Cingular can point out Verizon's Weakness in Ads

This Friday's Register Gaurd full-page ad for Verizon states that their
America's Choice
plan has "NO ROAMING COAST TO COAST." In the fine print, it says calls made
when off of the America's choice network are billed at $.69/minute.

If I was Cingular, I'd have advertising that makes the point that Cingular
offers a truly no roaming deal. Anywhere your phone works, there's no
roaming fee.

In contrast, there's lots of places a Verizon AC plan phone can roam and be
billed
roaming charges.

My reason for posting this is that maybe someone out there does work for
Cingular
and will call Verizon's bluff...

-Dan

PS: I'm actually a Verizon customer for my primary line. It pisses me off
when any
company advertises something so deceptive. If Verizon wants to claim their
AC
plan has no roaming charges, then fine, make it a real no-roaming plan...

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

---

› See More: Cingular can point out Verizon's Weakness in Ads

In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
really needed to make a call, would it matter that they charge for it?
My Verizon plan (now grandfathered) allows roaming on anyone's network
at no cost, but that plan is not available in all states. And I am
about to give it up for Cingular, but not because I am unhappy with
Verizon.



On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:44:33 -0800, "Dan Albrich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This Friday's Register Gaurd full-page ad for Verizon states that their
>America's Choice
>plan has "NO ROAMING COAST TO COAST." In the fine print, it says calls made
>when off of the America's choice network are billed at $.69/minute.
>
>If I was Cingular, I'd have advertising that makes the point that Cingular
>offers a truly no roaming deal. Anywhere your phone works, there's no
>roaming fee.
>
>In contrast, there's lots of places a Verizon AC plan phone can roam and be
>billed
>roaming charges.
>
>My reason for posting this is that maybe someone out there does work for
>Cingular
>and will call Verizon's bluff...
>
>-Dan
>
>PS: I'm actually a Verizon customer for my primary line. It pisses me off
>when any
>company advertises something so deceptive. If Verizon wants to claim their
>AC
>plan has no roaming charges, then fine, make it a real no-roaming plan...

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
> their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
> even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
> really needed to make a call, would it matter that they charge for it?
> My Verizon plan (now grandfathered) allows roaming on anyone's network
> at no cost, but that plan is not available in all states. And I am
> about to give it up for Cingular, but not because I am unhappy with
> Verizon.

Hello Dick-

I completely agree with you.

My point is that I believe their advertisement is deceptive. If you say "NO
ROAMING"
in huge bold letters in an advertisement, yet do charge roaming you're
really telling
a lie.

Verizon has an excellent rate plan in the guise of America's Choice, it's
just not
a no-roaming plan.

If the average Joe reading the ad will be deceived by its content, then
they're doing
the wrong thing.

-Dan

PS: One could argue there's so few areas where an AC user can roam today
"who cares?"
If that's the case, then really make it a no-roaming plan, and you can
really
tout that feature. Since it's not, (Verizon) don't say it is.

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
> their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
> even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
> really needed to make a call, would it matter that they charge for it?
> My Verizon plan (now grandfathered) allows roaming on anyone's network
> at no cost, but that plan is not available in all states. And I am
> about to give it up for Cingular, but not because I am unhappy with
> Verizon.

Hello Dick-

I completely agree with you.

My point is that I believe their advertisement is deceptive. If you say "NO
ROAMING"
in huge bold letters in an advertisement, yet do charge roaming you're
really telling
a lie.

Verizon has an excellent rate plan in the guise of America's Choice, it's
just not
a no-roaming plan.

If the average Joe reading the ad will be deceived by its content, then
they're doing
the wrong thing.

-Dan

PS: One could argue there's so few areas where an AC user can roam today
"who cares?"
If that's the case, then really make it a no-roaming plan, and you can
really
tout that feature. Since it's not, (Verizon) don't say it is.

--
Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
> their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
> even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
> really needed to make a call, would it matter that they charge for it?
> My Verizon plan (now grandfathered) allows roaming on anyone's network
> at no cost, but that plan is not available in all states. And I am
> about to give it up for Cingular, but not because I am unhappy with
> Verizon.
>
I had that plan (nationwide plan, not their weak americas choice plan) until
two weeks ago. I had the plan for almost 7 years. I liked the no roaming
charges whatever anywhere in the US aspect. BUT, there was a small section
of KY that I drove through frequently and I would always get a message when
making a call that I would have to pay roaming charges. Verizon never was
able to fix this. I still don't know what the problem was. I dropped
Verizon for two reasons. The most important: I travel internationally and
Verizon was worthless outside of the US. The second reason: I wanted to
upgrade to a Bluetooth phone and Verizon locked out most of the bluetooth
functions so they could sell the options back to you as services. I miss
having analog capabilities in some rural areas, but overall I am happy I
made the change to Cingular

Charles Perry P.E.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:59:40 -0800,
"Dan Albrich" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
>> their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
>> even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
>> really needed to make a call, would it matter that they charge for it?
>> My Verizon plan (now grandfathered) allows roaming on anyone's network
>> at no cost, but that plan is not available in all states. And I am
>> about to give it up for Cingular, but not because I am unhappy with
>> Verizon.
>
>Hello Dick-
>
>I completely agree with you.
>
>My point is that I believe their advertisement is deceptive. If you say "NO
>ROAMING"
>in huge bold letters in an advertisement, yet do charge roaming you're
>really telling
>a lie.

Then file complaints with the FTC and your state Attorney General. Seriously.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:41:28 -0500, "Charles Perry"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
>> their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
>> even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
>> really needed to make a call, would it matter that they charge for it?
>> My Verizon plan (now grandfathered) allows roaming on anyone's network
>> at no cost, but that plan is not available in all states. And I am
>> about to give it up for Cingular, but not because I am unhappy with
>> Verizon.
>>
>I had that plan (nationwide plan, not their weak americas choice plan) until
>two weeks ago. I had the plan for almost 7 years. I liked the no roaming
>charges whatever anywhere in the US aspect. BUT, there was a small section
>of KY that I drove through frequently and I would always get a message when
>making a call that I would have to pay roaming charges. Verizon never was
>able to fix this. I still don't know what the problem was. I dropped
>Verizon for two reasons. The most important: I travel internationally and
>Verizon was worthless outside of the US. The second reason: I wanted to
>upgrade to a Bluetooth phone and Verizon locked out most of the bluetooth
>functions so they could sell the options back to you as services. I miss
>having analog capabilities in some rural areas, but overall I am happy I
>made the change to Cingular
>
>Charles Perry P.E.

My case is much more simple. It was a case of fight 'em or join 'em.
The rest of my family, including those that don't live in my state,
are all on AT&T. I wanted to be able to use the mobile-to-mobile free
minutes with them and I couldn't do that with Verizon. So I bit the
bullet and switched. Hopefully, one day Cingular will have the same
coverage off the beaten path that Verizon customer's enjoy today.

Dick

There are areas "off the beaten path" that are not covered by Verizon as
well so I suppose Cingular and Verizon have something else in common. My
parents live in Kentucky and the Verizon coverage area there stinks ... but
with Cingular you have coverage for most of the state.

We go camping with another family here in Indiana ... and at some
campgrounds there is Cingular only service ... and Verizon only service at
others. These areas are "off the beaten path" as you mentioned.
_____________________
Ann
Motorola V551
iPAQ 4355

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:41:28 -0500, "Charles Perry"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
>>> their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
>>> even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
>>> really needed to make a call, would it matter that they charge for it?
>>> My Verizon plan (now grandfathered) allows roaming on anyone's network
>>> at no cost, but that plan is not available in all states. And I am
>>> about to give it up for Cingular, but not because I am unhappy with
>>> Verizon.
>>>
>>I had that plan (nationwide plan, not their weak americas choice plan)
>>until
>>two weeks ago. I had the plan for almost 7 years. I liked the no roaming
>>charges whatever anywhere in the US aspect. BUT, there was a small
>>section
>>of KY that I drove through frequently and I would always get a message
>>when
>>making a call that I would have to pay roaming charges. Verizon never was
>>able to fix this. I still don't know what the problem was. I dropped
>>Verizon for two reasons. The most important: I travel internationally and
>>Verizon was worthless outside of the US. The second reason: I wanted to
>>upgrade to a Bluetooth phone and Verizon locked out most of the bluetooth
>>functions so they could sell the options back to you as services. I miss
>>having analog capabilities in some rural areas, but overall I am happy I
>>made the change to Cingular
>>
>>Charles Perry P.E.
>
> My case is much more simple. It was a case of fight 'em or join 'em.
> The rest of my family, including those that don't live in my state,
> are all on AT&T. I wanted to be able to use the mobile-to-mobile free
> minutes with them and I couldn't do that with Verizon. So I bit the
> bullet and switched. Hopefully, one day Cingular will have the same
> coverage off the beaten path that Verizon customer's enjoy today.
>
> Dick

Yes, I am sure folks can show exceptions on both sides. Out here in
the West, however, Verizon is clearly better than AT&T/Cingular when
you get away from the large cities and interstates. Depends too on
what plans are being compared. My Verizon account is National Single
Rate which uses any CDMA/AMPS carrier that is reachable.
AT&T/Cingular GSM plans can't do that, so they are limited to their
own network. Currently having both Verizon NSR and AT&T GSM in our
household, it is very easy to compare while traveling.

Dick

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:33:38 -0500, "Ann" <[email protected]> wrote:

>There are areas "off the beaten path" that are not covered by Verizon as
>well so I suppose Cingular and Verizon have something else in common. My
>parents live in Kentucky and the Verizon coverage area there stinks ... but
>with Cingular you have coverage for most of the state.
>
>We go camping with another family here in Indiana ... and at some
>campgrounds there is Cingular only service ... and Verizon only service at
>others. These areas are "off the beaten path" as you mentioned.
>_____________________
>Ann
>Motorola V551
>iPAQ 4355

With all due respect, that's not true of the entire "West" -- there are lots
of areas where Cingular-ATTWS coverage is better than Verizon.

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 07:21:13
-0700, Dick <LeadWinger> wrote:

>Yes, I am sure folks can show exceptions on both sides. Out here in
>the West, however, Verizon is clearly better than AT&T/Cingular when
>you get away from the large cities and interstates. Depends too on
>what plans are being compared. My Verizon account is National Single
>Rate which uses any CDMA/AMPS carrier that is reachable.
>AT&T/Cingular GSM plans can't do that, so they are limited to their
>own network. Currently having both Verizon NSR and AT&T GSM in our
>household, it is very easy to compare while traveling.
>
>Dick
>
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:33:38 -0500, "Ann" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>There are areas "off the beaten path" that are not covered by Verizon as
>>well so I suppose Cingular and Verizon have something else in common. My
>>parents live in Kentucky and the Verizon coverage area there stinks ... but
>>with Cingular you have coverage for most of the state.
>>
>>We go camping with another family here in Indiana ... and at some
>>campgrounds there is Cingular only service ... and Verizon only service at
>>others. These areas are "off the beaten path" as you mentioned.
>>_____________________
>>Ann
>>Motorola V551
>>iPAQ 4355

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Of course. As I already pointed out, there are exceptions. My point
was that, in the western states, particularly Arizona, Utah and
Nevada, you will have a better chance at reaching a tower out in the
dingle weeds with Verizon than you will with AT&T/Cingular GSM.

Dick

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 10:03:56 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>With all due respect, that's not true of the entire "West" -- there are lots
>of areas where Cingular-ATTWS coverage is better than Verizon.
>
>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 07:21:13
>-0700, Dick <LeadWinger> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I am sure folks can show exceptions on both sides. Out here in
>>the West, however, Verizon is clearly better than AT&T/Cingular when
>>you get away from the large cities and interstates. Depends too on
>>what plans are being compared. My Verizon account is National Single
>>Rate which uses any CDMA/AMPS carrier that is reachable.
>>AT&T/Cingular GSM plans can't do that, so they are limited to their
>>own network. Currently having both Verizon NSR and AT&T GSM in our
>>household, it is very easy to compare while traveling.
>>
>>Dick

On 12/31/04 7:15 PM, in article [email protected],
"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote:

> In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
> their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
> even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
Cingular has no problems roaming on Cellular One (dobson) and t-Mobile, all
included. As well as a couple small GSM providers.

In article <BDFF8D48.31ED%[email protected]>,
SneakerFreak <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 12/31/04 7:15 PM, in article [email protected],
> "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote:
>
> > In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
> > their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
> > even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you
> Cingular has no problems roaming on Cellular One (dobson) and t-Mobile, all
> included. As well as a couple small GSM providers.

Not so simple; Cingular has detailed agreements specifying where it
allows it's phones to roam, and its carefully controlled to keep
Cingular's costs down. But the poster's point was about Analog Networks,
and there are large geographic expanses where only an analog signal is
available, and Cingulars GSM phones do not have ANY analog capability,
with the exception of one or two older models that also do TDMA.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Jan
2005 09:57:39 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <BDFF8D48.31ED%[email protected]>,
> SneakerFreak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/04 7:15 PM, in article [email protected],
>> "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote:
>>
>> > In one case you have a supplier that charges for roaming when off
>> > their network. In the other case, you have a supplier that doesn't
>> > even allow you to roam off their network. Which is worse? If you

>> Cingular has no problems roaming on Cellular One (dobson) and t-Mobile, all
>> included. As well as a couple small GSM providers.
>
>Not so simple; Cingular has detailed agreements specifying where it
>allows it's phones to roam, and its carefully controlled to keep
>Cingular's costs down.

No more so than any other carrier.

>But the poster's point was about Analog Networks,

Nope. It was about roaming charges.

>and there are large geographic expanses where only an analog signal is
>available, and Cingulars GSM phones do not have ANY analog capability,
>with the exception of one or two older models that also do TDMA.

Irrelevant in this context.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On 1/4/05 4:57 AM, in article
[email protected], "Jack Zwick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Not so simple; Cingular has detailed agreements specifying where it
> allows it's phones to roam, and its carefully controlled to keep
> Cingular's costs down. But the poster's point was about Analog Networks,
> and there are large geographic expanses where only an analog signal is
> available, and Cingulars GSM phones do not have ANY analog capability,
> with the exception of one or two older models that also do TDMA.

So does Verizon - it's called a PRL. And they always recommend you update
it by doing *228....

I could care less about analog any more. I have not needed it in the past 3
or 4 years with Verizon or ATT or now Cingular. My phones have worked where
I need them and when I need them, except Verizon before I switched.