Verizon Worsens America's Choice Calling Plan--No more roaming, even at extra cost, No more National Single Rate Plan.

"617 Phones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It is true that there are now more areas where potential roaming is not
available than before.

This is the change. It is catastrophic to some users, a non-issue to others.
Many users will not realize how catastrophic it is until they travel to an
area with no Verizon or Extended network.

> There has been, in reality, very little degradation in coverage since
the advent of AC.

Verizon doesn't publish the changes, you have to decoder PRLs. But in my
travels, I have noticed several coverage reductions.


> In fact, a much larger geographic area was included in AC, even before the
additions introduced for AC2. Have some small areas been dropped.
Absolutely. And for those who travel those areas regularly, that's
unfortunate. But much more territory has been added.

This is a great rationalization, until you're in an area with no coverage
and no roaming. You might be surprised how close to an urban area such areas
are.

> No roaming? Of course, that's just not true.

Of course you are well aware that it is true. There is no roaming if you are
out of AC2 coverage area, but there is still service available, be it AMPS,
or CDMA.

>This one is really out there, at least in regards to the Yosemite trip.
Golden State Cellular, the regional carrier, inside and around
Yosemite, is on every Verizon PRL. It's been included for years.

Inside the valley I can only get AMPS, even with an external antenna. Ditto
for up at Badger Pass. Is AMPS roaming on Golden State available on AC2? It
may be, but I was paying roaming charges on Golden State for AMPS.

> Could you give us your sources for the planned abandonment of roaming
agreements?

They have been terminating agreements for AC for years.

> But, AC2 is a terrific plan for a lot of users.

It is indeed. And off-network roaming, even at $1 per minute, would make it
even better. Note that the only reason they got rid of paid roaming was
because of complaints by customers that they were unaware they were roaming.
They could enable roaming upon agreement with customers that the customer
would not dispute roaming charges, and that the customer was responsible for
PRL updates and understanding the meaning of the roaming indicators.

> Groundless accusations against a carrier are as useless as undisguised
cheerleading.

Verizon has long been my favorite carrier, and the top recommendation on all
my web sites. I did not make any accusations. I simply stated the facts.

---

› See More: Verizon Worsens America's Choice Calling Plan--No more roaming, even at extra cost, No more National Single Rate Plan.

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

>My mother has since passed on, and my sister still has the phone with
> NSR, but lives in a larger town that has better Verizion coverage.
> She still benefits from NSR when she travels out away from town.

Hmm, I see a new item for people to put in their wills. To Michael, I
bequeath my Verizon phone with National Single Rate. To Julie I bequeath my
America's Choice 1 phone, with 8 p.m. off-peak start time, and off-network
roaming.

Is there anything in the contract that requires termination of service upon
death, or can a phone and a plan be transferred to another person?

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> This is the change. It is catastrophic to some users, a
> non-issue to others. Many users will not realize how
> catastrophic it is until they travel to an area with no
> Verizon or Extended network.

Very good point! I didn't think of that. I've spent the last
10 years of my life in areas solidly covered by (GTE) VZW
and there is *almost* no chance I will go somewhere else
in the foreseeable future... BUT if the plane goes down in
the Black Mountains I'M GOING TO BE SCREWED.
I'm glad you pointed that out. Now I have something
additional to fixate on. (and here I thought I had covered
the bases by actually checking if there would be coverage
where I would be when making my carrier choice...)

-Quick

"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1117124231.142354@sj-nntpcache-3...

<snip>

> where I would be when making my carrier choice...)

Sarcasm does not become you.

Go on vacation in some areas of Northern California and you'll have no
coverage without roaming. Often only on AMPS. Ditto for popular tourist
areas in Alaska.

Verizon, by their own admission, implemented the no-roaming policy for their
own benefit, not yours.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:59:40 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Is there anything in the contract that requires termination of service upon
>death, or can a phone and a plan be transferred to another person?

I really don't know what the contract stipulates regarding this. If
Verizion wants to terminate the account, and loose a customer, then
let them terminate it. I, as the estate administrator, pay the bill
on time, and Verizon takes our money. Don't ask, don't tell...

Joe Huber
[email protected]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 09:11:14 -0700, Quick wrote:

> Very good point! I didn't think of that. I've spent the last
> 10 years of my life in areas solidly covered by (GTE) VZW
> and there is *almost* no chance I will go somewhere else
> in the foreseeable future... BUT if the plane goes down in
> the Black Mountains I'M GOING TO BE SCREWED.

No, 911 will work if there is an analog or CDMA signal present.

"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1117124231.142354@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> >
> > This is the change. It is catastrophic to some users, a
> > non-issue to others. Many users will not realize how
> > catastrophic it is until they travel to an area with no
> > Verizon or Extended network.
>
> Very good point! I didn't think of that. I've spent the last
> 10 years of my life in areas solidly covered by (GTE) VZW
> and there is *almost* no chance I will go somewhere else
> in the foreseeable future.

Good point. Since the world obviously revolves around where you go in your
life, there is no need for anyone else to have coverage in other places.

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1117124231.142354@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the change. It is catastrophic to some users, a
>>> non-issue to others. Many users will not realize how
>>> catastrophic it is until they travel to an area with no
>>> Verizon or Extended network.
>>
>> Very good point! I didn't think of that. I've spent the
>> last 10 years of my life in areas solidly covered by
>> (GTE) VZW and there is *almost* no chance I will go
>> somewhere else
>> in the foreseeable future.
>
> Good point. Since the world obviously revolves around
> where you go in your life, there is no need for anyone
> else to have coverage in other places.

No. The point is your claim that VZW is intentionally
trying to obfuscate/trick/mislead/screw their customers...

"Many users will not realize how catastrophic
it is until they travel to an area with no Verizon
or Extended network."

I managed to figure out where I frequent and if
I can expect to have coverage (or not) and I'm
certainly no genius. And *catastrophic*? c'mon.

-Quick

CellGuy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> No, 911 will work if there is an analog or CDMA signal present.
>
>

Not true in Charleston, SC. Inside my local WalMart, on a fresh VZW phone,
within 1/2 mile of an AMPS/CDMA Alltel tower and within SIGHT of a CDMA PCS
Sprint tower, the phone says NO SERVICE, because Verizon has a very weak
signal in the Oakbrook section of Summerville, SC, and the VZW PRL forbids
the phone from roaming IN-MARKET to a carrier that works....no VZW nearby
tower.

While loaning a lady my trusty old V60i on Alltel, I asked her if I could
test dialing 911 on her NO SERVICE new Verizon phone. Her call to her
husband on Alltel was perfect. My call to 911 resulted in the phones no
service warning tones and it NEVER SEARCHED for Sprint or Alltel because
both are on the exclusion list of the phone's PRL...same as her regular
calls.

Solution is simple.....If you want unhobbled 911 service for the next few
years, buy a 99 cent, 3W bagphone with a cigarette lighter plug on it from
a thrift shop and toss it in the trunk. NONE of them can stop IT from
searching for an A or B AMPS signal that works to 911....no service or
contract agreements are necessary by FCC decree.

Larry W4CSC wrote:

> Not true in Charleston, SC. Inside my local WalMart, on a fresh VZW phone,
> within 1/2 mile of an AMPS/CDMA Alltel tower and within SIGHT of a CDMA PCS
> Sprint tower, the phone says NO SERVICE, because Verizon has a very weak
> signal in the Oakbrook section of Summerville, SC, and the VZW PRL forbids
> the phone from roaming IN-MARKET to a carrier that works....no VZW nearby
> tower.
>
> While loaning a lady my trusty old V60i on Alltel, I asked her if I could
> test dialing 911 on her NO SERVICE new Verizon phone. Her call to her
> husband on Alltel was perfect. My call to 911 resulted in the phones no
> service warning tones and it NEVER SEARCHED for Sprint or Alltel because
> both are on the exclusion list of the phone's PRL...same as her regular
> calls.

So naturally you filed a complaint with the FCC, then? Not allowing 911
calls is against the law.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Larry W4CSC wrote:
>
>> Not true in Charleston, SC. Inside my local WalMart, on
>> a fresh VZW phone, within 1/2 mile of an AMPS/CDMA
>> Alltel tower and within SIGHT of a CDMA PCS Sprint
>> tower, the phone says NO SERVICE, because Verizon has a
>> very weak signal in the Oakbrook section of Summerville,
>> SC, and the VZW PRL forbids the phone from roaming
>> IN-MARKET to a carrier that works....no VZW nearby
>> tower.
>>
>> While loaning a lady my trusty old V60i on Alltel, I
>> asked her if I could test dialing 911 on her NO SERVICE
>> new Verizon phone. Her call to her husband on Alltel
>> was perfect. My call to 911 resulted in the phones no
>> service warning tones and it NEVER SEARCHED for Sprint
>> or Alltel because both are on the exclusion list of the
>> phone's PRL...same as her regular calls.
>
> So naturally you filed a complaint with the FCC, then?
> Not allowing 911 calls is against the law.

O jees, you had to do it didn't you... Now we're going
to hear how he made that dealership pay when he returned
that Skee-do 20 years ago.

-Quick

Quick wrote:

> O jees, you had to do it didn't you... Now we're going
> to hear how he made that dealership pay when he returned
> that Skee-do 20 years ago.

Yes, I did have to do it. Just to prove a point. Larry's a crank (among
other things, but I'm trying to keep this post polite), and he loves to
complain. I'll bet you $10 his reply will be "No, I didn't. I figured it
won't do any good. The FCC is in the pockets of big business!"

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> So naturally you filed a complaint with the FCC, then? Not allowing 911
> calls is against the law.
>
>

They didn't refuse to call 911. The phone had NO SERVICE on its PRL.
Alltel's 00156 system isn't listed on 50295, at all, so it doesn't exist as
far as this phone was concerned....

I think we may have a misconception of the PRLs power over this emergency
call. It would be most interesting to hear from the carriers and phone
manufacturers that, in fact, simply dialing 911 makes the phone ignore the
PRL, entirely, going on a frantic search across its receiver/technology for
any signal from anywhere. My observation is it does not.

Another fine example of FCC not forcing its will on the corporations.

Larry W4CSC wrote:

>>So naturally you filed a complaint with the FCC, then? Not allowing 911
>>calls is against the law.
>
> They didn't refuse to call 911. The phone had NO SERVICE on its PRL.

But Larry, the phones are supposed to ignore the PRL if you make a call to
911. The last (and only) time I made a call from a Verizon phone to 911, in
an area of Lake County, Ohio where VZW's signal is almost nonexistent but
the phone will insist on trying to acquire a VZW carrier anyhow, the phone
(a Nokia 3285) went into emergency mode and made the call in analog on... I
assume... Cingular or Alltel. As I've mentioned before, Sprint has a tower
two minutes from my house, which is where I was, but they don't have analog
so I know it wasn't their network.

Actually, it *might* have been a Verizon analog signal, now that I think
about it...

> Alltel's 00156 system isn't listed on 50295, at all, so it doesn't exist as
> far as this phone was concerned....

Does not being listed in the PRL shut you out? I thought only NEG entries in
the PRL shut you out of using a certain network.

> I think we may have a misconception of the PRLs power over this emergency
> call. It would be most interesting to hear from the carriers and phone
> manufacturers that, in fact, simply dialing 911 makes the phone ignore the
> PRL, entirely, going on a frantic search across its receiver/technology for
> any signal from anywhere. My observation is it does not.

Well, my personal experience, having had to make an actual call to 911 from
a VZW phone, is different, but that call was made three years ago (roughly).
So things might have changed since then.

> Another fine example of FCC not forcing its will on the corporations.

*banging head against wall*

How are you going to sit there and piss and moan about the FCC if you didn't
even file a complaint? Go file a complaint... if nothing improves, THEN you
have lots of justification for being angry.

This situation reminds me of people who had trouble with their ISP
connection at the provider where I used to work. Some of them would call
immediately and get the problem fixed. Others waited two weeks and then
called, furious that their Internet connection was down for two weeks. Of
course, any good ISP (including the one where I worked) monitors their
network and attempts to be proactive about fixing things, but there is NO
way we could catch every problem before it happened. Likewise, with hundreds
of SIDs across the country, it's going to be impossible for the FCC to
monitor each and every one for compliance.

I agree with you that Big Business has the FCC in its pockets. But you have
to at least *try* to get them to make things right.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry W4CSC wrote:
>
> >>So naturally you filed a complaint with the FCC, then? Not allowing 911
> >>calls is against the law.
> >
> > They didn't refuse to call 911. The phone had NO SERVICE on its PRL.
>
> But Larry, the phones are supposed to ignore the PRL if you make a call to
> 911. The last (and only) time I made a call from a Verizon phone to 911,
in
> an area of Lake County, Ohio where VZW's signal is almost nonexistent but
> the phone will insist on trying to acquire a VZW carrier anyhow, the phone
> (a Nokia 3285) went into emergency mode and made the call in analog on...
I
> assume... Cingular or Alltel.

What happens once AMPS is turned off?