Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

30-second time shift?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 5:42:03 AM

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

I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two set by
WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30 seconds behind the
time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the digital signal. The atomic
clocks are all in agreement of course. Why is VZW shifting the time by 30
seconds? The last time I checked it was within a second of the correct
time. Do they reckon that the average time is more meaningful than the
current minute? Does this aberration persist everywhere in the country? I
am in San Diego.

--
Slobby Don

More about : time shift

Anonymous
June 1, 2004 5:42:04 AM

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

Slobby Don wrote:
> I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two set by
> WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30 seconds behind the
> time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the digital signal. The atomic
> clocks are all in agreement of course. Why is VZW shifting the time by 30
> seconds? The last time I checked it was within a second of the correct
> time. Do they reckon that the average time is more meaningful than the
> current minute? Does this aberration persist everywhere in the country? I
> am in San Diego.

In all seriousness... I suggest you buy a good wristwatch and don't depend
on a telephone system that is not under your control, to tell you the time.
You can (and I suspect you know this already) even buy a wristwatch that
synchronizes to NIST time via WWVB...

My VCR's clock is capable of being set by a time signal from the local TV
station. The time signal has never been set correctly, the TV station
claims there are technical difficulities that prevent it. The truth is,
it's not a priority for them, and they basically don't care. I suspect the
same situation applies with Verizon, yes, they want the time to be more or
less correct, but they don't care about a mere 30 second offset.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 5:42:04 AM

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

Slobby Don wrote:
> Does this aberration persist everywhere in the country?

At my house in the San Francisco Bay area, VZW is 3 seconds behind
the WWVB signal.

> I am in San Diego.

San Diego is somewhat special as it is where Qualcomm is based.
That for example is why the EVDO trials are there and DC (where
VZW is headquartered).

Roger
Related resources
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 5:42:04 AM

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

"Slobby Don" <reply@thru.ng> wrote in message
news:L9Ruc.2582$Ha2.2443@twister.socal.rr.com
> I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two
> set by WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30
> seconds behind the time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the
> digital signal. The atomic clocks are all in agreement of course.
> Why is VZW shifting the time by 30 seconds? The last time I checked
> it was within a second of the correct time. Do they reckon that the
> average time is more meaningful than the current minute? Does this
> aberration persist everywhere in the country? I am in San Diego.

If you believe the conspiracy theorists, it's to be able to bill all the
people waiting for the 9pm free time to start. This way they get 30 seconds
of prime time out of every person trying to call for free at 9 PM.

(hey, I said *if you believe the conspiracy theorists*, I don't myself, just
relaying a rumor :) 
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 5:42:05 AM

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

"Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
news:vg7to1-ieh.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...
> Slobby Don wrote:
> > Does this aberration persist everywhere in the country?
>
> At my house in the San Francisco Bay area, VZW is 3 seconds behind
> the WWVB signal.
>
> > I am in San Diego.
>
> San Diego is somewhat special as it is where Qualcomm is based.
> That for example is why the EVDO trials are there and DC (where
> VZW is headquartered).
>
> Roger

Except, of course, for the fact that Verizon Wireless is actually based
("headquartered" if you prefer) in Bedminster, NJ.

Per their own press kit (pg. 2):
http://www.verizonwireless.com/pdfs/press_kit/pressKit....
--
Jason G
Marlins Win. The Gods of Baseball Smite Me Again.
Remove 'WINNER' to reply.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 6:56:27 AM

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

Mark Olson wrote:
> Slobby Don wrote:
> I suspect the same situation applies with Verizon, yes,
> they want the time to be more or
> less correct, but they don't care about a mere 30 second offset.

I would tend to agree with that if the offset were some random number, but
in this case it is exactly 30 seconds. With a non-random offset, I suspect
it is by design. But, why?

--
Slobby Don
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 6:56:28 AM

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

Just checked my 2 phones in Wichita KS. They vary from right on to 3 seconds
behind.

"Slobby Don" <reply@thru.ng> wrote in message
news:vfSuc.3087$Ha2.262@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Mark Olson wrote:
> > Slobby Don wrote:
> > I suspect the same situation applies with Verizon, yes,
> > they want the time to be more or
> > less correct, but they don't care about a mere 30 second offset.
>
> I would tend to agree with that if the offset were some random number, but
> in this case it is exactly 30 seconds. With a non-random offset, I
suspect
> it is by design. But, why?
>
> --
> Slobby Don
>
>
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 9:21:22 AM

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

3 Secs behind, Westen MA
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 9:21:23 AM

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

Dead on here in Portland OR.

(or at least within a second)

-Eric

"May Day" <me@you.com> wrote in message
news:mnUuc.35167$Ly.28399@attbi_s01...
> 3 Secs behind, Westen MA
>
>
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 3:25:35 PM

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

Accurate in Wash DC.
Compared to my Stratum 1 GPS clock and NISTs time server.

http://www.time.gov

Scotty



"May Day" <me@you.com> wrote in message
news:mnUuc.35167$Ly.28399@attbi_s01...
> 3 Secs behind, Westen MA
>
>
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 5:18:39 PM

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

Giambi wrote:
> Except, of covrse, for the fact that Verizon Wireless is actvally based
> ("headqvartered" if yov prefer) in Bedminster, NJ.

Yov are right, and I was very wrong. I have been trying to find the
DC connection as I have heard of other stvff they chose to roll ovt in
DC first. The FCC is definitely headqvartered in DC. There is this abovt
Verizon and DC:

http://www22.verizon.com/abovt/commvnity/dc/abovt_dc/hi...

Bell Atlantic was in NY and GTE in Conneticvt moving to Texas:

http://investor.verizon.com/profile/history/history_001...

Looking into the history of all the companies that became Verizon/Verizon
Wireless, I can't find a single one with a connection to DC.

The only thing I did find is vnion protests:

http://www.cwa-vnion.org/Verizon/photos/030828/

Anyone have any idea what is special abovt DC to VZW?

Roger
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 9:52:08 PM

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

Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
> Accurate in Wash DC.
> Compared to my Stratum 1 GPS clock and NISTs time server.
>
> http://www.time.gov
>
> Scotty

I am still exactly thirty seconds fast this morning. Could it be that my
new phone, a *No*kia 3589i, rounds to the nearest minute instead of
displaying the current minute? Anyone in San Diego with an atomic clock or
elsewhere with a *No*kia 3589i?

* It's NO-ki-a, not No-KI-a*
--
Slobby Don
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 10:44:23 PM

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

Slobby Don wrote:
> Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
>> Accurate in Wash DC.
>> Compared to my Stratum 1 GPS clock and NISTs time server.
>>
>> http://www.time.gov
>>
>> Scotty
>
> I am still exactly thirty seconds fast this morning. Could it be that my
> new phone, a Nokia 3589i, rounds to the nearest minute instead of
> displaying the current minute? Anyone in San Diego with an atomic clock
> or elsewhere with a Nokia 3589i?
>
> It's NO-ki-a, not No-KI-a

I'm fairly certain now that it is a programming bug in the phone. A rep
from Nokia could not find any documentation on whether the time display
rounds or truncates, but they are looking into it. Would this kind of bug
more likely be firmware or software?

--
Slobby Don
June 1, 2004 11:09:13 PM

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

In article <2i2flqFhmtkiU1@uni-berlin.de>, Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com
says...
> "Slobby Don" <reply@thru.ng> wrote in message
> news:L9Ruc.2582$Ha2.2443@twister.socal.rr.com
> > I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two
> > set by WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30
> > seconds behind the time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the
> > digital signal. The atomic clocks are all in agreement of course.
> > Why is VZW shifting the time by 30 seconds? The last time I checked
> > it was within a second of the correct time. Do they reckon that the
> > average time is more meaningful than the current minute? Does this
> > aberration persist everywhere in the country? I am in San Diego.
>
> If you believe the conspiracy theorists, it's to be able to bill all the
> people waiting for the 9pm free time to start. This way they get 30 seconds
> of prime time out of every person trying to call for free at 9 PM.
>
> (hey, I said *if you believe the conspiracy theorists*, I don't myself, just
> relaying a rumor :) 
>
>
>

Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you place call... lets say at 8.59PM
your entire call is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5 hours.
Does enyopne know if it is true?

AP
June 1, 2004 11:09:14 PM

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

(AP) wrote:
> Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you
> place call... lets say at 8.59PM your entire call
> is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5
> hours. Does enyopne know if it is true?


Yes that is true. Even a call at 9:p m would take it out of peak minutes
supposedly, because VZW's Nights start at 9:01pm.

Eric
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 11:09:14 PM

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

"AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b26905810d4d9fd98977a@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net
> In article <2i2flqFhmtkiU1@uni-berlin.de>, Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com
> says...
>> "Slobby Don" <reply@thru.ng> wrote in message
>> news:L9Ruc.2582$Ha2.2443@twister.socal.rr.com
>>> I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two
>>> set by WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30
>>> seconds behind the time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the
>>> digital signal. The atomic clocks are all in agreement of course.
>>> Why is VZW shifting the time by 30 seconds? The last time I checked
>>> it was within a second of the correct time. Do they reckon that the
>>> average time is more meaningful than the current minute? Does this
>>> aberration persist everywhere in the country? I am in San Diego.
>>
>> If you believe the conspiracy theorists, it's to be able to bill all
>> the people waiting for the 9pm free time to start. This way they get
>> 30 seconds of prime time out of every person trying to call for free
>> at 9 PM.
>>
>> (hey, I said *if you believe the conspiracy theorists*, I don't
>> myself, just relaying a rumor :) 
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you place call... lets say at
> 8.59PM your entire call is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5
> hours.
> Does enyopne know if it is true?
>
> AP

It depends on the market. While many of them used to charge the call as all
peak, more and more are changing to peak/non-peak.
No real way of knowing what YOUR market specifically does.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 11:18:07 PM

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

AP <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b26905810d4d9fd98977a@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>...
> In article <2i2flqFhmtkiU1@uni-berlin.de>, Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com
> says...
> > "Slobby Don" <reply@thru.ng> wrote in message
> > news:L9Ruc.2582$Ha2.2443@twister.socal.rr.com
> > > I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two
> > > set by WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30
> > > seconds behind the time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the
> > > digital signal. The atomic clocks are all in agreement of course.
> > > Why is VZW shifting the time by 30 seconds? The last time I checked
> > > it was within a second of the correct time. Do they reckon that the
> > > average time is more meaningful than the current minute? Does this
> > > aberration persist everywhere in the country? I am in San Diego.
> >
> > If you believe the conspiracy theorists, it's to be able to bill all the
> > people waiting for the 9pm free time to start. This way they get 30 seconds
> > of prime time out of every person trying to call for free at 9 PM.
> >
> > (hey, I said *if you believe the conspiracy theorists*, I don't myself, just
> > relaying a rumor :) 

My vzm billing in Tn has a special code, for a call like this; and
bills the first part at peak, and the balance as off peak---I have had
numerous incidents of this occuring, but not in the last few months-
so it may have changed

--the billing you describe is what is rumored to occur with sprint(
and possibly others)--this is detailed somewhere in their
brochures--while I have sprint service also, I have no personel
experience with it.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you place call... lets say at 8.59PM
> your entire call is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5 hours.
> Does enyopne know if it is true?
>
> AP
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 11:23:51 PM

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

In article <vfSuc.3087$Ha2.262@twister.socal.rr.com>,
Slobby Don <reply@thru.ng> wrote:
>Mark Olson wrote:
>> Slobby Don wrote:
>> I suspect the same situation applies with Verizon, yes,
>> they want the time to be more or
>> less correct, but they don't care about a mere 30 second offset.
>
>I would tend to agree with that if the offset were some random number, but
>in this case it is exactly 30 seconds. With a non-random offset, I suspect
>it is by design. But, why?

Hmmm... Every CDMA cell site in a given network has to have a GPS receiver
so that all of their system clocks are in exact lock step. All cell
sites in a given network use the same frequencies, and part of sorting
them out is time shifts between their signals at the millisecond level,
so the system simply cannot function without this synchronization. When
a CDMA phone registers with a system, the system tells the phone the
current time, so it can also sort out the various offsets. It may be
a long time between re-registrations if you don't make any calls, thus
when Daylight Savings Time kicks in, it may be hours before your phone
shows the new time.

That being said....

I just observed that my phone time is off by a few seconds relative to the
"correct" time (as per NTP-synchronized computers). Turning the phone
off, then on, changes the "error". It looks like the "time of day" info
sent from the network specifies the time only down to the minute, and the
user-visible clock in your phone ticks to the next minute independently.
This is separate from the highly precise internal time used by the
phone for the CDMA protocol. At least that it how it is behaving on a
Motorola T730.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 11:26:36 PM

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

AP wrote:
>
> In article <2i2flqFhmtkiU1@uni-berlin.de>, Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com
> says...
> > "Slobby Don" <reply@thru.ng> wrote in message
> > news:L9Ruc.2582$Ha2.2443@twister.socal.rr.com
> > > I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two
> > > set by WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30
> > > seconds behind the time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the
> > > digital signal. The atomic clocks are all in agreement of course.
> > > Why is VZW shifting the time by 30 seconds? The last time I checked
> > > it was within a second of the correct time. Do they reckon that the
> > > average time is more meaningful than the current minute? Does this
> > > aberration persist everywhere in the country? I am in San Diego.
> >
> > If you believe the conspiracy theorists, it's to be able to bill all the
> > people waiting for the 9pm free time to start. This way they get 30 seconds
> > of prime time out of every person trying to call for free at 9 PM.
> >
> > (hey, I said *if you believe the conspiracy theorists*, I don't myself, just
> > relaying a rumor :) 
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you place call... lets say at 8.59PM
> your entire call is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5 hours.
> Does enyopne know if it is true?

Your minutes are taken out of the "pot" that the call starts in.

In your example, all your time will be from the peak pot.

Larry
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 11:55:35 PM

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

In article <40BCD86B.54545080@spamcop.net>,
Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
>AP wrote:
>> Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you place call... lets say at 8.59PM
>> your entire call is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5 hours.
>> Does enyopne know if it is true?
>
>Your minutes are taken out of the "pot" that the call starts in.
>
>In your example, all your time will be from the peak pot.

Except in places like the SF Bay Area, where this is billed as a "spanning"
call, and the minutes are billed in their respective category.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 12:28:45 AM

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

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
news:c9imvn1hgc@news2.newsguy.com...
> In article <40BCD86B.54545080@spamcop.net>,
> Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >AP wrote:
> >> Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you place call... lets say at
8.59PM
> >> your entire call is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5 hours.
> >> Does enyopne know if it is true?
> >
> >Your minutes are taken out of the "pot" that the call starts in.
> >
> >In your example, all your time will be from the peak pot.
>
> Except in places like the SF Bay Area, where this is billed as a
"spanning"
> call, and the minutes are billed in their respective category.
>

....and in the Houston area also. The calls are spanned and billed
accordingly.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 12:41:14 AM

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

Some time around Tue, 01 Jun 2004 01:42:03 GMT (give or take a month), someone who says they are
named "Slobby Don" <reply@thru.ng> fired up the tubes on the teletype and rambled on about:

>I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two set by
>WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30 seconds behind the

If you get this message 30 seconds before I write it the problem isn't with the phone but with the
whole time -space continuum. Power on your phone and soak it in a glass of coca-cola (not pepsi as
that reverse time)

-W
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 12:52:27 AM

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

Harold Sherrill wrote:
>
> "CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
> news:c9imvn1hgc@news2.newsguy.com...
> > In article <40BCD86B.54545080@spamcop.net>,
> > Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > >AP wrote:
> > >> Hmm..... BTW... I thought that when you place call... lets say at
> 8.59PM
> > >> your entire call is as peak hours..... even when you talk 5 hours.
> > >> Does enyopne know if it is true?
> > >
> > >Your minutes are taken out of the "pot" that the call starts in.
> > >
> > >In your example, all your time will be from the peak pot.
> >
> > Except in places like the SF Bay Area, where this is billed as a
> "spanning"
> > call, and the minutes are billed in their respective category.
> >
>
> ...and in the Houston area also. The calls are spanned and billed
> accordingly.

Just when I thought I "knew it all." <g>

Thanks for the (re)education!

Larry
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 1:28:37 AM

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

(looks at bill)

99% sure that NY/NJ markets span... so here it would be 1 min offpeak
59 minutes onpeak.



>
> It depends on the market. While many of them used to charge the call as all
> peak, more and more are changing to peak/non-peak.
> No real way of knowing what YOUR market specifically does.
June 2, 2004 5:01:25 AM

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

It's amazing that this topic seems to come up every other week.

If it's 8:59pm, why not just wait the minute until 9pm and make your
call worry free?

If you just can't live with that advice, then get what could possibly be
a real answer from VZ customer service, and get that person's name and
location or extension number, in case there's a future argument.

If it's 8:57pm, odds are that it is not an important business call,
especially if you are going to be talking for an hour at that time, so
talk until 9pm, hang up, and call back.

3 suggestions here. What's the big deal?
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 5:53:28 AM

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

Slobby Don <reply@thru.ng> wrote:

> I was looking at one of the three atomic clocks I have at home, (two set by
> WWVB, one by internet timeserver) and noticed it was 30 seconds behind the
> time on my VZW phone that is set up to use the digital signal. The atomic
> clocks are all in agreement of course. Why is VZW shifting the time by 30
> seconds? The last time I checked it was within a second of the correct
> time. Do they reckon that the average time is more meaningful than the
> current minute? Does this aberration persist everywhere in the country? I
> am in San Diego.

The atomic clocks use the TAI time standard; civil time is based on UTC,
which is currently 32 seconds off from TAI due to leap-seconds. The GPS
system time reference does not use leap seconds, and may differ from both
UTC and TAI. So, in order to get the "correct" time, the receiving device
would need to translate from one time standard into the other. Perhaps
VZW's system doesn't do this, or doesn't do it everywhere; or perhaps it's
up to the phone, and some do it and some don't. I don't know the answer
to that, but the difference could explain the behavior you're seeing.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 8:27:09 AM

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

I thought it was NOK-ia.

Slobby Don wrote:
> Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
>
>>Accurate in Wash DC.
>>Compared to my Stratum 1 GPS clock and NISTs time server.
>>
>>http://www.time.gov
>>
>>Scotty
>
>
> I am still exactly thirty seconds fast this morning. Could it be that my
> new phone, a *No*kia 3589i, rounds to the nearest minute instead of
> displaying the current minute? Anyone in San Diego with an atomic clock or
> elsewhere with a *No*kia 3589i?
>
> * It's NO-ki-a, not No-KI-a*
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 5:17:04 PM

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

FAQ: the answer is no. If you start or end a call during peak time, the
entire call will be considered PEAK, no matter how many minutes were
off-peak. This is what Verizon Wireless tells us, and is in their fine
print. the dr


The rest of the story: Now, can you imagine a company that states clearly
"what it is supposed to be", yet varies these rules by region, and sometimes
by individual plan. Go Figure. To be safe: I'm 100% sure if you start/end
your call during the same off-peak window, it will be off-peak for sure.
Note the "same off-peak window".

Now, for those of you with nothing to do, a challenge: What about a call
that "spans" a peak time. For example, you do a 24 hour call on Wednesday
thru Thursday. Start your call at 5am Wednesday, and hang up at 5am
Thursday. This would be a good test of the system, at some personal risk to
your billing plan of course.
Alt: And if you don't want to do the full 24 hours, then a call from 5am to
10pm the same day should yield the same result. So, if anyone tries it,
please share your results.

PS: Personally, If I find it absolutely necessary to make a 1 hr call at
8:59pm, I'll call for one-two minutes, hang up at 9:01 and call em back.
Can you imagine their disbelief if you tell em "ooops, the line dropped?"
Nah, me neither. They should be able to deal with it. If you can't, then
the policy is clear, and hopefully the bill will match. Your Personal
Mileage May Vary.

--
dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent, and reseller of
refurb IBM ThinkPads <$500.
Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the Dr.

If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
you.

"Thomas Zielinski" <junk@oddbite.com> wrote in message
news:4af581c2.0406012028.384eaeb0@posting.google.com...
> (looks at bill)
>
> 99% sure that NY/NJ markets span... so here it would be 1 min offpeak
> 59 minutes onpeak.
>
>
>
> >
> > It depends on the market. While many of them used to charge the call as
all
> > peak, more and more are changing to peak/non-peak.
> > No real way of knowing what YOUR market specifically does.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 5:37:00 PM

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

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:01:25 -0400, Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:

>It's amazing that this topic seems to come up every other week.
>
>If it's 8:59pm, why not just wait the minute until 9pm and make your
>call worry free?
>
>If you just can't live with that advice, then get what could possibly be
>a real answer from VZ customer service, and get that person's name and
>location or extension number, in case there's a future argument.
>
>If it's 8:57pm, odds are that it is not an important business call,
>especially if you are going to be talking for an hour at that time, so
>talk until 9pm, hang up, and call back.
>
>3 suggestions here. What's the big deal?

Not to be picky but according to the times stated by Verizion you
would have to start the call at 9:01PM for it to be considered off
peak
June 2, 2004 6:00:27 PM

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

Unless my memory is faulty I BELIEVE that I have started a call at 8:50
PM and continued for 30 minutes. My call was billed at 10 min peak, 20
min non-peak.

Of course if may have been my bad memory too :) 

dr.wireMORE wrote:
> FAQ: the answer is no. If you start or end a call during peak time, the
> entire call will be considered PEAK, no matter how many minutes were
> off-peak. This is what Verizon Wireless tells us, and is in their fine
> print. the dr
>
>
> The rest of the story: Now, can you imagine a company that states clearly
> "what it is supposed to be", yet varies these rules by region, and sometimes
> by individual plan. Go Figure. To be safe: I'm 100% sure if you start/end
> your call during the same off-peak window, it will be off-peak for sure.
> Note the "same off-peak window".
>
> Now, for those of you with nothing to do, a challenge: What about a call
> that "spans" a peak time. For example, you do a 24 hour call on Wednesday
> thru Thursday. Start your call at 5am Wednesday, and hang up at 5am
> Thursday. This would be a good test of the system, at some personal risk to
> your billing plan of course.
> Alt: And if you don't want to do the full 24 hours, then a call from 5am to
> 10pm the same day should yield the same result. So, if anyone tries it,
> please share your results.
>
> PS: Personally, If I find it absolutely necessary to make a 1 hr call at
> 8:59pm, I'll call for one-two minutes, hang up at 9:01 and call em back.
> Can you imagine their disbelief if you tell em "ooops, the line dropped?"
> Nah, me neither. They should be able to deal with it. If you can't, then
> the policy is clear, and hopefully the bill will match. Your Personal
> Mileage May Vary.
>
June 2, 2004 6:01:28 PM

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

In article <1tlrb0hfnrfp8ik3niiaig9kt90i9iklv2@4ax.com>,
Teddeli <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:01:25 -0400, Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
>
> >It's amazing that this topic seems to come up every other week.
> >
> >If it's 8:59pm, why not just wait the minute until 9pm and make your
> >call worry free?
> >
> >If you just can't live with that advice, then get what could possibly be
> >a real answer from VZ customer service, and get that person's name and
> >location or extension number, in case there's a future argument.
> >
> >If it's 8:57pm, odds are that it is not an important business call,
> >especially if you are going to be talking for an hour at that time, so
> >talk until 9pm, hang up, and call back.
> >
> >3 suggestions here. What's the big deal?
>
> Not to be picky but according to the times stated by Verizion you
> would have to start the call at 9:01PM for it to be considered off
> peak



OK, but you still got my point, right?

I'll be picky also. Let's see if you like a response that just takes up
bandwidth.

Ever hear of a comma and a question mark?
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 6:55:02 PM

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

I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
bought out. Apparently they're seriously cutting back, not expanding
coverage area, particularly in our area and surrounding towns and
villages. This has led to frustration among many Verizon users in our
area, where service is rather spotty. There was promise of better
coverage, but it's not materializing.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 7:00:21 PM

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

dr.wireMORE <dr.wireMORE@vzw-midwestma.com> wrote:

> Now, for those of you with nothing to do, a challenge: What about a call
> that "spans" a peak time. For example, you do a 24 hour call on Wednesday
> thru Thursday. Start your call at 5am Wednesday, and hang up at 5am
> Thursday. This would be a good test of the system, at some personal risk to
> your billing plan of course.

And that's 1,440 minutes. In one day. I thought you were sane, Doc.

> Alt: And if you don't want to do the full 24 hours, then a call from 5am to
> 10pm the same day should yield the same result. So, if anyone tries it,
> please share your results.

That's still 17 hours or 1,020 minutes.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 7:00:22 PM

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

> dr.wireMORE <dr.wireMORE@vzw-midwestma.com> wrote:
>

Incorrect stuff snipped.

Don't know what area you are in, but my area/contract/website for my zip
code all talked about "spanned" calls (ie calls made/charged in multiple
time/rate periods), and give examples of how it is calculated at two or more
rate periods.

I suppose there are some areas where time period spanning is NOT implemented
(wherever the so called Dr wireLESS ooopss that's wireMORE who is CLUEless
:) , but there are a significant number of areas where it is, and contrary to
what the CLUEless guy stated, it is ***NOT*** company policy and work the
same everywhere.

PS, there are at least 3 rates, peak, non-peak, and weekend (not just two).
A few years back there were weekend minutes (x thousand) but no weekNIGHT
minutes. To hit them all, you would have to start a call during prime time
on FRIDAY (7:59 or 8:59, continue on thru non peak (8 or 9 till midnight),
and then after midnight on Friday nights/Saturday morning, when it switched
to weekend rates, and starts deducting out of your free weekend minutes
bucket)

From the online faq:
What is the difference between Peak and Off Peak airtime?
Peak hours are generally associated with the portion of the business day
where you might expect greater system demand.
Off-Peak hours are generally associated with evening hours and weekends.
Actual off-peak hours vary from city to city.

Typically, weekends start late Friday evening and end early Monday morning.
Exact times for Peak/Off-Peak vary by service area and rate plan selected.

Please reference your contract or contact customer service for further
assistance at 1-800-922-0204.
==========================================================
Note that how it is dealt with is DIFFERENT by service areas and contracts.
There is *no* single answer for all areas and all contracts.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 8:51:55 PM

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

"GBSmith" <frodo@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:aTlvc.18357$eH1.8247412@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
| I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
| bought out. Apparently they're seriously cutting back, not expanding
| coverage area, particularly in our area and surrounding towns and
| villages. This has led to frustration among many Verizon users in our
| area, where service is rather spotty. There was promise of better
| coverage, but it's not materializing.

I don't think the rumors have merit - but one could always be surprised....

As for "coverage", everyone needs to understand that "coverage" is a
function of "users" - put more simply, no carrier puts up more towers where
there are no people.

You didn't say where you are nor did you indicate what sources provide you
with information of "cutting back", etc. I travel all over the United States
and every time I go across country - driving - coverage has steadily
improved over the years....and it's getting to the point where it's hard to
find an area where you are not in either a home area or extended home area.
Roaming has become pretty rare, at least in areas that are populated.....!

PC
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 10:11:09 PM

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

In article <%3lvc.8803$Yd3.6621@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Dave <davids1955@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Unless my memory is faulty I BELIEVE that I have started a call at 8:50
>PM and continued for 30 minutes. My call was billed at 10 min peak, 20
>min non-peak.
>
>Of course if may have been my bad memory too :) 
>
>dr.wireMORE wrote:
>> FAQ: the answer is no. If you start or end a call during peak time, the
>> entire call will be considered PEAK, no matter how many minutes were
>> off-peak. This is what Verizon Wireless tells us, and is in their fine
>> print. the dr
>>
>> The rest of the story: Now, can you imagine a company that states clearly
>> "what it is supposed to be", yet varies these rules by region, and sometimes
>> by individual plan. Go Figure. To be safe: I'm 100% sure if you start/end
>> your call during the same off-peak window, it will be off-peak for sure.
>> Note the "same off-peak window".
>>
>> Now, for those of you with nothing to do, a challenge: What about a call
>> that "spans" a peak time. For example, you do a 24 hour call on Wednesday
>> thru Thursday. Start your call at 5am Wednesday, and hang up at 5am
>> Thursday. This would be a good test of the system, at some personal risk to
>> your billing plan of course.
>> Alt: And if you don't want to do the full 24 hours, then a call from 5am to
>> 10pm the same day should yield the same result. So, if anyone tries it,
>> please share your results.

I am looking at my May, 2004 bill, so I am not just saying "I think it
works this way". I have 8pm off-peak. Calls which begin before 8pm and end
after 8pm are labelled Rate Period = * = Spanned Rate, and Usage Type =
AY = Price Plan Allowance + Promotional Allowance. And the Usage Type A
minutes in the call detail add up to exactly the total for plan minutes
in the usage summary, when I split the minutes for spanned calls with
8:00pm and before as type A, 8:01pm and after as Y. This is in the San
Francisco Bay Area region. Now, it is possible that this is distinctive
handling for an "obsolete" rate plan, and it is done differently on
current plans, but I am not going to give up my 8pm off-peak to find out.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 12:25:06 AM

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

Some time around Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:55:02 GMT (give or take a month), someone who says they are
named GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net> fired up the tubes on the teletype and rambled on about:

>I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be

ummm? Serious rumors?

What does that mean?

List your sources.

-W
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 12:25:07 AM

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

"Double U" <PleaseSpamMe@myEmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntrsb09ur61l8bhhi1da1f1e85i35slsfa@4ax.com
> Some time around Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:55:02 GMT (give or take a
> month), someone who says they are named GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net>
> fired up the tubes on the teletype and rambled on about:
>
>> I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
>
> ummm? Serious rumors?
>
> What does that mean?
>
> List your sources.
>
> -W

Don't forget, there were a whole bunch of rumors/speculation etc, that
sprint was gonna takeover verizon. I bet his source was this newsgroup :) 

Instead of a self fulfilling prophecy, they are self fulfilling rumors....
:) 
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 5:56:16 PM

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

Actually, my source was not this news group at all. I didn't anticipate
that others would respond with such defensiveness. I was just wondering
if others had heard these rumors as well.

To someone else's point that Verizon expands in areas where there are
people -- at least enough people to justify the expansion, if I remember
the point correctly -- I live in an area where 4 other major cellular
companies have built towers to improve service. Verizon has not moved
in that direction.

Verizon is not expanding at nearly the same rate as are other providers.

Peter Pan wrote:
> "Double U" <PleaseSpamMe@myEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ntrsb09ur61l8bhhi1da1f1e85i35slsfa@4ax.com
>
>>Some time around Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:55:02 GMT (give or take a
>>month), someone who says they are named GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net>
>>fired up the tubes on the teletype and rambled on about:
>>
>>
>>>I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
>>
>>ummm? Serious rumors?
>>
>>What does that mean?
>>
>>List your sources.
>>
>>-W
>
>
> Don't forget, there were a whole bunch of rumors/speculation etc, that
> sprint was gonna takeover verizon. I bet his source was this newsgroup :) 
>
> Instead of a self fulfilling prophecy, they are self fulfilling rumors....
> :) 
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 5:56:17 PM

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

"GBSmith" <frodo@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:46Gvc.23925$IY4.8074@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
| Actually, my source was not this news group at all. I didn't anticipate
| that others would respond with such defensiveness. I was just wondering
| if others had heard these rumors as well.

It's not "defensive" to disagree and point out that such rumors are just
that...rumors....! These rumors surface with regularity.....:) 

| To someone else's point that Verizon expands in areas where there are
| people -- at least enough people to justify the expansion, if I remember
| the point correctly -- I live in an area where 4 other major cellular
| companies have built towers to improve service. Verizon has not moved
| in that direction.

You still haven't said where it is you claim that Verizon isn't
"expanding"....I submit that it's highly likely that there is no area served
by four other "major" carriers where Verizon isn't aggresively
competitive....that's how they got to be the carrier with the largest and
most pervasive coverage nationwide.

I will repeat that I find that they are expanding all over the country and
remain the single carrier with the best coverage nationwide. There are
certainly some areas where other carriers are also expanding and competing,
but no one can begin to match the coverage Verizon has almost everywhere.
Please advise if you can provide some specifics - we are all interested
enough to read and post in this venue and most of us welcome the discussion.

I will repeat the point once again that seems to escape many of the
naysayers - it makes little economic sense to "expand" in areas where there
are no people. The uninhabited wilderness in Oregon is a good example -
more treehuggers have to buy the service if they expect more towers to to
up. Similarly, the empty desert in Arizona where no one lives has spotty
service - nobody there to buy and pay for the service. Even in those
sparsely populated areas, Verizon service DOES exist along the major interst
ate highways. Somebody has to pay for the service - Economics 101....!

| Verizon is not expanding at nearly the same rate as are other providers.

I seriously doubt that you can back up that assertion with facts. In point
of fact, Verizon is buying up carriers all over the country and expanding
their network at a great rate. I'd like to know who else is "growing
faster" - and, again, those of us who participate in this venue are
interested in that discussion.....

PC



|
| Peter Pan wrote:
| > "Double U" <PleaseSpamMe@myEmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:ntrsb09ur61l8bhhi1da1f1e85i35slsfa@4ax.com
| >
| >>Some time around Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:55:02 GMT (give or take a
| >>month), someone who says they are named GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net>
| >>fired up the tubes on the teletype and rambled on about:
| >>
| >>
| >>>I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
| >>
| >>ummm? Serious rumors?
| >>
| >>What does that mean?
| >>
| >>List your sources.
| >>
| >>-W
| >
| >
| > Don't forget, there were a whole bunch of rumors/speculation etc, that
| > sprint was gonna takeover verizon. I bet his source was this newsgroup
:) 
| >
| > Instead of a self fulfilling prophecy, they are self fulfilling
rumors....
| > :) 
| >
| >
| >
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 5:56:17 PM

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

The key here is: YOUR area....

Many factors are involved. Proconsul discussed just one of them.
(Economic/ROI factor). Others are things like permitting, priorities, etc.

Permitting: I have seen multiple examples where some carriers had applied
for permits to sites before a certain date, and had no problems, while others
in the exact same area applied after that date and ran into NIMBY difficulties.

Priorities: like spending money rolling out 1xEV-DO nationwide? It is possible that
money from expansion in a very low priority (your??) area was shifted?



"GBSmith" <frodo@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:46Gvc.23925$IY4.8074@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Actually, my source was not this news group at all. I didn't anticipate
> that others would respond with such defensiveness. I was just wondering
> if others had heard these rumors as well.
>
> To someone else's point that Verizon expands in areas where there are
> people -- at least enough people to justify the expansion, if I remember
> the point correctly -- I live in an area where 4 other major cellular
> companies have built towers to improve service. Verizon has not moved
> in that direction.
>
> Verizon is not expanding at nearly the same rate as are other providers.
>
> Peter Pan wrote:
> > "Double U" <PleaseSpamMe@myEmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ntrsb09ur61l8bhhi1da1f1e85i35slsfa@4ax.com
> >
> >>Some time around Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:55:02 GMT (give or take a
> >>month), someone who says they are named GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net>
> >>fired up the tubes on the teletype and rambled on about:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
> >>
> >>ummm? Serious rumors?
> >>
> >>What does that mean?
> >>
> >>List your sources.
> >>
> >>-W
> >
> >
> > Don't forget, there were a whole bunch of rumors/speculation etc, that
> > sprint was gonna takeover verizon. I bet his source was this newsgroup :) 
> >
> > Instead of a self fulfilling prophecy, they are self fulfilling rumors....
> > :) 
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 5:56:18 PM

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

"Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
news:v5Sdnb-Iud2u3SLd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
| The key here is: YOUR area....
|
| Many factors are involved. Proconsul discussed just one of them.
| (Economic/ROI factor). Others are things like permitting, priorities, etc.
|
| Permitting: I have seen multiple examples where some carriers had applied
| for permits to sites before a certain date, and had no problems, while
others
| in the exact same area applied after that date and ran into NIMBY
difficulties.

Good point! I live in San Diego, California - the worst coverage in the area
is in La Jolla, where folks with big bucks live....but they won't permit any
towers to be put in, hence, very spotty coverage......:)  You'd think that
those with big bucks, all of whom have cell phones growing out of their
ears, would want better coverage - but they are the ones blocking the
expansion!

| Priorities: like spending money rolling out 1xEV-DO nationwide? It is
possible that
| money from expansion in a very low priority (your??) area was shifted?

Another good point - what other carriers can provide similar services over
wide areas of the country?

PC
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 7:51:35 PM

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> Verizon is not expanding at nearly the same rate as are other providers.
>

Perhaps the 1 Billion dollars every quarter is a big accounting gimmick
(like the Star Wars program was) and a few fat cats benefit. I can say
that my time with Verizon recently showed no improvement in Minneapolis
Metro coverage what-so-ever since 2001.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAv0kG1p0e3NXsrtERAhR3AJ9uKqi1nzuGHQ+n/uhTtRYnQDYULwCfehjE
LCaAV2HRlZRyCYXj1rugLsc=
=m4e9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 7:55:56 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40bf4906$0$163$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> > Verizon is not expanding at nearly the same rate as are other providers.
> >
>
> Perhaps the 1 Billion dollars every quarter is a big accounting gimmick
> (like the Star Wars program was) and a few fat cats benefit. I can say
> that my time with Verizon recently showed no improvement in Minneapolis
> Metro coverage what-so-ever since 2001.

Not surprising. It's so damned cold there that the signal freezes before if
gets to your phone from the tower...

Dan'l.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 7:55:57 PM

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

"Daniel Dravot" <chasham97NOSPAM@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gSHvc.10279$Yd3.4616@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:40bf4906$0$163$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
| > GBSmith <frodo@ameritech.net> wrote:
| > >
| > > Verizon is not expanding at nearly the same rate as are other
providers.
| > >
| >
| > Perhaps the 1 Billion dollars every quarter is a big accounting gimmick
| > (like the Star Wars program was) and a few fat cats benefit. I can say
| > that my time with Verizon recently showed no improvement in Minneapolis
| > Metro coverage what-so-ever since 2001.

When Verizon "started up", it started with Airtouch, i.e., Southern
California along with Nynex and Bell Atlantic, i.e., the Eastern Seaboard.
Those two huge areas comprised more than 75% of cell phone usage at the
time - Verizon effectively captured the market, coverage wise, from the "get
go". Since then, the expansion has been enormous and now covers virtually
the entire POPULATED areas of the country and almost all of the Interstate
highways.....!

Others, Sprint for example, concentrate on certain metropolitan areas and
are not found outside the city limits much of the time. Still others, small
local carriers and some larger ones, have been subsumed by Verizon and a
couple of others.

Coverage is complex, as stated by other posters, and I still don't see how
one can show conclusively that Verizon is "behind" anyone....

PC
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 11:24:06 PM

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

I'm not going into specifics. I know some people in our area who are
actively pursuing a tower with Verizon. They already have towers for 4
other major carriers. I don't want to upset their attempts.

The fact of the matter is, however, they've been pursuing this for over
a year. All signs point to Verizon cutting back, not expanding. I'm
quite certain Verizon application for a permit would be welcome, not denied.

Our area is not some forested area in Oregon, either. We're well populated.

Too bad. The ultimate loss will be Verizon's.

Thank you all for your replies. Again, I simply asked if anyone had
heard similar rumors. I'll take the majority of replies to suggest a
simple, "no."

Proconsul wrote:

> "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
> news:v5Sdnb-Iud2u3SLd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> | The key here is: YOUR area....
> |
> | Many factors are involved. Proconsul discussed just one of them.
> | (Economic/ROI factor). Others are things like permitting, priorities, etc.
> |
> | Permitting: I have seen multiple examples where some carriers had applied
> | for permits to sites before a certain date, and had no problems, while
> others
> | in the exact same area applied after that date and ran into NIMBY
> difficulties.
>
> Good point! I live in San Diego, California - the worst coverage in the area
> is in La Jolla, where folks with big bucks live....but they won't permit any
> towers to be put in, hence, very spotty coverage......:)  You'd think that
> those with big bucks, all of whom have cell phones growing out of their
> ears, would want better coverage - but they are the ones blocking the
> expansion!
>
> | Priorities: like spending money rolling out 1xEV-DO nationwide? It is
> possible that
> | money from expansion in a very low priority (your??) area was shifted?
>
> Another good point - what other carriers can provide similar services over
> wide areas of the country?
>
> PC
>
>
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 12:12:42 AM

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

I heard the same thing, like maybe AT&T Wireless was going to buy
them. Or maybe Hasbro.

>I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
>bought out. Apparently they're seriously cutting back, not expanding
>coverage area, particularly in our area and surrounding towns and
>villages. This has led to frustration among many Verizon users in our
>area, where service is rather spotty. There was promise of better
>coverage, but it's not materializing.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 12:12:43 AM

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

I heard they weren't putting anything into upper minn and mich since
Canada's buying them and they won't be states and part of verizon anymore..


"despondent" <the@despondent.net> wrote in message
news:rifvb0ldnuo405gb72p4rlh8gfsbb0u2ed@4ax.com
> I heard the same thing, like maybe AT&T Wireless was going to buy
> them. Or maybe Hasbro.
>
>> I've heard some pretty serious rumors recently that Verizon may be
>> bought out. Apparently they're seriously cutting back, not expanding
>> coverage area, particularly in our area and surrounding towns and
>> villages. This has led to frustration among many Verizon users in
>> our area, where service is rather spotty. There was promise of
>> better coverage, but it's not materializing.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 12:27:55 AM

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

despondent <the@despondent.net> wrote:
> I heard the same thing, like maybe AT&T Wireless was going to buy
> them. Or maybe Hasbro.

Larry W4CSC considers all CDMA phones to be toys... maybe there is
something to your rumor. :) 

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 3:32:16 AM

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

It appears you are basing your knowledge on local conditions. Places like
MN, verizon can't expand as they only have licenses for a small area. but
in other areas of the country, they are paying Millions for licenses to
expand. Today, they completed a deal to buy spectrum in Little Rock and
Pine Bluff, AR, one of only two areas of the Top 100 markets they don't
currently own licenses in.

Last year they purchased almost all of the spectrum from Northcoast PCS, and
have used that spectrum to fill in several new areas, not the least of which
was Litchfield, CT. Verizon users there don't think they are holding back
on expansion.

During the bidding for takeover of AT&T Wireless, one of the suitors was
Vodaphone, a co-investor in Verizon Wireless. Analysts guessed that if
Vodaphone sold their stake in VZW, another company may consider taking over
(that part of) Verizon Wireless. That was until Verizon said if Vodaphone
sells, VZ would pick up their entire holding. A rumor could have started in
that process that had a grain of truth in the speculation of that time, but
is now moot.

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


"GBSmith" <frodo@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:qVKvc.1019$dE1.140@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm not going into specifics. I know some people in our area who are
> actively pursuing a tower with Verizon. They already have towers for 4
> other major carriers. I don't want to upset their attempts.
>
> The fact of the matter is, however, they've been pursuing this for over
> a year. All signs point to Verizon cutting back, not expanding. I'm
> quite certain Verizon application for a permit would be welcome, not
denied.
>
> Our area is not some forested area in Oregon, either. We're well
populated.
>
> Too bad. The ultimate loss will be Verizon's.
>
> Thank you all for your replies. Again, I simply asked if anyone had
> heard similar rumors. I'll take the majority of replies to suggest a
> simple, "no."
>
> Proconsul wrote:
>
> > "Richard Ness" <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:v5Sdnb-Iud2u3SLd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > | The key here is: YOUR area....
> > |
> > | Many factors are involved. Proconsul discussed just one of them.
> > | (Economic/ROI factor). Others are things like permitting, priorities,
etc.
> > |
> > | Permitting: I have seen multiple examples where some carriers had
applied
> > | for permits to sites before a certain date, and had no problems, while
> > others
> > | in the exact same area applied after that date and ran into NIMBY
> > difficulties.
> >
> > Good point! I live in San Diego, California - the worst coverage in the
area
> > is in La Jolla, where folks with big bucks live....but they won't permit
any
> > towers to be put in, hence, very spotty coverage......:)  You'd think
that
> > those with big bucks, all of whom have cell phones growing out of their
> > ears, would want better coverage - but they are the ones blocking the
> > expansion!
> >
> > | Priorities: like spending money rolling out 1xEV-DO nationwide? It is
> > possible that
> > | money from expansion in a very low priority (your??) area was shifted?
> >
> > Another good point - what other carriers can provide similar services
over
> > wide areas of the country?
> >
> > PC
> >
> >
!