Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 87
  1. #46
    none
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    "Carl" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine
    > article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the
    > one service provider to avoid.


    The problem is that all the articles you linked are surveys of customer
    service, not network coverage. I think most of us would agree that customer
    service is the least important factor to consider when making a purchase.
    I've had the best experience with buisnesses that provide no customer
    service at all -- for example, newegg.

    ~None





    See More: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?




  2. #47
    none
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    "SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote
    > the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
    > areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).


    Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.

    ~None





  3. #48
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    Carl wrote:
    > "Tinman" wrote:
    >>
    >> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and
    >> never once did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed
    >> after hesitantly switching to AT&T for my main phone this past
    >> summer I have been very impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem
    >> for me whatsoever. Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone.
    >> Verizon blew it
    >> on that one big-time.
    >>
    >>

    > Here's the 2007 JD Power review of all cell phone providers. Sprint
    > scored the lowest in all rated areas and in all sections of the
    > country. Guess who scored highest (though granted with not 100%
    > consistency)?


    I wrote about network coverage gaps and you came back about customer
    service? How would Verizon's customer service have helped me in an area that
    has no--again, no--Verizon coverage? <shakes head>


    >
    > I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent
    > magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of
    > Sprint being the one service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in
    > other newsgroups of Sprint possibly going out of business and
    > possibly being absorbed by Verizon. None of what I've read speaks
    > well for Sprint. So you guys can cite your own
    > one-man-in-one-mysterious-spot experiences and feel better about
    > yourselves I suppose, but the facts don't support you.


    Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
    he claimed had only Verizon coverage. You said nothing. Others brought up
    true-life experiences with Sprint, covering a much larger area, and you
    whine? Grow up already, no one insulted one of your family--it's cellphone
    carrier, that's all.

    Again: I have had no problems with Sprint, for more than seven years now, as
    far as coverage, phone selection, call quality, and pricing are concerned.
    Yes customer service sucks but that doesn't make the other carriers "great."
    They just happen to suck less in an industry that sucks a lot. But you know
    what? I don't call customer service very often, so it doesn't effect me
    much--certainly not enough to pay more money for it.

    I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either. Since I
    have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see why I should
    be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage in at least one area
    that I am in all of the time, and they passed up the only phone that could
    have possibly gotten me to switch.


    --
    Mike





  4. #49
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Tinman wrote:

    > Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
    > he claimed had only Verizon coverage.


    Hardly remote. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
    some back-country trails or Forest Service roads. It's not just in one
    place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
    with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at the
    carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

    The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling
    outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so they
    have a much better chance of obtaining coverage.

    For 21¢ per month, and as low as 25¢ per minute you can have a phone
    that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31
    per month, and as low as 5.3¢ per minute, you can have a PagePlus account.



  5. #50
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    none wrote:
    > "SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote
    >> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
    >> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).

    >
    > Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.


    It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
    phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.



  6. #51
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    SMS ???. ? wrote:
    > Tinman wrote:
    >
    >> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote
    >> area that he claimed had only Verizon coverage.

    >
    > Hardly remote


    More remote than the areas Elmo and I brought up.


    >. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
    > some back-country trails or Forest Service roads.


    I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's
    not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through
    many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper.

    My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most
    everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas,
    in the exact same timeframes, as you. Still I refuted the last anecdotal
    report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.


    > It's not just in one
    > place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
    > with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
    > the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.


    Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
    roaming--on Sprint. <g>


    >
    > The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling
    > outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so
    > they have a much better chance of obtaining coverage.
    >
    > For 21 per month, and as low as 25 per minute you can have a phone
    > that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31
    > per month, and as low as 5.3 per minute, you can have a PagePlus
    > account.


    You too are being a little overly dramatic with the "need two phones"
    nonsense. I travel frequently, live in the desert southwest, and have never
    had coverage issues with either CDMA-only, or GSM-only during the last 2+
    years of using nothing but digital. In fact I've carried my Sprint phone
    with me for the last six months "just in case" and never needed it, not even
    once.

    Wake up, it's not 2000 anymore.


    --
    Mike





  7. #52
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Tinman wrote:

    > I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's
    > not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through
    > many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper.


    It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno. The other
    route is down through Carson City then 50 over Spooner Summit, also a
    windy mountain road.

    > My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most
    > everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas,
    > in the exact same timeframes, as you.


    It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage are
    somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at the AT&T
    coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area where they
    have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose Meadows, but
    ironically that's where both the snow play area, snowmobile area, and
    skiing/snowshoeing areas are located.

    > Still I refuted the last anecdotal
    > report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.


    Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"

    >> It's not just in one
    >> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
    >> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
    >> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

    >
    > Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
    > roaming--on Sprint. <g>


    It shows up with complete digital coverage. It doesn't say whether it's
    roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you switch the
    coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the coverage goes away,
    so that's a good clue that it's not native coverage.



  8. #53
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
    wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > Tinman wrote:
    >
    >> I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV
    >> 431. It's not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway
    >> that runs through many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it
    >> into Reno proper.

    >
    > It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno. The other
    > route is down through Carson City then 50 over Spooner Summit, also a
    > windy mountain road.
    >
    >> My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless
    >> for most everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the
    >> exact same areas, in the exact same timeframes, as you.

    >
    > It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage
    > are somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at
    > the AT&T coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area
    > where they have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose
    > Meadows, but ironically that's where both the snow play area,
    > snowmobile area, and skiing/snowshoeing areas are located.
    >
    >> Still I refuted the last anecdotal
    >> report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.

    >
    > Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"
    >
    >>> It's not just in one
    >>> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
    >>> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
    >>> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

    >>
    >> Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
    >> roaming--on Sprint. <g>

    >
    > It shows up with complete digital coverage. It doesn't say whether
    > it's roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you
    > switch the coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the
    > coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native
    > coverage.
    >


    Steve, you've turned into the Verizon version of Navas. Maybe not quite as
    obnoxious, but every bit as rabid and blinded by brand. You've been like
    that for years and just like Navas refuse to admit it. I've seen you take
    vindictive actions against other carriers on the internet because of
    opinions that didn't advance your own Verizon agenda.

    Be better than Navas and at least admit it. If not, you end up being no
    better a source of information than he is, which is a poor place to be in.

    TO be a troll or not be a troll- the decision is yours.



  9. #54
    none
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    "SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
    > phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.


    Roaming only works on every digital sprint phone...

    ~None





  10. #55
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    SMS ???. ? wrote:
    > Tinman wrote:
    >
    >> I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV
    >> 431. It's not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway
    >> that runs through many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it
    >> into Reno proper.

    >
    > It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno.>


    So what? The area I listed is AZ 95, a main route between I-40 and I-10, Las
    Vegas to Phoenix, etc.

    That you want to give more weight to your random anecdotal report is the
    only oddity.


    >> My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless
    >> for most everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the
    >> exact same areas, in the exact same timeframes, as you.

    >
    > It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage
    > are somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at
    > the AT&T coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area
    > where they have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose
    > Meadows, but ironically that's where both the snow play area,
    > snowmobile area, and skiing/snowshoeing areas are located.
    >


    You said the carrier maps were accurate. And maybe they are: there could be
    a myriad of reasons why your anecdotal report is incorrect, or temporary in
    nature.


    >> Still I refuted the last anecdotal
    >> report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.

    >
    > Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"


    That's not Verizon coverage, that's Sprint coverage. So much for your
    argument that the carrier maps show it all. And for that matter there is no
    EV-DO in that location and Verizon can't use Sprint's CDMA there either.

    By your logic Sprint's network includes everything from Verizon. And in fact
    that would be more accurate than the other way around as the Sprint phones I
    still have can easily be forced to roam onto Verizon at will (and, no, the
    PRL doesn't change this fact).


    >
    >>> It's not just in one
    >>> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
    >>> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
    >>> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

    >>
    >> Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
    >> roaming--on Sprint. <g>

    >
    > It shows up with complete digital coverage.


    From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along.


    > It doesn't say whether
    > it's roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you
    > switch the coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the
    > coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native
    > coverage.


    No ****, and that's the only way to truly see native coverage. Verizon
    doesn't have or lease any tower space in the area, at least not east of the
    Colorado.


    --
    Mike





  11. #56
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Scott wrote:

    >> Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"


    <snip>

    > Steve, you've turned into the Verizon version of Navas. Maybe not quite as
    > obnoxious, but every bit as rabid and blinded by brand. You've been like
    > that for years and just like Navas refuse to admit it. I've seen you take
    > vindictive actions against other carriers on the internet because of
    > opinions that didn't advance your own Verizon agenda.


    Come now Scott. As you can see even from this post, I didn't go making
    up stories of non-existent coverage like Navas does (the extended GSM
    claims belong in the Usenet hall of shame), nor did I propose that
    individuals plan their travel routes and choose their destinations based
    on the available coverage from Cingular (as he also has done).

    In fact, I did what I always do (and what Navas never does), I provided
    references and links to prove my point. Does anyone really care if
    coverage is native or roaming? Actually, I guess Verizon's InPulse
    customers do care, though on Verizon's MVNO PagePlus you'd still have
    coverage in that area, albeit at extra cost.

    > Be better than Navas and at least admit it.


    Okay, I admit that I'm better than Navas.

    > If not, you end up being no
    > better a source of information than he is, which is a poor place to be in.


    When have I ever provided any information that wasn't backed up by
    references? Maybe I get too annoyed with people that make up these
    fantastic stories. I've certainly done my share of criticizing Verizon
    for their various faults, including crippling of handsets, reducing
    off-peak hours, eliminating a lot of roaming capability with AC2, etc.
    What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently
    excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based their
    whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed the
    coverage superiority.



  12. #57
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Tinman wrote:

    >> It shows up with complete digital coverage.

    >
    > From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along.


    What you don't understand is that Sprint and Verizon have cross-roaming
    agreements for areas where one or the other does not have a network
    presence. It doesn't matter to subscribers (Sprint or Verizon) which
    network they are calling on. It does matter as far as EVDO is concerned.

    In areas where both carriers have coverage, roaming is often blocked by
    the PRL. Where it isn't blocked by the PRL by Sprint, you have to set
    the phone to "roaming only" in order to get coverage in areas where
    Sprint lacks coverage. If Sprint could offer 100% automatic roaming,
    then they'd have done better than Verizon in all the surveys, rather
    than consistently being rate last.



  13. #58
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    SMS wrote:
    >
    > In areas where both carriers have coverage, roaming is often blocked
    > by the PRL. Where it isn't blocked by the PRL by Sprint, you have to
    > set the phone to "roaming only" in order to get coverage in areas
    > where Sprint lacks coverage.


    How many times are you gonna contradict yourself in one thread? Remember
    writing this:

    SMS wrote:
    > It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
    > phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.


    The above was in response to someone informing you that most Sprint phones
    can be forced to digital roam, where you wrote this:

    SMS wrote:
    > the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
    > areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).


    So in one thread you went from:
    1.) Sprint doesn't let you roam at will on Verizon.

    2.) Sprint will let you roam at will, but only if the PRL allows it.

    3.) Sprint will let you roam at will regardless of the PRL but you have to
    set the phone to roaming only as their automatic roaming sucks.

    Did you think no one was paying attention?


    > If Sprint could offer 100% automatic
    > roaming, then they'd have done better than Verizon in all the
    > surveys, rather than consistently being rate last.


    You do sound like a lot Navas. Now you're trying to make it appear as if
    customer service equals coverage, when backed into a corner.

    And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403 wasn't a
    slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically show how absurd
    these little anecdotal reports actually are. In fact I don't care if your
    phone worked while skiing, driving down a mountainous rural state highway,
    or even in your own home. Call me selfish but what matters to me is that my
    phones work where I am at.


    --
    Mike





  14. #59
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    SMS wrote:
    > Tinman wrote:
    >
    >>> It shows up with complete digital coverage.

    >>
    >> From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along.

    >
    > What you don't understand is that Sprint and Verizon have
    > cross-roaming agreements for areas where one or the other does not
    > have a network presence.


    I understand roaming agreements, but I also know that in the real world
    things don't always turn out as planned. Kinda like coverage maps.


    > It doesn't matter to subscribers (Sprint or
    > Verizon) which network they are calling on. It does matter as far as
    > EVDO is concerned.


    Nope, it mattered with CDMA 1x too. And not being able to receive or send
    email did matter to the Verizon subscribers I was with in that area--it
    mattered a lot. There can be other issues when roaming as well.

    If given the choice I don't know why anyone wouldn't want native coverage.
    It does matter.


    --
    Mike





  15. #60
    DTC
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
    > What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently
    > excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based their
    > whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed the
    > coverage superiority.


    Navas doesn't agree with you, therefore you have got to be wrong.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast