Like Cats in Heat Verizon Wireless Sprays Cyberspace with Urine

https://forums.vonage.com/archive/index.php/t-1236.html

jl wrote:
> https://forums.vonage.com/archive/index.php/t-1236.html

Thankfully, that link has nothing to do with Verizon Wireless!

On Apr 24, 9:48*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> jl wrote:
> >https://forums.vonage.com/archive/index.php/t-1236.html
>
> Thankfully, that link has nothing to do with Verizon Wireless!

Verizon, verizon wireless ---- same bunch of rogue thieving spiteful
*******s who operate from the same playbook of slimy tricks.

They use their ability to interfere with the number porting option to
take out their spite. Even agents at the FCC (who are in bed with the
telecoms) freely admit to it and laugh about it.

The CEO's of Verizon and VZW ought to be hanged on the public square
by their toes and scrotums.

On Apr 24, 11:00*am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <9jjIl.3055$fD....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS
>
> <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >jl wrote:
> >>https://forums.vonage.com/archive/index.php/t-1236.html
>
> >Thankfully, that link has nothing to do with Verizon Wireless!
>
> True, but Verizon Wireless still sucks.
>
> I LOLed long and hard when I got the postcard in the mail which
> informed me that VZW had lost a class action lawsuit regarding its
> Early Termination Fee practices. Turns out that a few thousands folks
> like myself who were ****ed over by Verizon Wireless when we cancelled
> our service are going to get our $175 ETFs refunded.
>
> Up yours, VZW!!!

So glad to hear! Thanks for your testimony. Sometimes I see a ray of
hope against the dark bleakness of dealing with corporate criminals
like VZW.

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> In message <9jjIl.3055$fD.687@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> jl wrote:
>>> https://forums.vonage.com/archive/index.php/t-1236.html
>> Thankfully, that link has nothing to do with Verizon Wireless!
>
> True, but Verizon Wireless still sucks.
>
> I LOLed long and hard when I got the postcard in the mail which
> informed me that VZW had lost a class action lawsuit regarding its
> Early Termination Fee practices. Turns out that a few thousands folks
> like myself who were ****ed over by Verizon Wireless when we cancelled
> our service are going to get our $175 ETFs refunded.
>
> Up yours, VZW!!!

Interesting that the change to pro-rated ETFs was not something that
Verizon Wireless did as part of a marketing effort to appear fairer (as
they tried to make it appear), but that they was forced to do it because
flat ETF's are not legal (at least in California).

How did Verizon screw you when you canceled? Were you unaware of the
$175 ETF when you signed your contract?

"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iok3v4de5q4slmjb7nol0aa1eks8eth07d@4ax.com...
> In message <9jjIl.3055$fD.687@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>jl wrote:
>>> https://forums.vonage.com/archive/index.php/t-1236.html
>>
>>Thankfully, that link has nothing to do with Verizon Wireless!
>
> True, but Verizon Wireless still sucks.
>
> I LOLed long and hard when I got the postcard in the mail which
> informed me that VZW had lost a class action lawsuit regarding its
> Early Termination Fee practices. Turns out that a few thousands folks
> like myself who were ****ed over by Verizon Wireless when we cancelled
> our service are going to get our $175 ETFs refunded.
>
> Up yours, VZW!!!

Interesting. When I cancelled my 2-year contract with VZW at 2 years PLUS
ONE DAY, VZW tried to hit me with $175 X 2 ETF. I raised holy hell and they
reluctantly agreed to waive the fee that I did not owe them. How nice of
them, eh? -Dave

> How did Verizon screw you when you canceled? Were you unaware of the $175
> ETF when you signed your contract?

Speaking for myself only, I was well aware of it. And when I cancelled my 2
year contract at 2 years PLUS ONE DAY, VZW insisted they were going to
charge me an early termination fee. No, it didn't happen. But I had to
fight HARD to prevent getting screwed by it. So it doesn't surprise me a
bit that VZW was successfully sued over this issue.

It boils down to, Verizon wants to charge the Full ETF for any cancellation,
even if you are no longer under contract with Verizon Wireless. -Dave

On 2009-04-24, Dave <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:
>> ETF when you signed your contract?
>
> Speaking for myself only, I was well aware of it. And when I cancelled my 2
> year contract at 2 years PLUS ONE DAY, VZW insisted they were going to
> charge me an early termination fee. No, it didn't happen. But I had to
> fight HARD to prevent getting screwed by it. So it doesn't surprise me a
> bit that VZW was successfully sued over this issue.
>
> It boils down to, Verizon wants to charge the Full ETF for any cancellation,
> even if you are no longer under contract with Verizon Wireless. -Dave

Interesting. I did a de-facto cancellation (by porting my number to Sprint)
only one day after my contract ended, and they didn't charge me.

I'm wondering what their computers said, i.e., when they thought your contract
end date was. Did you ask? (just curious)


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA

Microsoft's new marketing slogan for Windows is "Life Without Walls."
But if you have no walls, how can you have windows?

On Apr 24, 12:45*pm, "Dave" <now...@nohow2.not> wrote:
> > How did Verizon screw you when you canceled? Were you unaware of the $175
> > ETF when you signed your contract?
>
> Speaking for myself only, I was well aware of it. *And when I cancelledmy 2
> year contract at 2 years PLUS ONE DAY, VZW insisted they were going to
> charge me an early termination fee. *No, it didn't happen. *But I hadto
> fight HARD to prevent getting screwed by it. *So it doesn't surprise mea
> bit that VZW was successfully sued over this issue.
>
> It boils down to, Verizon wants to charge the Full ETF for any cancellation,
> even if you are no longer under contract with Verizon Wireless. *-Dave

Yes, I had the same problem with Verizon Wireless. They falsely
claimed I was under contract with them until mid-2010, even though my
2-year contract with them had expired in 2007. They *forged* a
contract. And when I tried to port my old number to another wireless
company they said I had canceled the account and lost the number.
Lying sonsa*****es.

So now I am stuck with a new number and a plague of problems, and the
old number I had for 5 years and need and want is in limbo, utterly
useless and without value to anyone but me---- while VZW laughs up its
spiteful sleeve and lies in its filthy lice-infested bed in a 69'er
daisy chain with Congress and the Great Whore, FCC.
_____________________
"There's nothing we can do. They vindictively made your number
inactive so you couldn't use it. They do it all the time. You can
call and complain all you want. There's nothing we can do about it.
I just answer the phone here."
"Linda" (who has no last name) at FCC
1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) Fax: 1-866-418-0232. E-mail:
fccinfo@fcc.gov ...

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:83976f12-7cca-4d8b-b21c-3bc7c00c98fe@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 24, 12:45*pm, "Dave" <now...@nohow2.not> wrote:
>> > How did Verizon screw you when you canceled? Were you unaware of
>> > the $1
> 75
>> > ETF when you signed your contract?
>>
>> Speaking for myself only, I was well aware of it. *And when I
>> cancelled
> my 2
>> year contract at 2 years PLUS ONE DAY, VZW insisted they were going
>> to charge me an early termination fee. *No, it didn't happen. *But I
>> had
> to
>> fight HARD to prevent getting screwed by it. *So it doesn't surprise
>> me
> a
>> bit that VZW was successfully sued over this issue.
>>
>> It boils down to, Verizon wants to charge the Full ETF for any
>> cancellati
> on,
>> even if you are no longer under contract with Verizon Wireless.
>> *-Dave
>
> Yes, I had the same problem with Verizon Wireless.

But you're an idiot.You've proven it here time after time.


> They falsely
> claimed I was under contract with them until mid-2010, even though my
> 2-year contract with them had expired in 2007.

I'm betting that they are right, because in addition to being an idiot,
you also come across as a deadbeat consumer who looks for any reason not
to live up to your financial responsibilities.

> They *forged* a
> contract.

They did no such thing, moron.

> And when I tried to port my old number to another wireless
> company they said I had canceled the account and lost the number.
> Lying sonsa*****es.


My bet is that you decided not to follow the rules on the port and
caused the account to be canceled. I say this because you don't seem to
have the mental capacity to understand rules.

>
> So now I am stuck with a new number and a plague of problems,


SO call you friend and give them the new number. It's not like you have
hundreds of people going suicidal because your number changed. That
would require you to leave Mommy's basement every once in a while.

> and the
> old number I had for 5 years and need and want is in limbo, utterly
> useless and without value to anyone but me---- while VZW laughs up its
> spiteful sleeve and lies in its filthy lice-infested bed in a 69'er
> daisy chain with Congress and the Great Whore, FCC.

Did you get a grownup to help you with those big words?

> _____________________
> "There's nothing we can do. They vindictively made your number
> inactive so you couldn't use it. They do it all the time. You can
> call and complain all you want. There's nothing we can do about it.
> I just answer the phone here."
> "Linda" (who has no last name)

She has a last name. She also has common sense in not giving it to a
troll like you.


> at FCC
> 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) Fax: 1-866-418-0232. E-mail:
> fccinfo@fcc.gov ...
>

Gee thanks- we never would have been able to find that contact
information for the FCC anyplace else.

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrngv40lj.4mt.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net.. .
> On 2009-04-24, Dave <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:
> >> ETF when you signed your contract?
> >
> > Speaking for myself only, I was well aware of it. And when I cancelled
my 2
> > year contract at 2 years PLUS ONE DAY, VZW insisted they were going to
> > charge me an early termination fee. No, it didn't happen. But I had to
> > fight HARD to prevent getting screwed by it. So it doesn't surprise me
a
> > bit that VZW was successfully sued over this issue.
> >
> > It boils down to, Verizon wants to charge the Full ETF for any
cancellation,
> > even if you are no longer under contract with Verizon Wireless. -Dave
>
> Interesting. I did a de-facto cancellation (by porting my number to
Sprint)
> only one day after my contract ended, and they didn't charge me.
>
> I'm wondering what their computers said, i.e., when they thought your
contract
> end date was. Did you ask? (just curious)
>

No, I didn't. But I had signed up on March 17th (I still had the hardcopy
I signed on that day, so I knew the EXACT date), and cancelled on March 18th
of the 2nd year following. In other words, I was a customer over 2 years,
under a 2 year contract, and VZW wanted to charge me TWO Early Termination
fees. Oh, and I did not make any contract changes in the two years, either.
VZW and others will try to extend your contract WITHOUT TELLING YOU for just
about any reason, like switching minutes plans. But I didn't do any of
that. Verizon had no reason at all to think that I was still under
contract. They just wanted the ETFs. *******s. -Dave

>
> I disagree. I have had cell phone service from all the major wireless
> companies.

So have I. And some of the minor ones, also.

> The worst two are t-mobile and Nextel (now part of Sprint).

I can't really disagree. But please don't compare T-Mobile to Nextel.
Nextel is by far the worst. Even T-Mobile looks good compared to Nextel.
And T-Mobile is far from bad, just not nearly as good as some of the others.

> In every survey I have read over the past few years, Verizon Wireless
> was well a head of the pack in terms of the quality and availability of
> the cell phone service.

I question that. I have a unique viewpoint on this, also. See, for a long
time I worked jobs that required me to carry company provided cell phones
from various providers. For a while, I was carrying two cell phones, one on
Cingular (ATT) and one on Verizon. While I was doing this, I was travelling
all over the U.S. to some very obscure areas. I find the (current ATT)
network to be at least as good as Verizon in terms of quality and
*availability*. There were many areas I went into that had a strong signal
on one handset and no signal on the other. More often than not though, when
I had no signal, it was on the Verizon handset. I don't believe Verizon has
the best network. I know that both Verizon and ATT like to CLAIM that they
have the best network. Based on my extensive travels though, I'd say this:
Verizon's network is well above average, but not quite as good as ATT.

> That matches my experience with my corporate
> nationwide plan. It is rare for calls on my cell phone to drop out or to
> have other problems.

Yes, Verizon is good. Not the best though, and Verizon is over-priced
compared to their competition. But if you can get someone else to pay for
your VZW service, great! -Dave

Shawn Hirn wrote:

> I disagree. I have had cell phone service from all the major wireless
> companies. The worst two are t-mobile and Nextel (now part of Sprint).
> In every survey I have read over the past few years, Verizon Wireless
> was well a head of the pack in terms of the quality and availability of
> the cell phone service.

This is true. And these aren't just marketing claims by Verizon, it's
borne out by all the independent surveys, from Yankee Group, J.D. Power,
Consumer Reports, and Consumer Checkbook. Plus it's gotten even better
now that Verizon acquired Alltel (the other top-rated carrier).

What was especially amusing was when Cingular got in trouble with their
claim of "fewest dropped calls" with even the survey company they hired
(Telephia) to do the survey publicly stating that Cingular was
misinterpreting the survey data in their advertising campaign.

"http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/att-ditches-few.html".

AT&T's (Cingular's) current campaign "More Bars in More Places" is also
very misleading because they're talking about worldwide roaming
coverage, not about U.S. coverage. In fact, with a CDMA/GSM handset,
available from Verizon, it's actually Verizon that has "More Bars in
More Places" including places where AT&T has no coverage at all because
there is no GSM network. Of course any AT&T or Verizon customer that
cared about roaming costs, would be using a 900/1800 MHz phone with a
prepaid SIM card when they leave North America.

I have found, that since AMPS has been turned off by Verizon and AT&T,
that the difference in coverage between the two has narrowed in urban
and suburban areas, though there are still areas of the country where I
get roaming AMPS coverage but no GSM or CDMA coverage.

I thought it rather ironic that when I was in the Florida Everglades a
couple of years ago, in an area where AT&T has both the A and B side 800
MHz networks, that I had good AMPS coverage on AT&T with my Verizon
phone, but actual AT&T customers had no coverage at all. Now the
situation has "improved" for AT&T, because they turned off their AMPS
network when the FCC let them in 2008, and now no one gets coverage out
in that area (yes, this did violate the FCC mandate).

Dave wrote:
>> I disagree. I have had cell phone service from all the major wireless
>> companies.
>
> So have I. And some of the minor ones, also.
>
>> The worst two are t-mobile and Nextel (now part of Sprint).
>
> I can't really disagree. But please don't compare T-Mobile to Nextel.
> Nextel is by far the worst. Even T-Mobile looks good compared to Nextel.
> And T-Mobile is far from bad, just not nearly as good as some of the others.
>
>> In every survey I have read over the past few years, Verizon Wireless
>> was well a head of the pack in terms of the quality and availability of
>> the cell phone service.
>
> I question that. I have a unique viewpoint on this, also. See, for a long
> time I worked jobs that required me to carry company provided cell phones
> from various providers. For a while, I was carrying two cell phones, one on
> Cingular (ATT) and one on Verizon. While I was doing this, I was travelling
> all over the U.S. to some very obscure areas. I find the (current ATT)
> network to be at least as good as Verizon in terms of quality and
> *availability*. There were many areas I went into that had a strong signal
> on one handset and no signal on the other. More often than not though, when
> I had no signal, it was on the Verizon handset. I don't believe Verizon has
> the best network. I know that both Verizon and ATT like to CLAIM that they
> have the best network. Based on my extensive travels though, I'd say this:
> Verizon's network is well above average, but not quite as good as ATT.

Might be something unique about where you travel because I can't say the
same.

Another interesting point is that VZW is anal about redundancy and
reliability. ATT sites are toy things with a tiny battery and no
generator. VZW has both substantial battery and generators on most
everything. So why does that matter? Early last winter there was a heavy
ice storm in a wide region near me that took down commercial power for
four days. Multiple people I know who live in that area said that ATT,
Sprint/nextel went dark in less than two hours and were off for the
entire four days. VZW kept going.

>
>> That matches my experience with my corporate
>> nationwide plan. It is rare for calls on my cell phone to drop out or to
>> have other problems.
>
> Yes, Verizon is good. Not the best though, and Verizon is over-priced
> compared to their competition. But if you can get someone else to pay for
> your VZW service, great! -Dave
>
>

A lot of people keep saying that. Current sample prices follow:

ATT

1350 $79.99
Unlimited $99.99

VZW
1350 $79.99
Unlimited $99.99

jl wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:45 pm, "Dave" <now...@nohow2.not> wrote:
>>> How did Verizon screw you when you canceled? Were you unaware of the $175
>>> ETF when you signed your contract?
>> Speaking for myself only, I was well aware of it. And when I cancelled my 2
>> year contract at 2 years PLUS ONE DAY, VZW insisted they were going to
>> charge me an early termination fee. No, it didn't happen. But I had to
>> fight HARD to prevent getting screwed by it. So it doesn't surprise me a
>> bit that VZW was successfully sued over this issue.
>>
>> It boils down to, Verizon wants to charge the Full ETF for any cancellation,
>> even if you are no longer under contract with Verizon Wireless. -Dave
>
> Yes, I had the same problem with Verizon Wireless. They falsely
> claimed I was under contract with them until mid-2010, even though my
> 2-year contract with them had expired in 2007. They *forged* a
> contract. And when I tried to port my old number to another wireless
> company they said I had canceled the account and lost the number.
> Lying sonsa*****es.


There is this thing called personal responsibility. First you claim that
you got a new phone and someone "forged" the contract because apparently
you didn't know about the fact when you get a subsidy phone you get a
contract renewal. Then you ignored the follow up mail confirmation that
they sent you informing you of the plan change and that you had thirty
days to cancel. Now you claim that porting should be extra special just
for you even though the porting rules require your prior carrier to
cancel your account when they fulfill the porting request from whatever
carrier you ported to.

>
> So now I am stuck with a new number and a plague of problems, and the
> old number I had for 5 years and need and want is in limbo, utterly
> useless and without value to anyone but me---- while VZW laughs up its
> spiteful sleeve and lies in its filthy lice-infested bed in a 69'er
> daisy chain with Congress and the Great Whore, FCC.
> _____________________
> "There's nothing we can do. They vindictively made your number
> inactive so you couldn't use it. They do it all the time. You can
> call and complain all you want. There's nothing we can do about it.
> I just answer the phone here."
> "Linda" (who has no last name) at FCC
> 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) Fax: 1-866-418-0232. E-mail:
> fccinfo@fcc.gov ...

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:BbIIl.28441$YU2.24649@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>> I disagree. I have had cell phone service from all the major wireless
>> companies. The worst two are t-mobile and Nextel (now part of Sprint).
>> In every survey I have read over the past few years, Verizon Wireless
>> was well a head of the pack in terms of the quality and availability of
>> the cell phone service.
>
> This is true. And these aren't just marketing claims by Verizon, it's
> borne out by all the independent surveys, from Yankee Group, J.D. Power,
> Consumer Reports, and Consumer Checkbook. Plus it's gotten even better
> now that Verizon acquired Alltel (the other top-rated carrier).

Except that Verizon didn't win all regions in the latest JD Power Network
Quality survey.

>
> What was especially amusing was when Cingular got in trouble with their
> claim of "fewest dropped calls" with even the survey company they hired
> (Telephia) to do the survey publicly stating that Cingular was
> misinterpreting the survey data in their advertising campaign.
>
> "http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/att-ditches-few.html".
>
> AT&T's (Cingular's) current campaign "More Bars in More Places" is also
> very misleading because they're talking about worldwide roaming
> coverage, not about U.S. coverage. In fact, with a CDMA/GSM handset,
> available from Verizon, it's actually Verizon that has "More Bars in
> More Places" including places where AT&T has no coverage at all because
> there is no GSM network. Of course any AT&T or Verizon customer that
> cared about roaming costs, would be using a 900/1800 MHz phone with a
> prepaid SIM card when they leave North America.
>
> I have found, that since AMPS has been turned off by Verizon and AT&T,
> that the difference in coverage between the two has narrowed in urban
> and suburban areas, though there are still areas of the country where I
> get roaming AMPS coverage but no GSM or CDMA coverage.
>
> I thought it rather ironic that when I was in the Florida Everglades a
> couple of years ago, in an area where AT&T has both the A and B side 800
> MHz networks, that I had good AMPS coverage on AT&T with my Verizon
> phone, but actual AT&T customers had no coverage at all. Now the
> situation has "improved" for AT&T, because they turned off their AMPS
> network when the FCC let them in 2008, and now no one gets coverage out
> in that area (yes, this did violate the FCC mandate).
>

At 25 Apr 2009 14:01:49 -0400 George wrote:

> > I question that. I have a unique viewpoint on this, also. See, for
a long
> > time I worked jobs that required me to carry company provided cell
phones
> > from various providers. For a while, I was carrying two cell phones,
one on
> > Cingular (ATT) and one on Verizon. While I was doing this, I was
travelling
> > all over the U.S. to some very obscure areas. I find the (current
ATT)
> > network to be at least as good as Verizon in terms of quality and
> > *availability*. There were many areas I went into that had a strong
signal
> > on one handset and no signal on the other. More often than not though,
when
> > I had no signal, it was on the Verizon handset. I don't believe
Verizon has
> > the best network. I know that both Verizon and ATT like to CLAIM
that they
> > have the best network. Based on my extensive travels though, I'd say
this:
> > Verizon's network is well above average, but not quite as good as ATT.
>
> Might be something unique about where you travel because I can't
> say the same.


Ageed- I use T-Mobile, so I'm painfully aware of places where some phones
have no signal- usually mine! ;-) I tend to look around and see who's
phones work in situations where mine or others don't. Based on my purely
anecdotal observations, I've been places where nobody has had service,
including Verizon, but rarely have I seen anywhere where a Verizon phone
had no service, but others did. (Besides just playing the look at the
phone to determine the carrier" game, I can also search for AT&T signal
on my T-Mo handset as well as confirm Verizon service on my PagePlus
prepaid phone I carry when I know in advance I'll be in weak reception
areas.)

> Another interesting point is that VZW is anal about redundancy
> and reliability. ATT sites are toy things with a tiny battery and
> no generator. VZW has both substantial battery and generators
> on most everything. So why does that matter? Early last winter
> there was a heavy ice storm in a wide region near me that took
> down commercial power for four days. Multiple people I know who
> live in that area said that ATT, Sprint/nextel went dark in less
> than two hours and were off for the entire four days. VZW kept going.


That's true- the industry trade paper RCR Wireless News (who sadly closed
their doors recently) did an article on the backup capacity of carriers
after Katrina tested all of them, and only Verizon had backup generators
at every site it was allowed to (some are prohibited due to safety
concerns about on-site fuel storage- Verizon uses high-capacity batteries
good for 8-12 hours minimum on those sites instead. The other carriers
used batteries with 4-hour capacity and COWs (portable Cellsites On
Wheels) that they deploy to disaster areas on an as needed basis. (COWS
are typically moved to hurricane regions prior to the storm's landfall
for rapid deployment if needed, but if a carrier is caught by a suprise
disaster, they might take several hours to deploy.)

Other carriers use generators on a "skeleton" subset of their coverage
area, but not nearly as thorougly as Verizon. Say whatever bad you want
about Verizon, but they take network reliability G-D seriously.


> > Yes, Verizon is good. Not the best though, and Verizon is over-priced
> > compared to their competition. But if you can get someone else to
pay for
> > your VZW service, great! -Dave
> >
> >
>
> A lot of people keep saying that. Current sample prices follow:
>
> ATT
>
> 1350 $79.99
> Unlimited $99.99
>
> VZW
> 1350 $79.99
> Unlimited $99.99


Simple minutes for dollars comparisons fail to take into account other
carriers' perks which Verizon lacks. AT&T plans include rollover, which
often allow customers to use a lower tier plan, Sprint has 6pm nights,
reducing the needed number of "daytime" minutes, etc...

Verizon was also much higher for Blackberry/smartphone data ($45 vs. $30)
until recently, when they realigned data pricing to match AT&T.

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:gsvj6c$ene$1
@news.motzarella.org:

> A lot of people keep saying that. Current sample prices follow:
>
> ATT
>
> 1350 $79.99
> Unlimited $99.99
>
> VZW
> 1350 $79.99
> Unlimited $99.99
>
>

You'd almost think there was (gulp) PRICE FIXING going on at the CTIA,
wouldn't you??

There's no price fixing in America, by the way, even if you suspect it
because every gas station in town raises and lowers prices by exactly the
same amount at exactly the same minute. It's just a coincidence.....



--
-----
Larry
You can tell there's very intelligent life in the Universe
because none of them have ever tried to contact us.....

At 25 Apr 2009 19:34:41 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > ATT
> >
> > 1350 $79.99
> > Unlimited $99.99
> >
> > VZW
> > 1350 $79.99
> > Unlimited $99.99
> >
> >
>
> You'd almost think there was (gulp) PRICE FIXING going on at the CTIA,
> wouldn't you??


Or, perhaps, competitive price matching, like with airfares. Oh, sorry,
that doesn't make nearly as good a story as your conspiracy theory. Or
explain T-Mobile, MetroPCS, Boost or Cricket's lower prices.


> There's no price fixing in America, by the way, even if you suspect it
> because every gas station in town raises and lowers prices by exactly
the
> same amount at exactly the same minute. It's just a coincidence.....


No, it's the effect of competition. Do you have any idea the small
profit margins gas is sold with? It's literally a penny or two per
gallon in very competitive markets. The minute suppliers announce new
prices the stations react to avoid losing their shirts, (or even breaking
the law- here in Colorado it's illegal to sell gas below cost, in
response to supermarkets and who did it as loss leaders to steal business
from gas station convenience stores.)

> >
> > You'd almost think there was (gulp) PRICE FIXING going on at the CTIA,
> > wouldn't you??
>
>
> Or, perhaps, competitive price matching, like with airfares. Oh, sorry,
> that doesn't make nearly as good a story as your conspiracy theory. Or
> explain T-Mobile, MetroPCS, Boost or Cricket's lower prices.
>
>
> > There's no price fixing in America, by the way, even if you suspect it
> > because every gas station in town raises and lowers prices by exactly
> the
> > same amount at exactly the same minute. It's just a coincidence.....

True story . . . just a couple of months ago, I was at a gas station nearby
that is across from another gas station, a chain called fastrac. Anyway,
when I walked in to pay for my gas, the clerk was on the phone asking
someone (I assume her manager) if she should change the price of gas. Then
in response to a question, she walked outside briefly, came back in and
recited the price of regular at the fastrac across the street. Then
(whoever) apparently told her to change the price because she did, to match
fastrac. When I pulled in, they were 4 cents cheaper than fastrac. By the
time I left, the obvious error was being corrected. -Dave

Dave wrote:

> True story . . . just a couple of months ago, I was at a gas station nearby
> that is across from another gas station, a chain called fastrac. Anyway,
> when I walked in to pay for my gas, the clerk was on the phone asking
> someone (I assume her manager) if she should change the price of gas. Then
> in response to a question, she walked outside briefly, came back in and
> recited the price of regular at the fastrac across the street. Then
> (whoever) apparently told her to change the price because she did, to match
> fastrac. When I pulled in, they were 4 cents cheaper than fastrac. By the
> time I left, the obvious error was being corrected. -Dave

This is not unusual at all. I have a relative who owns what is
consistently the least expensive gas station in San Francisco. Every
day, the manager of the Costco gas station the next town does a drive by
of all the low-priced stations in the area to determine how to set his
own pricing.

Gasoline princing is a delicate balance of not leaving money on the
table, and not losing customers to the competition. The advantage of the
Costco gas station is that they take credit cards, and the Costco
Business Amex gives a 4% rebate on gasoline (at all stations, not just
Costco) though it was just reduced from 5%. Some of the low-priced
stations, including the one my relative owns, don't take credit cards,
or charge a higher price for credit card sales (they call it a cash
discount).

The retail profit on gasoline sucks. I.e. the oil company whose fuel my
relative sells, limits retailers to a 10 cent/gallon mark-up. If the
station exceeds that mark-up then their wholesale price will be
increased. This makes taking credit cards impractical, since at
$2/gallon, the 1.5-2% fee, plus the per transaction fee, reduce the
margin to around 5 cents per gallon. Ironically, the higher the price
per gallon, the worse the profit for stations that take credit cards,
because they generally price on a fixed number of cents over wholesale
cost, not on a certain percentage over wholesale cost.
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246231/"

It's amazing that Costco's Amex is paying a 4% rebate, especially at
Costco's station where the gasoline is almost always the cheapest around.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:i21Jl.12869$jZ1.11720
@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:

> The retail profit on gasoline sucks. I.e. the oil company whose fuel my
> relative sells, limits retailers to a 10 cent/gallon mark-up

They easily make that up by marking everything inside the convenience store
up 500%.....

Gas is just to draw the suckers into buying some snacks and pop, the
highest profit margin outside of prostitution..



--
-----
Larry
You can tell there's very intelligent life in the Universe
because none of them have ever tried to contact us.....

In article <Xns9BF9903965CE4noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:i21Jl.12869$jZ1.11720
> @flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
> > The retail profit on gasoline sucks. I.e. the oil company whose fuel my
> > relative sells, limits retailers to a 10 cent/gallon mark-up
>
> They easily make that up by marking everything inside the convenience store
> up 500%.....

If that was true, then a $4 bag of chips would cost $20. Since that
doesn't happen, then what you are saying is a bold-faced untruth.

> Gas is just to draw the suckers into buying some snacks and pop, the
> highest profit margin outside of prostitution..

If that were true, then why would they have a pay-at-the-pump system
where you don't even have to go inside the store? Again, it just
shows that you are spreading BS.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * * *john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

> > They easily make that up by marking everything inside the convenience
store
> > up 500%.....
>
> If that was true, then a $4 bag of chips would cost $20.

You mean the 25 cent bag of chips that they want you to pay $4 for?

>
> > Gas is just to draw the suckers into buying some snacks and pop, the
> > highest profit margin outside of prostitution..
>
> If that were true, then why would they have a pay-at-the-pump system
> where you don't even have to go inside the store?

You mean the one that is always out of paper, so you have to go into the
store to get your receipt?

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:59:07 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote, in part:

> --- [snip] ---
>
> ... Of course any AT&T or Verizon customer that cared about roaming
> costs, would be using a 900/1800 MHz phone with a prepaid SIM card when
> they leave North America.
>
> --- [snip] ---

Actually, you need 850 MHz in parts of South America, as my wife and I
learned in Ecuador, where here quad-band T-Mo RAZR roamed successfully
while my mere tri-band (900/1800/1900) T-Mo Nokia was dead in the water.

But tell me: does any carrier offer -- or does any manufacturer make
-- a cell phone that does *both* quad-band GSM *and* the Korean/Japanese
sort of WCDMA? (And, preferably, double as a tetherable GPRS/EDGE/HSDPA
data modem in both GSM-land and Korea/Japan?) If so, details, please!

Thanks, -- tlvp

On 2009-04-27, tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net> wrote:
> But tell me: does any carrier offer -- or does any manufacturer make
> -- a cell phone that does *both* quad-band GSM *and* the Korean/Japanese
> sort of WCDMA? (And, preferably, double as a tetherable GPRS/EDGE/HSDPA
> data modem in both GSM-land and Korea/Japan?) If so, details, please!

You need a phone with 2100 MHz WCDMA for Japan and Korea, the same
band that is used for 3G (and high speed data) service in Europe and
most of the rest of the world. My Motorola V9, e.g.

http://www.motorola.com.hk/eng/motomobile/v9/

supports that along with 4-band GSM and there are a number of higher-end
Nokia models which do as well, that I know of. The trouble is that to
get one with the bands like that generally requires buying the phone
overseas, since North American versions of the same models tend to
drop 2100 MHz WCDMA when they add the North American frequencies.

For phones you can buy in North American, the iPhone has the right
band coverage but AT&T models can't be unlocked (there's a crime) or
tethered currently. AT&T may also sell a few WM smartphones with
the band; if it says 2100 MHz 3G or WCDMA or UMTS that's what you
need.

Dennis Ferguson

tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:59:07 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
>> --- [snip] ---
>>
>> ... Of course any AT&T or Verizon customer that cared about roaming
>> costs, would be using a 900/1800 MHz phone with a prepaid SIM card
>> when they leave North America.
>>
>> --- [snip] ---
>
> Actually, you need 850 MHz in parts of South America, as my wife and I
> learned in Ecuador, where here quad-band T-Mo RAZR roamed successfully
> while my mere tri-band (900/1800/1900) T-Mo Nokia was dead in the water.

Technically it's 800 MHz, not 850 MHz. It's the same 800 MHz as the old
TDMA and the current CDMA cellular bands.

I didn't realize that there were areas outside North America using 800
MHz for GSM, though 800 MHz CDMA is common.

> But tell me: does any carrier offer -- or does any manufacturer make
> -- a cell phone that does *both* quad-band GSM *and* the Korean/Japanese
> sort of WCDMA? (And, preferably, double as a tetherable GPRS/EDGE/HSDPA
> data modem in both GSM-land and Korea/Japan?) If so, details, please!

I've not seen such an animal. Verizon sells their 800/1900 CDMA with
900/1800 GSM which covers Korea's regular CDMA network, but not Japan's.

Actually I'd like a phone with 800/1900 CDMA for the U.S., Korea, and
other countries with 800/1900 MHz CDMA networks (China, Taiwan, Israel,
etc), quad band GSM, and W-CDMA. But I don't think we'll see that any
time soon.

I wonder what the iPhone for Verizon will have next year. Maybe it'll be
the current iPhone with CDMA added, which would be about what you want
if you unlock it to make it tetherable.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:tJlJl.27979$yr3.17364@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> tlvp wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:59:07 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote, in part:
>>
>>> --- [snip] ---
>>>
>>> ... Of course any AT&T or Verizon customer that cared about roaming
>>> costs, would be using a 900/1800 MHz phone with a prepaid SIM card when
>>> they leave North America.
>>>
>>> --- [snip] ---
>>
>> Actually, you need 850 MHz in parts of South America, as my wife and I
>> learned in Ecuador, where here quad-band T-Mo RAZR roamed successfully
>> while my mere tri-band (900/1800/1900) T-Mo Nokia was dead in the water.
>
> Technically it's 800 MHz, not 850 MHz. It's the same 800 MHz as the old
> TDMA and the current CDMA cellular bands.

For whatever reason, the GSM world refers to 800 as "850", probably to avoid
confusion with 800 analog/CDMA/TDMA, even though it's the same band.

>> But tell me: does any carrier offer -- or does any manufacturer make
>> -- a cell phone that does *both* quad-band GSM *and* the Korean/Japanese
>> sort of WCDMA? (And, preferably, double as a tetherable GPRS/EDGE/HSDPA
>> data modem in both GSM-land and Korea/Japan?) If so, details, please!
>
> I've not seen such an animal. Verizon sells their 800/1900 CDMA with
> 900/1800 GSM which covers Korea's regular CDMA network, but not Japan's.

As Dennis pointed out, Japan and Korea also has 2100 WCDMA (HSDPA), so
European 3G handsets work there, as well as quite a few American ones, like
the iPhone 3G, and some WinMo phones like the AT&T Tilt (HTC TyTn II.)

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:09:00 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:

> here in Colorado it's illegal to sell gas below cost, in
> response to supermarkets and who did it as loss leaders to steal business
> from gas station convenience stores.

So much for free enterprise..................

At 27 Apr 2009 18:00:47 -0400 Traveling Man wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:09:00 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > here in Colorado it's illegal to sell gas below cost, in
> > response to supermarkets and who did it as loss leaders to steal
business
> > from gas station convenience stores.
>
> So much for free enterprise..................


Yeah, but I can see both sides. This prevents large retailers from
"pulling a WalMart" and selling below cost long enough to drive out the
small-fry, then jacking up prices when the competition has thinned. A
large grocery chain or a warehouse club has the resources to outlast Apu
at the Kwik-E-Mart.