Re:Number Port Deals Tomorrow

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Honestly, I don't see why people would be waiting to keep their numbers
> if service was really that bad for them. If I had crappy cell phone
> service before LNP, having to change my number would NOT deter me from
> switching... if anything, I'd WANT a new number because chances are, the
> people I know would be well aware that calling my on that old number
> would be a frustrating experience.

But if you've paid for stationery, vehicle lettering/painting, etc. with
your current cell phone number on it, THEN the wait would be worth it.

Stationery can get very expensive, as can vehicle lettering.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

---

› See More: Re:Number Port Deals Tomorrow

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:15:46 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At least with Verizon, when you take a
>promotion they make it perfectly clear to you that this extends your
>contract.

OIC. Verizon *never* lies. Sure, I believe that. I also believe in
the tooth fairy and Santy Kloz.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

> Honestly, I don't see why people would be waiting to keep their numbers
> if service was really that bad for them. If
*************************I*********************** had crappy cell phone
> service before LNP, having to change my number would NOT deter
> ************************************me****************************** from
> switching... if anything, I'd WANT a new number because chances are, the
> people I know would be well aware that calling my on that old number
> would be a frustrating experience. There's no logic in hanging on to a
> phone number if you can't *use* that phone number due to bad coverage or
> poor service quality. And those who argue that keeping a phone number
> is important because their contacts rely on that number are forgetting
> the fact that if those people can't *reach* you, then the number is
> worthless.
>
> Unless people are *really* that dumb that they stubbornly hung on for
> LNP, the only benefit I see is that it allows frugal people to search
> for a better deal while not having to advertise to their contacts that
> they'll hop onto any old carrier just to get service on the cheap.

Notice by the asterisks in the above that *you* speak from *your* point
of view, and *you* are not 270 million American citizens. There are
other opinions. Plus, there are other factors, such as NANPA and the
frequent use of "disposable" cellular telephone numbers that "endanger"
or put area codes "into jeapardy".

==AD

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote
in message <news:[email protected]>...

> I used Sprint PCS in the Bay Area, and as of last April it was superb! I
> was using a Samsung A400 and I traveled from downtown San Francisco, SFO
and
> all along the south bay area including Mountain View, Cupertino and San
> Jose. No problems, not once, not ever (excluding in building coverage in
> building in Cupertino ... no carrier worked there). I was there for six
> weeks except on the weekend, so I think I had the chance to sample the
> system in that area (oh yeah, including in Sacramento as well on the fifth
> week).

Ah, Cupertino. My wife's office is in Cupertino. No Cingular coverage at all
in her office. Verizon and Nextel work fine inside the building. AT&T is
marginal in Cupertino (two to three bars usually). One colleague at work had
no Sprint coverage at all in her house in the Seven Springs area of
Cupertino, but Cingular GSM does work there. It's parts of Alameda county
where Sprint has major problems. They even let my boss out of his contract
without a termination fee after admitting their coverage issues in Fremont.
Inside Home Depot in West San Jose, Verizon works okay, but other carriers
do not. The biggest issue with in-building coverage problems with Sprint and
Cingular is the 1900 Mhz, and there is no way around this except to add many
more cells to compensate.

"Group Special Mobile" <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:15:46 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >At least with Verizon, when you take a
> >promotion they make it perfectly clear to you that this extends your
> >contract.
>
> OIC. Verizon *never* lies. Sure, I believe that. I also believe in
> the tooth fairy and Santy Kloz.

I didn't say that they never lie. But at least they don't lie about the
contract being extended when you take advantage of a promotion. Furthermore,
look at the carriers that did not lie about the cost of number portability,
and did not hit its customers with large fees as a way of increasing rates
surreptitously; Sprint, Cingular, AT&T and Nextel all took full advantage of
the legality of adding on these non-governmental fees to sock it to their
subscribers.

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Honestly, I don't see why people would be waiting to keep their numbers
> > if service was really that bad for them. If I had crappy cell phone
> > service before LNP, having to change my number would NOT deter me from
> > switching... if anything, I'd WANT a new number because chances are, the
> > people I know would be well aware that calling my on that old number
> > would be a frustrating experience.
>
> But if you've paid for stationery, vehicle lettering/painting, etc. with
> your current cell phone number on it, THEN the wait would be worth it.
>
> Stationery can get very expensive, as can vehicle lettering.
>
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
> 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
> Steve Sobol, Proprietor
> 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Not to mention those charges for LNP that the carriers have been charging
EVERYONE for months (not just the people that want to keep their number). I
say since we all got screwed and had to pay for a small percentage of
people, absolutely EVERYONE should keep their numbers when switching
carriers. May as well use what we paid for.
As for what was said above, just think, if we all haven't been paying
through the nose so a small few could save money on stationary and sign
painting.... Wait! It's a scam to cut the costs of sign painters and
printers.... It must be a trick to cut down labor needs and increase
unemployed people!

> I didn't say that they never lie. But at least they don't lie about the
> contract being extended when you take advantage of a promotion. Furthermore,
> look at the carriers that did not lie about the cost of number portability,
> and did not hit its customers with large fees as a way of increasing rates
> surreptitously; Sprint, Cingular, AT&T and Nextel all took full advantage of
> the legality of adding on these non-governmental fees to sock it to their
> subscribers.

Cingular only charges me .30/month, and Verizon Wireless will charge its
customers .40/month starting next year.

Verizon Wireless is taking full advantage of the legality of adding on
these non-governmental fees to sock it to their subscribers.

==AD

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Aboutdakota <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cingular only charges me .30/month, and Verizon Wireless will charge its
> customers .40/month starting next year.
>
> Verizon Wireless is taking full advantage of the legality of adding on
> these non-governmental fees to sock it to their subscribers.

I'm surprised you're a VZW customer - it sounds like you have had some
pretty crappy experiences with them. Are you still under contract?

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Aboutdakota <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cingular only charges me .30/month, and Verizon Wireless will charge its
>>customers .40/month starting next year.
>>
>>Verizon Wireless is taking full advantage of the legality of adding on
>>these non-governmental fees to sock it to their subscribers.
>
>
> I'm surprised you're a VZW customer - it sounds like you have had some
> pretty crappy experiences with them. Are you still under contract?
>

No, I'm not anymore. I learned about Verizon deals with international
raoming in areas a customer service representative "guarantees" native
Verizon service. I keep up with the issues because Verizon Wireless has
a monopoly in several areas. I am also a member of a group that is
trying to get local wireless started up in areas with no service, and
increase competition in areas with only a single provider.

We are working on a wireless VOICE carrier, but lack of spectrum
available (nobody seem willing to sell it for these rural areas). We
are awaiting possible purchase of spectrum from the FCC, and we are
lobbying against the larger corporations about buildout requirements
(mainly Sprint PCS and T-Mobile).

==AD

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Aboutdakota <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, I'm not anymore. I learned about Verizon deals with international
> raoming in areas a customer service representative "guarantees" native
> Verizon service. I keep up with the issues because Verizon Wireless has
> a monopoly in several areas. I am also a member of a group that is
> trying to get local wireless started up in areas with no service, and
> increase competition in areas with only a single provider.

*nodding*

Have you tried voicing your concerns to the VZW executive office that handles
your area?

I don't have problems with them, but I used to live in the 24th largest
metro area in the country and now live just outside the 2nd (90 miles NE
of Los Angeles)...

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Aboutdakota <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>No, I'm not anymore. I learned about Verizon deals with international
>>raoming in areas a customer service representative "guarantees" native
>>Verizon service. I keep up with the issues because Verizon Wireless has
>>a monopoly in several areas. I am also a member of a group that is
>>trying to get local wireless started up in areas with no service, and
>>increase competition in areas with only a single provider.
>
>
> *nodding*
>
> Have you tried voicing your concerns to the VZW executive office that handles
> your area?
>
> I don't have problems with them, but I used to live in the 24th largest
> metro area in the country and now live just outside the 2nd (90 miles NE
> of Los Angeles)...
>

When I had problems with them, I lived in a town with less than 200
people. The Canadian border was only 5 miles away; the high school for
the town was 15 miles away. The area in question (Divide County, North
Dakota) and the county east of it (Burke County, North Dakota) have
consistently ranked in the top 10 areas in the United States for
population loss. From 1990 to 2000, Burke County lost 25.3% of its
population; Divide County lost 21% of its population in the same 10 year
period. It is estimated that North Dakota lost 2% of its total
poulation from census 2000 until July 1, 2002. West Virgina was down
0.38%, and the District of Columbia was down 0.2%.


It's all nice that VZW executive offices have people that work in them,
but in reality they don't give a damn about North Dakota, only about the
$$ we pay them each month. Do you think VZW wants to pump any money
into an area that was once 10,000+ people, but is expected to be only
1420 by 2020? The Divide County School District covers an area twice
the size of the State of Rhode Island! A majority of Verizon's
coverage, to this day, in that area is still AMPS only. They haven't
even bothered upgrading many of those towers to CDMA digital. Canadian
carriers have great coverage throughout the area. "To the north, dozens
of Canadian oil rigs, coal mines, and a SaskPower plant loom in the
distance, a mirage of economic activity only miles away but a country
apart."

This is why we want to start up a co-operative for wireless services. I
no longer live in that area, either, but I am an active participant in
the group. When/if we do get started up, most likely GSM or wCDMA
services would be provided (to help provide links to AT&T, Cingular, and
T-Mobile) to help stimulate some competition.

==AD

Sources of population information:

U.S. Census Bureau; www.census.gov

University of North Dakota, courtesy of U.S. News and World Report
http://tinyurl.com/xlux

North Dakota State Data Center at North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/sdc/data/p...s/frontend.pdf

Very interesting concept. You might want to have a look at REI.com. REI
started out back in the 30's as a co-op for purchasing outdoor gear. It's
grown, but still has "members". Organizationally, it might be a good model.

Good luck!!

Ken
(former Montana resident, courtesy of the USAF)
"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Aboutdakota <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>No, I'm not anymore. I learned about Verizon deals with international
> >>raoming in areas a customer service representative "guarantees" native
> >>Verizon service. I keep up with the issues because Verizon Wireless has
> >>a monopoly in several areas. I am also a member of a group that is
> >>trying to get local wireless started up in areas with no service, and
> >>increase competition in areas with only a single provider.
> >
> >
> > *nodding*
> >
> > Have you tried voicing your concerns to the VZW executive office that
handles
> > your area?
> >
> > I don't have problems with them, but I used to live in the 24th largest
> > metro area in the country and now live just outside the 2nd (90 miles NE
> > of Los Angeles)...
> >
>
> When I had problems with them, I lived in a town with less than 200
> people. The Canadian border was only 5 miles away; the high school for
> the town was 15 miles away. The area in question (Divide County, North
> Dakota) and the county east of it (Burke County, North Dakota) have
> consistently ranked in the top 10 areas in the United States for
> population loss. From 1990 to 2000, Burke County lost 25.3% of its
> population; Divide County lost 21% of its population in the same 10 year
> period. It is estimated that North Dakota lost 2% of its total
> poulation from census 2000 until July 1, 2002. West Virgina was down
> 0.38%, and the District of Columbia was down 0.2%.
>
>
> It's all nice that VZW executive offices have people that work in them,
> but in reality they don't give a damn about North Dakota, only about the
> $$ we pay them each month. Do you think VZW wants to pump any money
> into an area that was once 10,000+ people, but is expected to be only
> 1420 by 2020? The Divide County School District covers an area twice
> the size of the State of Rhode Island! A majority of Verizon's
> coverage, to this day, in that area is still AMPS only. They haven't
> even bothered upgrading many of those towers to CDMA digital. Canadian
> carriers have great coverage throughout the area. "To the north, dozens
> of Canadian oil rigs, coal mines, and a SaskPower plant loom in the
> distance, a mirage of economic activity only miles away but a country
> apart."
>
> This is why we want to start up a co-operative for wireless services. I
> no longer live in that area, either, but I am an active participant in
> the group. When/if we do get started up, most likely GSM or wCDMA
> services would be provided (to help provide links to AT&T, Cingular, and
> T-Mobile) to help stimulate some competition.
>
> ==AD
>
> Sources of population information:
>
> U.S. Census Bureau; www.census.gov
>
> University of North Dakota, courtesy of U.S. News and World Report
> http://tinyurl.com/xlux
>
> North Dakota State Data Center at North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
> http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/sdc/data/p...s/frontend.pdf
>

> Very interesting concept. You might want to have a look at REI.com. REI
> started out back in the 30's as a co-op for purchasing outdoor gear. It's
> grown, but still has "members". Organizationally, it might be a good model.
>
> Good luck!!
>
> Ken

One of our thought has been to approach Extend America and market
Nextel's iDEN services. This seems as a good possibility because Extend
America was incorporated in North Dakota, and is headquartered in
Bismarck, North Dakota. Nextel has co-operated not only with Nextel
Partners, but also with Extend America. Our goal is not to have a large
money making regional carrier, but a carrier that actually works for the
people. And if we successfully marketed iDEN services, we would
literally be partners of all iDEN carriers in the United States. This
could also provide additional revenue because of the border security.

One of our other thoughts has been to approach Cingular for a possible
"partnership" where we would build our own little system, but market
under the Cingular name. The biggest advantage, but also the biggest
disadvantage of this is the current lack of GSM coverage in the U.S. in
this region. The biggest advantage would be roaming coverage from all
GSM providers (being able to provide GSM roaming on our system to any
GSM carrier), but the biggest disadvantage would be the lack of GSM
service available for local users to roam on. Even if were to market
only GAIT phones, a good majority of the surrounding area would be
roaming with Western Wireless, and that would eat up any revenue the
small carrier would make. We would also be unable to market competitive
regional or national plans due to the fact that we would be unable to
allow customers to "free roam", because a majority of our customers
would in fact roam at some time or another, costing a startup company
with a small footprint exhorbant amounts of money.

Basically, the thought of CDMA (CDMA 2000 in its various flavours) has
pretty much been distinguished. Because our goal would be to provide
blanked coverage to a rural area, there would be many overlap areas with
Verizon Wireless. Because of this, it would be harder to strike roaming
agreements with other CDMA carriers as they are more likely to be
offered a better deal from Verizon Wireless. Also, because Verizon
Wireless has rural coverage around here, we would be at the mercy of
Verizon Wireless for CDMA (or AMPS) roaming.

Another thought is the possibility of UMTS, or wCDMA. Althought that
technology is in its infancy, by the time we get up and running (if we
get up and running), UMTS could be much more mature, allowing us to have
one of the top of the line networks without associated upgrade costs, as
UMTS would be our first technology. However, if UMTS were to be
launched now, there would be lack of compatibility with surrounding
networks at all.

Althought there are many more factors than these, the utmost deciding
factor will be the initial companies that would choose to ally with us.
It would make no sense to build a GSM network yet have the GSM
carriers ostracise you, but it would make no sense to build a CDMA 2000
network and have the CDMA carrier ostracise you, either. Royalties,
franchising, and technological aspects all play an active role.
(However, if used TDMA equipment became available, that would also
suffice, as we are only interested in voice services at this time.)

==AD

Well what I really want is no contracts. If I can purchase a phone at
the going rate without subsidy and no contract I would do that. I am
just sick of having to be tied down to a contract. Even when you go
and get new service with a phone that you brought with you (say
unlocked GSM phone) they still want you in a contract even though they
are not subsidising the phone price. They also get very sneaky on
contracts. If I want to change my rate plan, even if it is to a higher
price, they want the contract to get extended to 12 months from the
date of the request.


"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Phillip ." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I am hoping for some gutsy tactics like. We will credit your account
> > for the termination fee of your other carrier if you subscribe to a
> > certain level of plan where $ + more than a certain amount. Or
> > something like that.
>
>
>
> Don't hold your breath.
>
> Look at it from a carrier's perspective. They spend $200-300 in acquisition
> costs grabbing any new customer (phone subsidies, dealer commissions, etc.)
> and you want them to go another $100-200 in the hole paying your ETF when
> you are demonstrating by switching, that you have no loyalty to any
> particular cell carrier!
>
> (I don't mean "you" personally above, but "you" as in the general public,
> wohm up to 1 in 4 switch carriers whenever they want a shiny new phone.)
>
> Besides, why would WNP change the "gutsy tactics"? Any carrier desparate
> enough to pay EFTs to get customers would've done it long before Nov. 24th.
>
> Amazingly enough, despite seeming evidence to the contrary, wireless
> carriers know more about the wireless industry than their customers, and
> they already knew WNP wasn't going to open the Gates of Hell. They fought
> it not because they feared losing customers, but because they were too cheap
> and lazy to implement the systems to handle porting. As far as they were
> concerned it was money spend that would generate no income or profit.

"Phillip ." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well what I really want is no contracts. If I can purchase a phone at
> the going rate without subsidy and no contract I would do that. I am
> just sick of having to be tied down to a contract. Even when you go
> and get new service with a phone that you brought with you (say
> unlocked GSM phone) they still want you in a contract even though they
> are not subsidising the phone price. They also get very sneaky on
> contracts. If I want to change my rate plan, even if it is to a higher
> price, they want the contract to get extended to 12 months from the
> date of the request.
>
>

Cingular allows you to bring your own phone and not get tied into
contract.