Re: Virgin Mobile to Begin Offering $40 Unlimited Prepaid 3G BroadbandService Tomorrow

On 8/25/2010 9:36 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> No, not really- again, there's very little AT&T roaming left,

Unfortunately, personally experienced it today, you're right, and it
sucks. This also explains the some problems my friend's from Minnesota
were having with their T-Mobile phone earlier this month. If I didn't
have so much money on my T-Mobile account I'd let the account go.

The roaming agreement with AT&T ended, and T-Mobile updated their maps
to reflect the reduced coverage, but they certainly didn't notify their
existing customers in advance about the impending loss of coverage. They
did waive ETFs for customers that complained about a loss of coverage,
but I'd have hated to have bought even a subsidized expensive smart
phone and then have had to cancel for no coverage, only getting the ETF
waived.

Can't blame AT&T since the roaming agreement was just too much of an
enabler for T-Mobile.

I wonder if Verizon has considered doing the same thing to Sprint in
terms of roaming. If you look at the coverage maps for the Bay area,
AT&T and Verizon have far greater coverage than Sprint and T-Mobile, and
the areas where Sprint and T-Mobile decided to not cover are pretty
similar. Or perhaps Verizon has decided that Sprint isn't enough of a
threat to make it worth it to give up roaming revenue.

In <4c7b53e9$0$1617$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>Unfortunately, personally experienced it today, you're right, and it
>sucks. This also explains the some problems my friend's from Minnesota
>were having with their T-Mobile phone earlier this month. If I didn't
>have so much money on my T-Mobile account I'd let the account go.

>The roaming agreement with AT&T ended, and T-Mobile updated their maps
>to reflect the reduced coverage, but they certainly didn't notify their
>existing customers in advance about the impending loss of coverage.

Hmmmm.... I spend time in an area that's been roaming with
Centennial Wireless, which was recently bought up by AT&T.

the t-mobile map still shows it as a "grey" zone, that is,
covered by a partner.

Fingers are crossed.

(Speaking of which, while the coverage map is pretty detailed
for t-mobile's own areas, it's pretty dismal for the roaming
partner sectons).

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

At 30 Aug 2010 07:04:08 +0000 danny burstein wrote:
> In <4c7b53e9$0$1617$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
> >Unfortunately, personally experienced it today, you're right, and it
> >sucks. This also explains the some problems my friend's from Minnesota
> >were having with their T-Mobile phone earlier this month. If I didn't
> >have so much money on my T-Mobile account I'd let the account go.
>
> >The roaming agreement with AT&T ended, and T-Mobile updated their maps
> >to reflect the reduced coverage, but they certainly didn't notify
their
> >existing customers in advance about the impending loss of coverage.
>
> Hmmmm.... I spend time in an area that's been roaming with
> Centennial Wireless, which was recently bought up by AT&T.
>
> the t-mobile map still shows it as a "grey" zone, that is,
> covered by a partner.
>
> Fingers are crossed.


You're probably safe until the roaming agreement is up for renewal,
(whenever that is,)at which time I'd expect AT&T to kibosh it.
Fortunately most roaming agreements seem to be long term.


> (Speaking of which, while the coverage map is pretty detailed
> for t-mobile's own areas, it's pretty dismal for the roaming
> partner sectons).


Agreed!

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:46:19 -0700, in
<4c7b53e9$0$1617$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/25/2010 9:36 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> No, not really- again, there's very little AT&T roaming left,
>
>Unfortunately, personally experienced it today, you're right, and it
>sucks. This also explains the some problems my friend's from Minnesota
>were having with their T-Mobile phone earlier this month. If I didn't
>have so much money on my T-Mobile account I'd let the account go.

Anecdotal nonsense, and probably a fabrication.

>The roaming agreement with AT&T ended, and T-Mobile updated their maps
>to reflect the reduced coverage, but they certainly didn't notify their
>existing customers in advance about the impending loss of coverage. They
>did waive ETFs for customers that complained about a loss of coverage,
>but I'd have hated to have bought even a subsidized expensive smart
>phone and then have had to cancel for no coverage, only getting the ETF
>waived.

Proof? Oh wait, you almost never have any, just unsupported claims.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On 8/30/2010 2:46 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 8/25/2010 9:36 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> No, not really- again, there's very little AT&T roaming left,
>
> Unfortunately, personally experienced it today, you're right, and it
> sucks. This also explains the some problems my friend's from Minnesota
> were having with their T-Mobile phone earlier this month. If I didn't
> have so much money on my T-Mobile account I'd let the account go.

My buddies wife works for some agency that has or had a super deal on
tmobile. One thing tmobile can never be accused of is throwing money at
their system in my area. My friend is pretty knowledgeable about carrier
infrastructure and hesitantly went with them but found out it was mostly
suitable for their families use because of the roaming. That was until
the roaming ended. Now he and his family had phones they better serve as
paperweights and he moved them to a VZW family plan.


>
> The roaming agreement with AT&T ended, and T-Mobile updated their maps
> to reflect the reduced coverage, but they certainly didn't notify their
> existing customers in advance about the impending loss of coverage. They
> did waive ETFs for customers that complained about a loss of coverage,
> but I'd have hated to have bought even a subsidized expensive smart
> phone and then have had to cancel for no coverage, only getting the ETF
> waived.
>
> Can't blame AT&T since the roaming agreement was just too much of an
> enabler for T-Mobile.
>
> I wonder if Verizon has considered doing the same thing to Sprint in
> terms of roaming. If you look at the coverage maps for the Bay area,
> AT&T and Verizon have far greater coverage than Sprint and T-Mobile, and
> the areas where Sprint and T-Mobile decided to not cover are pretty
> similar. Or perhaps Verizon has decided that Sprint isn't enough of a
> threat to make it worth it to give up roaming revenue.

On 8/30/2010 1:07 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

>> Hmmmm.... I spend time in an area that's been roaming with
>> Centennial Wireless, which was recently bought up by AT&T.
>>
>> the t-mobile map still shows it as a "grey" zone, that is,
>> covered by a partner.
>>
>> Fingers are crossed.
>
>
> You're probably safe until the roaming agreement is up for renewal,
> (whenever that is,)at which time I'd expect AT&T to kibosh it.
> Fortunately most roaming agreements seem to be long term.

Safe for a while, but they don't publicize the length of the roaming
agreements. The old Edge Wireless territory in Northern California,
which was bought out by AT&T a few years ago, still shows to be
available for roaming by T-Mobile subscribers
("http://i36.tinypic.com/9t1emr.jpg")--I fixed the legend colors for
them. That's the last place I experienced roaming onto AT&T from my
T-Mobile phone, back in July 2010. I wonder how long that roaming
agreement was for.

The original roaming agreements were signed back during the time AT&T
and Cingular were separate companies moving to GSM and they needed each
other. Now AT&T, with the combined coverage of the old AT&T Wireless and
Cingular has no need for T-Mobile's much more limited coverage.
Unfortunately for T-Mobile customers, the reverse is not true.

The T-Mobile maps are quite misleading, since, as you pointed out, their
colors are off. It's more of a problem where there is none of the dark
gray to compare the light gray against. I think most people would think
that the absence of white means that they just used a slightly lighter
shade of gray than the one in their legend (not that they used a lighter
shade of gray instead of white). This must have been intentional since
to show vast swaths of white would look bad. I submitted an on-line
complaint to the California PUC asking them to advise T-Mobile to
correct their maps.

According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, though I
would expect that there are enough words in the contract to cover the
removal of roaming that they don't have to do that but they probably
want to reduce the possibility of a class action lawsuit by postpaid
subscribers.

To T-Mobile's credit, they did not remove the complaints about the loss
of roaming from their forums.
"http://forums.t-mobile.com/t5/Coverage/T-Mobile-and-AT-amp-T-roaming-agreement/td-p/132907".

On 8/30/2010 8:19 AM, George wrote:

<snip>

> My buddies wife works for some agency that has or had a super deal on
> tmobile. One thing tmobile can never be accused of is throwing money at
> their system in my area. My friend is pretty knowledgeable about carrier
> infrastructure and hesitantly went with them but found out it was mostly
> suitable for their families use because of the roaming. That was until
> the roaming ended. Now he and his family had phones they better serve as
> paperweights and he moved them to a VZW family plan.

My daughter is constantly letting her friend's use her VZW phone because
she has coverage in areas where they don't have any, though this is not
limited to T-Mobile and extends to Sprint and AT&T as well.

I just checked Yosemite Valley again, one of the areas that's a key
indicator of coverage that I like to use:

-T-Mobile: No coverage
-Sprint: Included roaming on Golden State Cellular
-Verizon: Included roaming on Golden State Cellular
-AT&T: Native coverage

MVNOs:

-Virgin: No Coverage (Sprint has no native coverage and Virgin does not
offer roaming)
-StraighTalk: Unclear, but their map does show that they have coverage
outside Verizon's native coverage area, and from the large map it looks
like they include Golden State Cellular's areas.
-PagePlus: Coverage, but roaming charges apply because it is not Verizon
native coverage).

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:04:08 +0000 (UTC), in
<i5fl58$mvn$1@reader1.panix.com>, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
wrote:

>In <4c7b53e9$0$1617$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>>Unfortunately, personally experienced it today, you're right, and it
>>sucks. This also explains the some problems my friend's from Minnesota
>>were having with their T-Mobile phone earlier this month. If I didn't
>>have so much money on my T-Mobile account I'd let the account go.
>
>>The roaming agreement with AT&T ended, and T-Mobile updated their maps
>>to reflect the reduced coverage, but they certainly didn't notify their
>>existing customers in advance about the impending loss of coverage.
>
>Hmmmm.... I spend time in an area that's been roaming with
>Centennial Wireless, which was recently bought up by AT&T.
>
>the t-mobile map still shows it as a "grey" zone, that is,
>covered by a partner.
>
>Fingers are crossed.
>
>(Speaking of which, while the coverage map is pretty detailed
>for t-mobile's own areas, it's pretty dismal for the roaming
>partner sectons).

Pay no attention to Steven -- he makes things up to match his view of
things, which all too often differs from reality.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:01:10 -0700, in
<4c7bd5f6$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/30/2010 8:19 AM, George wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> My buddies wife works for some agency that has or had a super deal on
>> tmobile. One thing tmobile can never be accused of is throwing money at
>> their system in my area. My friend is pretty knowledgeable about carrier
>> infrastructure and hesitantly went with them but found out it was mostly
>> suitable for their families use because of the roaming. That was until
>> the roaming ended. Now he and his family had phones they better serve as
>> paperweights and he moved them to a VZW family plan.
>
>My daughter is constantly letting her friend's use her VZW phone because
>she has coverage in areas where they don't have any, though this is not
>limited to T-Mobile and extends to Sprint and AT&T as well.
>
>I just checked Yosemite Valley again, ...

Meaningless personal anecdotes. No real proof. As usual.

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:29:53 -0700, in
<4c7bcea1$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
>waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, ...

Anecdotal rumors that prove nothing.
Have you nothing better?

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c7bcea1$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> On 8/30/2010 1:07 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> The T-Mobile maps are quite misleading, since, as you pointed out, their
> colors are off. It's more of a problem where there is none of the dark
> gray to compare the light gray against. I think most people would think
> that the absence of white means that they just used a slightly lighter
> shade of gray than the one in their legend (not that they used a lighter
> shade of gray instead of white). This must have been intentional since to
> show vast swaths of white would look bad.

It never bothered them before, when the roaming was light green, native was
dark green, and no coverage was the same light grey.

I just assume some idiot thought the dark grey would be a better color for
roaming since it couldn't be confused with the native color.


> According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
> waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, though I
> would expect that there are enough words in the contract to cover the
> removal of roaming that they don't have to do that but they probably want
> to reduce the possibility of a class action lawsuit by postpaid
> subscribers.

Or maybe they know it's the right thing to do? A bazillion years ago, when
I was a Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (now AT&T.) dealer in Kansas City,
SBMS lost a roaming partner in rural Missouri, losing coverage in a few
small towns near the Iowa border. SBMS didn't "quietly" do anything- they
put a notice in every customer's next two or three billing statements
describing the coverage changes, and offering all contracted customers a
chance to walk away without an EFT.


> To T-Mobile's credit, they did not remove the complaints about the loss of
> roaming from their forums.
> "http://forums.t-mobile.com/t5/Coverage/T-Mobile-and-AT-amp-T-roaming-agreement/td-p/132907".

Doesn't surprise me. T-Mo isn't saintly, but they've demonstrated, IMO,
transparency when it comes to coverage issues. They seem to have a
refreshing reluctance to sign up customers who won't be happy with the
service.

On 8/30/2010 4:39 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> Doesn't surprise me. T-Mo isn't saintly, but they've demonstrated, IMO,
> transparency when it comes to coverage issues. They seem to have a
> refreshing reluctance to sign up customers who won't be happy with the
> service.

Yes, I experienced that personally in their store, as have others I
know, but I thought it rather useless for them to simply check coverage
at my house where coverage isn't even that critical (assuming you still
have a landline). How many people go into a wireless carrier's store
with a list of locations they frequently (or infrequently) visit to
check for coverage (or do it online for that matter). If I had brought
such a list it wouldn't matter now since they removed coverage in so
many of the areas I would want coverage.

On 8/30/2010 4:39 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

>> According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
>> waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, though I
>> would expect that there are enough words in the contract to cover the
>> removal of roaming that they don't have to do that but they probably want
>> to reduce the possibility of a class action lawsuit by postpaid
>> subscribers.
>
> Or maybe they know it's the right thing to do?

If they knew that it's the right thing to do then they'd be sending out
notices in people's bills, or sending them letters with offers of waived
ETFs, not waiting for people to complain.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:52:19 -0700, in
<4c7c5271$0$1659$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/30/2010 4:39 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Doesn't surprise me. T-Mo isn't saintly, but they've demonstrated, IMO,
>> transparency when it comes to coverage issues. They seem to have a
>> refreshing reluctance to sign up customers who won't be happy with the
>> service.
>
>Yes, I experienced that personally in their store, as have others I
>know, but I thought it rather useless for them to simply check coverage
>at my house where coverage isn't even that critical (assuming you still
>have a landline). ...

Except many customers no longer have landlines, and many of even the
ones that do want their cell phones to work at home.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:h2nn76tjbch60e70afbfsv2851cdom0o7q@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:29:53 -0700, in
> <4c7bcea1$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
>>waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, ...
>
> Anecdotal rumors that prove nothing.
> Have you nothing better?

I just had my ETF waived last night (after a few days of repeated phone
calls and 2 service requests sent to engineering to "investigate" my loss of
coverage where I live (Hudson valley, NY region)).

Now I'm investigating switching to Sprint in the next few days/2 weeks.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:8jXeo.103277$4B7.10508@newsfe16.iad...
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4c7bcea1$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> On 8/30/2010 1:07 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
>> waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, though I
>> would expect that there are enough words in the contract to cover the
>> removal of roaming that they don't have to do that but they probably want
>> to reduce the possibility of a class action lawsuit by postpaid
>> subscribers.
>
> Or maybe they know it's the right thing to do?

It took me a lot of persistence to get my ETF waived.

BTW: Hey Todd, funny seeing you here...

On 9/3/2010 10:09 AM, Seth wrote:

<snip>

> I just had my ETF waived last night (after a few days of repeated phone
> calls and 2 service requests sent to engineering to "investigate" my
> loss of coverage where I live (Hudson valley, NY region)).

OMG, another anecdote! You must be lying! You mean T-Mobile didn't send
out a letter to you with "Dear Customer: We've recently significantly
worsened your coverage to save us money, and we wanted to let you know
that we're willing to waive your ETF so you can switch to another
carrier without undue financial hardship."

> Now I'm investigating switching to Sprint in the next few days/2 weeks.

Investigate carefully. And remember that while a Sprint coverage map may
show vast amounts of roaming coverage, your Sprint handset will roam
onto Verizon (or other CDMA carriers) only when there is absolutely no
Sprint signal, not even an unusable Sprint signal, available. I don't
know the Hudson Valley region, but in the San Francisco Bay region, this
is a big issue with Sprint. They have a network here, but in many areas
you can get a signal only strong enough that the phone won't roam onto
Verizon, but not strong enough to place or receive a call on Sprint.
OTOH I know people back east that never have any problem with their
Sprint service.

On 9/3/2010 10:11 AM, Seth wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> news:8jXeo.103277$4B7.10508@newsfe16.iad...
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c7bcea1$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> On 8/30/2010 1:07 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been
>>> quietly waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of
>>> coverage, though I would expect that there are enough words in the
>>> contract to cover the removal of roaming that they don't have to do
>>> that but they probably want to reduce the possibility of a class
>>> action lawsuit by postpaid subscribers.
>>
>> Or maybe they know it's the right thing to do?
>
> It took me a lot of persistence to get my ETF waived.

I tried once with the old Cingular/Pac Bell Mobile, without success.

Twice I've received letters from Verizon with changes in contract terms
and an offer to let me break the contract as a result. I guess it might
have made sense to port my number out, then port back to get a new
handset. But they never tried to take away my ancient grandfathered plan
with an earlier off-peak start time, or (at the time) roaming capability
that they were no longer offering on new contracts.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c812d70$0$1600$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> On 9/3/2010 10:09 AM, Seth wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I just had my ETF waived last night (after a few days of repeated phone
>> calls and 2 service requests sent to engineering to "investigate" my
>> loss of coverage where I live (Hudson valley, NY region)).
>
> OMG, another anecdote! You must be lying! You mean T-Mobile didn't send
> out a letter to you with "Dear Customer: We've recently significantly
> worsened your coverage to save us money, and we wanted to let you know
> that we're willing to waive your ETF so you can switch to another carrier
> without undue financial hardship."
>
>> Now I'm investigating switching to Sprint in the next few days/2 weeks.
>
> Investigate carefully. And remember that while a Sprint coverage map may
> show vast amounts of roaming coverage, your Sprint handset will roam onto
> Verizon (or other CDMA carriers) only when there is absolutely no Sprint
> signal, not even an unusable Sprint signal, available. I don't know the
> Hudson Valley region, but in the San Francisco Bay region, this is a big
> issue with Sprint. They have a network here, but in many areas you can get
> a signal only strong enough that the phone won't roam onto Verizon, but
> not strong enough to place or receive a call on Sprint. OTOH I know people
> back east that never have any problem with their Sprint service.

My Sprint rep (through where I work) gave me an HTC Hero to try out for a
few weeks. SO far, so good. And he's going to throw in an Airwave (or
whatever the Sprint Femtocell is called) for the house, just to "make sure".

Tested at my wife's work and the younger daughters school yesterday. Taking
it camping today. Older daughter will test at her school next week and we've
been using it tons while driving all over. So far, so good.

And the roaming issue, yeah, I've heard of that. One of my friends, while
he had a work issues Sprint blackberry, at his house on one side it had a
barely useable Spring signal, on the other side it had a non-useable signal,
but still enough to stop him from failing over onto Verizon.

"Seth" <sethNOSPAM@NOSPAMclcpro.com> wrote in message
news:i5ra55$pqq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> news:8jXeo.103277$4B7.10508@newsfe16.iad...
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c7bcea1$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> On 8/30/2010 1:07 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
>>> waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, though I
>>> would expect that there are enough words in the contract to cover the
>>> removal of roaming that they don't have to do that but they probably
>>> want to reduce the possibility of a class action lawsuit by postpaid
>>> subscribers.
>>
>> Or maybe they know it's the right thing to do?
>
> It took me a lot of persistence to get my ETF waived.

Sorry to hear that- was your home address affected, or was it just areas you
typically used the phone in?

Glad it worked out in either case. I'm still happy with T-Mo, but I'm on an
old grandfathered plan they don't offer any longer. If I was signing up for
a new plan today, I'm not so sure they'd be my first choice.


> BTW: Hey Todd, funny seeing you here...

Small world! But then again, there are so few of us on Usenet these days, I
suspect all of our paths are bound to cross regardless of what NGs we read!



>

In article <i5rcbh$3vp$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
sethNOSPAM@NOSPAMclcpro.com says...


> Tested at my wife's work and the younger daughters school yesterday. Taking
> it camping today. Older daughter will test at her school next week and we've
> been using it tons while driving all over. So far, so good.
>
> And the roaming issue, yeah, I've heard of that. One of my friends, while
> he had a work issues Sprint blackberry, at his house on one side it had a
> barely useable Spring signal, on the other side it had a non-useable signal,
> but still enough to stop him from failing over onto Verizon.


Wow. Someone who actually attempts to make sure his prospective cell
carrier has coverage where he needs it.

You, sir, have a lot more common sense than most people.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:4fbgo.9301$rC7.8270@newsfe10.iad...
>
> "Seth" <sethNOSPAM@NOSPAMclcpro.com> wrote in message
> news:i5ra55$pqq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
>> news:8jXeo.103277$4B7.10508@newsfe16.iad...
>>>
>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4c7bcea1$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> On 8/30/2010 1:07 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to several of the cellular forums, T-Mobile has been quietly
>>>> waiving ETFs for those that complain about a loss of coverage, though I
>>>> would expect that there are enough words in the contract to cover the
>>>> removal of roaming that they don't have to do that but they probably
>>>> want to reduce the possibility of a class action lawsuit by postpaid
>>>> subscribers.
>>>
>>> Or maybe they know it's the right thing to do?
>>
>> It took me a lot of persistence to get my ETF waived.
>
> Sorry to hear that- was your home address affected, or was it just areas
> you typically used the phone in?

Home area. It wasn't until after I had 2 service requests in the system (and
the first one was closed/resolved with an engineers note of "Indoor
reception not supported") and had my ETF waived that I came to this group
and see the notes about AT&T roaming agreements expiring on a per area basis
(and makes sense for what I've observed).

> Glad it worked out in either case. I'm still happy with T-Mo, but I'm on
> an old grandfathered plan they don't offer any longer. If I was signing
> up for a new plan today, I'm not so sure they'd be my first choice.

And leaving T-Mobile really isn't a price issue for me. Switching to T-Mo
from VZW was. I switched to T-Mo for price and customer service.

Now that I'm switching however, Sprint it seems is the price leader in that
they have by a large margin the lowest price for what I'm going to be
getting (4 smartphones with data, possibly a 5th).

>> BTW: Hey Todd, funny seeing you here...
>
> Small world! But then again, there are so few of us on Usenet these days,
> I suspect all of our paths are bound to cross regardless of what NGs we
> read!

So it would seem...

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.26eb6f2d3bf9ea97989a0d@news.justthe.net.. .
> In article <i5rcbh$3vp$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sethNOSPAM@NOSPAMclcpro.com says...
>
>
>> Tested at my wife's work and the younger daughters school yesterday.
>> Taking
>> it camping today. Older daughter will test at her school next week and
>> we've
>> been using it tons while driving all over. So far, so good.
>>
>> And the roaming issue, yeah, I've heard of that. One of my friends,
>> while
>> he had a work issues Sprint blackberry, at his house on one side it had a
>> barely useable Spring signal, on the other side it had a non-useable
>> signal,
>> but still enough to stop him from failing over onto Verizon.
>
>
> Wow. Someone who actually attempts to make sure his prospective cell
> carrier has coverage where he needs it.

Well, how many people would buy a car without a test drive? And lets face
it, getting out of a car you don't like is probably easier than getting out
of a phone contract...

> You, sir, have a lot more common sense than most people.

On 9/6/2010 2:50 PM, Seth wrote:

<snip>

> Well, how many people would buy a car without a test drive? And lets
> face it, getting out of a car you don't like is probably easier than
> getting out of a phone contract...

A lot of people only initially check if their phone as coverage at home,
work, their friend's house, etc. To check all the places you might be
likely to go on vacation, or drive through on the way to someplace else,
is not an exercise most people bother with.

How many Virgin Mobile customers do you think realize how severely
limited their coverage is going to be compared to Sprint postpaid
coverage? How many T-Mobile customers realize that they can't roam onto
AT&T in areas where T-Mobile has no network? After all the advertising
the top carriers used to do with "no roaming charges" it's become
ingrained that roaming is a given. Instead, "no roaming charges" has
morphed into "no roaming charges because we won't let you roam."

In short, actually checking coverage is something that is rather unique
these days.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c856514$0$1600$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> On 9/6/2010 2:50 PM, Seth wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Well, how many people would buy a car without a test drive? And lets
>> face it, getting out of a car you don't like is probably easier than
>> getting out of a phone contract...
>
> A lot of people only initially check if their phone as coverage at home,
> work, their friend's house, etc. To check all the places you might be
> likely to go on vacation, or drive through on the way to someplace else,
> is not an exercise most people bother with.

Well, the camping thing was just blind luck. And not a deal breaker or
maker. Just coincidence. I also go on a camping trip the first week of
December every year in Oneonta, NY but I'm not checking it there...

> How many Virgin Mobile customers do you think realize how severely limited
> their coverage is going to be compared to Sprint postpaid coverage? How
> many T-Mobile customers realize that they can't roam onto AT&T in areas
> where T-Mobile has no network? After all the advertising the top carriers
> used to do with "no roaming charges" it's become ingrained that roaming is
> a given. Instead, "no roaming charges" has morphed into "no roaming
> charges because we won't let you roam."
>
> In short, actually checking coverage is something that is rather unique
> these days.

Well I would people do at least a little due diligence before getting into a
2-year contract.

On 9/6/2010 3:18 PM, Seth wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4c856514$0$1600$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> On 9/6/2010 2:50 PM, Seth wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Well, how many people would buy a car without a test drive? And lets
>>> face it, getting out of a car you don't like is probably easier than
>>> getting out of a phone contract...
>>
>> A lot of people only initially check if their phone as coverage at
>> home, work, their friend's house, etc. To check all the places you
>> might be likely to go on vacation, or drive through on the way to
>> someplace else, is not an exercise most people bother with.
>
> Well, the camping thing was just blind luck. And not a deal breaker or
> maker. Just coincidence. I also go on a camping trip the first week of
> December every year in Oneonta, NY but I'm not checking it there...
>
>> How many Virgin Mobile customers do you think realize how severely
>> limited their coverage is going to be compared to Sprint postpaid
>> coverage? How many T-Mobile customers realize that they can't roam
>> onto AT&T in areas where T-Mobile has no network? After all the
>> advertising the top carriers used to do with "no roaming charges" it's
>> become ingrained that roaming is a given. Instead, "no roaming
>> charges" has morphed into "no roaming charges because we won't let you
>> roam."
>>
>> In short, actually checking coverage is something that is rather
>> unique these days.
>
> Well I would people do at least a little due diligence before getting
> into a 2-year contract.

They should, but even that doesn't always help because carriers can
worsen coverage at will. Look what T-Mobile did when their roaming
agreements with AT&T ended. Suddenly you had millions of subscribers
that lost significant coverage and there was nothing much they could do
about it. If they were persistent they could get out of their contract,
but it wasn't something that T-Mobile was doing willingly.

At 06 Sep 2010 17:49:38 -0400 Seth wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL
> >> It took me a lot of persistence to get my ETF waived.
> >
> > Sorry to hear that- was your home address affected, or was it just
> > areas you typically used the phone in?
>
> Home area. It wasn't until after I had 2 service requests in the system
> (and the first one was closed/resolved with an engineers note of
> "Indoor reception not supported") and had my ETF waived that I came to
> this group and see the notes about AT&T roaming agreements expiring on
> a per area basis (and makes sense for what I've observed).

About ten years ago, Cingular (now AT&T) "realighned their towers" (their
words when I called) and killed service at my home in suburban Kansas City.
They promised to send a tech to "investigate" and "opened a ticket." I
called weekly for a status update, and always receiced some excuse why no
one checked, and got a full month's credit on my bill when I complained.
After three months of free service they fixed whatever problem they had
in my area, and restored my service. (I actually got a call on my cell
from the tech himself after he fixed the problem!)

It often requires persistence to get these clowns off their butts.


> > Glad it worked out in either case. I'm still happy with T-Mo, but
> > I'm on an old grandfathered plan they don't offer any longer. If I
> > was signing up for a new plan today, I'm not so sure they'd be my
> > first choice.
>
> And leaving T-Mobile really isn't a price issue for me. Switching to T-
> Mo from VZW was. I switched to T-Mo for price and customer service.
>
> Now that I'm switching however, Sprint it seems is the price leader in
> that they have by a large margin the lowest price for what I'm going to
> be getting (4 smartphones with data, possibly a 5th).


That's the part of my grandfathered plan I refuse to give up- I have
unlimited data for $6, that I bought long before t-Mo separated "smart"
and "dumb" data plans, so as long as use any phone that doesn't require a
"special" plan (e.g. "Android data" or "Blackberry data") I get $6/month
data on every phone on my account. Currently I use a WinMo, and my wife
an (unlocked) iPhone.

If I were signing up today, Sprint would have a lower price for our usage.

At 06 Sep 2010 15:02:57 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 9/6/2010 2:50 PM, Seth wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well, how many people would buy a car without a test drive? And lets
> > face it, getting out of a car you don't like is probably easier than
> > getting out of a phone contract...
>
> A lot of people only initially check if their phone as coverage at
> home, work, their friend's house, etc. To check all the places you
> might be likely to go on vacation, or drive through on the way to
> someplace else, is not an exercise most people bother with.

Nor should they, necessarily. If a lower price carrier works the places
on goes 98% of the time, should they spend an extra (insert dollar figure
here) every month forever, to insure they have coverage that one week
they drive to the Black Hills or Mesa Verde the year after next? It'd be
cheaper just, as someone suggested, to buy a preopaid phone that covers
that area before the trip, and let it expire/recycle/throw it away
aferwards.

Offering coverage you might never need "just in case" is part of
Verizon's marketing plan, just as charging $0.25/text or $0.45/overage
minute to buy larger buckets you'll never use "just in case" is part of
most carriers' MO.


> How many Virgin Mobile customers do you think realize how severely
> limited their coverage is going to be compared to Sprint postpaid
> coverage?

Um, anyone who looks at a VM map? "Most" consumers don't know what an
MVNO is, and probably don't understand/realize the Sprint/Virgin
relationship. (I realize Sprint owns Virgin Mobile USA now, but they
never rebranded it "Sprint" so most probably don't realize the
relationship.)

> How many T-Mobile customers realize that they can't roam onto
> AT&T in areas where T-Mobile has no network?

Why would customers assume they could roam on AT&T? T-Mo doesn't
advertise such a capability. Their maps only show T-Mo and roaming
coverage. The names of roaming partners are never reveled, except on the
phone itself when roaming.

> After all the advertising
> the top carriers used to do with "no roaming charges" it's become
> ingrained that roaming is a given. Instead, "no roaming charges" has
> morphed into "no roaming charges because we won't let you roam."

"Morphed?" That's the way it's always been, ever since the original "no
roaming charges" plan: ATTWS' One Rate back in the late 90s that offered
no roaming charges, by limiting roaming to a limited number of carriers
with pre-negotiated low rates, and no roaming at all anywhere else. The
few models ATTWS offered for OneRate were the first phones I'm aware of
to use a PRL (called IRDB, or "Intelligent Roamer Database," on TDMA
phones.)


> In short, actually checking coverage is something that is rather unique
these days.

Perhaps, but that's more a factor of all national carriers achieving a
sort of coverage "critical mass" years ago.

[snip]

>Home area. It wasn't until after I had 2 service requests in the system (and
>the first one was closed/resolved with an engineers note of "Indoor
>reception not supported") and had my ETF waived that I came to this group
>and see the notes about AT&T roaming agreements expiring on a per area basis
>(and makes sense for what I've observed).

Which kind of gets me to my concern, and also a related thought
about whatever happended to anti-trust?

T-Mobile has a modest amount of native coverage in Michigan, but
plenty is courtesy of roaming.

As of a few months ago, the area north of Lansing was covered
by both Centennial and AT&T. TM had agreements with both of
them, and yes, I could manually switch between the two.

Now that AT&T has bought up Centennial, there's only one GSM
provider in that area. Which has ugly effects on us two ways:

a: If we want our own account, there's only one game
in town. And we all know what that does to competition.

b: It also hits us indirectly since TM will, natch, have
to pay more for a roaming partner. Which will heavily
weigh on their decision to continue that option.

So (no) thanks to the FCC/FTC approval, a good chunk of
this state is about to step back a decade.

(replace MI with your local State, of course).

Uggh.

disclosure: I'm a TM shareholder.


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:54:33 -0700, in
<4c85712d$0$1665$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>They should, but even that doesn't always help because carriers can
>worsen coverage at will. Look what T-Mobile did when their roaming
>agreements with AT&T ended. Suddenly you had millions of subscribers
>that lost significant coverage and there was nothing much they could do
>about it. If they were persistent they could get out of their contract,
>but it wasn't something that T-Mobile was doing willingly.

Wrong again(tm): No actual evidence of that, just your unsubstantiated
claim.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]