Re: My experience with Verizon Wireless (Bad naturally) - detailed

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>

07-05-2004, 05:56 AM

A carrier should not be chosen by where you can roam, but by where
the carrier has service. If you are roaming a lot on another carrier
then maybe you should get service from that carrier. If a carrier drops
it's own service to an area that you use, then you could have grounds
for getting out of the contract.

Dan Albrich wrote:

> Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to say
> that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a good
> idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
> seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
> running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my bill
> on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to do
> for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
> is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is all
> kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
> guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
> detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should the
> carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
> just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A detailed
> feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
> requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
> time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
> contract.
>
> Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
> experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to expect.
> The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
> feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
> recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened with
> any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.
>
> One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
> customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada. This
> does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
> is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge of
> how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
> this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any time.
> I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some old
> SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account. This
> part seems to be just plain bad info period.
>
> Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the types
> of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being careful
> research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
> choosing a cellular plan.
>
> -Dan
>
>