iPhone 3g owners, need to make a call where there is no GSM Coverage?Here's a simple Work-around!

As all independent surveys of cellular phone coverage show, Verizon
Wireless has far, far, better coverage than AT&T. The problem for the
iPhone user is that there is no iPhone available for Verizon's CDMA
network, because Verizon turned Apple down when Apple pitched the iPhone
to them. However there is a workaround that allows iPhone owners to make
calls on Verizon's CDMA network even where there is no GSM coverage.

First, buy a Verizon InPulse phone at Wal-Mart (or get any CDMA phone
that's from Verizon, new or used). If you travel in rural areas, get a
tri-mode handset since there are still a great many areas where AMPS is
the only coverage. Second, activate it on PagePlus for about $3. Third,
add $10 every four months. Fourth, remove the SIM card from your iPhone
and tape it to your forehead with adhesive tape. Now when you're away
from GSM coverage with your iPhone, you can still make a call.

---

› See More: iPhone 3g owners, need to make a call where there is no GSM Coverage?Here's a simple Work-around!

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> because Verizon turned Apple down when Apple pitched the iPhone
> to them.

actually, it was Apple that had to turn Verizon down since they wouldn't
modernize their equipment enough to allow for the iPhone. Verizon has
been bitter about the loss ever since. the Verizon CEO now calls the
success of the iphone a "conspiracy"

poor guy.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9979200-37.html

"David Moyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> because Verizon turned Apple down when Apple pitched the iPhone
>> to them.
>
> actually, it was Apple that had to turn Verizon down since they wouldn't
> modernize their equipment enough to allow for the iPhone. Verizon has
> been bitter about the loss ever since. the Verizon CEO now calls the
> success of the iphone a "conspiracy"
>
> poor guy.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9979200-37.html

Re-read that link you posted. It was Verizon that turned down the iPhone.
Apple went to Verizon 1st. Then went to AT&T 2nd.

After Oxturd said the same thing he was proved wrong by a post ( Link) that
said that Verizon was offered the iPhone 1st. Google is your friend.

David Moyer wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> because Verizon turned Apple down when Apple pitched the iPhone
>> to them.
>
> actually, it was Apple that had to turn Verizon down since they
> wouldn't modernize their equipment enough to allow for the iPhone.
> Verizon has been bitter about the loss ever since. the Verizon CEO
> now calls the success of the iphone a "conspiracy"
>
> poor guy.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9979200-37.html
>
If guys like you would only take the time to read their own citations, they
would make less of a fool of themselves on public forums, something which
you can't hide from later on 'cause it's in print for everyone to see. All
you've served to do is diminish your own credibility as a source of
information, a reputation which will tarnish you in many future posts.

Here's a quotation from your own supplied link:

"Verizon reportedly turned down the chance to carry the original iPhone over
distaste for the revenue-sharing agreements that Apple insisted on for its
early launch partners. In a way, that was a sound business decision, as
Apple has been forced to retreat from that stance and accept the
carrier-subsidy model that is the de facto standard for this industry,..."

That was the story then, and seems to be the story now, despite your attempt
at revisionist history.

Furthermore, your out-of-context quotation is misrepresenting. The CEO's use
of the word "conspiracy" was in reference to the media's tendency to report
the iPhone as a "success" despite the fact that Apple has a relatively small
percentage of the market share of cell phones. There's something to be said
to that, though the author's analogy of comparing GM to Ferrari has some
merit as well.

It remains amazing to me how many people can misreport information that is
otherwise easily verifiable, even in today's world of fast communications
and easy access to the information (ie. google). Use the tools available to
you, friend, and refrain from re-writing history to suit your personal
agenda. We have enough of that crap in world politics.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Carl" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > actually, it was Apple that had to turn Verizon down since they
> > wouldn't modernize their equipment enough to allow for the iPhone.
> > Verizon has been bitter about the loss ever since. the Verizon CEO
> > now calls the success of the iphone a "conspiracy"
> >
> > poor guy.
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9979200-37.html
> >
> If guys like you would only take the time to read their own citations, they
> would make less of a fool of themselves on public forums, something which
> you can't hide from later on 'cause it's in print for everyone to see. All
> you've served to do is diminish your own credibility as a source of
> information, a reputation which will tarnish you in many future posts.
>
> Here's a quotation from your own supplied link:
>
> "Verizon reportedly turned down the chance to carry the original iPhone over
> distaste for the revenue-sharing agreements that Apple insisted on for its
> early launch partners. In a way, that was a sound business decision, as
> Apple has been forced to retreat from that stance and accept the
> carrier-subsidy model that is the de facto standard for this industry,..."
>
> That was the story then, and seems to be the story now, despite your attempt
> at revisionist history.
>
> Furthermore, your out-of-context quotation is misrepresenting. The CEO's use
> of the word "conspiracy" was in reference to the media's tendency to report
> the iPhone as a "success" despite the fact that Apple has a relatively small
> percentage of the market share of cell phones. There's something to be said
> to that, though the author's analogy of comparing GM to Ferrari has some
> merit as well.
>
> It remains amazing to me how many people can misreport information that is
> otherwise easily verifiable, even in today's world of fast communications
> and easy access to the information (ie. google). Use the tools available to
> you, friend, and refrain from re-writing history to suit your personal
> agenda. We have enough of that crap in world politics.

oh, i read over my link and it clearly shows Verizon dropped the ball.

All that matters is at the end of the day is Verizon can't sell the best
smartphone on the market. They were locked out by their own short
sighted mistake.

It will probably end up being the biggest blunder in cell phone company
history, Apple will crush them with a whole series of iPhones models in
the coming years.

On Jul 19, 12:28*pm, David Moyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> It will probably end up being the biggest blunder in cell phone company
> history, Apple will crush them with a whole series of iPhones models in
> the coming years.

Unmitigated horse****. It is much, much more likely that over the
coming years, we're going to see a single next-gen technology adopted
across multiple carriers, and the iPhone 4G will be usable with any of
those carriers - Verizon, AT&T, T-Mo, Sprint (if it still exists), ...
Nobody will be crushed.

It depends a great deal on how long IS-95-flavored CDMA technologies
live separately from GSM networks.

In article
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Unmitigated horse****. It is much, much more likely that over the
> coming years, we're going to see a single next-gen technology adopted
> across multiple carriers, and the iPhone 4G will be usable with any of
> those carriers - Verizon, AT&T, T-Mo, Sprint (if it still exists), ...
> Nobody will be crushed.

I hope you are right about one technology being adapted, and that the
4G iPhone, and other phones too, are usable with any of the carriers.
It does looks like that Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile are going to adopt the
same 4G standard.

We should hope none are crushed!!! For those of us who are consumers it
is in our interest that there be healthy, competing, multiple carriers.
And also competing phone manufacturers.

--
Charles

On Jul 19, 3:09*pm, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

> We should hope none are crushed!!! For those of us who are consumers it
> is in our interest that there be healthy, competing, multiple carriers.
> And also competing phone manufacturers.

Well, when I said "none will be crushed" I was thinking more about the
h/w vendors. NOK won't be going out of business any time soon, and I
doubt AAPL will go down either, nor will it abandon the cellphone
market. The iPhone isn't a huge-volume product, but it's doing very
well and means more recurring revenue for AAPL than selling a feature
phone does to NOK, MOT et al.

Carriers are quite likely going to consolidate further IMHO where not
explicitly restrained by legislation. And obsolete technologies like
iDEN are hopefully going to be shot in the head and quietly buried.
I'm counting the minutes until the DTV transition leads to a viable
switched radio solution that will finally and completely kill iDEN
(and with it, Sprint - near as I can make out from reading the news,
the only thing that keeps Sprint alive is Nextel customers who
absolutely demand the fastest possible walkie-talkie feature).

Charles <[email protected]> wrote in news:190720081509075140%[email protected]:

> I hope you are right about one technology being adapted,

I think he's right, too, because we are fast headed for a ONE COMPANY
monopoly of sellphone service because the damned lawyers at the FCC don't
protect the public's interest.

Once Verizon Wireless swallows ATT, the last holdout, sellphone service
will end as we know it....