Verizon locks their phones?

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

> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
> On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> (You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
> >> a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
> >> then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
> >> consumers by the "economies of scale!")
> >
> > Isn't America great?! ; )
>
> Feh. That's why I get my landline telephone and Internet access from the
> cable company, and my wireless phone service from a company that doesn't
> do US landlines. US telcos suck ass; they're monolithic monsters that
> employ large numbers of obnoxious bureaucratic jerkoffs.


True, but the cable companies are not much better.



--Mike

---

› See More: Verizon locks their phones?

At 17 Aug 2007 16:29:24 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> > Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and
BellSouth)
> > bought AT&T Wireless,...
>
>
> Are you sure about that? My recollection from that time frame is
that
> Cingular was merely a rebranded name for the cellular service which
SBC
> implemented shortly after the SBC/Bell South merger.

The SBC/BellSouth merger was relatively recent- it happened only last
year. Cingular was a joint venture of the two companies (SBC owned a
little more- it was 55/45 or 60/40, IIRC) and merged three cellular
systems- SBC's SBMS, BellSouth (both TDMA), and PacBell's GSM system
out west. Cingular has operated under that name since 2000.

Cingular bought AT&T Wireless in 2004 just before ATTWS was about to
lose their name- when they were originally spun off from AT&T back in
2001, they had a license to operate under the AT&T name for a certain
time period.

Ironically, just before SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company),
they (AT&T) had planned to get back into wireless as a reseller of
Sprint. (The licensing deal that let AT&T Wireless use the AT&T name
also kept AT&T LD out of the wireless biz for the same timeframe.)
One can only imagine what confusion would've happened in the
marketplace if Cingular hadn't bought AT&T Wireless- ATTWS would've
quickly had to take on a new name, followed shortly by a DIFFERENT
AT&T wireless company being launched by a different company with
different equipment!


> They may have been
> considered independent (much in the same way VZW is technically
> independent from Verizon...but in reality it was the same company
with
> the same board members.

Sort of- just like with Verizon, however, there was another partner,
in this case BellSouth, with a major interest- (Verizon Wireless is
45% owned by Vodaphone, 55% by Verizon) After the SBC/BS merger,
Cingular now has one parent.


> ATTWS existed long before SBC bought AT&T.

Yes. ATTWS was, for a long time, part of AT&T (the LD company.)

> I know, because from about
> 1994-1999 (or perhaps 1998) I and the company (Wired Magazine) I
managed
> IT and landline/wireless service for used the A-side carrier
Cellular
> One (SF Bay Area market). AT&T incorporated C1 and rebranded as
ATTWS.


> During that time, I also had accounts with Pac Bell Wireless, Nextel,


> and GTE Wireless (Wired wanting me to stay on top of who had the
best
> coverage).
>
> I'm aware of the logistical hassles incurred after the by all the
sign
> changes, but the company was known as Cingular before it became
> ATTWS.


Cingular and ATTWS were two completly separate, unrelated companies.
At least until they "merged" (Cingular acquired them) in 2004. Then
SBC (Cingular's 1/2 owner) bought AT&T (LD- not the wireless company
Cingular already bought)in 2005, followed by SBC (now called AT&T)
merging with BS in '06. (Phew!)


> > > No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> > > part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
> >
> > I believe you're right.

Actually we were both wrong! (Explained below!)

> > how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-MHz?
>
>
> Because, at least in the SF Bay Area, C1 (which ATTWS later
acquired)
> was already using the 800 MHz TDMA and GTE Wireless was using the
800
> MHz CDMA freqs.

You're missing my point- PacBell originally had the 800MHz B license
by default (the one Verizon now owns), just for being the local
Telco. That's how it worked in the early 80s- two licenses, one for
the local Bell, and the other to the highest bidder. PacBell either
was involved with Verizon's earliest predecessor or sold their
license to them. ATTWS bought the "A" license holder there.
(Cellular One?)
>
> > Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
> > (which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
> > they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case
this
> > whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)
> > (US West, now Qwest, sold most of their original licenses so here
in
> > Denver, Verizon is the B carrier, and AT&T is the "A" or
"A"lternate
> > carrier.
> >
> > > Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a
customer of
> > > one
> > > of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was
not
> > > VZW.
> >
> >
> > Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must
have
> > bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
> > with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
> > cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later
allowed
> > them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of
the
> > midwest.)
>
> I don't know of anytime when Pac Bell offered any sort of cellular
in
> the Chicagoland (where our thread curmudgeon suggests he lives).


Dont be so sure! According to Wikipedia:

"The cellular and paging unit of Pacific Telesis, PacTel Cellular,
was spun off in 1994 into a new company called AirTouch
Communications (AirTouch), leaving Pacific Telesis with only the
landline telephone company. Senior Pacific Telesis management moved
to the new company, thus leaving a new corporate culture to run the
old Pacific Telesis. In 1999, Airtouch merged with Britain's Vodafone
Group Plc to become Vodafone Airtouch Plc. In 2000, its U.S. wireless
assets were merged with those of Bell Atlantic Corp. to form the
joint venture Verizon Wireless..."

So PacTel Wireless was spun off of Pacific Telephone and became
Airtouch, then Verizon, leaving the local Telco to start again with
PacBell who eventually became Cingular then (the new) AT&T!

Apparenty there's more inbreeding in the cellular biz than there is
in the Appalachians!


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

On 2007-08-17, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>> No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
>> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
>
> I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
> MHz? Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
> (which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
> they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
> whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)

I think it went like this. The PacTel Cellular unit of Pacific Telesis
was the B-side AMPS operator in its area. It also supported and funded
Qualcomm's development of CDMA, which it ended up deploying. The wireless
unit was spun out of PacTel in about 1994, along with most of PacTel's
senior management, to become part of Airtouch Communications, which in
turn was acquired by (merged with?) Vodafone, which in turn was merged
with the wireless assets of Verizon (i.e. Bell Atlantic plus GTE) to
become Verizon Wireless.

Meanwhile the landline company left behind at PacTel, with their new
managers, decided to get back into the wireless business in 1996 or
1997 with the 1900 MHz GSM network, which they called Pacific Bell
Wireless. That network became part of Cingular, and then got sold
to T-Mobile after the AT&T Wireless acquisition.

> Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
> bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
> with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
> cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
> them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
> midwest.)

That's correct, except it was only a couple of years between the
spinoff of the cellular network and the construction of the PCS
network. I think the old management at PacTel decided that they'd
get richer in the spunoff, mostly-unregulated wireless business,
then the new managers at PacTel decided the wireless business was
good enough that they should get back in and compete in it too.

Dennis Ferguson

At 18 Aug 2007 02:08:00 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

<Snip excellent history lesson>


Thanks! That cleared it up and filled in the blanks.

Back when I was a Cingular TDMA customer out of Kansas City, I always
found it ironic that I had to roam on either Verizon or AT&T while in
California, despite the fact that Cingular had plenty of perfectly
good, yet incompatible, service buzzing all around me!

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

At 17 Aug 2007 23:34:59 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:


> Feh. That's why I get my landline telephone and Internet access
from the
> cable company, and my wireless phone service from a company that
doesn't
> do US landlines. US telcos suck ass; they're monolithic monsters
that
> employ large numbers of obnoxious bureaucratic jerkoffs.


As opposed to the non-monopolistic altruistic cable companies, and
Germany's non-monopolistic altruistic landline provider?

Yep, like the songsays, you're a rebel and you'll never ever be any
good, Steve! ;-)



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

At my house in Laguna Niguel California. Verizon admits that they don't work
there. Sprint has full signal.

"Boomer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Drumstick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And I say my experience is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of yours.
>> Sprint wasn't even available where I ma so I got Cingular and couldn't
>> make/receive a call outside my city limits. Went to Altell, better but
>> no joy and they kept my bill screwed up. Verizon works every day
>> everywhere I go and man I'm usually in the sticks let me tell you!
>>
>>
>
> .
>>
>> Drum--
>
> I'm not trying to stir this argument but just where do Verizon phones NOT
> work? I'm a satisfied Verizon customer for the last 3 years & have yet to
> find a location without signal. I suppose I haven't traveled to those
> areas yet but from NJ to Florida they seem to have it covered.
>

I was with Airtouch Cellular before they were acquired by Verizon. Now play
nice and go drink some more Verizon Kool-Aid.


"Michael Wise" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jim Dubya" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is
>> actually
>> quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from
>> me
>> because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
>> them....
>
> Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
> them for ten years?
>
> What else are you fabricating?
>
>
>
> --Mike

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

> I was with Airtouch Cellular before they were acquired by Verizon. Now play
> nice and go drink some more Verizon Kool-Aid.

So then you admit that you weren't a VZW customer for 10 years as you
earlier claimed?

--Mike

>
>
> "Michael Wise" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Jim Dubya" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I do have to admit that Verizon as a marketing department that is
> >> actually
> >> quite amazing, but in reality, that is all that they have. Take it from
> >> me
> >> because I had been with Verizon for 10 years and had been brain-washed by
> >> them....
> >
> > Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
> > them for ten years?
> >
> > What else are you fabricating?
> >
> >
> >
> > --Mike

On 2007-08-18, Michael Wise <[email protected]> wrote:

> True, but the cable companies are not much better. >

Depends on which one. Charter Cable, in this area, has been great (the
former High Desert Cablevision - Charter is currently a patchwork of
smaller systems that they bought; I understand they're working on bringing
everything under the same umbrella).

Adelphia in Cleveland was great when I used them a few years ago. Much better
than Cablevision, before they downsized to only serve greater New York City.
Of course, they went bankrupt and got sold off to Time Warner. No idea
how Time Warner is out there.

The cable companies have also been much better about opening up their networks
to competitors and not subsequently trying to screw said competitors.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

On 2007-08-18, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> As opposed to the non-monopolistic altruistic cable companies

My cable company has much more of a clue about decent customer service than
any phone company. SBC tried to screw me out of $200 after they broke my
dialtone and DSL in Ohio, for two months, saying they couldn't refund any of
my money for the DSL and only $5 for the landline since I had a dialtone
(which I did, but still was unablee to make calls).

Verizon isn't as evil as SBC, but they're stupid, and I've had problems with
them out here.

And yes, I believe cable companies are less prone to screwing people over
than telcos.

> Germany's non-monopolistic altruistic landline provider?

OK, you got me there. Their customer service, however, has proven MUCH
better than either of the wireless carriers I've used between 2000 and now.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Contrary to the header, and since this is crossposted to both groups,
verizon does *NOT* lock their phones, however, sprint *DOES*

At 18 Aug 2007 17:16:41 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> Verizon isn't as evil as SBC, but they're stupid, and I've had
problems with
> them out here.

I'm mostly just having fun with you- and pointing out how little
choice we all actually have!

I've had both good and bad experiences with telcos and cable cos.

My experiences with Qwest here in Denver sEem like your experiences
with Verizon- more stupid than malicious. A good number of billing
errors that take many phone calls to get corrected, but eventually do
get corrected. Tech support for DSL is polite and means well, but
often I seem to know more than the guy I'm talking to.


> And yes, I believe cable companies are less prone to screwing
people over
> than telcos.


Perhaps, but I'll suggest that's a recent phenomenon due to
competition- DBS for video and DSL for net. In the good ol' days,
the cable cos had the same "take it or leave it" hubris the telcos
made famous.


> > Germany's non-monopolistic altruistic landline provider?
>
> OK, you got me there. Their customer service, however, has
proven MUCH
> better than either of the wireless carriers I've used between 2000
and now.


Agreed. In my seven years with T-Mo, I've been constantly amazed by
the level of CS they provide, particularly compared to my previous
experiences with cellcos!



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

At 17 Aug 2007 16:30:46 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> Perhaps, but Pac Bell cellular was not a predecessor to VZW.

No, but apparently, as Dennis posted, PacTel, Pacific Telephone's
first cellular service was! PacTel spun off PacTel Cellular as a
separate compny, and it became Airtouch (and eventually part of
Verizon). Then PacTel (the landline company left behind after the
spinoff) started PacBell Wireless- the GSM operator who eventually
became part of Cingular.


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

There are large areas of WI that to not have verizon service, but
verizon phones will have the "free" roaming in those areas. A
considerable part of those areas will be roaming on uscellular.


clifto wrote:
> Boomer wrote:
>> I'm not trying to stir this argument but just where do Verizon phones NOT
>> work? I'm a satisfied Verizon customer for the last 3 years & have yet to
>> find a location without signal. I suppose I haven't traveled to those areas
>> yet but from NJ to Florida they seem to have it covered.
>
> I've been told there are large areas in Wisconsin where there's no coverage.
>

I believe the "B" stood for "Bearer" referring to whomever the
local phone company was, Bell or not.


Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
>> Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless
>> became
>> SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
>> bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.
>
>
> Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and BellSouth)
> bought AT&T Wireless, which at that point in time was an independent
> company spun off from AT&T (the long distance company left over by
> the Ma Bell breakup,) months before, and lost the right to use the
> AT&T name, which required spending millions on new signage and untold
> gallons of orange paint rebranding hundreds of AT&T stores as
> Cingular stores.
>
> Then SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company,) and started
> renaming themselves AT&T, and of course getting the right to use the
> AT&T name for wireless, but BellSouth wasn't interested in putting
> another company's name on their half of Cingular, until...
>
> ...AT&T (SBC) merged with BellSouth and became one happy
> dysfunctional company, and started spending untold millions
> rebranding the Cingular stores as AT&T stores... ;-)
>
>
>> No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
>> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
>
> I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
> MHz? Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
> (which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
> they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
> whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)
> (US West, now Qwest, sold most of their original licenses so here in
> Denver, Verizon is the B carrier, and AT&T is the "A" or "A"lternate
> carrier.
>
>> Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a customer of
>> one
>> of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was not
>> VZW.
>
>
> Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
> bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
> with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
> cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
> them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
> midwest.)
>
> (You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
> a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
> then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
> consumers by the "economies of scale!")
>
> --
>
> "I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
> or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
> all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
> ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
>
>