AC coverage shrinking in Oregon? Map update is scary- may indicate a changing AC coverage area.

When I started with AC, early June 2003, Verizon released a new PRL (50085),
and corresponding coverage map dramatically improving coverage for AC users
in Oregon. US Cellular (all SID's in the PRL) had previously been
solid-roam and while an AC user could make calls using US Cellular's system,
they would be billed at the roaming rate. Enter PRL 50085, and the new
posted coverage map and all of the US Cellular SID's become freindly
blinking roam, and subsequently included with the AC rate plan and coverage
map.

I raised this concern when 50096 came out in its first version. It changed
all of the US Cellular SID's to solid-roam and subsequently removed all of
the new coverage from the new AC rate plan. This is a significant coverage
area, amounting to about 50% of all geographic coverage in the state of
Oregon.

Not to worry, the posted coverage map still showed the coverage as included,
and several updates (three infact) to the PRL and the coverage was back in.
Anyway, this temporary loss of coverage appears to be a mistake.

Today I noticed a new posted AC coverage map, apparently reducing AC
coverage in Oregon. See this page to see what I am talking about:
http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
Keep in mind this may actually not be a change in coverage at all, but
simply an update to the map to make it more accurate. If that's the case,
then I applaud Verizon's efforts to keep us well informed. If this
represents a loss in geographic coverage, that would be a very bad thing,
and actually unprecedented with their AC plan. I mean who wants to sign up
for a rate plan, under contract mind you, that has a changing coverage
area?

-Dan

PS: If anyone knows for a fact what the deal is, please do let me/us know.

---
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

You want to see coverage loss for Oregon, Arizona and some other areas,
check out the updated Americas choice map on Verizons Website...



"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
<bjqgnm$an0$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
> When I started with AC, early June 2003, Verizon released a new PRL (50085),
> and corresponding coverage map dramatically improving coverage for AC users
> in Oregon. US Cellular (all SID's in the PRL) had previously been
> solid-roam and while an AC user could make calls using US Cellular's system,
> they would be billed at the roaming rate. Enter PRL 50085, and the new
> posted coverage map and all of the US Cellular SID's become freindly
> blinking roam, and subsequently included with the AC rate plan and coverage
> map.
>
> I raised this concern when 50096 came out in its first version. It changed
> all of the US Cellular SID's to solid-roam and subsequently removed all of
> the new coverage from the new AC rate plan. This is a significant coverage
> area, amounting to about 50% of all geographic coverage in the state of
> Oregon.
>
> Not to worry, the posted coverage map still showed the coverage as included,
> and several updates (three infact) to the PRL and the coverage was back in.
> Anyway, this temporary loss of coverage appears to be a mistake.
>
> Today I noticed a new posted AC coverage map, apparently reducing AC
> coverage in Oregon. See this page to see what I am talking about:
> http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
> Keep in mind this may actually not be a change in coverage at all, but
> simply an update to the map to make it more accurate. If that's the case,
> then I applaud Verizon's efforts to keep us well informed. If this
> represents a loss in geographic coverage, that would be a very bad thing,
> and actually unprecedented with their AC plan. I mean who wants to sign up
> for a rate plan, under contract mind you, that has a changing coverage
> area?
>
> -Dan
>
> PS: If anyone knows for a fact what the deal is, please do let me/us know.
>
> ---
> Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

Recently there was a question put out regarding coverage and one post
commented that VZN's real coverage was shown in their "advanced
features" coverage map. The now missing coverage areas are covered by
AMPS through a non-CDMA carrier. This does not mean that there is no
service.
Another question comes to my mind:
What was the impact of the massive Oregon forest fires on AMPS coverage?
Is it possible that the new map has more to do with burned out towers
than coverage policy changes?

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
<bjqgnm$an0$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
> When I started with AC, early June 2003, Verizon released a new PRL (50085),
> and corresponding coverage map dramatically improving coverage for AC users
> in Oregon. US Cellular (all SID's in the PRL) had previously been
> solid-roam and while an AC user could make calls using US Cellular's system,
> they would be billed at the roaming rate. Enter PRL 50085, and the new
> posted coverage map and all of the US Cellular SID's become freindly
> blinking roam, and subsequently included with the AC rate plan and coverage
> map.
>
> I raised this concern when 50096 came out in its first version. It changed
> all of the US Cellular SID's to solid-roam and subsequently removed all of
> the new coverage from the new AC rate plan. This is a significant coverage
> area, amounting to about 50% of all geographic coverage in the state of
> Oregon.
>
> Not to worry, the posted coverage map still showed the coverage as included,
> and several updates (three infact) to the PRL and the coverage was back in.
> Anyway, this temporary loss of coverage appears to be a mistake.
>
> Today I noticed a new posted AC coverage map, apparently reducing AC
> coverage in Oregon. See this page to see what I am talking about:
> http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
> Keep in mind this may actually not be a change in coverage at all, but
> simply an update to the map to make it more accurate. If that's the case,
> then I applaud Verizon's efforts to keep us well informed. If this
> represents a loss in geographic coverage, that would be a very bad thing,
> and actually unprecedented with their AC plan. I mean who wants to sign up
> for a rate plan, under contract mind you, that has a changing coverage
> area?
>
> -Dan
>
> PS: If anyone knows for a fact what the deal is, please do let me/us know.
>
> ---
> Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
> http://cell.uoregon.edu
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

advance coverage map displays the areas covered by 1xrtt networks (3G)..
There are still digital calling areas that have not yet been upgraded to
the "3G" specs.

--
Statements made by me are of my opinion and knowledge, and do not
express those by Verizon Wireless(R).
Any information I give is subject to change without notice, and may not
be completely accurate.


wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
<vm1u6n8uh1pa8@corp.supernews.com>:
> Recently there was a question put out regarding coverage and one post
> commented that VZN's real coverage was shown in their "advanced
> features" coverage map. The now missing coverage areas are covered by
> AMPS through a non-CDMA carrier. This does not mean that there is no
> service.
> Another question comes to my mind:
> What was the impact of the massive Oregon forest fires on AMPS coverage?
> Is it possible that the new map has more to do with burned out towers
> than coverage policy changes?
>
> "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
> <bjqgnm$an0$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
> > When I started with AC, early June 2003, Verizon released a new PRL (50085),
> > and corresponding coverage map dramatically improving coverage for AC users
> > in Oregon. US Cellular (all SID's in the PRL) had previously been
> > solid-roam and while an AC user could make calls using US Cellular's system,
> > they would be billed at the roaming rate. Enter PRL 50085, and the new
> > posted coverage map and all of the US Cellular SID's become freindly
> > blinking roam, and subsequently included with the AC rate plan and coverage
> > map.
> >
> > I raised this concern when 50096 came out in its first version. It changed
> > all of the US Cellular SID's to solid-roam and subsequently removed all of
> > the new coverage from the new AC rate plan. This is a significant coverage
> > area, amounting to about 50% of all geographic coverage in the state of
> > Oregon.
> >
> > Not to worry, the posted coverage map still showed the coverage as included,
> > and several updates (three infact) to the PRL and the coverage was back in.
> > Anyway, this temporary loss of coverage appears to be a mistake.
> >
> > Today I noticed a new posted AC coverage map, apparently reducing AC
> > coverage in Oregon. See this page to see what I am talking about:
> > http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
> > Keep in mind this may actually not be a change in coverage at all, but
> > simply an update to the map to make it more accurate. If that's the case,
> > then I applaud Verizon's efforts to keep us well informed. If this
> > represents a loss in geographic coverage, that would be a very bad thing,
> > and actually unprecedented with their AC plan. I mean who wants to sign up
> > for a rate plan, under contract mind you, that has a changing coverage
> > area?
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > PS: If anyone knows for a fact what the deal is, please do let me/us know.
> >
> > ---
> > Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
> > http://cell.uoregon.edu
> >
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

OK Dan,
It's time now for you to grit your teeth and think positive thoughts.
Yes, the newest AC map looks like OR has lost coverage. But you know,
historically, Verizon has never started billing for coverage with AC
once it has been added.

As long as you maintain 50085, or even if not, you should be able to
operate blindly as if nothing's happened. If it worked before, you
should have confidence that it will continue.

I don't blame you for being worried, but what if your non-newsgroup
savvy neighbor plunged ahead and continued to use his phone like before
and didn't see any change? Where you, 'in the know', stopped using your
phone, only to find all was as it was.

If anything does change, you'll both call and complain, but your
neighbor will have been able to make all the calls you were hesitant to
make. I say, forge ahead!

-Bill Radio

Western U.S. Wireless Reviews & Ratings:
http://www.MountainWireless.com


"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
<bjqgnm$an0$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
>
> Keep in mind this may actually not be a change in coverage at all, but
> simply an update to the map to make it more accurate. If that's the case,
> then I applaud Verizon's efforts to keep us well informed. If this
> represents a loss in geographic coverage, that would be a very bad thing,
> and actually unprecedented with their AC plan. I mean who wants to sign up
> for a rate plan, under contract mind you, that has a changing coverage
> area?







[posted via phonescoop.com]

Yeah, but now thousands of users are running around with phones with no amps
reception.

"William Bray" <wmbray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vm1u6n8uh1pa8@corp.supernews.com...
> Recently there was a question put out regarding coverage and one post
> commented that VZN's real coverage was shown in their "advanced
> features" coverage map. The now missing coverage areas are covered by
> AMPS through a non-CDMA carrier. This does not mean that there is no
> service.
> Another question comes to my mind:
> What was the impact of the massive Oregon forest fires on AMPS coverage?
> Is it possible that the new map has more to do with burned out towers
> than coverage policy changes?
>
> "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
> <bjqgnm$an0$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
> > When I started with AC, early June 2003, Verizon released a new PRL
(50085),
> > and corresponding coverage map dramatically improving coverage for AC
users
> > in Oregon. US Cellular (all SID's in the PRL) had previously been
> > solid-roam and while an AC user could make calls using US Cellular's
system,
> > they would be billed at the roaming rate. Enter PRL 50085, and the new
> > posted coverage map and all of the US Cellular SID's become freindly
> > blinking roam, and subsequently included with the AC rate plan and
coverage
> > map.
> >
> > I raised this concern when 50096 came out in its first version. It
changed
> > all of the US Cellular SID's to solid-roam and subsequently removed all
of
> > the new coverage from the new AC rate plan. This is a significant
coverage
> > area, amounting to about 50% of all geographic coverage in the state of
> > Oregon.
> >
> > Not to worry, the posted coverage map still showed the coverage as
included,
> > and several updates (three infact) to the PRL and the coverage was back
in.
> > Anyway, this temporary loss of coverage appears to be a mistake.
> >
> > Today I noticed a new posted AC coverage map, apparently reducing AC
> > coverage in Oregon. See this page to see what I am talking about:
> > http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
> > Keep in mind this may actually not be a change in coverage at all, but
> > simply an update to the map to make it more accurate. If that's the
case,
> > then I applaud Verizon's efforts to keep us well informed. If this
> > represents a loss in geographic coverage, that would be a very bad
thing,
> > and actually unprecedented with their AC plan. I mean who wants to sign
up
> > for a rate plan, under contract mind you, that has a changing coverage
> > area?
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > PS: If anyone knows for a fact what the deal is, please do let me/us
know.
> >
> > ---
> > Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
> > http://cell.uoregon.edu
> >
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

Just got off the phone with Josh, from the Utah call center. Very nice guy
and typical of the polite and friendly customer service I have received from
Verizon.

Josh informed me that we have lost geographic coverage in Oregon. He
explained that the terms of service that I agreed to when I changed to AC
allow Verizon to change the coverage area included with AC at their
discretion.

-Dan


"Bill Radio" <Bill@MountainWirelessNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:vm23bf2u8gde9e@corp.supernews.com...
> OK Dan,
> It's time now for you to grit your teeth and think positive thoughts.
> Yes, the newest AC map looks like OR has lost coverage. But you know,
> historically, Verizon has never started billing for coverage with AC
> once it has been added.
>
> As long as you maintain 50085, or even if not, you should be able to
> operate blindly as if nothing's happened. If it worked before, you
> should have confidence that it will continue.
>
> I don't blame you for being worried, but what if your non-newsgroup
> savvy neighbor plunged ahead and continued to use his phone like before
> and didn't see any change? Where you, 'in the know', stopped using your
> phone, only to find all was as it was.
>
> If anything does change, you'll both call and complain, but your
> neighbor will have been able to make all the calls you were hesitant to
> make. I say, forge ahead!
>
> -Bill Radio
>
> Western U.S. Wireless Reviews & Ratings:
> http://www.MountainWireless.com
>
>
> "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
> <bjqgnm$an0$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
> >
> > Keep in mind this may actually not be a change in coverage at all, but
> > simply an update to the map to make it more accurate. If that's the
case,
> > then I applaud Verizon's efforts to keep us well informed. If this
> > represents a loss in geographic coverage, that would be a very bad
thing,
> > and actually unprecedented with their AC plan. I mean who wants to sign
up
> > for a rate plan, under contract mind you, that has a changing coverage
> > area?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
<BPGdnVBr4K5qqPyiXTWJig@comcast.com>:
> Just got off the phone with Josh, from the Utah call center. Very nice guy
> and typical of the polite and friendly customer service I have received from
> Verizon.
>
> Josh informed me that we have lost geographic coverage in Oregon. He
> explained that the terms of service that I agreed to when I changed to AC
> allow Verizon to change the coverage area included with AC at their
> discretion.
>
> -Dan
>
>
>

Ouch! Doesn't seem fair considering what you gave up. If enough people
signed up under these terms, it seems on the abusive side.

However, Verizon reps always give the stock answer. There's always some
hope. It could change back or be wrong...

Don't they have an Oregon call center?

-
David



[posted via phonescoop.com]

Have any SIDs been removed from the PRL? Looking at justlurker's site,
it would appear that none have.

If the PRL is the same between 50085 and 50096, then it doesn't seem
possible that real coverage has been lost.


[posted via phonescoop.com]

Yes, this is correct. At the moment, I can honestly say my phone is in
blinking roam in places like Bandon Oregon or Millican Oregon should I get
billed roaming which will be easy to dispute.

Now that the posted covearge map has removed Oregon coverage, all it would
take is a PRL update on Verizon's part to complete the picture. i.e.
Perhaps 50096 v1/v2 will come back again.

I think the bigger issue now that I have confirmation from Verizon that
coverage has reduced dramatically in my home state, is that we are now
demonstrably dealing with a carrier willing to change coverage area for the
AC plan on someone during a contract. I did ask if this was reason enough
to let me out of my contract, and the answer was no.

I think the learning experience I got out of this is that for me, it would
be an understatement to say I'm uncomfortable with a changing coverage area.
In the future I'll stick to local or one-rate type plans. I really wish
Verizon would let me have the single-rate west plan back which I traded for
AC during the good coverage map times. I asked for this too, and was told
no.

-Dan

---
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu
"Bozo The Clown" <anotherbozotheclown@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vm3mk58em0md0f@corp.supernews.com...
> Have any SIDs been removed from the PRL? Looking at justlurker's site,
> it would appear that none have.
>
> If the PRL is the same between 50085 and 50096, then it doesn't seem
> possible that real coverage has been lost.
>
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

While not an ideal answer, I would suggest keeping your PRL at 50096 and
not updating until you confirm that systems you need haven't been
deleted.

As Bill Radio has said, no one has reported being charged for using a
system in an old PRL that has been deleted/downgraded in newer ones.


"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
<bjsqri$cd4$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
> Yes, this is correct. At the moment, I can honestly say my phone is in
> blinking roam in places like Bandon Oregon or Millican Oregon should I get
> billed roaming which will be easy to dispute.
>
> Now that the posted covearge map has removed Oregon coverage, all it would
> take is a PRL update on Verizon's part to complete the picture. i.e.
> Perhaps 50096 v1/v2 will come back again.
>
> I think the bigger issue now that I have confirmation from Verizon that
> coverage has reduced dramatically in my home state, is that we are now
> demonstrably dealing with a carrier willing to change coverage area for the
> AC plan on someone during a contract. I did ask if this was reason enough
> to let me out of my contract, and the answer was no.
>
> I think the learning experience I got out of this is that for me, it would
> be an understatement to say I'm uncomfortable with a changing coverage area.
> In the future I'll stick to local or one-rate type plans. I really wish
> Verizon would let me have the single-rate west plan back which I traded for
> AC during the good coverage map times. I asked for this too, and was told
> no.
>
> -Dan
>
> ---
> Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
> http://cell.uoregon.edu
> "Bozo The Clown" <anotherbozotheclown@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vm3mk58em0md0f@corp.supernews.com...
> > Have any SIDs been removed from the PRL? Looking at justlurker's site,
> > it would appear that none have.
> >
> > If the PRL is the same between 50085 and 50096, then it doesn't seem
> > possible that real coverage has been lost.
> >
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

> I think the bigger issue now that I have confirmation from Verizon that
> coverage has reduced dramatically in my home state, is that we are now
> demonstrably dealing with a carrier willing to change coverage area for the
> AC plan on someone during a contract. I did ask if this was reason enough
> to let me out of my contract, and the answer was no.

Arguable. How is the coverage in your home area?

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net

C'mon Dan,
Be patient. The fact that VZ says the area (US Cellular?) is no longer
included does not mean you're going to be charged. Yes, the official
line at CS is that the area has been removed, but WILL WE BE CHARGED?

There are hundreds of neighbors of yours who will be equally miffed
about the loss. If they start receiving charges where they did not
before, and start to complain, as you will, Verizon may change how they
apply billing to customers who signed up before the change.

And since you have a record of where and how you used your phone over
the past year, how much would be saved if you did switch to the Local
(2.5-state?) plan? I'm still tempted to switch to our Local plan for
those 1,000 anytime minutes. It could be cheaper even with the
occasional roaming charges.

But I really don't think we've heard the final chapter of this story.
Roam on!

-Bill Radio


"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in article
<bjsqri$cd4$1@pith.uoregon.edu>:
>
>
> I think the bigger issue now that I have confirmation from Verizon that
> coverage has reduced dramatically in my home state, is that we are now
> demonstrably dealing with a carrier willing to change coverage area for the
> AC plan on someone during a contract.





[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
news:bjsqri$cd4$1@pith.uoregon.edu...

> I think the learning experience I got out of this is that for me, it would
> be an understatement to say I'm uncomfortable with a changing coverage area.
> In the future I'll stick to local or one-rate type plans. I really wish
> Verizon would let me have the single-rate west plan back which I traded for
> AC during the good coverage map times. I asked for this too, and was told
> no.

It does make my choice to stay with my National SingleRate plan with off peak
starting at 7 PM look better and better!! :-)

Tom J

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:36:07 -0000, wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray)
wrote:

<snip>
>What was the impact of the massive Oregon forest fires on AMPS coverage?
> Is it possible that the new map has more to do with burned out towers
>than coverage policy changes?

State Fire Marshal radio net lost one-third of its capacity and Oregon DOT
radio net crashed completely, for reasons yet unknown, so it is a valid
question.
--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.