the line. Now programming the phone,
>> that is another issue.
>>
>
> The fact that it was also an analog only to analog only swap plays into
> the
> equation. You'll notice that the order concerns CDMA service where
> Verizon
> is concerned. You being firm really had no effect- the chances of a
> front-line rep doing anolog to analog swaps on a regular basis are
> practically nil and the rules also explain why the Supervisor was so
> willing
> to do the swap.
>
> Nice try- you should really read up on this and understand all of it
> before
> you start offering your services and advice. However, I do seem to have a
> much better understanding of why you are no longer a Verizon dealer.
>
>
August 20, 2005 11:05:27 AM

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

"Dave" <davander@csinet.net> wrote in message
news:z8WdndfM3tiRX5veRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> Ha, ha ha...hey "Scott"...you're a FUNNY GUY! You should take your act on
> the road. I've read some of your stuff, and you CRACK ME UP.....
>

Nah- the road thing just wouldn't work- every once in a while I forget to
use use small words and guys like you end up getting lost in the
conversation.
August 20, 2005 11:56:20 AM

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

"617 Phones" <617@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:1124516474.555338.213910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I'll repost the actual reply.

Do it.

--
Larry
August 20, 2005 11:57:32 AM

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

"617 Phones" <617@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:1124516474.555338.213910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I'll repost the actual reply

Put the name with it so I can ask him/her about it, too.

--
Larry
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 6:40:53 PM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:20:57 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in
>news:espNe.4804$Hn3.4153@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> / FCC / Verizon were satisfied
>
>FCC was happy because the other rule is that if you ever HAD AMPS service
>from them they MUST offer you AMPS service, now, until the ever-extending
>cut off dates.

First, AMPS and aGPS are not mutually exclusive. My VX4400 has both.

Second, the "ever-extending" cut off date has not been extended in the time
I've been reading this group (nearly 3 years, AFAICT). And thinking about
it, I doubt it will be until there's less than one year left.

>Shh...don't confuse them. They think THEY are in control of OUR
>airwaves...(c;

They paid good money for those airwaves.

--
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.
"Hell, I was born here and I was raised here and dadgummit, I'm gonna die
here! And no sidewinding, bushwhacking, hornswoggling cracker croaker is
going to ruin my biscuit cutter!" - Gabby Johnson
"Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson
for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particularly glad that
these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it
authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this
day and age." - Olson Johnson
August 20, 2005 7:43:59 PM

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

David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in
news:3rfeg1d17emtuigumf738u00m37dvivndk@4ax.com:

> They paid good money for those airwaves.
>

So did the broadcasters....But, it's NOT THEIR AIRWAVES, either!

--
Larry
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 8:56:54 PM

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

Larry wrote:
> "617 Phones" <617@volcanomail.com> wrote in
> news:1124516474.555338.213910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I'll repost the actual reply.
>
> Do it.
>
> --
> Larry

Here it is Larry. You read and ignored it before. I have no doublt that
you're more than capable of that again. I'll look forward to your next
assertion of this false claim.

(The link for the thread I referred to is below, in case you want to
relive your assertions in that discussion. Following that is my post
with the FCC response.)

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizo...
*******************
Yesterday afternoon, after reading this ongoing ping-pong game, I
decided to try something really bizarre--ask someone at the FCC.

On the FCC website, there are email links on just about every page and
I transmitted to one in the Wireless Bureau, a gentleman named Keith
Harper.

The text of my questions to Mr. Harper.
************************
Dear Mr. Harper:

I have some questions regarding cellular service requirements that,
hopefully, you will be able to clarify for me.

OET 53 and Section 22.901(d) have been interpreted by some to state
that cellular band providers must allow new or former analog
subscribers to purchase analog only service from the provider, at
least until the sunset of mandatory analog service, which I believe
to be in February 2008.

My questions are:

1. Are cellular band providers required to sell analog only service to
new subscribers?

If 1 is yes, no further answers are needed; otherwise:

2. Are celluar providers required to sell analog only service to
former analog only customers, regardless of current status, assuming
no billing/financial issues?

3. Are cellular providers required to have pricing available for
analog only
services? Failing that, must they honor their "digital" price plans
for any
analog only customers?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
************************

Here is his reply, received this morning.
************************
Good Morning,

Wireless providers operating in the cellular band are only required to
provide analog service as part of their wireless system.

Please note that wireless providers are not required to initiate
service to a customer who already has an analog phone. They must only
provide analog service to an existing customer who continues to use an
analog phone. Generally, you will be required to obtain a new phone
when switching between carriers.

1. Cellular band providers are not required to sell analog only
service to new subscribers.

2. Cellular providers are not required to sell analog only service to
former analog only customers, regardless of current status. This
matter is left to the service provider's discretion.

3. Service plans are left entirely to the provider's discretion. The
FCC does not have any rules in place regarding the pricing of service
plans for analog or digital services. Cellular providers are not
required to have pricing available for analog only services.

I hope this clears up some of your questions regarding cellular
service.

Keith Harper
************************
August 20, 2005 10:24:16 PM

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

"617 Phones" <617@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1124582214.700209.98250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yesterday afternoon, after reading this ongoing ping-pong game, I
> decided to try something really bizarre--ask someone at the FCC.
>
> On the FCC website, there are email links on just about every page and
> I transmitted to one in the Wireless Bureau, a gentleman named Keith
> Harper.
>
> The text of my questions to Mr. Harper.
> ************************
> Dear Mr. Harper:
>
> I have some questions regarding cellular service requirements that,
> hopefully, you will be able to clarify for me.
>
> OET 53 and Section 22.901(d) have been interpreted by some to state
> that cellular band providers must allow new or former analog
> subscribers to purchase analog only service from the provider, at
> least until the sunset of mandatory analog service, which I believe
> to be in February 2008.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. Are cellular band providers required to sell analog only service to
> new subscribers?
>
> If 1 is yes, no further answers are needed; otherwise:
>
> 2. Are celluar providers required to sell analog only service to
> former analog only customers, regardless of current status, assuming
> no billing/financial issues?
>
> 3. Are cellular providers required to have pricing available for
> analog only
> services? Failing that, must they honor their "digital" price plans
> for any
> analog only customers?
>
> Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
> ************************
>
> Here is his reply, received this morning.
> ************************
> Good Morning,
>
> Wireless providers operating in the cellular band are only required to
> provide analog service as part of their wireless system.
>
> Please note that wireless providers are not required to initiate
> service to a customer who already has an analog phone. They must only
> provide analog service to an existing customer who continues to use an
> analog phone. Generally, you will be required to obtain a new phone
> when switching between carriers.
>
> 1. Cellular band providers are not required to sell analog only
> service to new subscribers.
>
> 2. Cellular providers are not required to sell analog only service to
> former analog only customers, regardless of current status. This
> matter is left to the service provider's discretion.
>
> 3. Service plans are left entirely to the provider's discretion. The
> FCC does not have any rules in place regarding the pricing of service
> plans for analog or digital services. Cellular providers are not
> required to have pricing available for analog only services.
>
> I hope this clears up some of your questions regarding cellular
> service.
>
> Keith Harper
> ************************
>

Geez, Phones- don't confuse people with facts. It makes it so much more
difficult to perpetuate the urban myths about the evil cellular monsters.
Of course, we have a few people in here who claim to understand the FCC
rules better than the FCC- maybe they'll be able to put the usual paranoid
spin on this.

BTW- great post.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:23:12 AM

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

I have no doubt that these spinners will again rise up!

As regards the activation of non GPS phones, there seems to be a
misunderstanding about the term "grandfathered". It simply means that
so long as you keep your service, plan or phone and pay your bill, the
companies will generally let it ride.

However, if you give up a plan that the provider no longer offers, you
will not get it back. The same holds for older phone technology. So
long as a user keeps a "grandfathered" phone in service, Verizon has
allowed it. Once the user replaces it, that phone, by definition, is no
longer "grandfathered".

That's just reality. Again, I don't have to like it. I actually just
had to purchase a GPS phone to replace one that was lost--it had been
in service for 10 days. They wouldn't reactivate the older, non-GPS
phone. Was I happy? No. But that's how grandfathering works.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 5:20:39 AM

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

Scott: you are a buffoon. Helping a person, as a verizon agent, calling CS
and asking for further help, and getting it, is hardly a reason for a
personal comment. Have you noticed that less and less people respond to
your comments, perhaps the "elite few". Can you spell kill file.

When someone asks me for help, and we find that there is a way to help, why
do you think that so odd. Ahaha... your the guy who thinks he knows
everything... sorry, I forgot. Never mind.

Happy to represent all carriers; providing those that need it with a choice.
Many times we help for free. You sir, are worth no more words. dr
--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:CJudnZ2dnZ0lfI7NnZ2dnXMPm96dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
>
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
> news:espNe.4804$Hn3.4153@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> Success: just this morning, with VZW's help, we took a damanged old bag
>> phone (analog only) out of service, and did an esn swap to another old
>> bag
>> phone (analog only). We were firm with the customer service
> representative;
>> and asked for a supervisor. The supervisor completely understood, and
>> easily helped put the bag phone on the line. Now programming the phone,
>> that is another issue.
>>
>
> The fact that it was also an analog only to analog only swap plays into
> the
> equation. You'll notice that the order concerns CDMA service where
> Verizon
> is concerned. You being firm really had no effect- the chances of a
> front-line rep doing anolog to analog swaps on a regular basis are
> practically nil and the rules also explain why the Supervisor was so
> willing
> to do the swap.
>
> Nice try- you should really read up on this and understand all of it
> before
> you start offering your services and advice. However, I do seem to have a
> much better understanding of why you are no longer a Verizon dealer.
>
>
August 21, 2005 5:20:40 AM

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

"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
news:HFQNe.3900$Z%6.2243@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Scott: you are a buffoon.

Care to elaborate? Or is this because FACTS have been presented that
counter your claims?

> Helping a person, as a verizon agent, calling CS
> and asking for further help, and getting it, is hardly a reason for a
> personal comment. Have you noticed that less and less people respond to
> your comments, perhaps the "elite few". Can you spell kill file.

What comments? Do you mean the facts that I presented? Could it be that
the facts speak for themselves to those who can actually process them? I
don't see anybody running to your defense except Larry- that by itself
speaks volumes.

>
> When someone asks me for help, and we find that there is a way to help,
why
> do you think that so odd.

I didn't say it was odd- I merely pointed out that your puffy chested boasts
of having to bully to get results were probably not quite the case.

> Ahaha... your the guy who thinks he knows
> everything... sorry, I forgot. Never mind.

Where did I say that? I have merely pointed out that you know less than you
claim. The fact that you are either too stubborn or naive to see that is
out of my control.

>
> Happy to represent all carriers; providing those that need it with a
choice.
> Many times we help for free. You sir, are worth no more words. dr
> --

And you sir, are way too full of yourself.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:50:05 PM

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:43:59 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in
>news:3rfeg1d17emtuigumf738u00m37dvivndk@4ax.com:
>
>> They paid good money for those airwaves.
>
>So did the broadcasters....But, it's NOT THEIR AIRWAVES, either!

They did? I thought all they had to do was apply for a license, then
demonstrate their operations to be in the public interest when applying for
renewal of that license. I certainly have never heard of any
multi-million-dollar auctions for spectrum for commercial broadcasting.

--
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.
"Suddenly, people were taking a hard look at many of the so-called 'facts'
reported by the so-called 'New York Times,' which -- we now know -- is
actually written in Zanesville, Ohio, by the same four-person staff that
puts out the Muskingum County Weekly Harbinger-Prognosticator."
- Dave Barry
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:52:30 PM

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:43:59 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in
>news:3rfeg1d17emtuigumf738u00m37dvivndk@4ax.com:
>
>> They paid good money for those airwaves.
>
>So did the broadcasters....But, it's NOT THEIR AIRWAVES, either!

BTW, everybody notice how Larry conveniently left out the part of my post
that irrefutably shot down his rantings?

--
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.
"Thanksgiving is... a spiritual time of quiet reflection -- a time when we
pause to remember, as generations have remembered before us, that an
improperly cooked turkey is -- in the words of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture -- 'a ticking Meat Bomb of Death.'" - Dave Barry
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:52:31 PM

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

David S wrote:

> BTW, everybody notice how Larry conveniently left out the part of my post
> that irrefutably shot down his rantings?

He's been challenged by others on certain other "facts" and he won't respond
to those people either.



--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
August 21, 2005 8:23:15 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96B89ED2B849Dnoone@63.223.7.253...
> David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in
> news:3rfeg1d17emtuigumf738u00m37dvivndk@4ax.com:
>
> > They paid good money for those airwaves.
> >
>
> So did the broadcasters....But, it's NOT THEIR AIRWAVES, either!
>
> --
I fail to see the point of that statement- both industries follow government
regulations to lease and operate on spectrum in the US. To indicate that
the broadcasters have additional burdens placed on them when compared to
cellular providers (which is the only point I could guess you are making) is
an uninformed opinion.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:47:50 AM

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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:23:15 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>
>"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns96B89ED2B849Dnoone@63.223.7.253...
>> David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in
>> news:3rfeg1d17emtuigumf738u00m37dvivndk@4ax.com:
>>
>> > They paid good money for those airwaves.
>> >
>>
>> So did the broadcasters....But, it's NOT THEIR AIRWAVES, either!
>>
>> --
>I fail to see the point of that statement- both industries follow government
>regulations to lease and operate on spectrum in the US. To indicate that
>the broadcasters have additional burdens placed on them when compared to
>cellular providers (which is the only point I could guess you are making) is
>an uninformed opinion.
>

Larry is full of uninformed opinions. In Larry's world, GPS
satellites orbit a mere 200 miles over congressional districts with
only 24,000 people in them.
!