Results 46 to 60 of 87
- 12-27-2007, 11:04 AM #46noneGuest
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?
- 12-27-2007, 11:06 AM #47noneGuest
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
- 12-27-2007, 11:54 AM #48TinmanGuest
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
- 12-27-2007, 01:53 PM #49SMS 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.
- 12-27-2007, 02:23 PM #50SMS 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.
- 12-27-2007, 02:33 PM #51TinmanGuest
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
- 12-27-2007, 03:07 PM #52SMS 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.
- 12-27-2007, 06:16 PM #53ScottGuest
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.
- 12-27-2007, 11:06 PM #54noneGuest
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
- 12-28-2007, 09:41 AM #55TinmanGuest
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
- 12-28-2007, 09:57 AM #56SMS 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.
- 12-28-2007, 10:28 AM #57SMS 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.
- 12-28-2007, 10:56 AM #58TinmanGuest
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
- 12-28-2007, 10:58 AM #59TinmanGuest
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
- 12-28-2007, 03:39 PM #60DTCGuest
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
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.verizon
- RingTones
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat